Dead cyclist worth 240 hrs community service

Ok – I appreciate that my knowledge of the case is limited to a single BBC report.

Driving at 60mph in a 40 zone and on the wrong side of the road and you kill somebody and only 240 hours community service!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8660564.stm

shocking

if you want to kill someone in the uk, wait until they're on a bike then run them over, s'easy.

If you want to kill someone use a car.

Do you think it would have been the same outcome if there positions had be swapped?

The good news about that last story is that someone saw it in a local paper, complained to the Attorney General who was now investigating it. Whether anything further happens is I suspect unlikely.

there's something seriously wrong at the moment about sentancing dangerous drivers. an 18 mth ban is in itself pitiful and a suspended sentance meaningless. so what if the baby is born in holloway prison, she shouldn't have hit a cyclist and she definitely shouldn't have fled the scene.

lifetime bans from driving are available to judges but not used enough imo.

Seems to be a lot of women drunk drivers lately,and they do seem to be treated diferently.

Make a good advert:
——————–
Special today! Kill a cyclist – only 240 hours community service. Usual RRP for manslaughter 10 years.

Kill one now!

——————

Sooner they get tough on this the better.

there's something seriously wrong at the moment about sentancing dangerous drivers.

Even the liberal in me has to agree with this. It just doesn't seem proportionate. Granted, someone may not have intended to kill someone, and incarceration may not be the best answer, but one point of having custodial sentences is to deter others. There just doesn't appear to be much of a deterrent nature in cases like this, sadly.

my friend was killed on a clear day on an open stretch of road when a van ran into the back of him and another cyclist. The driver wasnt even charged with careless driving.

Were they charged with manslaughter?

Our law is based around trying people for thjeir actions not for the consequences of those actions

Convictions for people who kill in cars has been always hard to get hence the "death by careless driving" that is relativly recently on th4e books.

It is being used more and people get a few years for this.

So without knowing the details you think you know better than the CPS and the judiciary who have all the information at their fingertips.

Accident investigators found tyre marks and skid marks which indicated McKay had been driving on the wrong side of the road, and had lost control.
Louise Ward, prosecuting, said post-accident analysis showed McKay had been doing up to 60mph on the unclassified Grange Road, Dunfermline, which has a limit of 40mph.

"This quite obviously had a terrible outcome for the family of the accused, but in saying that, I do not believe the level of carelessness is substantial enough to merit a sentence of imprisonment."

van driver was charged with nothing, recently had a civil action bought by parents with help from ctc finally at least apply blame to driver and a settlement made.

rip

http://www.readingcyclingclub.com/anthonymaynardsportive/?q=node/5

someone should spend a couple of weeks driving 'carelessly' outside the houses of these judges. see how they like.

If I as to shoot a gun into a crowded pub without hitting anyone I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get done with careless shooting….6 month ban on the gun license? me thinks not!!!

kill someone with a vehicle, accident or not, you should pay the price.

Never mind what the driver deserves, the sheriff needs a serious poke up the bum with a sharpened spoke !

Scandalous decision making.

Is it any wonder that so many drivers treat cyclists as roadkill.

So would you put anyone who did 60 mph on that road a jail sentence of years?

Were they charged with manslaughter?

Our law is based around trying people for thjeir actions not for the consequences of those actions

That's OK as far as it goes, but there should be more recognition that driving carries with it a weight of responsibility, and if you demonstrate you're not up to it then you can't do it. +1 for life bans being more readily handed out.

Louise Ward, prosecuting, said post-accident analysis showed McKay had been doing up to 60mph on the unclassified Grange Road, Dunfermline, which has a limit of 40mph.
Sheriff Craig McSherry told him: "Had you been driving at a reckless speed you would be facing a charge of reckless driving."

This bit puzzles me – so he was doing 1.5 times the speed limit on the road, but that in itself doesn't count as reckless?

: P

Sorry to read about your friend a-a. Sounds like he crammed a lot into a short life. I'd like to think that we only hear of exceptional cases and mostly bad driving is punished adequately. I know that isn't true though 🙁 We can only hope that as more and more people cycle we will be supported more by the law.

As much as I want to have faith in British Justice, I do feel that this is an area of Law that needs urgent review.

there should be more recognition that driving carries with it a weight of responsibility

I totally agree. If people knew that they could face a very hefty sentence if they killed someone as a result of dangerous and illegal driving, then surely this would act as more of a deterrent?

I'm sure the Law, as it stands, has been served on this occasion, but 240 hours community service for destroying a life? And the killer could be back behind the wheel of a car after 18 months???

Were they charged with manslaughter?

Our law is based around trying people for thjeir actions not for the consequences of those actions
No, but only because they treat killing by car differently to killing by any other method, which is the real travesty in our legal system. If the law is based around trying people for their actions, then why the offence of manslaughter which is very much a case of trying people for the consequences of their actions (given this is inherently an offence with no intent)?

I totally agree. If people knew that they could face a very hefty sentence if they killed someone as a result of dangerous and illegal driving, then surely this would act as more of a deterrent

I'm not sure it would, most people that drive recklessly do it without thought for their own safety [let alone others] – they ain't going to slow down just in case they may do a bit of chokey

So so wrong, how do people get away with stuff like this.
Take a life and get 7 weeks comunity service, that is not even 2 months.
Shocked.

3000 deaths on the roads each year. 650 pedestrians, 150 cyclists. Most of the deaths of pedestrians and cyclists the vehicle driver will have made a mistake – do they all go to jail?

Mother on the school run – distracted by kid in the back and clips a cyclist who is killed – jail? Is that right? Death by careless driving?

Rep hurrying home who doesn't see a cyclist in the low evening sun and smears him? Speeding and impatient.

Personally I'd like to see more serious jail sentences but think its hared to get convictions on cases such as above.

A charge of manslaughter usually arises as a result of carelessness, or failure to meet a 'Duty of care' ie to an employee.

Thus a result of inaction rather than action, but not a result of genuine accident. Hence no Mens Rea (intent) is required.

Carelessness you say? Kind of like "causing death by careless driving" then? Define "genuine accident" for me – if the people killing cyclists with their cars had been involved in one they wouldn't have been in court in the first place – just as much reckless carelessness on display as in plenty of cases where people get convicted for manslaughter.

Meanwhile, coming back to my point about getting tried for the consequences of their actions, people get longer sentences for manslaughter than for otherwise similar cases where somebody didn't die (in which case many wouldn't be in court at all).

Aracer – I would say almost every death on the roads would be death by careless driving. Virtually everyone. So you gonna send the young mum in my post above in jail?

No I'm not – quite tempted though as being distracted by kid in the back is more an admission of guilt than an excuse, something which is seen as acceptable, but shouldn't be. Genuine cases of recklessness though (such as those mentioned here) should be treated just the same as manslaughter.

I'd suggest that pretty much every case of manslaughter is a "genuine accident" in the way the term is used regarding road crashes – otherwise they'd be facing murder charges.

McKay was also fined £260 after admitting causing a breach of the peace in August 2009.

The court heard he threatened to "smash" a customer with a three-foot steel water key, after his standard of work was questioned.

classy dude

Thus a result of inaction rather than action, but not a result of genuine accident. Hence no Mens Rea (intent) is required.

What about Corporate Manslaughter then? No-one intends to cause death in that case, yet they can still face a Manslaughter charge.

'Genuine Accident'. See, this is the bit I have trouble with. If someone is driving within the Law, then fair enough. If they're over the speed/alcohol limit, then it should be considered a reckless and potentially dangerous act.

The Law is too soft on dangerous drivers. Simples.

The driver is obviously one of those misunderstood types:

The court heard he threatened to "smash" a customer with a three-foot steel water key, after his standard of work was questioned.

Actually, on reading Talky's latest post it seems he agrees with me completely, so obviously I'm mistaken 😉

No, Chris; you agree with me.

So for once, you aren't mistaken.

Wow she fled the scene of the accident too 😡

what the hell….this country's judicial system sucks.
I feel like giving everyone involved a good hiding….disgrace

Likey pissed and pregnant – she admitted to one glass of wine, coherent enough to ring a friend and fu^7 off til the next day when she's sobered up.

So, where are all the petrolheads saying that speed is completely separate from death and injury? Come on cfh and "lord summerisle" – explain this?

In the UK we have a particular distinction, like in the US, where driving is seen as a right and other non drivers are seen as subservient to that right (or should that be license?).
None of these cases get justice through jury verdict as most of them drive and feel as though their own right to drive (again should be license) is threatened so the verdict is minimalised.

Car use destroys communities, towns and cities – why are we putting up with it in the 21st century?

Car use destroys communities, towns and cities – why are we putting up with it in the 21st century?

Cars require petrol, which requires oil…………………………………………………

Our law is based around trying people for their actions not for the consequences of those actions

So how many drivers who fall asleep at the wheel get a 5 year sentence ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selby_rail_crash

Was about to post some 'balance' by pointing out that the person who caused the accident will have to live with the guilt for the rest of their life, and whilst that's not a punishment in the terms of retribution it is still something that most wouldn't want to live with.
Then I read the article and he's got prior.

Sticks and a match please