Driver view of Jason MacIntyre's fatal accident.

[roshi chris]

I'm appalled by this whole case. How on earth in this day and age can ''sorry I just didn't see him" be an acceptable excuse?? If I ran into Boots swinging my fists about smacking people at random would that be ok as long as i kept my eyes shut?

I just can't believe that he got a tiny fine and a tiny ban. I don't think its a jailable offense but he should certainly never drive again, and should attend about 5 years of community service. His carelessness behind the wheel killed a man. He should never be allowed behind the wheel again.

 

[Riding in Circles]

To be fair, I don't think it's just cyclists - killing someone on the road seems to be acceptable

Acceptable if the offender is in a motor vehicle you mean, the recent case involving a cyclist resulted in a fine nearly ten times that of someone else who was responsible for a death that same week while driving.

 

[srw]

I know that claiming damages is a different thing, but how on earth can it be right that someone is awarded £6000 for injuring their ear and damaging their bike in a pothole, when someone dies and all that happens is that the courts ban the guy from driving for six months and fine him £500?

Where's the justice in that and why should Mr MacIntyre's family have to consider some kind of claim to get proper justice?

[Yawn]

Because claiming damages is a different thing, and that's the way the law works. The driver has now been subject to criminal prosecution and has paid a fine. The family can now make a civil claim. Criminal fines go to the state as punishment for wrong-doing. Civil compensation goes to the (estate of) the injured party as retribution for the wrong done.

 

[spindrift]

[Yawn]

Disrespectful, given the subject of this thread.

 

[srw]

[Yawn]

Disrespectful, given the subject of this thread.

Not at all intended as such. The self-righteous point-scoring that people indulge in on threads like this is intensely tedious, especially since it is gloriously ill-informed. And that point-scoring is disrespectful.

Someone has been killed. That's a tragedy for his family and friends, a sad piece of news for his acquaintances and something of passing interest to the rest of us, who didn't know the poor man.

A driver has been given an apparently light sentence for a motoring offence. That's a relief to him, an annoyance to anyone who might have been his victims and something of passing interest to the rest of us.

 

[MartinC]

A driver has been given an apparently light sentence for a motoring offence. That's a relief to him, an annoyance to anyone who might have been his victims and something of passing interest to the rest of us.

Incredibly smug.

I guess it's a relief to the driver.

Calling the impact of the judicial process on his victims, and I'd include the family of the man he killed in this group, 'annoyance' is trivialising it beyond belief.

To the rest of us, especially those who cycle, it's very relevant because it demonstrates how little the law is interested in trying to protect us from people who drive irresponsibly.

Quite simply, you're wrong.

 

[srw]

Incredibly smug.

I guess it's a relief to the driver.

Calling the impact of the judicial process on his victims, and I'd include the family of the man he killed in this group, 'annoyance' is trivialising it beyond belief.

Have another read. I know it's an unfashionable virtue on internet forums, but it does sometimes help.

"Anyone who might have been his victims." Not "Those who were his victims." There's a small, but really rather important difference, which means that "Anyone who might have been his victims", who are "annoyed" includes all cyclists.

If that makes me smug in your eyes, so be it. I don't know you, so your opinion of me is not of much interest. Which is rather the point I was making.

 

[MartinC]

Well if you're going to insist that we parse your words precisely then let's follow it through.

'anyone who might have been his victims' must logically include those that were.

Because in fact anybody could have been a victim then there's no distinction between that group and 'the rest of us'.

So if we interpret you words literally then they don't mean much. If we do it sensibly, as I believe I've done, and extract the implied sentiment from them then I hold that my comments still apply. The sentiment is 'I'm alright Jack'.

You haven't addressed, at all, the point that anyone who feels at risk from this behavior has a very real and legitimate interest.

 

[srw]

Your English education must have been different from mine. In ordinary, everyday speech, "Anyone who might have been his victims" does not include those who actually were. If you were actually somewhere, you say "I was there", not "I might have been there".

You are attributing a particular sentiment to me on the basis that you didn't read my posting carefully enough, and your logic is enough to make Aristotle squirm.

You haven't addressed, at all, the point that anyone who feels at risk from this behavior has a very real and legitimate interest.

Oddly, I have. As I patiently explained in my previous post, "Anyone who might have been his victims" includes anyone who feels at risk from this behaviour. (We are in the UK, aren't we? Behaviour does have a U, doesn't it? If you're actually across the pond you should be even less interested.)

 

[MartinC]

You have a choice. Either you want your words treated with grammatical precision or you want them interpreted as any reasonable person would. The meaning that any reasonable person would draw from what you said was that you felt it was of no real concern to anyone on the forum what the sentence was.

To me that's trivialising the profound impact this sort of irresponsible driving has on many people - the victims, the victim's family and all of us who have to share the roads daily with similar drivers.

 

[srw]

Of course I want my words treated with grammatical precision (they were, after all, hewn from a block of granite with the sweat of my brow) and as I believe any reasonable person would. I can't help it if what, in my view, are perfectly clear sentences are interpreted by one of my readers in a way diametrically opposed to what was intended.

I also can't help it if someone whose logic is cockeyed wades in with his size 11s. Because in actual fact whether you interpret my sentence as I intended or as you mistakenly supposed, the apparently light sentence handed down is of concern to people on this forum.

 

[MartinC]

Good. We agree. Originally you said it was 'of passing interest' which created totally the wrong impression. Now you're saying that we're rightly concerned. It's this concern that generates the reactions you see here.

 

[habibi]

Last year 51 people whose careless driving killed others escaped a jail sentence. However from Monday a new law is likely to mean that for the first time they could face up to five years in jail.

Today the Lord Advocate told stv news the presumption will now be that these cases will be tried before a jury, further increasing the likelyhood of a custodial sentence.

As it stands just now, a charge of dangerous driving is always tried in the High Court. The maximum sentence is 14 years. That law is unchanged.

http://www.stv.tv/news/New_laws_surrounding_drivers_who_kill_b_080814175401566