How poor a sentence is this?

[Scoosh]

The daughter of the victim gave an excellent interview on BBC radio this morning, covering all the issues that an experienced cyclist would do, in a very calm and reasoned manner.
Let's hope this goes a bit further and the family get some lttle comfort from a review of the sentence.

Edit
Just found a link, listen from 1hour 36m 05 secs http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01s4ppv

Excellent indeed

 

[shunter]

Excellent indeed

Excellent.

I think any community service carried out by this person should involve cycling - delivery prescriptions, community news whatever. I would also like to see more car speed awareness, driving awareness programmes which are handed out instead of driving licence points to include practical cycling awareness - no matter what the weather.

 

[Dave Davenport]

I've said it before after similar cases but IMO, if you kill someone because you're careless or reckless then you should be banned from driving for life.

 

[glenn forger]

For all you or i know both incidents could have been very unfortunate accidents. .

When he killed the first cyclist he was uninsured, and fled the scene. He left the boy to die and ran away.

 

[shunter]

RELATIVES of a cyclist knocked off his bike and killed 26 years ago have urged a lengthy jail sentence to be handed down to a motorist responsible for the recent death of an elderly woman in a similar incident.


http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/familys-anger-at-death-driver.20893896

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

When he killed the first cyclist he was uninsured, and fled the scene. He left the boy to die and ran away.

A cowardly act indeed. Did he do time? Edit: i see above he did 8 months.

RE the most recent incident - i am merely stating that the decisions were made by those in full possession of the facts and as a result were/are better placed to to do so.

 

[deadpool7]

It is astonishing to see the differences with cycling in the US vs UK. It seems like cyclists aren't even treated like people across the pond. Definitely too lenient of a sentence, especially given the prior offense.

 

[glenn forger]

A cowardly act indeed. Did he do time? Edit: i see above he did 8 months.

RE the most recent incident - i am merely stating that the decisions were made by those in full possession of the facts and as a result were/are better placed to to do so.

there were no facts presented to the court about how the injuries could have been mitigated by a plastic helmet. That's something the sheriff plucked from thin air.

 

[glenn forger]

The Scotsman has another, more detailed, piece: "The sheriff made his incendiary comments despite no expert evidence during McCourt’s four-day trial over whether a helmet could have saved Mrs Fyfe’s life.

 

[Wobblers]

Horrible news about the cyclist but why are we so quick to pass sentence (not grammar) and judgement when we know very little about the facts?? Assumptions are the mother of ALL f*ck ups!!

What, you mean like the assumption the sheriff made that the not wearing of a helmet contributed?

 

[Wobblers]

[QUOTE 2438852, member: 45"]Perspective. Bloke in car is hit by another. The other driver completely at fault. Bloke wasn't wearing seat belt and this contributed to his death. Other driver still responsible. I think some are getting a bit confused.[/quote]

But that's not the same is it? Seat belt wearing is mandated by law, and is backed up by substantial epidemiological evidence. Neither applies to helmets.

 

[Wobblers]

[QUOTE 2440265, member: 45"]Whether it is a legal requirement or not is irrelevant isn't it? What is relevant is whether either would have had the injuries reduced by wearing either. If the judge has some evidence that a helmet is likely to have helped (there's nothing on this thread showing what injuries were sustained) then he was giving a view based on evidence. Glenn has claimed that there was no evidence. I'm not questioning the claim but I'd like to know where that came from.

At the moment this thread is still hugely lacking in detail on the case. We're all focussing on a statement picked up on by a newspaper. Has anyone got a link to any more detail?[/quote]

As Adrian has pointed out, the helmet wearing is entirely irrelevant to what the court has been asked to consider: the standard of driving.

I haven't read the court transcripts, but I have no reason to doubt the reports - the Glasgow Herald has a reasonable standard of journalism. Is there cause to doubt the article? I have, however, sat on a jury in the Sheriff Court. They are reserved for simple cases for relatively minor offenses where expert testimony of this nature is not required (those cases go to the High Court). It is therefore very unlikely that any testimony as to helmet efficacy would have been heard. And in any case, it is irrelevant to both verdict and punishment. (Personally, I don't see imprisonment as being useful in this case. However, two fatalities caused by poor driving standards would suggest to me that a lifetime ban on driving would have been appropriate - and indeed, the minimum with regards to public safety.)

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

[QUOTE 2440431, member: 45"]Ask the person who said that.[/quote]
Ah i see what's happened here. I have just clicked the "show ignored content" button down the bottom as you appeared to be chatting to yourself.

For a second there i felt myself getting drawn back into the circular, pointless back and fourth that has plagued every helmet debate on here.

I have found CC to be a much more enjoyable experience, after using the "ignore" option once or twice. It's nothing personal, it's merely preference.

 

[Wobblers]

Ah i see what's happened here. I have just clicked the "show ignored content" button down the bottom as you appeared to be chatting to yourself.

For a second there i felt myself getting drawn back into the circular, pointless back and fourth that has plagued every helmet debate on here.

I have found CC to be a much more enjoyable experience, after using the "ignore" option once or twice. It's nothing personal, it's merely preference.

I find it difficult to believe that saying that ignoring someone makes CC more "enjoyable" to their face can be anything other than personal.

 

[Moderators]

Keep to topic and avoid the personal comments, please.