Car and cycle collision

AndyMc.....

custardy wrote: »

Yes,thanks
It was you who brought the jury into it,remember?
also keep in mind some are Scottish cases

And it the jury who reach a verdict, a judge will then sentence in line with sentencing guidelines. So a Scottish high court has 15 jury members so what's your point?

custardy

AndyMc..... wrote: »

And it the jury who reach a verdict, a judge will then sentence in line with sentencing guidelines. So a Scottish high court has 15 jury members so what's your point?

Well you are talknig about crown court,12 people etc. Keep in mind there are multiple court set ups in the UK when you raise the points.
none of which diminishes my point that over & over again the courts/people involved let down cyclists & their families.

AndyMc.....

custardy wrote: »

Well you are talknig about crown court,12 people etc. Keep in mind there are multiple court set ups in the UK when you raise the points.
none of which diminishes my point that over & over again the courts/people involved let down cyclists & their families.

Yet again you miss the point, it's the criminal justice system that's let them down.

The courts will never serve justice in your eyes because the system will not allow them to.

custardy

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Yet again you miss the point, it's the criminal justice system that's let them down.

The courts will never serve justice in your eyes because the system will not allow them to.

We shall disagree then.

The driver of a coach involved in a crash that claimed the lives of two cyclists in Cumbria in December 2010 has been acquitted by a jury of causing their deaths by dangerous driving. The accused, 44-year-old Robert Wightman, was also been found not guilty on two counts of the lesser charge of causing death by careless driving. The family of the victims, brothers Christian and Nicholas ‘Niggy’ Townend, were reported to be “devastated” at the verdicts, reports the Times & Star (link is external).

The system could have allowed them. Being found blameless is simply unacceptable given he was driving beyond the conditions.

Sheriff James Scott spared McCourt a prison because there were no aggravating factors, such as drink or drug abuse.

He said the collision between McCourt and Mrs Fyfe was caused because he had "momentarily" lost concentration, adding: "I take into account that the accused has repeatedly expressed genuine remorse for causing the death of Mrs Fyfe.

"I take into account that the accused has been ill and has suffered from depression and that he displays signs of post-traumatic stress disorder."


McCourt was jailed for two years after the death of 22-year-old George Dalgity in 1985
The sheriff said Mrs Fyffe "wasn't to blame in any way for the accident", but added: "She was not wearing a safety helmet and that in my view contributed to her death."

Nice bit of victim blaming adding unqualified helmet data.
I would have hoped he was suffering remorse for the first person he killed,seemingly this didn't translate to taking care on the road?
Apparently suffering PTSD fro something you caused means mitigation in the punishment.

so to summarise. Judge see's driver who is sorry and only had a 'minor lapse' which is totally understandable apparently.
Cyclist didnt have a helmet on (which has no legal requirement) but we can assume the judge felt the cyclist should have had one (hmmm as often seen in the afore mentioned comment sections) and well what could they expect if they dont wear a helmet?

AndyMc.....

custardy wrote: »

We shall disagree then.



The system could have allowed them. Being found blameless is simply unacceptable given he was driving beyond the conditions.



Nice bit of victim blaming adding unqualified helmet data.
I would have hoped he was suffering remorse for the first person he killed,seemingly this didn't translate to taking care on the road?
Apparently suffering PTSD fro something you caused means mitigation in the punishment.

so to summarise. Judge see's driver who is sorry and only had a 'minor lapse' which is totally understandable apparently.
Cyclist didnt have a helmet on (which has no legal requirement) but we can assume the judge felt the cyclist should have had one (hmmm as often seen in the afore mentioned comment sections) and well what could they expect if they dont wear a helmet?

Well you obviously think the driver set out to kill the cyclist. But if they are found not guilty or guidelines set sentencing what is the judge meant to do?

14 years is the maximum sentence, how many murderers are released having been sentenced to life?

custardy

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Well you obviously think the driver set out to kill the cyclist. But if they are found not guilty or guidelines set sentencing what is the judge meant to do?

14 years is the maximum sentence, how many murderers are released having been sentenced to life?

You dont have to set out to kill someone.
However I and I would hope the law would recognise that a simple 'lapse in judgement' doesn't equate to a free pass,hope you feel better soon chum to the driver.
14 years? We have drivers getting do not go to jail cards regularly.
Look around for how many times 'low sun' is seen as a valid excuse for driving over somebody. Like the sun is some unknown quantity.

Mercdriver

custardy wrote: »

You dont have to set out to kill someone.
However I and I would hope the law would recognise that a simple 'lapse in judgement' doesn't equate to a free pass,hope you feel better soon chum to the driver.
14 years? We have drivers getting do not go to jail cards regularly.
Look around for how many times 'low sun' is seen as a valid excuse for driving over somebody. Like the sun is some unknown quantity.

Sentencing is in a mess. I know of two cases where the driver has been stoned knocked over and killed a pedestrian and got 3 years.

AndyMc.....

custardy wrote: »

You dont have to set out to kill someone.
However I and I would hope the law would recognise that a simple 'lapse in judgement' doesn't equate to a free pass,hope you feel better soon chum to the driver.
14 years? We have drivers getting do not go to jail cards regularly.
Look around for how many times 'low sun' is seen as a valid excuse for driving over somebody. Like the sun is some unknown quantity.

What you fail to realise is these drivers aren't !!!!!! and never set out to kill someone. You have no experience of such cases being an ex postie other than the propaganda the press are allowed to report.

AndyMc.....

Mercdriver wrote: »

Sentencing is in a mess. I know of two cases where the driver has been stoned knocked over and killed a pedestrian and got 3 years.

So recent cases then?

Mercdriver

AndyMc..... wrote: »

So recent cases then?

Yes. Maximum sentence available 14, 3 given.