What Has Happenned To Our Judiciary?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-24240127
sure this this lowlife should be in jail.

[ToraToraTora]

surely!

[FredPuli43]

Lord Menzies' judgment seems impeccable and, incidentally, addresses those who think like you. Tora.

[pixie373]

Why is he a lowlife? He didn't intend to hurt anyone.

[ToraToraTora]

2 dead still not in jail!

[ummmm]

It was an accident.

[hc4361]

Did you read the link properly, Tora?
" Lord Menzies said: "However, in all the circumstances, we cannot disagree with the sheriff's categorisation of this as a momentary inattention, the result of which was a low impact, low speed collision with Mrs Fyfe's cycle."

Mrs Fyfe was not wearing a cycle helmet which may have contributed to her death.

The first death was in 1985 when he did go to prison for 'causing death by reckless driving'.

[pixie373]

He hasn't mown these people down out of spite. They were both accidents, which surely, could happen to anyone? A driving course might be appropriate, but what are we punishing him for? Will prison improve his behaviour? I did start a thread fairly recently, asking whether we should punish the outcome or the intention of cases like these. Imprisoning him would surely be just for revenge and wouldn't help anybody? I would totally agree with you if his actions had been deliberate.

[Gromit]

I agree with you Tora. If it is not the law to wear a helmet, surely not wearing a helmet should not be considered a contributing factor in someone dying as a result of a collision.

It may have been a low speed impact, but it knocked her off her bike and that resulted in her death.

Many motorists die from head injuries. Would those deaths be considered partly the driver's fault for not wearing an helmet in the car? If the answer to that is no, then this judgement is wrong.

[pixie373]

So, if she'd recovered, should he be be treated differently?

[youngmafbog]

Two cyclists killed? How many does the average motorist kill? This just smacks of a misjudgement.

pixie, do you consider him a pillar of society?

But my main beef is the point Gromit made. It seems a very odd thing to say, especially since cycle helmets dont really protect you from much.

[hc4361]

Gromit, contributing factors are always considered in a road traffic collision.
It is not illegal for a pedestrian to cross the road with a big hood obstructing his view and an mp3 player playing very loudly in his earphones but if he gets run down those factors will be taken in to consideration.

It is not illegal to put heavy items on the back seat of your car but if you get maimed or killed by such an object hitting you on the head during a collision that will be taken in to consideration.

If a cyclist or pedestrian is under the influence of alcohol, that too is a factor.

Not every possible thing is legislated for, thank heavens. Adults should be expected to take every reasonable care of themselves whatever they are doing.

[ToraToraTora]

well I'm just on the way to the foot of our stairs!
Yes, I get sick of hearing how someone should have been wearing a helmet, NO! that is not a legal requirement. You might as well say that you'd get less damage from a bomb if you where wearing a UXD suit!

[ummmm]

Did you read hc's post?

[Gromit]

In all motoring offenses, if someone dies it should be treated more seriously than if they just get a scratch.

"Sorry she died, it was a momentary lapse of attention" isn't good enough. ALL road users should be protected from poor drivers. This judgement doesn't do that.

[ToraToraTora]

No Umm, it wasn't there when I started typing but it does not change anything. This guy caused death by his driving.

[pixie373]

Ymb, i have no idea if he's a pillar of society. I know nothing about him except he's clipped the wheels of two bikes in 27 years.

[pixie373]

And why different, if just a scratch? The motorist's actions were the same.

[hc4361]

It was a low impact, low speed clip of the cycle's back wheel at traffic lights. He has been banned from driving for 5 years and must do 300 hours community service.

This was the sentence given to him in 2011 and on appeal it was upheld. The courts have heard all the evidence including eye witness testimony which we are not privy to.
He was not drunk, drugged or speeding.

It is easy to criticise when we don't have all the facts.

[ummmm]

It seems he's being judged on what happened in 1985.

[Gromit]

I know it is in a different juristiction, but a Spanish Train driver had a momentary lapse of attention.
Do you think he will get a few hours of community Service?

Sometimes the consequences of ones actions means that the law must be seen to be done. Killing two road users and then getting a slap on the wrist does not send out the right message.