# How poor a sentence is this?



## Mo1959 (3 May 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22397918

300 hours community service for killing this lady on her bike. If you read the whole story, it is the second time he has killed at the wheel of a vehicle. I just can't get my head round how lenient this is. Doubt if he'll even turn up for his community service.


----------



## fimm (3 May 2013)

*&£$!
I was sure he'd get jail time. That's appalling.


----------



## DCLane (3 May 2013)

Causing 2 deaths - 2nd offence -  &


----------



## GBC (3 May 2013)

"However, she was not wearing a safety helmet and that in my view contributed to her death."

What in the name of God is the relevance of that! It looks very much like the Sheriff has over-stepped himself here and I sincerely hope that the Crown Office get an appeal in against that ridiculous sentence.


----------



## numbnuts (3 May 2013)

It seems to me if you ride a bike your not worth now't


----------



## Rob3rt (3 May 2013)

I expected a thread about grammar!


----------



## shunter (3 May 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22397918

A driver whose careless driving caused the death of a cyclist in Edinburgh has been ordered to carry out 300 hours of community service

McCourt had previously been found guilty in 1986 of causing another cyclist's death by reckless driving

Apologies didn't see this post in the general section . I usually lurk in beginners and commuting - need to get out more


----------



## coffeejo (3 May 2013)

Can't help but feel torn about this. I've suffered from PTSD and it's horrendous.


----------



## cd365 (3 May 2013)

This *expletive removed* should have his license removed for good.


----------



## Beebo (3 May 2013)

quote from the Sheriff James Scott:

He felt able to spare McCourt prison because there were no aggravating factors, such as drink or drug abuse.

"Mrs Fyffe wasn't to blame in any way for the accident.
"However, she was not wearing a safety helmet and that in my view contributed to her death."


----------



## Dave Davenport (3 May 2013)

"However, she was not wearing a safety helmet and that in my view contributed to her death."
Grrrrrrrrrr..........


----------



## MontyVeda (3 May 2013)

"Mrs Fyffe wasn't to blame in any way for the accident.
"However, she was not wearing a safety helmet and that in my view contributed to her death."

on the one hand, the victim is not to blame, on the other, she is... what kind of morons are running the legal system???


----------



## Cycling Dan (3 May 2013)

MontyVeda said:


> "Mrs Fyffe wasn't to blame in any way for the accident.
> "However, she was not wearing a safety helmet and that in my view contributed to her death."
> 
> on the one hand, the victim is not to blame, on the other, she is... what kind of morons are running the legal system???


 
Its like getting stabbed on a night out and then being blamed as you didn't have a stab vest on.


----------



## BSRU (3 May 2013)

Disgraceful, 300 hours for killing his second cyclist, what next a free holiday for the third one


----------



## glenn forger (3 May 2013)

Spray graffiti and you get a similar sentence. If I was a relative of either cyclist I'd feel their life's been held cheap.


----------



## Kestevan (3 May 2013)

FFS!

It's about time the courts woke up and started handing out meaningful sentences.


----------



## benb (3 May 2013)

[QUOTE 2437021, member: 45"]He might be right. Whatever our view on helmets, let's keep things in perspective.[/quote]

Well he should surely be relying on expert testimony from the coroner rather than his own gut feeling to make such a statement. Did he? We don't know.

He may be right, but it's irrelevant, and shouldn't excuse the perpetrator in any way.
Would he also hold that a gunshot victim's failure to wear a kevlar vest similarly contributed to their death?


----------



## benb (3 May 2013)

Duplicate threads with this one.
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/gary-mccourt-sentenced-for-cyclist-death-crash-in-edinburgh.129557/

Maybe a mod can merge.


----------



## glenn forger (3 May 2013)

Helmets for car passengers would save more lives. I've never heard helmets being mentioned by coroners in those circumstances, nor neck braces to avoid whiplash.


----------



## Melonfish (3 May 2013)

i dunno, she died two days after, if it was from concussion then yeah perhaps a helmet would have helped, perhaps not. for the sake of sanity lets not do the helmet argument shall we?
however, for the judge to say that was a contributing factor is wrong because there just isn't enough solid data on helmet safety.

community service for this honestly seems lenient imo ptsd or no.


----------



## theclaud (3 May 2013)

[QUOTE 2437095, member: 45"]That's how judges speak.[/quote]

They ought to stop it.


----------



## theclaud (3 May 2013)

[QUOTE 2437119, member: 45"]I meant, that's the language they use.[/quote]
I know. And they ought to stop it.


----------



## davefb (3 May 2013)

[QUOTE 2437095, member: 45"]That's how judges speak. You're right, we don't know anything about what went on in court and what was heard so it's pointless making assumptions and reacting to them. He might have had medical evidence, he might not have.

Yes, failure to wear a bullet-proof vest would have contributed to the death of a shooting victim.[/quote]
has that *ever* been mentioned in a court case ?

"well, to be fair, the victim wasn't wearing a bullet proof vest"

I mean, once is an "accident", twice is not. how come he had jail in the first mur.. death ?


----------



## benb (3 May 2013)

It's despicable victim-blaming if you ask me.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 May 2013)

Pathetic.

I have no words printable for the killer or the sheriff.

GC


----------



## shouldbeinbed (3 May 2013)

The helmet thing rankles, but the thing that really sticks in my craw was the Sherriff saying there were no contributory factors on the drivers behalf.

Apart for the rather significant one that this was the second dead cyclist he had hit.

If he was a multiple rapist or had attacked people with gun or knife on more than one occasion he'd have got a far harsher second tarriff not an apparent frequent killers discount.


----------



## snorri (3 May 2013)

At least BBC Scotland has recognised the controversial nature of the helmet comment and has interviewed a rep from Spokes the local cycle campaigning group.


----------



## Pale Rider (3 May 2013)

It would have been the easiest thing in the world for the judge to hand down a sentence of a couple of years.

The judge will know the sentence he passed will attract criticism, so he is to be praised for having the courage to do what he thinks is the right thing.


----------



## edindave (3 May 2013)

This this tweet sums it up... 

(@EyeEdinburgh):​
Gary McCourt kills two people, judge says in five years it's OK for him to use same weapon again ​ 
At least the Crown Office are looking into it according to the latest BBC update.


----------



## snorri (3 May 2013)

edindave said:


> At least the Crown Office are looking into it according to the latest BBC update.


 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22397918


----------



## MontyVeda (3 May 2013)

[QUOTE 2437021, member: 45"]He might be right. Whatever our view on helmets, let's keep things in perspective.[/quote]

may i direct you to Dan's perfectly put point...



Cycling Dan said:


> Its like getting stabbed on a night out and then being blamed as you didn't have a stab vest on.


 
lets keep things in proper perspective eh?


----------



## Linford (3 May 2013)

edindave said:


> This this tweet sums it up...
> 
> (@EyeEdinburgh):
> 
> ...


 
He should have got life for the second one


----------



## RiflemanSmith (3 May 2013)

Some one should start a petition to get him resentenced or just shot!


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (3 May 2013)

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!!


----------



## buggi (3 May 2013)

I'm not sure this is the same because its Scottish law, but i know with English law that if you feel a crown court sentence is not harsh enough you can appeal to the Department of Justice, and it only takes one request for them to be obliged to review it. 

Also, the sheriff has passed a sentence that could easily be appealed because "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." ... "

When sentencing, your sentence should be based on fact and not presumptions. The Sheriff has actually made a presumption that cycle helmets are effective, when in fact, there is no scientific proof that it would have made any difference". Therefore, if this was a contributory factor in her lenient sentencing, it should be appealed against.

killed two cyclists???? Hmmmm... Surely, you would be, as a normal motorist just going about there daily business, unlucky enough to not see a cyclist and kill one once... Once you had done that, it would be forever on your mind, and you'd never not see a cyclist again surely, This smacks to me of someone who hates cyclists and if I was the prosecution, i would seriously be questioning whether this was a pre-meditated act.


----------



## buggi (3 May 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> 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!!


 
Because he was "found guilty". that means a jury or whoever listened to the facts of the case and found him guilty. The point is, if you are found guilty of killing a cyclist, not once but twice, the sentence should be a little stiffer than 300 hours community service don't you think???


----------



## Hip Priest (3 May 2013)

Stories like this are all too common, and it's little short of a national scandal.


----------



## Scoosh (3 May 2013)

> A spokesman for the Crown Office said it would "give careful consideration as to whether the sentence was unduly lenient".


----------



## edindave (4 May 2013)

Poor sentencing would appear to come easily for this Sheriff going by previous form...
http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2010/02/24/13908-2692/


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (4 May 2013)

buggi said:


> Because he was "found guilty". that means a jury or whoever listened to the facts of the case and found him guilty. The point is, if you are found guilty of killing a cyclist, not once but twice, the sentence should be a little stiffer than 300 hours community service don't you think???


Guilty of what charge though? We are acting upon the facts as presented by the media. As far as i can tell no one here was on the jury. 



buggi said:


> killed two cyclists???? Hmmmm... Surely, you would be, as a normal motorist just going about there daily business, unlucky enough to not see a cyclist and kill one once... Once you had done that, it would be forever on your mind, and you'd never not see a cyclist again surely, This smacks to me of someone who hates cyclists and if I was the prosecution, i would seriously be questioning whether this was a pre-meditated act.


 
Again assumptions. Without knowing the facts, this guy has now been promoted to a cold blooded killer with intent. He was involved in a similar incident 28 years ago! For all you or i know both incidents could have been very unfortunate accidents. They could also have been the work of a dangerous man behind the wheel. 

It's times like these that we could all apparently do a better job than the judge, the prosecution, the arresting officer, witnesses and the jury. Oh how they have let us down, them with all their facts and know how and us with our media reports and opinions.


----------



## just jim (4 May 2013)

This must be so distressing to family and friends and makes for a depressing read I have to say, though that seems to be the way of it in the U.K.
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."
"I'm not blaming the victim, but..."


----------



## ComedyPilot (4 May 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> I expected a thread about grammar!


Well, with numbnuts post #5 you got it


----------



## ComedyPilot (4 May 2013)

davefb said:


> has that *ever* been mentioned in a court case ?
> 
> "well, to be fair, the victim wasn't wearing a bullet proof vest"
> 
> I mean, *once is an "accident",* twice is not. how come he had jail in the first mur.. death ?


Err.....no it isn't


----------



## theclaud (4 May 2013)

ComedyPilot said:


> Err.....no it isn't



He did put it in inverted commas, to be fair...


----------



## snorri (4 May 2013)

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


----------



## Scoosh (4 May 2013)

snorri said:


> 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 (4 May 2013)

Scoosh said:


> 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 (4 May 2013)

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 (5 May 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> 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 (5 May 2013)

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 (5 May 2013)

glenn forger said:


> 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 (5 May 2013)

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 (5 May 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> 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 (5 May 2013)

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 (5 May 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> 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 (5 May 2013)

[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 (5 May 2013)

[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 (6 May 2013)

[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 (6 May 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> 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 (6 May 2013)

Keep to topic and avoid the personal comments, please.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (6 May 2013)

McWobble said:


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


 Before pressing the "ignore" button i most certainly did inform the person of this action. I also told them why. I was also advised that it was the best thing to do by several other CC'ers. Haven't looked back since.


----------



## buggi (11 May 2013)

here's your chance to do something about it.

_CTC is shocked at the derisory sentence handed down to Gary McCourt, who killed 75-year-old CTC member Audrey Fyfe in August 2011. CTC Councillor for Scotland Peter Hayman, who attended her funeral, said:“A sentence of 300 hours of community service and only a 5-year ban is scandalous and goes against the efforts to encourage cycling.” Previously, the driver had served time in jail for killing another cyclist. Moreover, when explaining the sentence, Sheriff James Scott mentioned that Mrs Fyfe was not wearing a helmet at the time of the crash, which, in his view, may have “contributed to her death”. CTC is asking you to support Mrs Fyfe’s family in their appeal against the sentence by sending a letter to the Lord Advocate in Scotland._

hopefully the links still work from the paste. Obviously the CTC have also picked up on the fact that the not wearing of a helmet has contributed to the sentence. The fact that there is no proof helmets work, and it implies the cyclist is somehow at fault, is reason enough to appeal the sentence.


----------



## Theseus (11 May 2013)

Done


----------



## Cycleops (12 May 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Its like getting stabbed on a night out and then being blamed as you didn't have a stab vest on.



On the other hand you could say that every time you go out on the road you are putting yourself in harms way and this is what the judge has to consider in such cases. I am not condoning the sentence in any way, which I think is appalling.


----------



## snorri (12 May 2013)

Cycleops said:


> On the other hand you could say that every time you go out on the road you are putting yourself in harms way and this is what the judge has to consider in such cases.


We are "in harms way" all day and every day. I don't think we should have to "armour up" against drivers any more than by gun owners or stray shots from golfers as we cycle along public roads.


----------

