# Driver view of Jason MacIntyre's fatal accident.



## killiekosmos (20 Jan 2008)

Comment from Sunday Mail about the accident. Does this not show one of the reasons why cycle lanes can be MORE dangerous. 




*"Driver In Cycle Star Tragedy Speaks Out

Jan 20 2008 By Alan Dow

Exclusive Driver In Cycle Star Tragedy Speaks Out

A DRIVER involved in the crash that killed cycling star Jason MacIntyre spoke of his horror yesterday.

Robert MacTaggart, 35, was at the wheel of his council van when it collided with Jason's bike.

The shocked driver was breath-tested and quizzed by police but yesterday pleaded his innocence over the death of the 34-year-old Olympic hopeful.

Jason, who had eight-year-old twin girls to wife Caroline, won 13 Scottish titles, three British championships and cycled at the 2002 Commonwealth Games.

Robert said: "My heart and that of my wife goes out to Jason's wife and children. It is a loss they'll never get over."

Robert heard a loud noise on the A82 on the outskirts of Fort William on Tuesday, after making a right turn into a side road to a council depot.

He said: "I had just turned off when I heard a bang and felt the pick-up jolt slightly after an impact on the rear nearside.

"People assumed Jason was on the main A82 road but I don't believe he was.

"I think he was on the recently completed cycle path which runs parallel to the road and a few yards off it.

"The short road into the council depot cuts across the cycle track at right angles and I would have expected any cyclists to watch for vehicles on this road and wait until they have passed. I can only assume Jason did not notice me swinging off the main road into the side road.

"I was stunned. It was awful and I was totally shocked at being part of it.

"A couple of other council vans were leaving the depot and the guys and myself helped Jason into the recovery position."

The ambulance was quickly on the scene but Jason later died in hospital.

Yesterday the accident scene had become a shrine to Jason with flowers and brightly coloured cycling shirts.

Messages included: "May the wind always be behind you" and "Jason, you were a legend".

He broke fellow Scots cyclist Graham Obree's 10-mile time trial record last year and was preparing for the 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi.

Married dad-of-one Robert passed a breath test and has not been charged.

Robert, originally from Glasgow but living in Fort Wiliam, said: "I don't want to cause further upset but I don't believe there was anything wrong with my driving."

More than £12,000 has been raised to provide for Jason's family whose funeral takes place in Fort William on Wednesday.

Apolice spokesman said: "A 35-year-old man is the subject of a report to the procurator fiscal." *


----------



## yello (20 Jan 2008)

> I would have expected any cyclists to watch for vehicles on this road and wait until they have passed.



And drivers have no responsibility to check for cyclists on a cycle lane before crossing it? 

I'm not commenting on the rights and wrongs in this tragedy, or attempting to apportion fault or blame, but this kind of 'car centric' view needs to be challenged.


----------



## atbman (20 Jan 2008)

Of course, one of the UK's top riders was training on the cycle path, wasn't he.


----------



## piedwagtail91 (20 Jan 2008)

The driver only "thinks" jason was riding on a cycle path?
he wasn't very aware of other vehicles /cyclists then was he?

i don't know about that particluar cycle lane but on some around here the cars have to give way and stop where the cycle lane crosses the road,
i've yet to see that happen, even though there are signs up and white lines on the road.
it's time "car is not king" but human life is, and if the motorists don't like it tough.


----------



## wafflycat (20 Jan 2008)

I can't post my true thoughts on the driver's comments, as they are unprintable on the grounds of decency.


----------



## wafflycat (20 Jan 2008)

Other than to add I know of not one single time triallist who would be training on a damned cycle farcility.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Jan 2008)

It is unfortunate that this type of article is published.

There are too many variables

Was the driver actually signaling?
What was visibility like?
What speed was the van doing?
Did the cyclist look ahead?
Was the cyclist actually on the path?

If the cyclist was on the road then the driver is entirely responsible?

Wait for the Procurator Fiscal's actions and lets establish what happened with evidence.


----------



## palinurus (20 Jan 2008)

wafflycat said:


> Other than to add I know of not one single time triallist who would be training on a damned cycle farcility.



That was my first thought.


----------



## andygates (20 Jan 2008)

So, is he saying that he _knowingly _cut across the cyclist's lane expecting him to stop? Then failed to put together "I am cutting across another lane" and "thud" in any logical way?

He sounds genuinely remorseful, which is doubly tragic, because it sounds a lot like he was a total bloody incompetent twat who killed a man. And who doesn't even realise now that he was in the wrong.


----------



## Crackle (20 Jan 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> Wait for the Procurator Fiscal's actions and lets establish what happened with evidence.



Absolutely. let's wait for him/her to conclude the investigation. I concur, I think it unlikely he was on the cycle path, though stranger things have happened. 

The cycle path runs from Aonach Moor to Fort William where it rejoins the road, it was only completed in September for the world Championships and much of it runs alongside the A82.


----------



## simon l& and a half (20 Jan 2008)

indeed


----------



## Pete (20 Jan 2008)

wafflycat said:


> Other than to add I know of not one single time triallist who would be training on a damned cycle farcility.


I'm inclined to support this view too. We need to be careful what we say here though, accusations of perjury won't help anyone. (though it's not perjury unless someone lies in court under oath).

BUT...

I am, however, very familiar with a cycle track near where I live, completed a few years ago with a big fanfare and local dignitaries to give it a royal send-off. This too is a segregated track running along a fairly busy single carriageway 'A' road. It is intersected at intervals by private entrances and driveways, amongst which are entrances to a pub car park and a garden centre. *At each intersection the private drive has priority*, and GIVE WAY lines are painted across the track. Many motorists, it is true, I have seen give way to a cyclist on the track, even though it is the motorist's right of way. Common sense. But one day, a motorist will be there asserting his 'rights' at the same time as a fast cyclist has, for some reason, chosen to use the cycle track instead of the road.

A disaster waiting to happen. 

I rarely use it, only when in no hurry. At least, when I do, I know what the score is.


----------



## spindrift (21 Jan 2008)

On Orient Way there's a cycle lane that's hardly used. I certainly don't use it, no driver would use a road that insisted you give way at every drive so why should a cyclist? The driver wasn't even aware there was a cyclist there, by his own admission he failed to exert care. Damned by his own words, and a pretty shocking attempt at weaselling out of guilt.


----------



## spindrift (21 Jan 2008)

Come to think of it - isn't the whole article contempt of court?


----------



## MartinC (21 Jan 2008)

We can only speculate as to what really happened. If there are no independent witnesses or any physical evidence (e.g. marks on the road) we may never know. What is implicit in what the driver is reported as saying is that he doesn't believe that there's a general responsibility to be aware of anything other than motor vehicles on the carriageway.


----------



## spindrift (21 Jan 2008)

_What is implicit in what the driver is reported as saying is that he doesn't believe that there's a general responsibility to be aware of anything other than motor vehicles on the carriageway._

Indeed.


----------



## tdr1nka (21 Jan 2008)

What is most sad in the interview is the tone of blame deflection and a limp *possible* reason why it was not the his/drivers fault.
If he made any statement it should only have been his condolences to the family of the deceased and not some flimsy thoughts that should be addressed in an enquiry.

I am equally convinced that had this not been a 'name' athlete the story would have had little or no coverage.

On the London South Circular eastbound in Dulwich there is a ped/bike path, it is just a wide and poorly maintained ashphalt pavement that crosses the drives of some very big houses with Chelsea Tractors on nearly every one.

I would never use this facility for the obvious reasons so I stick to the road and p*ss off a lot of drivers by being there. The only thought and money that went into this facility were the round blue designaition signs on lamposts every 20yds.

Tx


----------



## spindrift (21 Jan 2008)

Responding to the devil's advocate, paul...

If jason was on the road, as i suspect, the driver was at fault.


----------



## Arch (22 Jan 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> I am equally convinced that had this not been a 'name' athlete the story would have had little or no coverage.



Yes, I'm afraid I agree with you there...


----------



## Pete (22 Jan 2008)

User said:


> Where a cycle path crosses a driveway (as opposed to a road) then the cyclist has priority, just as pedestrians do when footpaths cross driveways, irrespective of what a council twat has painted on the tarmac. This is clear from Rule 206 of the Highway Code which says:
> 
> "Drive carefully and slowly when... needing to cross a pavement or cycle track; for example, to reach or leave a driveway. Give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the pavement."


If this is true, contrary to all the evidence of the painted markings, would you, would anyone else, rely on your 'rights'? *Certainly I would not*. I have clear evidence with my own eyes that 'give way' markings (a triangle and double broken lines) have been painted across the cycle path at the intersections. I believe Nuttycyclist has photos of the actual stretch to which I refer (near Hassocks), but I'm sure there are many other examples.

The problem is, you may believe what the law says, I may believe it, but can you trust the motorist to be in the know? Especially when he has seen the markings with his own eyes and takes them at face value?

Another point is that councils are very fond of 'ending' a cycle track at a critical point and then re-starting it a few yards later. Hence the bit that actually crosses the driveway may not be an official cycle track and so no priority rules apply. This does not appear to be so in the case I refer to, seeing as there are no "CYCLE TRACK - END" signs. But there are many examples elsewhere.

Perhaps this should be taken up with the authority in question.


----------



## Tony (23 Jan 2008)

There is a very similar farcility from Richmond Park towards Barnes.


----------



## Pete (23 Jan 2008)

I think I know the one you mean, Tony. Priory Lane going north from Roehampton Gate, am I right? I have gone along that way several times, as part of my Friday afternoon pootle by way of precursor to CM. The cycle path is different from my example above: the Richmond one is just a shared-use pavement with a dividing line IIRC. Or is there a kerb between the two 'halves'? The Hassocks one is fully segregated with a grass verge in between. Anyway, I simply ignored it.


----------



## CotterPin (23 Jan 2008)

User said:


> I wouldn't rely on my priority if my life was at risk - I'm not that stupid!
> 
> However, I would contact (and have contacted) the relevant authority to point out that they've got it wrong. I have had success in getting them to change markings.
> 
> *Many of the people who authorise or direct the marking of cyclepaths have never read or understood the legislation and best practise guidance*.




Or even the Highway Code.


----------



## wafflycat (23 Jan 2008)

I left a meeting early this morning. I made polite excuses and left. Someone at the meeting said 'it's his own fault. If he hadn't of been on the road, he'd be alive. Cyclists should be banned from roads.' This pearl of objective wisdom came from someone who thinks of himself as a cyclist. I told him he was wrong. He went on and on about how any cyclist on an 'A' road is 'asking for it'. Tw@t. But rather than describe said person thus as he was an elderly person and as this was in a church, I made polite excuses about having to be elsewhere and left.


----------



## andy_wrx (23 Jan 2008)

There are quite a few cyclepaths in South Manchester and Altrincham where someone at the council has has the bright idea of making the pavement into a half-and-half footpath-cum-cyclepath, separated with a painted solid white line and with bicycle symbols on the half you're supposed to ride on.

This is bloody stupid because
- the footpath is potholed and rutted wherever the gas or water board have dug it up
- there are a considerable number of lampposts, roadsigns, bollards to stop people parking on the pavement, etc which presumably you're supposed to slalom around
- the cyclists have the 'outside' half nearest to the road, which of course is where bus shelters and the like are...
- ...so every time there is one, there's a 'Cyclists Dismount' sign and the cyclepath finishes, starts again just after the obstacle
- and every time you come to a sideroad, entrance to petrol station, driveway, etc - i.e. every 50-to100-yds or so - there's giveway lines painted on the cyclepath and a 'Cyclist Dismount' sign

I'd assumed the 'Cyclist Dismount' signs were just someone at the council on Health & Safety overload, but presumably if you were cycling along this pavement-cum-cycletrack and were in collision with a vehicle driving into/out of a sideroad across it, it would be the cyclist's fault, not having dismounted and given way...


----------



## Arch (24 Jan 2008)

Those paths that give way a lot, there's a picture here: Look under September 2007.

http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/


----------



## Fab Foodie (24 Jan 2008)

Arch said:


> Those paths that give way a lot, there's a picture here: Look under September 2007.
> 
> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/



It's really unbeleivable that somebody could:
a) Design such an abortion
 Approve and get a budget for such an abortion
c) Get it made without somebody putting the brakes on
d) Remain employed in any capacity other than shelf-stacking.

I'd love to have the sign making contract. That's unbelievable.


----------



## Chuffy (24 Jan 2008)

Fab Foodie said:


> It's really unbeleivable that somebody could:
> a) Design such an abortion
> Approve and get a budget for such an abortion
> c) Get it made without somebody putting the brakes on
> ...


Don't quote me but I'd bet that there is a pretty prescriptive set of rules that must be followed when setting out a facility, much like the ones that dictate the whys and wherefores of speed sign/camera placement. The kind of rules that allow stupid bastards to get away with speeding _if_ Rule 6 para3 hasn't been followed to the letter. 
Of course if summat bad happens and someone can demonstrate that you haven't complied with the rules....


----------



## andygates (24 Jan 2008)

Which is why such a facility is such a mess. Nobody with an overview said "hang on, this is bollocks, let's cancel it." I swear, non-cyclists look at facilities like these and think we're a bunh of idiots for wanting them. If we did, we would be.


----------



## LLB (24 Jan 2008)

> Cheltenham has off-road cycle paths on mostof its main inter-city roads. On some of them, where side roads join, users on those roads are supposed to give way to the cyclists.
> 
> It's a fine idea. The problem is though that these schemes are so few and far between that a lot of drivers won't realise what they are supposed to do, and so don't stop.



Cheltenham is a spa town, not a city MrP. The ones on Princess Elizabeth Way which you refer to are what convinced me that cycle lanes like this do more harm than good for cyclists as a whole. As a roadie, they are far too lumpy to be used by a road cycle, and the risk that a car will drive straight across them means that you don't have unimpeded progress when using them. so they considerably slow you down. Fine for parents and kids on bikes with stabilisers, but it sends the message that cyclists don't have a rightful place on the roads and it sends a message that pavement cycling is acceptable.


----------



## LLB (24 Jan 2008)

Perhaps I'm taking a bit of a selfish view as I can't use them with the roadie, but will use them with the MTB. The worst bit is that they now lead onto the Tewkesbury Rd roundabout. It is absolutely lethal since they put in new traffic lights. People get frustrated with the holdups fro the new system and every light change is turned into a starting grid to every exit off it


----------



## MartinC (25 Jan 2008)

LLB is right. The cycle lanes at the Tewkesbury Road roundabout, Princess Elizabeth Way and Lansdown Rd are too hazardous to use. Putting kids and parents on to them is a nonsense - you'd need to be a skilled cyclist to use them and if you are you'd be safer on the road. To negotiate every give way point on them (and there are lots) you need 270 degree vision to be safe - trying to do that and supervise your kids is impossible.


----------



## Fab Foodie (25 Jan 2008)

andygates said:


> Which is why such a facility is such a mess. Nobody with an overview said "hang on, this is bollocks, let's cancel it." I swear, non-cyclists look at facilities like these and think we're a bunh of idiots for wanting them. If we did, we would be.




Reminds me of a lecture on "Disaster Management" I attended. The lecturer's opening line was something like...

"Most people are capable of organising a simple accident...but a real disaster requires management, planning, time and resources..."


----------



## LLB (25 Jan 2008)

> How is it more dangerous than crossing a road? I don't understand.
> 
> And how would this be different from a child riding on the same pavement if it didn't have cycle markings?
> 
> ...



If you ever come down this way MrP, take a trip down it and through.

I find the new roundabout intimidating even in the 4x4.


----------



## MartinC (25 Jan 2008)

Where the cycle lane crosses at a junction you need to give way to traffic on the road you're crossing and to traffic turning in to the junction from the right and the left. It creates the situation where you need to give way to traffic turning from behind as well as coming from the the right and left - i.e. you need a simultaneous view through 270 degrees. It's hard enough to do this when you're on your own let alone when you're trying to keep an eye on kids too.


----------



## MartinC (25 Jan 2008)

As a pedestrian I wouldn't cross a road at a junction - I'd walk down the road a bit so it's the same as crossing the road normally. If I were to ride on the pavement (don't normally) then I guess I do the same. A child on a bike on a pavement may well do anything - don't see the relevance of the analogy.


----------



## MartinC (25 Jan 2008)

We're in danger of violently agreeing. The main point to me is that the lanes that cross all the junctions are dangerous - they're inviting you to cross the road at the most inappropriate place, giving way to traffic you can't see. It's much safer to be on the road where you're in sight, part of the traffic and have priority. It's true that if you stop and are extremely cautious then you can mitigate the risks. But, if I want to go at walking pace then I'd walk. The paths we're talking about are mostly used by commuters - they aren't the places you'd take the kids for a ride on.


----------



## spen666 (27 Jan 2008)

spindrift said:


> Come to think of it - isn't the whole article contempt of court?



How?

How is it contempt of court?


It is simply reporting what someone has said. As an additional issue, there are currently no court proceedings at present


----------



## spindrift (28 Jan 2008)

Unwise, certainly, to present your defence to a newspaper prior to any trial. I would have thought the driver would reflect on the fact that Jason is unable to give his side of the story, so attempting to blame him by saying he was riding on the cycle lane and ignored the Give Way is difficult to defend.


----------



## QuickDraw (28 Jan 2008)

I heard a woman from his cycling club on the radio last week. She couldn't believe that he was on the cyclepath because (a) they're working on it at the moment and there are big mounds of rubble blocking part of it and ( she never uses it because it's a fast stretch of road where she can easily get over 20mph and, as a champion cyclist, he would be going a lot faster then her.

In summary, the driver's defence is not credible.


----------



## Arch (28 Jan 2008)

Fab Foodie said:


> It's really unbeleivable that somebody could:
> a) Design such an abortion
> Approve and get a budget for such an abortion
> c) Get it made without somebody putting the brakes on
> ...



Thats'a bit ambitious. I've just applied for a job stacking shelves in the Uni Library, and it requires the ability to follow the system, file alphabetically and numerically, think...

Even when I was stacking shelves in a supermarket, you needed some brains in order to keep the sellby dates etc correct... I think the person that ok'd that scheme might just qualify as assistant sewage farm sludge tank cleaner, if they had a supportive Head sludge tank cleaner to show them the ropes.


----------



## Arch (28 Jan 2008)

QuickDraw said:


> I heard a woman from his cycling club on the radio last week. She couldn't believe that he was on the cyclepath because (a) they're working on it at the moment and there are big mounds of rubble blocking part of it and ( she never uses it because it's a fast stretch of road where she can easily get over 20mph and, as a champion cyclist, he would be going a lot faster then her.
> 
> In summary, the driver's defence is not credible.



And, even it was credible, it still displays driving without due care and attention, I'd have said.


----------



## Mr Celine (7 Aug 2008)

The  BBC  now has a report detailing the usual sorry outcome.


----------



## LLB (7 Aug 2008)

Mr Celine said:


> The  BBC  now has a report detailing the usual sorry outcome.



It should have been death due to dangerous driving


----------



## domtyler (7 Aug 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> It should have been death due to dangerous driving



I don't think so. I haven't seen any evidence for anything other than the driver failed to spot the cyclist. No evidence of bullying behaviour, speeding or selfish and dangerous behaviour on the roads. Death by dangerous driving should be reserved for those times when it is truly deserved.


----------



## MartinC (7 Aug 2008)

I agree with User. This seems to be exactly what the law (Death by Careless Driving) was put in place for.


----------



## domtyler (7 Aug 2008)

User said:


> I agree - it wasn't death by dangerous driving. However, it should have been death by careless driving. Charging him with careless driving alone is simply taking the piss.



Is this your view as a dispassionate lawyer or as a hot under the collar cyclist?


I would assume that death by careless driving would be for situations where there was ample evidence of sustained bad driving rather than a split second decision that ended in tragedy, which could, let's be clear about this, happen to any of us at any time, even on a bike. Would you want to get banged up on a lengthy sentence if you, say, decided to go left instead of right in the blink of an eye and ended up colliding with a pedestrian on your way home tonight?


----------



## HLaB (7 Aug 2008)

> He claimed the cyclist was not wearing high-visibility clothing and was in a "hunkered down" position, making his body size very small.



I've never heard the latter excuse used and how would he have known unless he saw him?


----------



## domtyler (7 Aug 2008)

User said:


> The law says that it is when "A person who causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place"
> 
> There is no need for evidence of sustained bad driving - what is required to be shown is that the person was driving without due care and attention and, in so doing, caused a death.
> 
> ...



And the other question? Would you like to be banged up for causing someone to die by crashing into them while cycling through a momentary lapse or freak misjudgement of a situation?


----------



## MartinC (7 Aug 2008)

domtyler said:


> And the other question? Would you like to be banged up for causing someone to die by crashing into them while cycling through a momentary lapse or freak misjudgement of a situation?



I don't think anybody would. If the responsibility's to onerous you can always not drive. It's the law created by the democratic process. You can always campaign to get it changed.


----------



## wafflycat (7 Aug 2008)

domtyler said:


> And the other question? Would you like to be banged up for causing someone to die by crashing into them while cycling through a momentary lapse or freak misjudgement of a situation?



I suspect that if someone caused another to die through a _'momentary lapse or freak misjudgement of a situation'_ where the implement that was used was say a gun or a knife, then the person in charge of said gun or knife would be finding themselves spending some time detained for Her Maj's pleasure.


----------



## domtyler (7 Aug 2008)

I am all for coming down heavily on those that habitually drive dangerously and anti-socially on the roads. OTOH mistakes do happen and people can get hurt and killed. I wouldn't wish for anyone to go to prison for a momentary lapse of judgement and there is no reason to thing that there was anything other than this in this case.

I cycle twice a day on busy London roads, I do this willingly and I know that I am vulnerable and likely to come off far worse if I am in a collision with a motor vehicle, I do what I can to prevent that collision from happening. I am sure that the deceased would have said something similar.


----------



## domtyler (7 Aug 2008)

wafflycat said:


> I suspect that if someone caused another to die through a _'momentary lapse or freak misjudgement of a situation'_ where the implement that was used was say a gun or a knife, then the person in charge of said gun or knife would be finding themselves spending some time detained for Her Maj's pleasure.



Don't be ridiculous, a motor vehicle is a means of transportation, quite different to brandishing a knife or gun. A vehicle can be used as a weapon but there is no evidence to suggest that this happened in this case.


----------



## wafflycat (7 Aug 2008)

So Dom, which medium have you been visiting to get the direct line to the deceaed then?


----------



## domtyler (7 Aug 2008)

wafflycat said:


> So Dom, which medium have you been visiting to get the direct line to the deceaed then?



Here you have inadvertently reinforced my point. We can only go by the available evidence and there is none that points to anything other than a lapse of judgement. Certainly not that I know about, let me know if you know different.

Ultimately sending this guy to jail will not do anyone any good, it certainly won't prevent people from making mistakes in future, it won't reform this person and it won't bring back the dead man. There is much to be said for giving people the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## habibi (7 Aug 2008)

I don't think there would be much point locking the guy up, but a lifetime driving ban should be the minimum sentence. However let's face it - he could do the same lethal SMIDSY again next year, and he still wouldn't get a lifetime ban. This country is a joke.


----------



## wafflycat (7 Aug 2008)

domtyler said:


> Don't be ridiculous, a motor vehicle is a means of transportation, quite different to brandishing a knife or gun. A vehicle can be used as a weapon but there is no evidence to suggest that this happened in this case.



A knife is an implement used for assisting one to eat. A gun is an implement assisting one to get food. Now, all of a sudden instead of a motor vehicle _'momentary lapse or freak misjudgement of a situation'_ change it to another implement and it becomes _'brandishing' _Woosh... the speed of those goalposts being moved by Dom is amazing!


----------



## wafflycat (7 Aug 2008)

I think there could well be a good come out of jail time in some cases: _"pour encourager les autres"_


----------



## domtyler (7 Aug 2008)

wafflycat said:


> I think there could well be a good come out of jail time in some cases: _"pour encourager les autres"_



Your old man does a fair few miles on the roads in his Merc doesn't he? Likewise, my wife drives every day of the week in her Corsa (unlike myself who rarely drives). So by the law of averages you and I are far more likely to lose our other halves if they were unlucky enough to be involved in an unfortunate incident like this one and subsequently jailed for their momentary lapse of concentration. I trust you would still retain your ultra hard line faced with a couple of years on your lonesome?


----------



## wafflycat (7 Aug 2008)

Oh yes. If you've done something and it's your fault, you take the punishment. It isn't always the fault of the driver, but when it is, punishment should be made. I include me in that, by the way. IMO the current law on drivers being at fault when causing death is far, far too lenient.


----------



## snorri (7 Aug 2008)

domtyler said:


> unfortunate incident like this one and subsequently jailed for their momentary lapse of concentration.



There has been no suggestion of a "momentary lapse of concentration" in this case.


----------



## domtyler (7 Aug 2008)

wafflycat said:


> Oh yes. If you've done something and it's your fault, you take the punishment. It isn't always the fault of the driver, but when it is, punishment should be made. I include me in that, by the way. IMO the current law on drivers being at fault when causing death is far, far too lenient.



In general this is true, but in this specific case I think the judge got it right. I was surprised to hear that the family were baying for blood.


----------



## wafflycat (7 Aug 2008)

Dom, you really do come out with the most crass comments on occasion. The family are not 'baying for blood' What the BBC article says is this:

_"The family of Jason MacIntyre, 34, had wanted Robert McTaggart, 36, prosecuted on charges of culpable homicide, or causing death by dangerous driving."_

Hardly baying for blood.


----------



## yello (7 Aug 2008)

> He claimed the cyclist was not wearing high-visibility clothing and was in a "hunkered down" position, making his body size very small.





HLaB said:


> I've never heard the latter excuse used and *how would he have known unless he saw him*?



My thoughts exactly when I read the article.


----------



## snorri (7 Aug 2008)

domtyler said:


> I think the judge got it right.



There was no judge involved in this case.
According to the radio report the PF sought a charge of dangerous driving, but the Crown office in Edinburgh reduced the charge to careless driving. When interviewed on radio the father reckoned the driver could have had the cyclist in view for 16 seconds.


----------



## yenrod (7 Aug 2008)

"The short road into the council depot cuts across the cycle track at right angles and I would have expected any cyclists to watch for vehicles on this road and wait until they have passed. I can only assume Jason did not notice me swinging off the main road into the side road.


In other words the stupid f u c k e r was drivnig too fast and hes mentions that Jason (respects) was not looking for cars:

(I'm refering to the driver as DICK)

*DICK* was in totoal ignorance of the FACT that he needs to respect other road users not use the veicle as a battering ram. I know for a fact he has flouted one law straight away: not being aware of those around him = otherwise he would not have hit anyone never mind Jason (respects).

That bastard needs locking away ! 

And the lowest of the low goes further by saying:

"I don't want to cause further upset but I don't believe there was anything wrong with my driving."

BEGGARS BELIEF - HE'LL REPENT ONE DAY - WHEN HE'S DEAD :?:


----------



## yenrod (7 Aug 2008)

*Theirs no debate in this - he simply needs locking away*

He's a danger to himself and humanity.

Nothing more


----------



## Disgruntled Goat (7 Aug 2008)

£500 and a six month ban for killing someone because they weren't paying attention. There is a lot I could say, but I won't as I'm sure most people will share my revulsion at the leiniancy of this sentence.

A women keeps stum about her husband faking his canoe-related 'suicide' and defrauds a company for £250,000 and gets *six years*.

Kill someones father,husband and son and you get £500 fine.

Is that how much a cyclist is worth these days?


----------



## spindrift (8 Aug 2008)

Disgruntled Goat said:


> £500 and a six month ban for killing someone because they weren't paying attention. There is a lot I could say, but I won't as I'm sure most people will share my revulsion at the leiniancy of this sentence.
> 
> A women keeps stum about her husband faking his canoe-related 'suicide' and defrauds a company for £250,000 and gets *six years*.
> 
> ...



Exactly. Why the reference to hi vis?

Why claim the cyclist was "tucked in" and therefore hard to see?

Does that mean any child can be killed on the roads by a sloppy, inattentive, killer driver and get away scot free with a fine less than the cost of the bike?

The mitigation put forward is sickening, I cannot believe this verdict.


----------



## gazzaputt (8 Aug 2008)

A total disgrace. 

Again this country shows total disregard for human life if you cycle.


----------



## spindrift (8 Aug 2008)

Police investigations had found that Mr MacIntyre would have been 
visible for a full 16 seconds if he had been cycling at the 30mph 
estimated by another witness." 

http://tinyurl.com/6qy4fz 

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2420620.0.Driver_who... 

The victim's father said that 
"the local procurator-fiscal recommended dangerous driving charges but 
that the Crown Office downgraded the charge to careless driving, 
despite an appeal from the family. 

"The Crown Office view is that this standard of driving falls below 
normal standards. We are of the view that this standard of driving 
falls far below normal standards and is deserving of a more serious 
charge." 

He refused to accept that to drive along a road unaware of oncoming 
traffic for 16 seconds, to cross in front of oncoming traffic thereby 
causing death, amounted only to careless driving. That the Crown 
Office did, he said, "was a terrifying indictment on our society"." 

The Press and Journal says:- 

"There is great deal of difference between a driver who is guilty of a 
momentary lapse of concentration and one who drives in a deliberately 
reckless manner without regard for the lethal consequences. However, 
the results are the same for the families left behind in terms of 
their grief and lifelong suffering. They do not grade the drivers’ 
actions. They do not understand the subtle distinctions in the law 
which can have such a great bearing on cases. Many argue that it is 
another weakness in the law which discriminates against the victims." 

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/777542?UserKey=0 

Beyond belief.


----------



## John the Monkey (8 Aug 2008)

Disgruntled Goat said:


> Is that how much a cyclist is worth these days?


To be fair, I don't think it's just cyclists - killing someone on the road seems to be acceptable (unless you do it whilst under the influence). 

There also seems to be a huge gap between the public perception of how dangerous their vehicle is to others, and how much attention is required whilst driving it, and reality as well, I'd say (if people genuinely knew, surely we wouldn't see them on mobiles, or fiddling with their radios, or passing too close, etc).

Look at the post a while back about the article in one of the London papers (about the guy who wasn't cycling anymore). He gets knocked off by a woman who freely admits to him that she was messing with her cd player at the time - she'll be drving still, and I doubt very much that her behaviour while doing so has changed.


----------



## soulful dog (8 Aug 2008)

> Cyclist Jason Bottomley fell off his bike after he hit a pothole on a road near Huddersfield. His right ear was almost severed and his racing cycle was badly damaged. Although he only claimed £250 to cover the cost of repairs, the council refused to pay out. When he involved a solicitor, he won £6,000 for personal injuries as well as the repair bill.
> Source: BBC Inside Out


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?


----------



## spindrift (8 Aug 2008)

The driver claimed he didn't see jason, but also claimed he thought he was on the cycle path.

The killer driver has opted to pay the fine at £50 a month.


----------



## simon l& and a half (10 Aug 2008)

this is a revolting case - almost on a par with the North Wales one.


----------



## roshi chris (11 Aug 2008)

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 (12 Aug 2008)

John the Monkey said:


> 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 (13 Aug 2008)

l-mac said:


> 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 (13 Aug 2008)

_[Yawn]_

Disrespectful, given the subject of this thread.


----------



## srw (13 Aug 2008)

spindrift said:


> _[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 (14 Aug 2008)

srw said:


> 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 (14 Aug 2008)

MartinC said:


> 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 (14 Aug 2008)

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 (14 Aug 2008)

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 (14 Aug 2008)

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 (14 Aug 2008)

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 (14 Aug 2008)

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 (14 Aug 2008)

> 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


----------

