'Low sun' explanation rejected after driver left cyclist with brain damage

Remorse is so very easy after the event, maintaining good driving so the event does not occur, seemingly almost impossible.

Defending, Martin Black said MacFadyen was extremely remorseful for the offense (Oh that's okay then) and concerned for Georgeson (how very good of him). He said the 23-year-old roofer was a “new driver” (aww bless, I'm sure he'll get better at it in time) and that his future employment was in doubt due to the inevitable disqualification (poor sausage, why doesn't he ask Mark Georgeson if he can borrow his bike for four months)

What is wrong with this country. 'Finally' it seems as if we get some sort of justice which doesn't accept the 'dog ate my homework/sun was in my eyes' SMIDSY excuse and when the punishment is doled out, it appears £450 is what life-altering brain damage and a number of broken bones is worth. FFS.

Should have had my collision last year, in which a motorist drove in to the back of me claiming low sun, in Scotland. At least it might have been taken seriously by the police, who did all they could to give the motorist a get of of jail card - including falsify the collision report, and the CPS  wouldn't have suspended my private prosecution. But then again, everything is a postcode lottery in this country.

Interesting I should have pushed it further but when a car clipped the bars of my fixie sending me into a ditch (a fortunately soft one) the police accepted the 'sun in my eyes'excuse.  I argued initially similar to what the judge said  had he been blinded, 'it was up to him to stop, slow down or take more care'.

While the reversal of a SMIDSY excuse is to be welcomed, the sentence is perplexing to say the least.  He drove a motor vehicle in a reckless manner and as a result seriously injured an innocent party, some might say he was lucky not to have killed them, but gets a fine that seems more appropriate to shoplifting a bottle of vodka.

Is this a sentence thst can be appealed? Seems less than a slap on the wrist to me: £450 & a 4 month ban for causing " traumatic brain injury, multiple rib fractures and spinal injuries. He now suffers from cognitive and memory problems." But then again it was only a cyclist so...

I was surprised as well. What would have happened if the "Sun" defense had been accepted? 

The price of a human life is very cheap, it seems.

"traumatic brain injury, cognitive and memory problems" and the driver only gets a £450 fine and four-month ban? Is this some kind of joke? Multi-year bans are required for incidents like these.

Only in Scotland mate, and they can pretty much ride anywhere too.

"He [the Sherrif] also said that had he been blinded, it was up to him to stop, slow down or take more care."
So is this the end to SMIDSY being accepted in court? And even if it is, does it make any difference when the penalties are so inconsequential anyway?