Community service for driver convicted of killing second cyclist in 25 years

Thanks for all your support. We have now had almost now 4,500 people write to the Lord Advocate protesting at this derisory sentence as well as wall to wall coverage in Scotland. Gary McCourt's face is so well known in Edinburgh that, I suspect he is frightened to leave the house, let alone drive again.
If you haven't already added you weight to the onslaught of letters to the Lord Advocate, please do it now. We have until 31st May to make our feelings known http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/demand-proper-sentence-for-driver-who-killed-...
I've been thinking what we need to do to make sure other drivers don't drive while banned.
Perhaps if the penalty for breaching a driving ban was life imprisonment these mindless murderers would think twice about it. I'd also have the police confiscate the cars of any drivers given a temporary or permanent driving ban although I acknowledge that that wouldn't spot them driving other people's vehicles. For those who have a temporary ban, I would add a requirement for the driver to have compulsory cycle training & provide evidence of 1,000 ridden on a bike to that they gain some understanding of what it's like not to be surrounded by air bags & a crumple zone.

McCourt had a "momentary lapse of concentration". He had a responsibility to maintain his concentration when he chose to drive a vehicle on a public highway but clearly failed to do so not only on this occasion but also on a previous one. Both of these instances resulted in loss of life and as such McCourt should face the maximum penalty permissible by law. It is not proportionate to punish this with community service and a ban. Sheriff Scott has failed to carry out his duties and if he had any decency would resign. The cycling organizations have to object strongly to these sort of decisions and encourage us cyclists to also complain in an organized and tactical manner. My sympathies to Mrs Fyfe's family whom from what I have read are very let down by the Scottish legal system.

With respect I disagree with Tony that the helmet part of this story is not relevant. It's relevant for the following reasons:

* It is another piece of evidence that helmet (non)usage is a significant factor in apportioning blame, despite the fact that there is no evidence which suggests that helmets can do anything except protect from superficial cuts, tears and other non-brain threatening injuries. We have "safety campaigners", many cycling clubs and online helmet campaigners to thank for this.

* It reflects a lack of experience and thought about the real dangers of cycling on the part of many officials. Helmet promotion has simultaneously conveyed the messages that cycling is dangerous and also that a piece of polystyrene is all that cyclists need to be safe. Again, we have the helmet campaigners and their friends the segregated facilities campaigners to thank for this.

The Sheriff is just echoing back the loudest voices in the cycling world and basing his judgements on the "common sense" which so often fails us.

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.

And with the Crown Office confirming prosecutors are considering an appeal against the sentence due to its “undue leniency”, it seems likely further scrutiny could be given to the whole matter.

Away from the court, his comments have attracted widespread condemnation, especially in light of the fact he also caused controversy in 2010 when he gave the 90-year-old wife of the former Governor of the Bank of Scotland the all-clear to continue driving despite smashing her car into a cyclist"

http://www.scotsman.com/news/fury-at-sheriff-s-helmet-claim-in-cyclist-d...

Prior to sentencing Mrs Fife's widower, John had said [...]

Have you misplaced a comma, or misunderstood 'widower'?

Perhaps someone who works within the Scottish justice system may care to comment?
Or who knows how their CPS works, as it would appear that they tend to go for a lower charge to get a conviction, rather than a more serious charge and work a bit more smartly to get proper evidence and a conviction?
The sentence seems derisory, but the sentence for a lady who has lived 75 years and may have lived to receive the Queen's telegram is very final indded and can never be appealed. The law must be even handed, but the victim and their family should be respected too, and as this is a driver's second offence of "carelessness" perhaps a disqualification for a substantial period following a custodal punishment, if appropriate, with a requirement for an extended test for licence reinstatement would be more in proportion.
Whatever the judges comments, they do not seem well informed, as no-one can actually predict what would happen with/without helmet in any other way than recreate the incident using two volunteers. Wouldn't be many of them, I suspect.

Not only should that wanker be in jail, the sheriff should be removed from judicial office forthwith. Disgusting.

My condolences to the families of the victims for their losses and the slap over the pathetically inadequate sentence.

How, in the name of all that is Good and Holy, can such a sentence be acceptable! It is not a question. Guilt, remorse and shame are not enough. A tangible, measurable and meaningful penalty is required. Accidents happen; but twice? It may not deter every such incident but a stronger sentence is fully warranted.
If I told you that twelve years ago while riding my bike I knocked over a pram and caused brain damage to a baby, what would you say? There would have been a world-wide search for me. And, if I did it again last week, do I have to ask if your blood would be boiling.

I live in Canada and have only recently started reading Road.cc I am astounded and disturbed over the number of incidents. Perhaps the rate of cycling incidents is no greater than before, but at least people are being made aware of the issue of sharing the road. It troubles me that there are still people blaming the victims. On the other hand, I suppose those women pushing those prams should really have been more responsible.

Words. Words. More bad words. My deepest sympathies to the victim's family. This isn't justice. This isn't right. You can't kill two people through "carelessness", feel a bit down about it and get away with a telling off and picking up rubbish in the park.

The next general election is in 2 years and 3 days time.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/

Make the buggers sweat for your vote.

What more does this twat have to do to get a custodial sentence, despicable.

FFS! again we are let down by ill informed twerps who sit in judgement and who are there supposidly to protect the innocent, oh wait the victim wasn't wearing a piece of expanded polystyrene packing case on their head so that's ok .

If he gets his hat-trick, will the judge award him the bike to keep as a trophy? Something to pass on to the grandchildren.

Unreal.

According to the judge "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."

Shame you didn't take the fact that he has killed two cyclists in two separate incidents into account. Wonder if you had been equally considerate if he had killed 2 motorists

The carnage continues, this one absolutely incredible. Nothing to do with helmets, rather it should be a priority to get this animal off the road. Absolutely appaling.

Och, man; surely he's entitled to a cyclist every 30 years? Wee Jock weeps.

I can't describe how furious I am. I just want to see the little shite die a slow and painful death, and I am anti-death penalty. Six months in prison for going for a swim and disturbing some Hooray Henrys sporting event (last years Boat Race), and community service for killing two cyclists. I just don't fucking get it......

British justice at it best. That tool is now on a roll, he probably thinks if I do it again I'll get a medal.

I'd give him post traumatic stress disorder...

I use lights at night as it's the law.

I wear a helmet as I choose to. Others have the choice not too and I support that.

I do not wear hi vis because it should not be necessary. If it is we should all pop in on to cross the road.

Our Gary should have had a 10 year ban. It'll give him more time to cycle to work and experience what it's like to run the gauntlet of the careless, the impatient and the downright psychotic people that as cyclists we all meet every week.

I have nothing but contempt for him.

Well he only 'clipped' her with the car, after all. The fact that the vehicle weighed over a ton didn't kill her, it was the lack of a non-compulsory helmet. Obviously.

Looking on the bright side, every time such an appalling sentence is handed down, it reinforces the points made by the all-party report on cycling - i.e. the law is failing vulnerable road users.

Yet another justice FAIL.

Poor Mrs Fife had clearly been enjoying cycling all her life and survived until 75 without wearing a helmet and then this ©unt comes along and suddenly it contributed to her death? The only thing that contributed to her death was this murdering dickhead getting in his car when he should be in prison.

Make helmets and hi-viz compulsory. That should help sort out the cycling problem.

If he had driven into a pedestrian who wasn't wearing a helmet, would the Judge have made the same comment?

There seems to be an increasing pressure to wear helmets even though they are not compulsory under law.

In other news, a judge said that a gunshot victim's failure to wear a kevlar vest contributed to their death.

Disgusting. Last month in London a man was given a (suspended) jail sentence for fraudulently topping up an Oyster card. Obviously a bigger crime than killing someone.

Growl....

Words can't describe my frustration.

Would he have not hit her if she was wearing a helmet then Mr Scott? So it's her fault now?

Fucking pillock!

Hey, come on guys, which one of us hasn't killed at least two people? Let's be reasonable here, eh?

/outraged sarcasm

They only banned him from driving for 5 years, so when those 5 years are up, he'll be suffering from depression, PTSD, and rusty driving skills on top of his inability to concentrate while in charge of a motor vehicle.

I think there's a good chance of a #3 in 5 years time.

Just out of curiousity, how would lack of helmet compare to say failure to use seat belt in the UK? Curious how the two safety devices are seen differently on vehicles.