Community service for driver who killed cyclist on Christmas Day

From that map link if you look towards the direction of Duns, you can actually see a cyclist and how theyd look on that road from a distance

Found some more details about the collision:
https://www.cyclestreets.net/collisions/reports/2020991010115/

That cyclist you can see on the streetview link is almost at the same location as the collision. They are travelling in the same direction, but a little bit further up the road. The collision occurred just after the bend following the very long straight section of road, just after the entrance to Briery Hill.

Having read the report it actually looks like Ian hadn't even reached the bend as he was travelling in a SW direction so the driver would have had even more time to see. 

giff77 wrote:

Having read the report it actually looks like Ian hadn't even reached the bend as he was travelling in a SW direction so the driver would have had even more time to see. 

It's not the very sharp 90 degree bend further up the road, but the almost imperceptable kink in the road just past the Briery Hill entrance.

Not even a bend really, the sort of curve you could take without slowing down.

But with the length of road leading up to that slight curve, there would have been ample opportunity to observe Ian on his bike go around the corner.

I note that there are no comments on either of the articles linked... Can't understand why people wouldn't want to take the opportunity to express their disgust at the lack of bicycle insurance, no licence plates, dark clothes, garishly bright clothing, no lights, too bright a light, unbridled law braking lycra louts... ooh road tax, I nearly forgot that one... 

I agree, a mindless comment from the Sheriff.  The purpose of the sentence is to indicate to society at large that this behaviour is totally unacceptable.

Instead a weak punishment sends the message, its OK, can happen to anyone, just a simple mistake, crashing into stuff is just normal.

It feels worse that he equated the tragedy of the family losing their son and a partner, to the tragedy that Halliday feels for causing that death. Part of the mitigation seems to be just he feels bad about it.

Yes.  I think this is a rather wild but interesting analogy.  It links our ideas of "normal behaviour" or "a reasonable person" that our legal system enjoins juries to consider.  That is: driving is utterly normal and quotidien.  We're maybe aware that driving in all kinds of conditions e.g. distracted, emotional, looking at phone, not paying attention and even nodding off ... is actually not unusual either.  Even if we may disapprove or deny doing that ourselves.  So a defense of "I don't know how that happened" or even "I'm not really a great (competent) driver"?  That's fine.

Cycling on the road however?  Not usual.  Putting yourself in harm's way.  It's unlikely the jury will understand the reasons for what you did or didn't do and whether you were doing it competently.  They're likely disposed to think you were at least ill-advised, if not a bit reckless or fundamentally incompetent.

Also there seems still to be a need for juries to read in some "intent" or "knowing recklessness" into driving offenses.  Just the fact that "someone died while I was driving" was likely an accident otherwise.  And that driver's contribution has to be pretty obvious and/or socially "unusual" e.g. someone who was already a criminal or engaged in other illegal acts at the time or who had got pissed or otherwise intoxicated.  Juries seem to recognise that that is beyond the pale and disapprove.  However, speeding, driving wildly in the dark / fog?  Could happen to anyone, mate.  Just bad luck you were cycling there at the time.

But where does this loss of concentration come from ?
He refused to answer questions, so how does the defence get to plead this? Surely it should be disregarded if he won't give evidence.
Does not make sense to me.

Presumably in this case since he made a guilty plea to something everyone accepted that (rather than spend money / risk losing contesting a more serious charge).

If it had been contested the prosecution can use his lack of answers but they still have to "prove" things - the defence doesn't.  So saying nowt is likely often a good idea (and better than lying) since the other side might fail to come up with much else.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Presumably in this case since he made a guilty plea to something everyone accepted that (rather than spend money / risk losing contesting a more serious charge).

If it had been contested the prosecution can use his lack of answers but they still have to "prove" things - the defence doesn't.  So saying nowt is likely often a good idea (and better than lying) since the other side might fail to come up with much else.

Unfortunately on balance the right to silence is a good thing.  The downside is that is it then requires a really watertight case from the prosecution and a willingness to be charged with the full weight of the law.  In this case it seems a guilty to death by careless driving was enough to to sweep a death under the carpet with minimum efforts made on all sides.  

A caveat is that none of the reporting that I have seen on this case is of stellar quality - there could be more to be considered than we realise.

I'm not disagreeing with right to silence but if you take that approach you can't claim momentary lack of concentration as that isn't maintaining silence.