Drink driver was three times the limist when he killed cyclist
From EEN
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
Drink driver was three times the limist when he killed cyclist
(20 posts)-
Posted 13 years ago #
-
Bloody cheery round here today....
Posted 13 years ago # -
I'm off to buy a Jeep...
Posted 13 years ago # -
I'm off to buy a Jeep...
And you thought a dutch bike would be hard to pedal up Gilmerton Road!
Posted 13 years ago # -
I don't understand - was he just charged with driving without due care (and being under the influence) as opposed to "death by dangerous"?
Surely doing 70mph on the wrong side of the road while drunk, must count as dangerous even in an Edinburgh court!
Still, it says he could get 14 years which is about the length of an actual life sentence, so maybe just cruddy reporting.
Bet he goes down for < than 4 years.
Posted 13 years ago # -
It's likely the specific offence of Causing Death by Careless Driving While Under the Influence, which carries a maximum of 14 years (but anything from 12 month up to that). I wouldn't put any money on the sentence being anywhere near the max...
Posted 13 years ago # -
p.s. he pleaded guilty, it's likely he was initially charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving but bargained it down with a guilty plea. Possibly.
Posted 13 years ago # -
That's this one -
"Cyclist dies after crash with car in Kirkliston"
Posted 13 years ago # -
p.s. he pleaded guilty, it's likely he was initially charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving but bargained it down with a guilty plea. Possibly.
seems to me like you shouldn't get "time off" for admitting your crime, rather you should get "extra time" for not admitting it
Posted 13 years ago # -
Posted 13 years ago #
-
With a comment that he would have got 7 years but for the guilty plea.
In relation to the maximum possible sentence, and the amount he was over the limit and the recklessness involved in that it seems... low. But unsurprising.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"The motorist admitted driving at excessive speed, swerving about the road, failing to negotiate a bend and crossing onto the opposite carriageway"
And yet again, driving in this fashion is merely "without due care and attention" and not dangerous in any way.
??????
Posted 13 years ago # -
Oops sorry, just realised this has already been discussed. Should have looked back at previous posts.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Yes, but it raises another point. If he did bargain down from 'dangerous' driving by pleasding guilty, why then should that guilty plea also get a reduction in the custodial sentence in the new, lesser, offence?
Posted 13 years ago # -
I don't know... this one also caught my attention today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-11484326
This time a pedestrian hit by a van overtaking an Audi.
7.30 in evening.Posted 13 years ago # -
thats the stuff i dont like hearing about, as i am often on my own on smaller roads. Dusk is dangerous time..
Posted 13 years ago # -
A lot of legalese is weird - like the fact that you can be 'done' for killing someone through careless driving because what you didn't wasn't bad enough to be considered "dangerous" (despite the result being a manslaughter).
Yet, I'm mindful that they could just rebrand it '2nd degree dangerous driving' and really, it's the sentences not the name of the offence which are important.
Unfortunately those are often ridiculous too!
Mind you in this case, when you consider that Stephen McKay killed a man near Dunfermline by driving on the wrong side of the road at 50% over the speed limit and didn't even get a custodial sentence at all - 5 years seems reasonable by comparison.
ADMIN EDIT -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8660564.stm
Posted 13 years ago # -
Exactly, my first instinct was '5 years, that's reasonably hefty' - but I was comparing that to previous recent non-custodial slaps on the wrist. But compared to the maximum that could have been handed down, it starts to look paltry.
Heavily drinking the night before, then continuing the next day, then driving? That warrants a custodial sentence that is 30% of the maximum? What on earth would you have to do to get 14 years???
Posted 13 years ago # -
rugtommcat thats the stuff i dont like hearing about,
Was in two minds to post. Intention wasn't to confirm that roads are 'dangerous' to walk or cycle on. That's what many want you to believe...
In my view excessive speed and reckless overtaking is a common thread in many 'accidents'. Other factors are drink, drugs (and poor eyesight). Then there's impatience fueled by an unrealistic expectation about how long a journey should take. Maybe judging how long it takes to get between places should be part of the test?
Posted 13 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
