Two cyclists killed by same motorist

A motorist has been spared jail after killing two cyclists is separate
crashes.

Careless Gary McCourt's first victim was in 1985 when he killed
innocent George Dalgity. His second victim was Audrey Fyfe who was
killed by McCourt as she cycled near her home in August 2011.

Guilty McCourt was banned from driving for 5 years and ordered to do
300hrs community service.

Fyfe was criticised, by the callous sheriff, for not wearing a helmet,
as if that somehow lessens the enormity of McCourt's crime.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/demand-pr...o-killed-twice

Disgraceful!

Tom

On 10/05/2013 22:53, tom wrote:
A motorist has been spared jail after killing two cyclists is separate
crashes.

Two separate crashes 26 years apart, to be entirely accurate. I suspect
you were unable to do the math. I shall apply Hanlon's razor.

Careless Gary McCourt's first victim was in 1985 when he killed
innocent George Dalgity. His second victim was Audrey Fyfe who was
killed by McCourt as she cycled near her home in August 2011.

Guilty McCourt was banned from driving for 5 years and ordered to do
300hrs community service.

That's what the Judge, in his wisdom, decided. Not a bunch of overgrown
schoolboys.

Fyfe was criticised, by the callous sheriff, for not wearing a helmet,
as if that somehow lessens the enormity of McCourt's crime.

The sheriff wasn't callous. He was merely stating what the Highway Code
says.

59

Clothing. You should wear;
a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct
size and securely fastened


http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/demand-pr...o-killed-twice

Disgraceful!

It's an utter disgrace that yet another of the numerous cycling pressure
groups thinks it has the right to complain. Who the hell do they think
they are?


--
Dave - Cyclists VORP
"It is time for us to say to cyclists 'You want to join our gang, get
trained and pay up'. John Griffin, Addison Lee.

On 11/05/2013 20:20, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

"tom" wrote in message
...
A motorist has been spared jail after killing two cyclists is separate
crashes.

Careless Gary McCourt's first victim was in 1985 when he killed
innocent George Dalgity. His second victim was Audrey Fyfe who was
killed by McCourt as she cycled near her home in August 2011.

Guilty McCourt was banned from driving for 5 years and ordered to do
300hrs community service.

Which seems excessively lenient on the face of it. However the first
offence was "causing death by reckless driving" which is markedly more
serious than the 2011 "causing death by careless driving". If the
prosecution had proved recklessness, then he would and should have gone
to jail.

Fyfe was criticised, by the callous sheriff, for not wearing a helmet,

The sheriff expressed regret that she was not wearing a helmet. I
don't think that's 'criticism' of the deceased, but rather a humane wish
that she had survived. Her family probably also regrets that she
wasn't wearing a helmet, it doesn't mean they are "callous".

It's hard not to harbour suspicion that for some commentators, the
thought of an unprotected cyclist being killed in a road traffic
accident is preferable to the idea of a helmet-wearing cyclist surviving
a similar incident.

On 11 May, 20:20, "Zapp Brannigan" wrote:
"tom" wrote in message

...

A motorist has been spared jail after killing two cyclists is separate
crashes.

Careless Gary McCourt's first victim was in 1985 when he killed
innocent George Dalgity. His second victim was Audrey Fyfe who was
killed by McCourt as she cycled near her home in August 2011.

Guilty McCourt was banned from driving for 5 years and ordered to do
300hrs community service.

Which seems excessively lenient on the face of it. * However the first
offence was "causing death by reckless driving" which is markedly more
serious than the 2011 "causing death by careless driving". * If the
prosecution had proved recklessness, then he would and should have gone to
jail.

This is not true.

Coong Duong Voong was fined after he killed innocent cyclist Leonard
Woods who was pootling up the steep hill in Greenwich Park. Voong was
driving on the wrong side of the road, and was guilty of causing death
by dangerous driving, yet he escaped prison.

If you want to kill an innocent person, a car should be your weapon of
choice.

Fyfe was criticised, by the callous sheriff, for not wearing a helmet,

The sheriff expressed regret that she was not wearing a helmet. * I don't
think that's 'criticism' of the deceased, but rather a humane wish that she
had survived. * Her family probably also regrets that she wasn't wearing a
helmet, it doesn't mean they are "callous".

Victim blaming is always callous.

"If your skirt was a little longer, perhaps you would not have been
raped. Did you think of that before you left the safety of your home?"

On 12/05/2013 01:43, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

I think that it's actually some way beyond a suspicion.

My belief is that I would prefer to see a few cyclists die of head
injuries than see every cyclist forced to wear a helmet.

This is analogous to the attitude of some motorists that they would
prefer to see many deaths on the roads rather than be forced to drive
more slowly, carefully or not at all.

The difference is that the cyclists are paying for their preference with
their own safety where as the motorists are paying with other people's
safety.

When these motorists do start to feel guilty about the numbers that they
kill their answer is that everyone else should be more careful. Their
solution has left us with a society where it is no longer safe for
children to walk to school or cyclists to ride and hence everyone has to
drive. Leaving the roads congested and virtually unusable at peak times.
Its not my idea of utopia.

Obviously this debate is being fought in society at large. We will have
to await the outcome. My hope and feeling is that society is swinging
away from motorist supremacy and that in the near future a judge would
be censured for making such crass victim blaming remarks.

Nick wrote:
On 12/05/2013 01:43, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

I think that it's actually some way beyond a suspicion.

My belief is that I would prefer to see a few cyclists die of head
injuries than see every cyclist forced to wear a helmet.

This is analogous to the attitude of some motorists that they would
prefer to see many deaths on the roads rather than be forced to drive
more slowly, carefully or not at all.

The difference is that the cyclists are paying for their preference
with their own safety where as the motorists are paying with other
people's safety.

When these motorists do start to feel guilty about the numbers that
they kill their answer is that everyone else should be more careful.
Their solution has left us with a society where it is no longer safe
for children to walk to school or cyclists to ride and hence everyone
has to drive. Leaving the roads congested and virtually unusable at
peak times. Its not my idea of utopia.

Obviously this debate is being fought in society at large. We will
have to await the outcome. My hope and feeling is that society is
swinging away from motorist supremacy and that in the near future a
judge would be censured for making such crass victim blaming remarks.

Strange that there is not this level of resisting sensible safety measures
in, for instance, the building and construction industry where hard hats and
safety boots are accepted by all.
If you do something that has a high risk of injury you should take steps to
reduce the likelihood of incurring that injury (training, risk avoidance and
hi-viz etc.) and reduce severity of injury (protective clothing for
instance)

On 12/05/2013 11:44, Nick wrote:

On 12/05/2013 01:43, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

I think that it's actually some way beyond a suspicion.

My belief is that I would prefer to see a few cyclists die of head
injuries than see every cyclist forced to wear a helmet.

As long as it's no-one you know, eh?

This is analogous to the attitude of some motorists that they would
prefer to see many deaths on the roads rather than be forced to drive
more slowly, carefully or not at all.

A far-fetched analogy, but alright.

The difference is that the cyclists are paying for their preference with
their own safety where as the motorists are paying with other people's
safety.

They are, you say? So wouldn't it be fairer if that alleged preference
(and its ramifications) were clearly announced so that responsibility
for outcomes could be (correctly?) allocated?

When these motorists do start to feel guilty about the numbers that they
kill their answer is that everyone else should be more careful. Their
solution has left us with a society where it is no longer safe for
children to walk to school or cyclists to ride and hence everyone has to
drive. Leaving the roads congested and virtually unusable at peak times.
Its not my idea of utopia.

Star Trek and Blake's Seven had the real Utopian ideas. Technology
hasn't yet caught up (cf. "the Fly").

Obviously this debate is being fought in society at large. We will have
to await the outcome. My hope and feeling is that society is swinging
away from motorist supremacy and that in the near future a judge would
be censured for making such crass victim blaming remarks.

He is quoted (accurately or otherwise) as having said what you claim to
believe anyway. So what's the problem?

Incidentally, "motorist supremacy" - democracy.

On 12/05/2013 11:53, Mrcheerful wrote:
Nick wrote:
On 12/05/2013 01:43, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

I think that it's actually some way beyond a suspicion.

My belief is that I would prefer to see a few cyclists die of head
injuries than see every cyclist forced to wear a helmet.

This is analogous to the attitude of some motorists that they would
prefer to see many deaths on the roads rather than be forced to drive
more slowly, carefully or not at all.

The difference is that the cyclists are paying for their preference
with their own safety where as the motorists are paying with other
people's safety.

When these motorists do start to feel guilty about the numbers that
they kill their answer is that everyone else should be more careful.
Their solution has left us with a society where it is no longer safe
for children to walk to school or cyclists to ride and hence everyone
has to drive. Leaving the roads congested and virtually unusable at
peak times. Its not my idea of utopia.

Obviously this debate is being fought in society at large. We will
have to await the outcome. My hope and feeling is that society is
swinging away from motorist supremacy and that in the near future a
judge would be censured for making such crass victim blaming remarks.

Strange that there is not this level of resisting sensible safety measures
in, for instance, the building and construction industry where hard hats and
safety boots are accepted by all.
If you do something that has a high risk of injury you should take steps to
reduce the likelihood of incurring that injury (training, risk avoidance and
hi-viz etc.) and reduce severity of injury (protective clothing for
instance)

No, no, no...

That would never do.

If Nick were working on a building site, he would refuse to wear a hard
hat or steel toed boots on the basis that "the source of danger" should
be removed and that all operations should cease so that nothing may be
dropped onto his head or toes.

Then he could "work" in complete safety.

Ooh... hang on...

On 12/05/2013 11:44, Nick wrote:
On 12/05/2013 01:43, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

I think that it's actually some way beyond a suspicion.

My belief is that I would prefer to see a few cyclists die of head
injuries than see every cyclist forced to wear a helmet.

This is analogous to the attitude of some motorists that they would
prefer to see many deaths on the roads rather than be forced to drive
more slowly, carefully or not at all.

Road deaths are falling year on year.

Motorists should not be inconvenienced to cope with the failings of an
insignificant minority who insist on using a non viable vehicle.

The difference is that the cyclists are paying for their preference with
their own safety where as the motorists are paying with other people's
safety.

Cyclists don't pay for anything, sponging freeloaders.

When these motorists do start to feel guilty about the numbers that they
kill their answer is that everyone else should be more careful. Their
solution has left us with a society where it is no longer safe for
children to walk to school or cyclists to ride and hence everyone has to
drive. Leaving the roads congested and virtually unusable at peak times.
Its not my idea of utopia.

Absolute rubbish. There are 33,000,000 motorists in the UK, each doing
12,000 miles per annum. In 2011 there were only 1,901 deaths (not all
the fault of the driver obviously).

That's 1 single fatality per 208,311,415 miles driven. An incredibly
good safety record.


Obviously this debate is being fought in society at large. We will have
to await the outcome. My hope and feeling is that society is swinging
away from motorist supremacy and that in the near future a judge would
be censured for making such crass victim blaming remarks.

The problem with your utopian hope, is that people simply don't want to
cycle.

"Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."
--
Dave - Cyclists VORP
"It is time for us to say to cyclists 'You want to join our gang, get
trained and pay up'. John Griffin, Addison Lee.

On Sun, 12 May 2013 13:23:56 +0100, "Zapp Brannigan" wrote:


"Nick" wrote in message
web.com...
On 12/05/2013 01:43, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

I think that it's actually some way beyond a suspicion.

My belief is that I would prefer to see a few cyclists die of head
injuries than see every cyclist forced to wear a helmet.

I agree with you. Wearing a helmet, or a seat belt, should be a matter of
personal liberty. It's an honest and defensible position, plainly stated.
If I value the wind in my hair every day more that the small chance of brain
injury, I should be free to make that choice.


Perhaps you could carry a card in your pocket which says in the event of an
accident to my head I demand to be treated privately and not by the NHS.