Gary McCourt - Sheriffs Comments

[Scouse Hibee]

Well done to Sheriff James Scott for making the point about the cyclist who was killed whilst not wearing a helmet.I fully agree with his sentiments and can't believe the number of cyclists who choose not to consider their own safety by failing to wear a helmet.

Whilst agreeing that the sentence did seem very lenient for a second offence that has resulted in the sad death of yet another cyclist, I was glad to hear his comments. I'm not really interested in the counter arguments regarding this case, wear a ****** helmet and give yourself more chance of surviving a collision makes perfect sense to me.

[speedy_gonzales]

Personally I think his comments have done more harm than good. He was in no way qualified to make the comments, just another person abusing his privileged position and airing personal views as public fact.
The judges comments, “Mrs Fyfe wasn’t to blame in any way for the accident. However, she was not wearing a safety helmet and that, in my view, contributed to her death.” remind me very much of the statement "I'm not a racist,,,,,but!"
Mrs Fyfe died because she was taken off her bike by a motorist that admitted he had a momentary lapse of concentration. She did not die because she was not wearing a helmet and no other party or medical person has suggested she would have survived her injuries had she been wearing a helmet.
As others have posted elsewhere, although ridiculous, it's akin to blaming someone being shot or stabbed because they did not take suitable precautions??

[Scouse Hibee]

Personally I think his comments have done more harm than good. He was in no way qualified to make the comments, just another person abusing his privileged position and airing personal views as public fact.
The judges comments, “Mrs Fyfe wasn’t to blame in any way for the accident. However, she was not wearing a safety helmet and that, in my view, contributed to her death.” remind me very much of the statement "I'm not a racist,,,,,but!"
Mrs Fyfe died because she was taken off her bike by a motorist that admitted he had a momentary lapse of concentration. She did not die because she was not wearing a helmet and no other party or medical person has suggested she would have survived her injuries had she been wearing a helmet.
As others have posted elsewhere, although ridiculous, it's akin to blaming someone being shot or stabbed because they did not take suitable precautions??


Nonsense , if you participate in something whether it be a job,sport, hobby or your mode of transport you should take precautions relevant to the risk involved. The Police wear stab vests etc as do some Security people and armed forces because it's relevant to the risk of what they do as is wearing a helmet on a bicycle. Hopefully his comments make some of the folk on bikes think twice before going out without a helmet.

[speedy_gonzales]

At the end of the day, a safety helmet would not have saved this cyclist, so the judges comment are impotent.
Safety helmets protect against low speed falls from a bicycle, not rear end shunts from careless motorists who have killed before, sorry, but the drivers actions and judges comments are indefensible in this case, this is not about road users apparel but road users awareness and/or consideration for fellow road users.

[Beefster]

As others have posted elsewhere, although ridiculous, it's akin to blaming someone being shot or stabbed because they did not take suitable precautions??

I'm a cyclist but that's a silly argument. It's like driving without a seatbelt. It might not save your life but it might do and it's definitely not going to do any harm.

[speedy_gonzales]

I'm a cyclist but that's a silly argument. It's like driving without a seatbelt. It might not save your life but it might do and it's definitely not going to do any harm.
Firstly, it wasn't myself that posted such comments, other commentators including city councillors have though.
The analogy is you have done nothing wrong but after an event not of your doing, you are dead. It is compulsory to wear a seatbelt save a few exceptions, there is no compulsion to wear a safety helmet, NOT that one would have saved Ms Fyfe.
So why did the judge feel the need to mention it?

[lord bunberry]

I really can't understand why wearing a helmet isn't compulsory

[speedy_gonzales]

I'm a cyclist but that's a silly argument. It's like driving without a seatbelt. It might not save your life but it might do and it's definitely not going to do any harm.
Sorry, just one other point. There have been various studies in the effectiveness in safety helmets, wearing one can encourage motorists to drive more recklessly around cyclists(aye, I know) and from a cyclists point of view wearing one could restrict vision and aural awareness due to increased wind noise. The vast majority of cycle helmets are not BS rated for impacts over 12mph, considering the average cyclist should be able to cycle on the flat around 15mph, you have to ask what the point of wearing one is, unless it's so you can be 100% blame free in the judiciary's eye?

[Beefster]

Firstly, it wasn't myself that posted such comments, other commentators including city councillors have though.
The analogy is you have done nothing wrong but after an event not of your doing, you are dead. It is compulsory to wear a seatbelt save a few exceptions, there is no compulsion to wear a safety helmet, NOT that one would have saved Ms Fyfe.
So why did the judge feel the need to mention it?

Compulsion doesn't really mean anything. Anyone who gets on a bike without a helmet is being reckless. The fact that an experienced cyclist did it even more so.

I'm not defending the guy driving btw or the sentence.

[speedy_gonzales]

Compulsion doesn't really mean anything. Anyone who gets on a bike without a helmet is being reckless.

?no helmet=reckless,,,,really? When you understand that helmets are not designed to offer protection at impacts >12mph, when you understand, or accept that professional studies highlight dangers and risks associated with wearing them rather than not?
Above all that, we keep missing the fact that a helmet would not appear to have saved the elderly cyclist. The only thing that I can think of is if the motorist was never allowed on the road after his first killing?

[hibs0666]

Well done to Sheriff James Scott for making the point about the cyclist who was killed whilst not wearing a helmet.I fully agree with his sentiments and can't believe the number of cyclists who choose not to consider their own safety by failing to wear a helmet.

Whilst agreeing that the sentence did seem very lenient for a second offence that has resulted in the sad death of yet another cyclist, I was glad to hear his comments. I'm not really interested in the counter arguments regarding this case, wear a ****** helmet and give yourself more chance of surviving a collision makes perfect sense to me.

Total lunacy. She died because she was whacked, not because she didn't have a helmet. :rolleyes:

[Beefster]

?no helmet=reckless,,,,really? When you understand that helmets are not designed to offer protection at impacts >12mph, when you understand, or accept that professional studies highlight dangers and risks associated with wearing them rather than not?
Above all that, we keep missing the fact that a helmet would not appear to have saved the elderly cyclist. The only thing that I can think of is if the motorist was never allowed on the road after his first killing?

I'm talking in generalities, not about this one case.

Most average cycling speeds in cities won't be that much more than 12 mph. If a helmet only helps in 15% of fatal crashes (which I've heard bandied about before), a cyclist is still endangering themselves by not using one. There's a reason why the likes of Wiggins say that if you've got a helmet, wear it. Even better, wear a helmet-mounted camera.

A blanket ban for a motorist after the death of a cyclist assumes that the motorist is to blame for all cyclist deaths. That's not the case. In this specific case, it might have been the answer, I don't know.

In general though, the way to safer cycling is by better, more considerate driving and a better standard of cycling. Everyone who has ever cycled or driven in Edinburgh knows that there are a multitude of terrible drivers and a load of cyclists who think that the rules don't apply to them. It's a two way street IMHO.

[Scouse Hibee]

Total lunacy. She died because she was whacked, not because she didn't have a helmet. :rolleyes:

Total lunacy not to wear a helmet when riding a bike. :rolleyes:

What really bugs me is parents who allow their young children to cycle without insisting that they wear a helmet! Who in their right mind would not ensure that their child has the maximum protection possible.

[RyeSloan]

Total lunacy not to wear a helmet when riding a bike. :rolleyes:

What really bugs me is parents who allow their young children to cycle without insisting that they wear a helmet! Who in their right mind would not ensure that their child has the maximum protection possible.

About as bad as the parents who put helmets on their kids when they are riding a three wheel push scooter on the pavement.

What really scares me is the cyclists that have their kids either in a seat or some sort of contraption attached to the back of their bikes...makes me sick when you see them on main roads being passed by trucks and buses...they just look so exposed.

[Just Alf]

1. Cyclists should wear helmets (I don't always!)

2. If, in this case, the guy had "just clipped" the bike and she fell over and hit her head on the kerb, then yes, she's partly culpable and the sentence (and words from the judiciary) should reflect that.

3. In this case the use of a helmet was totally irrelevant to the end result so it should not have been mentioned and in no way contributed to the victims death. If the lack of helmet was used in any way to mitigate the severity of the sentence then as far as I'm concerned that's an injustice.

[Future17]

Well done to Sheriff James Scott for making the point about the cyclist who was killed whilst not wearing a helmet.I fully agree with his sentiments and can't believe the number of cyclists who choose not to consider their own safety by failing to wear a helmet.

Whilst agreeing that the sentence did seem very lenient for a second offence that has resulted in the sad death of yet another cyclist, I was glad to hear his comments. I'm not really interested in the counter arguments regarding this case, wear a ****** helmet and give yourself more chance of surviving a collision makes perfect sense to me.

I would agree that cyclists should wear helmets. However, that's a point that should be easily made and understood without congratulating the Sheriff in this particular case.

I don't know your motivation for posting this but, while I agree that cyclists should take all necessary steps to protect themselves, should Sheriffs not take the necessary steps to protect the public in general?

Gary McCourt has been directly responsible for the death of two people as a result of his driving yet, in five years, he'll be free to get behind the wheel again. That can't be right can it?

[Scouse Hibee]

I would agree that cyclists should wear helmets. However, that's a point that should be easily made and understood without congratulating the Sheriff in this particular case.

I don't know your motivation for posting this but, while I agree that cyclists should take all necessary steps to protect themselves, should Sheriffs not take the necessary steps to protect the public in general?

Gary McCourt has been directly responsible for the death of two people as a result of his driving yet, in five years, he'll be free to get behind the wheel again. That can't be right can it?



My motivation for posting this was to highlight how I feel about cyclists not wearing helmets. I used the Sheriff's comment to highlight this point as was made by him in a current high profile case. I realised that my post would bring about debate on the matter, and so it has with many interesting views and opinions. Nothing sinister in my motivation if that is what you are suggesting.

[lord bunberry]

About as bad as the parents who put helmets on their kids when they are riding a three wheel push scooter on the pavement.

What really scares me is the cyclists that have their kids either in a seat or some sort of contraption attached to the back of their bikes...makes me sick when you see them on main roads being passed by trucks and buses...they just look so exposed.

I also find it unbelievable that people cycle with their kids in a seat on the back of their bike. There are some absolutely shocking drivers on the roads so why anyone would want to risk the most precious things in their lives is beyond me

[Future17]

My motivation for posting this was to highlight how I feel about cyclists not wearing helmets. I used the Sheriff's comment to highlight this point as was made by him in a current high profile case. I realised that my post would bring about debate on the matter, and so it has with many interesting views and opinions. Nothing sinister in my motivation if that is what you are suggesting.

I wasn't suggesting your motivations were sinister, I just find it strange that someone would use the death of a woman at the hands of an unsafe driver as an opportunity to make a point about the victim rather than the offender. Not a criticism, simply an observation.

If your point is genuinely that cyclists should wear helmets and you had just posted that, I don't think anyone would have disagreed. However, choosing to raise it in the context of this case brings a different reaction from people which I think only serves to distract from that point.

[speedy_gonzales]

I also find it unbelievable that people cycle with their kids in a seat on the back of their bike. There are some absolutely shocking drivers on the roads so why anyone would want to risk the most precious things in their lives is beyond me
In that case let's get a grip of the absolutely shocking drivers.
I used to put my daughter in a rear seat when she was little, it was a quick & efficient way to get her to nursery in the Gyle. That stopped the day my wife was cycling home and was approaching a r/about taking centre lane to go straight on. A motorcyclist approached with her but on her right hand side, when traffic cleared my wife went to go straight on. The motorcyclist went to go left, they both hit the deck with my wife under the bike.
Thankfully, I had finished early that day so had picked my daughter up before my wife finished work. My daughter never went on the back of the bike again in that seat.
For those that are interested, my wife and daughter always wore cycle helmets, not that it makes much difference when you have nearly 300Kg's of bike and rider lying on top of you!

[lord bunberry]

In that case let's get a grip of the absolutely shocking drivers.
I used to put my daughter in a rear seat when she was little, it was a quick & efficient way to get her to nursery in the Gyle. That stopped the day my wife was cycling home and was approaching a r/about taking centre lane to go straight on. A motorcyclist approached with her but on her right hand side, when traffic cleared my wife went to go straight on. The motorcyclist went to go left, they both hit the deck with my wife under the bike.
Thankfully, I had finished early that day so had picked my daughter up before my wife finished work. My daughter never went on the back of the bike again in that seat.
For those that are interested, my wife and daughter always wore cycle helmets, not that it makes much difference when you have nearly 300Kg's of bike and rider lying on top of you!

I agree with you 100% regarding bad drivers, the standard of driving from some people is an absolute disgrace. But as your experience shows it's not worth taking the risk with your kids when there's always the chance that some idiot won't be looking where they are going or driving like a maniac. As someone said earlier in this thread there needs to be a raising of standards from both motorists and cyclists

[lapsedhibee]

Well done to Sheriff James Scott for making the point about the cyclist who was killed whilst not wearing a helmet.I fully agree with his sentiments and can't believe the number of cyclists who choose not to consider their own safety by failing to wear a helmet.

Sure thing. And women who wear skirts above the knee are asking to be raped, the sluts.

[Scouse Hibee]

Sure thing. And women who wear skirts above the knee are asking to be raped, the sluts.


Brilliant contribution, thanks :rolleyes:

[lord bunberry]

Sure thing. And women who wear skirts above the knee are asking to be raped, the sluts.

Does a skirt worn below the knee sometimes protect women from rapists

[lapsedhibee]

Does a skirt worn below the knee sometimes protect women from rapists

In the minds of half-witted judges, yes.

The relevant legal term here is "contributory negligence", and the famous historical reference is this:

Judge Bertrand Richards fined rapist John Allen £2,000 for raping a 17-year-old girl. The judge said the girl had been 'guilty of a great deal of contributory negligence' because she had hitched a ride home having missed the last bus.

The OP is essentially arguing the Bertrand Richards line that victims of crimes cause them. If a homicidal maniac runs over a cyclist, the cyclist should have been wearing a helmet. If a girl gets raped, she shouldn't have been hitchhiking.