A van driver convicted of killing a cyclist in Fife has walked free from court after a judge handed him a community sentence.
David McGregor, aged 48 and from Crossgates near Dunfermline, was ordered to undertake 200 hours’ unpaid work to be carried out within the next 12 months.
In a sentencing hearing at Glasgow High Court, he was also banned from driving for two years, reports the Daily Record.
He had earlier been convicted at trial at Dundee High Court of causing the death through careless driving of cyclist William Crawford, aged 54.
Mr Crawford died in hospital two days after McGregor crashed into him on the A913 Cupar to Newburgh road on the morning of 26 September 2019.
In mitigation at today’s hearing, John Scullion KC, defending McGregor, said: “There is no allegation of driving at excessive speed. He stopped at the scene and contacted emergency services. He has shown genuine remorse.”
Sentencing McGregor, Judge Gillian Wade KC said: “This has been a tragic case for all concerned particularly for the family of William Crawford, who have suffered his loss.
“I am prepared to accept that culpability was of a lower level and that I can deal with you by way of a non-custodial sentence.”
19 thoughts on “Community sentence for van driver convicted of killing cyclist”
What’s the difference between
What’s the difference between exceeding the speed limit and driving at excessive speed? Does it have to be way above the limit in order to be excessive? If you shoot someone with a pistol and kill them is that less of a crime than shooting them with a machine gun? If this driver had killed a person with anything other than a vehicle they would be in jail.
I assume it’s more the case
I assume it’s more the case that the speed limit for a given road, and a safe and sensible speed to drive down that road at are two totally separate things. See HC Rule 125.
For example, most NSL roads are NSL because they’re too remote to be worth properly assessing and NSL is the default for rural roads – not because it’s a good idea to actually drive on them at 60mph.
Case in point – I’ll attach a pic of my driveway at the end of the post. At the location in the pic, it technically doesn’t have a speed limit because it’s a private road, but about half a mile after this point, it becomes NSL. It doesn’t get any wider or better surfaced either. I’ve had some close calls on this road already.
I’m constantly getting into confrontations on the roads in rural Carmarthenshire because when I do drive, I stick to a safe speed on blind, winding, narrow roads – 40-45mph. Yet I usually have “locals” tailgating me, wanting to go faster “because it’s a 60 road”. But here’s the thing – 50% of all drives I’ve done since I’ve lived here, I’ve seen a crash – I promise you I’m not making it up. On three separate occasions, I’ve been overtaken by a local only to see their car sticking out of a hedge a few corners later. I’ve also seen a few people just lose it on bends because they’re going way too quick.
BalladOfStruth wrote:
Amen. And yet here in Scotland the bill to change the “default for urban roads” to 20mph was killed off because “a one-size fits all solution is not appropriate”… (slightly better news – we had commitments to have another go at this although it’s not the same as an actual change to the default).
But yes – MSL = Minimum speed limit / target for far too many people. I recall my driving instructor (who was excellent and pedantic about rules) warning me to “make progress” to demonstrate I’d understood the speed limit e.g. after it changed. Good advice for test passing but too easy to turn into a general principle. Hence the “but I’d be distracted by having to check my speed all the time!” complaint. It’s the notion that you have to sit exactly on that line. OK, 23 is too fast in a 20 but I can’t let it drop below 18…
chrisonatrike wrote:
I don’t understand the “one-size” argument. Currently the default is 30mph, so there’s already “one-size” and for roads that can safely have a faster maximum, they can just put some road signs up and override the default anyhow.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Me either. I’m not a skilled logician but if I recall correctly one (possibly more) of the folks on the committee which examined this apparently has a big interest in motoring. That may be the subtle logical rule we’re failing to apply here. The members from more rural places also didn’t go for it – you aren’t going to hear much said against the car in the expanses away from the central belt / big population centres.
The report had lots of “…mixed views … difference of opinion … very little demand for more 20mph speed limits in our towns and villages … blanket 20mph is certainly not needed…”
Surely the more rural members
Surely the more rural members wouldn’t even be affected by it.
I think you’re trying to use
I think you’re trying to use that “logic” thing again… or common sense. It won’t work, you know. Just imagine the following scenario – say you lived in a community of 50 houses and a community hall which doubles as a post office and part-time shop. All spread along a main road of say half-a-mile or so (some places here are spread out). There’s a sensible default limit of 30mph along this part of the road. Can’t you imagine how furious you’d be if some meddling urban type imposed a bonkers 20mph limit in some blanket application of clearly inappropriate rules, and you had to wait a year for the local authority process to go through to change it back to 30mph again?!
Me either.
I don’t know what the plan for the change-over was – it might be that they were only going to change the signs after a period where applications for alterations to defaults could be made etc.
chrisonatrike wrote:
literally had the conversation today with a work colleague (there was piece in the Mail about 20limits)and we were talking about it and they actually complained they didnt like driving that slow because they had to concentrate more.
Yeah that bugs me. Driving
Yeah that bugs me. Driving should be tiring. You should be at high concentration levels not treating your car as a lounge extension.
The same with my elderly
The same with my elderly parents – bingo list of why 20 mph limits are wrong:
1) uses more fuel
2) car not geared for it so more difficult to do
3) have to watch speedo so not looking at road
Fortunately with EVs, these fade away. But even an EV can’t reverse years of gammoning.
3) This nonsense has always
3) This nonsense has always interested me. Why 20, what is it about the magical 30, 40,50, 60 or 70 that allows the motorist to maintain and not exceed those speeds that doesn’t require them to constantly observe the speedo?
“I am prepared to accept that
“I am prepared to accept that culpability was of a lower level and that I can deal with you by way of a non-custodial sentence.”
Its okay Judge, the person killed was of a lower level too being just a cyclist.
Yes, the bloke did all the right things stopping and being sorry and all that, but in the end, due to their carelessness, someone died…. other people lost a son, a brother, a husband/partner, a dad, a granddad etc etc.
Surely. a life is worth more than 200 hours unpaid work?
Quote:
So he “failed to maintain proper observations and make suitable reactions to other people on the road” to the degree that he hit someone and killed them, but gets 200 hours’ community service.
Well, at least he won’t be doing any driving as part of that community service. And he does look like he could do with getting out from behind the wheel for a bit.
It’s interesting that you
It’s interesting that you comment on the size of the driver, (as does the only comment on the daily record site), does there come a point where this becomes a factor in someones ability to control thier vehicle and react unexpected situations in front of them, not the a bike should be unexpected, they are after all normally travelling along the road.
ie can the obsserve around them correctly, can they easily (and quickly) operate all the controls etc. bearing in mind that that the interior of the car is desgned for the “average person”.
Possibly, but I meant more
Possibly, but I meant more that someone in a sedentary occupation tends to put on weight due to lack of exercise. And ‘professional driver’ (taxis, HGV, etc) is sedentary.
I will never understand how
I will never understand how you can hit and kill a cyclist and not have been driving without due care and attention. The bar for concentration and aptitude to get behind the wheel of a car in this country is laughably low.
Its quite literally a case of “did you ram them intentionally and then reverse over them a few times to make sure” and if you don’t you can just plead ignorace.
Kills a guy through his negligent driving and get 5 weeks unpaid work and 2 years driving ban. For a life. For caring so little about concentrating when he is driving that he killed someone. Ruined a family. 5 weeks unpaid work and 2 years ban. Just astonishing.
And we wonder why people don’t give a shit about how they drive. We borderline encourage it.
That’s an appalling result.
That’s an appalling result. My sympathies are with the family of the victim.
I simply cannot understand
I simply cannot understand how 200 hours of “unpaid” work is the price of a human life.
Even from the business point of view a person in their, let say, 40s will work for ~20 years.
TWENTY YEARS OF UNPAID TAXES if this person dies. Can you imagine that? How the government doesn’t care about that? No wonder we have a black hole in our budget.
I have no problem with the
I have no problem with the imposition of a noncustodial sentence, putting non violent people in gaol serves little real purpose. The driving ban should be much much longer and driving bans need to always be partnered by a suspended prison sentence of a direct to gaol nature, of the same length as the ban.