A judge told a County Down motorist who killed a cyclist he saw “no point” in jailing him as the maximum sentence meant he would be “out in six weeks.” William Lappin was instead sentenced to 100 hours community service and a 12-month driving ban for causing the death of Stephen Lynch by careless driving.
The BBC reports that Lynch, a father-of-five, died at the scene when he was hit by Lappin on the Bangor Road in Newtownards shortly before 5.50am on October 6, 2016.
A forensic accident investigator concluded that Lappin had struck the back wheel of the bike while travelling at around 50mph in the 70mph zone. There was no evidence that he had tried to brake prior to the impact.
While there was street lighting and Lynch had a light on the front of his bike, there was no rear light.
The accident investigator said Lappin would have had a view of Lynch’s bike from 62 metres, a distance he would have covered in 2.8 seconds.
Lappin told police he was blowing his nose at the time of the impact and didn’t see Lynch.
District Judge Mark Hamill said that given Lappin’s guilty plea, “in effect the maximum sentence is three months… even if I throw the book at him.”
He said: “What’s the point in sending a man like this to prison for three months? He will be out in six weeks. I’m just not going to do it. I may outrage the family, I don’t know, but I’m just not going to do it.”
Hamill added: “These cases are desperately, desperately sad, but the courts cannot turn the clock back to make things right.”
He said the case should serve as a warning of the dangers of inattention.
“Anybody in this court room who is a driver can be guilty of inattention, a moment of carelessness. Anyone could end up in the same position of Mr Lappin following a few seconds’ inattention.”
40 thoughts on “‘No point’ jailing driver who killed cyclist says judge”
I suppose at least it made it
I suppose at least it made it to court and the NI police didn’t just do a Gail Purcell on it?
But: a judge saying there’s no point in sending him to jail? Disgusting.
(No mandatory retest so he understands that blowing your nose while driving at speed can be a bad idea?)
idiot judge wrote:
Some community service isn’t going serve as much of a warning now, is it.
Oh, it could happen to anyone, a moment of inattention, so that’s all OK then… just like this guy I suppose, but the judge saw fit to sentence him more appropriately for taking someone’s life:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-42752149
Apparently the cyclist was
Apparently the cyclist was having to cycle to work as he had lost his driving licence as a result of a drink drive charge. Cycling that time of the morning on what is pretty much a motorway from Ards to Bangor for most locals was not sensible though. Having said that a cyclist died a little further down this carriageway last July in broad day light, be interesting to see how that driver is treated. Recent court decisions have been very lenient in Northern Ireland where cyclists have been killed by drivers.
Mackadoo wrote:
Is that definitely true? Cripes, what a hideous irony. Wonder if this driver will in turn take to cycling their commute now that they’ve been banned?
As the first post says, if
As the first post says, if this had happened in England it wouldn’t have even made to a courtroom.
How can the maximum sentence
How can the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving be only 3 months? That’s a licence to kill! That means you can hit anyone you like with your vehicle, claim you weren’t paying attention (blowing your nose) and the worst you can get is three months. That’s unbelievable.
…and…
…and…
A forensic accident investigator concluded that Lappin had struck the back wheel of the bike while travelling at around 50mph in the 70mph zone. There was no evidence that he had tried to brake prior to the impact.
SEVENTY MILE AN HOUR ZONE….?????? WTF???
It’s disgusting enough that cyclists should ever have to endure traffic at 50…!
70mph I always understood was for motorways only.
What kind of society entitles lethal machinery operators to behave like this?
A mass education programme OF the government should be imposed, as with he motor-using population (ditto for the UK).
Would need to cover some basic laws of physics, alongside the statistical evidence available as to the decreasing chances of surviving a collision with a heavy piece of machinery increases
with the speed of travel.
Those responsible for allowing death and maiming with the stupidity of speeds on narrow roads need some sense and reason banged into their heads.
emishi55 wrote:
70mph is the national speed limit on a dual carriageway. Cycling on a dual carriageway, while legal, is something that really should only be done if there’s no other road available as the speed differential between you and traffic is freighting.
emishi55 wrote:
Along with about 50% of drivers who are licensed and totally unaware that the national speed limit is 70 on dual carriageways and 60 on single carriageways.
The presence of a central barrier being the distinction.
And every weekend some cycling club somewhere will be organising a time trial on these roads. I just can’t understand it.
Back to the case in hand the contrast with the Charlie Allison case is truly shocking, tell me again why laws need to be revised to bring cyclists in line with drivers because currently we are getting off lightly.
wycombewheeler wrote:
The speed limit on either could be a low as 20mph.
And the limit varies with the vehicle used.
But on most dual carriageways
But on most dual carriageways the sight lines are excellent, there aren’t many exits/entrances and you have bags of time to get around slower moving vehicles even if that is someone doing 10mph.
Compare that to many NSL country roads which are unzsighted not only due to the twists and turns but hedges and trees as well as some sharp undulations. Why don’t we ban bicycles from these roads too whilst we’re at it? There’s a thread re banning time trails on the A63 outside Hull due to a cycling death in 2013 yet there have been many deaths on that stretch and many crashes due to motorists hitting other motorists despite it being a very easy road to drive safely due to wide lanes and good sight lines.
As per the norm of late, letting off motorists after they’ve killed someone just weakens our position ever further and they (government/police/judges) are too stupid to realise that this stance encourages more poor driving and basically forces certain road users away or if not endangers them further.
The only reason we have death by careless is because jurists that were primarily made up of uneducated motons would not give guilty verdicts because they did not see the act as being dangerous so the ‘system’ decided to relax the tariff/seriousness of killing someone. You fucking couldn’t make it up!
I hope that judges, plod, people at the top of the pile have a member of their family killed by a motorist and then they might actually act to prevent this madness from continuing and spiralling ever downward to unsafe roads.
This effects not just people on bikes but other motorists too.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
You’re right, but this incident occurred 2 hours before sunrise with no rear light, despite the presence of street lighting.
hughsain wrote:
Drive at a speed you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. This is in the HC, it’s hugely important because it means you won’t crash into unlit objects, fallen trees, animals, debris etc. This is precisely why CTC objected to compulsory rear lights for people on bikes in the 20s/30s.
Yes the cyclist didn’t have a light, however the driver should be driving at a speed that he can see to be clear by his own headlights and be able to stop well before the end of what they can see to be clear, this is a very clear statement that the police and pretty much everyone else ignores yet it’s one of the most important re safety.
Edit to add, this is the location of the incident, https://goo.gl/maps/KUqGVErpumT2 Bangor rd near the Somme Museum, there are overhead street lights too as mentioned in the article, the no lights on the bike is BS, this twat would have still killed him as he wasn’t looking and had clearly been speeding to be doing 50mph only metres after the 40mph sign and never braked at any point even when he would have been able to see him by the street lights and his headlights some distance ahead, 62metres ahead in fact and still did nothing.
This should have been death by dangerous and a 3-4 year sentence!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Not sure that link is right, as the 40 mph area is further up the road.
What was a cyclist thinking
🙁 What was a cyclist thinking being on a 70mph road at 5.50am in winter without a rear light 🙁
HLaB wrote:
Not sure it would have made a difference with a light.
I would have used the pavement.
hirsute wrote:
Actually it would as some lights are nice and bright.
The dual carriageways in my area have lots of entrances and exits, and while you can cycle on the pavement as it is a shared use path, every notw and then a brave cyclist will use the road. The fact that they are visible due to good lights and reflective clothing makes the difference in motorist behaviour. Also helps the roads are rarely empty so there is always a witness.
Incidentally because I’m in London, and lived in different parts,the dual carriageways lanes and speed limits change depending where they are. The main reason for the changes actually the width of the lanes not the risk to vulnerable road users. So while the shortest distance between A and B maybe on a dual carriageway you are better of taking a slightly longer route as you don’t have to content with traffic going above 30 mph.
Bluebug wrote:
I don’t think my previous post was very clear.
I was simply thinking if the driver was so inattentive due to blowing his nose, he may not have been looking at that point, so having a light would not make a difference.
hirsute wrote:
The difference is the driver might have saw them, they might not of but its still an extra chance that most people would take 🙁
he was struck about 30 metres
he was struck about 30 metres past the national speed limit sign, just af the end of the 40mph zone. I avoid it in daylight, never mind darkness, but as he was commuting there’s not many alternative routes, although if I had no rear light I would have ridden the footpath beside the dual carriageway’s hard shoulder. It’s all too easy to say from the comfort of my arm chair, if you’re trying to get to work you sometimes make the wrong decision, if you’re lucky the drivers around you are alert, if you’re unlucky and they’re texting or blowing their nose then…..
anyway thoughts to his family.
What’s really sad about this
What’s really sad about this is that there’s a disused railway line running more or less parallel to this road. If that was converted to a good cycleway, the cyclist would probably have been on there instead, and Mr “I happened to sneeze just at the most convenient time for my defence” would still be driving around with his head up his arse.
Quote:
FFTFFY, your honour.
And thus, satire dies in a messy pool of blood, fragments of bone and brain matter; beaten to death by a gavel.
A dual carriageway just
A dual carriageway just before 6am in October without a rear light?
It’s business Dignitas would be interested in.
Anyone with half a brain wouldn’t do it.
Hard sentencing decision
Hard sentencing decision those moments of inattention that lead to tragedy. Outrage Road.cc have shamefully chosen to omit a key consideration from the BBC article: “The court heard a passer-by at the scene had asked Lappin if he was okay, but he replied: “I will never be alright, I killed that man.”
fustuarium wrote:
So he’s not jailed because he’s shown remorse from the time the incident happened.
Incidentally if you go into court rooms you will frequently find that those who admit guilt but especially if they show remorse to the judge/magistrate get lighter sentences. However that doesn’t make good press stories. Even worse for the press if the person then spends a good part of the rest of their life campaigning for safety improvements or awareness of the issue.
Bluebug wrote:
Showed remorse or feared for his insurance? What you seem to suggest, and it’s supported by this case and the appalling shit heaped on Alliston, is provided a killer makes the expected comments and greets to order, that’s dandy and we should pat him on the head and send him away. Accompanied by meaningless nonsense about the dangers of inattention. Because judging by this case there are none if you’re a driver and know the script.
oldstrath wrote:
Showed remorse or feared for his insurance? What you seem to suggest, and it’s supported by this case and the appalling shit heaped on Alliston, is provided a killer makes the expected comments and greets to order, that’s dandy and we should pat him on the head and send him away. Accompanied by meaningless nonsense about the dangers of inattention. Because judging by this case there are none if you’re a driver and know the script.— fustuarium
Alliston didn’t play the justice system.
If he admitted guilt for ANY cycling offence BEFORE it went to trial and the CPS agreed, or if just before the trial started he admitted guilt for dangerous cycling then his sentence would have been much less. If he had written a letter of apology to the pedestrian’s family, copied to the judge his sentence would have been even lighter.
Unless this driver lies, once his ban expires, no normal insurer would want to touch him. Killing or seriously injuring someone is very expensive for insurers. Unfortunately not having a rear light means the insurers can fight and probably win in giving the cyclist’s family less compensation.
Bluebug wrote:
Showed remorse or feared for his insurance? What you seem to suggest, and it’s supported by this case and the appalling shit heaped on Alliston, is provided a killer makes the expected comments and greets to order, that’s dandy and we should pat him on the head and send him away. Accompanied by meaningless nonsense about the dangers of inattention. Because judging by this case there are none if you’re a driver and know the script.
— Bluebug Alliston didn’t play the justice system. If he admitted guilt for ANY cycling offence BEFORE it went to trial and the CPS agreed, or if just before the trial started he admitted guilt for dangerous cycling then his sentence would have been much less. If he had written a letter of apology to the pedestrian’s family, copied to the judge his sentence would have been even lighter.— fustuarium
Which is kind of my point. It’s not about punishing or deterring stupidly bad driving, it’s just about getting the killer to make the right noises. I strongly suspect the incidence of “inattention” would fall dramatically if we simply said that anyone who causes a death with a motor vehicle will go to jail for a long time, and never be permitted a licence again.
Well if his remorse were real none of that would bother him. I’m sure he’ll find a way round it though.
oldstrath wrote:
It may be worth you understanding how the justice system works. It is not only about punishment. You can’t keep people locked up forever, and in cases of bad driving if you take away people’s driving licences permanently they will just drive illegally. (In fact some people do already.) Plus not everyone who says they remorseful about their crimes is lying.
Bluebug wrote:
I agree entirely; any system of criminal justice that panders to desires for punishment alone does little more than aspire to barbarism. But deterrance, both general and specific, prevention and rehabilitation – which are hallmarks of a civilised criminal justice system – seemed to have been far from the judge’s mind when he passed down sentencing. And that’s what sticks so sorely in the craw.
Argos74 wrote:
I agree entirely; any system of criminal justice that panders to desires for punishment alone does little more than aspire to barbarism. But deterrance, both general and specific, prevention and rehabilitation – which are hallmarks of a civilised criminal justice system – seemed to have been far from the judge’s mind when he passed down sentencing. And that’s what sticks so sorely in the craw.— Bluebug
How would that act as a deterrent?
There have been other cases where cyclists have ridden on fast roads in the dark with no lights (let alone a rear one), have been killed, and the drivers haven’t even been prosecuted.
If you cycle without both lights then if anyone hits you for any reason expect them not to face anything – not even a trial.
Bluebug wrote:
Showed remorse or feared for his insurance? What you seem to suggest, and it’s supported by this case and the appalling shit heaped on Alliston, is provided a killer makes the expected comments and greets to order, that’s dandy and we should pat him on the head and send him away. Accompanied by meaningless nonsense about the dangers of inattention. Because judging by this case there are none if you’re a driver and know the script.
— Bluebug Alliston didn’t play the justice system. If he admitted guilt for ANY cycling offence BEFORE it went to trial and the CPS agreed, or if just before the trial started he admitted guilt for dangerous cycling then his sentence would have been much less. If he had written a letter of apology to the pedestrian’s family, copied to the judge his sentence would have been even lighter.— oldstrath
Which is kind of my point. It’s not about punishing or deterring stupidly bad driving, it’s just about getting the killer to make the right noises. I strongly suspect the incidence of “inattention” would fall dramatically if we simply said that anyone who causes a death with a motor vehicle will go to jail for a long time, and never be permitted a licence again.
Well if his remorse were real none of that would bother him. I’m sure he’ll find a way round it though.
— Bluebug It may be worth you understanding how the justice system works. It is not only about punishment. You can’t keep people locked up forever, and in cases of bad driving if you take away people’s driving licences permanently they will just drive illegally. (In fact some people do already.) Plus not everyone who says they remorseful about their crimes is lying.— fustuarium
I thought deterring people from criminality was the point? Which there is no attempt here to do.
Why is removing the privilege of driving permanently different from removing it temporarily, ss in this instance. Surely if people intend to drive illegally they will do so in either case?
I imagine some people, possibly including this one, are genuinely remorseful. But remorsefulness surely requires more than a few words and sobs, it cannot properly be tested by a court, and should motivate this guy, at least, to abandon driving permanently. Which it clearly rarely does, otherwise we wouldn’t be concerned with the futility of lifetime “bans”.
Bluebug]
Whilst many will they are risking jail, which for many others is a deterrent. However surely the courts must have the power to remove the right to drive from anyone who is deemed to be irresponsible in charge of a vehicle.
fustuarium wrote:
It’s not a moments inattention though is it. he never braked at all, this means he might as well have had his eyes shut over the 3 seconds in which he covered the 62 metres, that isn’t a moment of inattention at all so this dangerous driver got off for not doing the most basic of requirements of a driver and the judge/jury etc all fell into line with the motorists line of thinking and fuck anyone else who gets in the way!
I hope he lives a life of misery and people hating him, he deserves nothing less and no sympathy whatsoever.
fustuarium wrote:
Why is this a ” key consideration “? Anyone can fake repentance. If he throws away his car keys and never drives again then fine, otherwise it’s just another bullshit excuse for letting off a killer.
oldstrath wrote:
Why is this a ” key consideration “? Anyone can fake repentance. If he throws away his car keys and never drives again then fine, otherwise it’s just another bullshit excuse for letting off a killer.— fustuarium
That’s how the courts work in this country.
Admit guilt and show remorse, and if you haven’t done it before (or more likely in some cases been prosecuted with it before) you get a lighter sentence.
Presumably the cyclist was
Presumably the cyclist was presumed innocent until it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that he did not have any rear light that could have been detached and thrown clear of the scene in a 50mph collision.
Presumably the cyclist was
Presumably the cyclist was presumed innocent until it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that he did not have any rear light that could have been detached and thrown clear of the scene in a 50mph collision.
Let’s put it this way, if
Let’s put it this way, if what he struck was a broken down vehicle whose lights had failed and people were sitting inside the vehicle he would have still smashed into that and likely killed or seriously injured the occupents. The charges and sentencing would have been oh so different then!
He was so distracted (sneeze my arse) that he saw absolutely nothing for at least three whole seconds before the impact as he did not brake. This evidence alone proves he was a danger to anyone lights or not as it was stated he would have been able to see the cyclist but did absolutely nothing.
Yet another travesty of ‘justice’!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
You mean like the Glasgow bin lorry crash where 6 pedestrians where killed?
People do sneeze, cough, blow their noses, throw up and pass out while driving. Some of these actions then do cause harm to others whether they are vulnerable road users or other motorists e.g. motorway pile ups, and whether the driver gets a conviction or not in each case depends on the individual circumstances.