A dangerous driver who had only passed his driving test weeks earlier caused a cyclist horrific injuries including a traumatic brain injury when he crashed into the rider having overtaken another motorist on a blind bend while travelling in excess of 60mph.
Finlay Paton, 20, was sentenced to community service for causing the “dreadful” crash back in June 2023, a reporter from the Cumnock Chronicle at Ayr Sheriff Court to hear how the newly qualified driver overtook another motorist “travelling in excess of 60mph” on a blind bend, hitting a female cyclist and “causing her to project into the air and land in a hedge”.
The rider’s injuries were extensive, Paton inflicting a traumatic brain injury, injuries to her shoulder and neck, and 5cm cuts to the back of her scalp. She required 32 days’ treatment at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, including on the major trauma ward after suffering from amnesia and confusion due to the traumatic brain injury.
Paton claimed he “never saw her” because “it was dark”, that despite a witness having reported the dangerous driver overtaking them on a blind bend on the A719 near Culzean while “travelling in excess of 60mph”. At sentencing, Paton’s lawyer, Robert Logan, claimed there had been visibility “problems” and “the root cause was trees”, even if “with these conditions, he could have driven more carefully”.
While Paton and his solicitor blamed that, a witness driving along the route at 2.30pm on the day of the crash was clear with their testimony. They had been “overtaken by the accused’s Corsa, at the point of a dip in the road, as he approached a blind bend corner described as travelling in excess of 60mph”.
The witness described the driving as “an accident waiting to happen” and recalled how having overtaken, Paton “collided with the rear of her bike causing her to project into the air, strike the vehicle and land in a hedge”. The driver stopped at the scene and said he had not seen the cyclist, although he ultimately pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and causing serious injury, permanent disfigurement and permanent impairment, his driving including overtaking where it was unsafe to do so, driving at excessive speed, failing to observe the cyclist and colliding with her.
Paton had only passed his driving test a few weeks before, the impact of his actions on the victim clear from the sentencing. The prosecutor explained how the cyclist spent a month in hospital before being released to a rehabilitation facility.
“She presented difficulties learning and difficulties recalling certain events,” the court heard. “During rehab, she required assistance with cognitive rehabilitation, memory recall, independent mobility, remembering dates, and functional activities like washing dishes.
“She still experiences difficulties but there has been some improvement. Cycling was her main hobby, she went on cycling holidays and described the effects [of the crash] as devastating.”
The defence solicitor Mr Logan claimed his client was “genuinely remorseful” and had not driven since the crash. Despite this, Mr Logan tried to blame “problems” with the road conditions on the day, claiming: “I’m familiar with the locus and it does cause problems. I understand the root cause was trees — with these conditions, he could have driven more carefully.”
Sheriff Mhari MacTaggart opted against a custodial sentence, instead ordering Paton to complete 280 hours of unpaid work as part of a three-year community payback order.
“I do not need to rehearse how dreadful that crash was,” she said. “When something like this happens in an instant, it is not just one life ruined. I have to think about the cyclist, but have decided not to take away your liberty. You will do unpaid work in the community and be on supervision. Any amount of money you could earn wouldn’t compensate. There will be no discount — the only discount is not going to jail.”






















36 thoughts on “Community service for dangerous driver who crashed into cyclist while overtaking another vehicle at 60mph on blind bend, causing traumatic brain injury”
no mention of points, or a
no mention of points, or a ban. or mandatory retest.
Quote:
… so in fact because some possible punishments wouldn’t be sufficient, they’ve ended up with … er … almost all the discounts?
OTOH if they actually do complete all this work, over a period of years that may offer some opportunities for them develop a bit? If only there was any chance of them being detected if they broke their driving ban…
I’m for alternatives to jail * but surely sometimes it’s appropriate though? Is it possible to do *both* (jail then community payback, with possibility of being returned to jail if conditions are broken)? I guess not?
Of course the justice system is more properly termed the legal system as it delivers … legal decisions.
* If only because under our current implementation of it the system is minimally rehabilitative and in fact likely to corrupt further.
the infamous grouse wrote:
I’ve just googled to see if any other reports mentioned a ban, but none do. I’m hoping that this is because there is some other court or system for banning drivers in Scotland, but I’m not confident. He should never be allowed to drive again.
Mr Logan is a lying bastard!!
Mr Logan is a lying bastard!!! This is very local to me and I have been driving and cycling that road for over 30 years and trees have never made me collide with anyone or anything. This is simply a case of not looking where he was going!
Mr Logan is a lying bastard!!
Mr Logan is a lying bastard!!!
Of course! That’s what he’s paid to do. The fault, as alluded to below, is with the court for not making the point publically that this is a ludicrous defence.
Perhaps he should have been
Perhaps he should have been ordered to contribute to her financially until she has fully recovered. So I guess, from the description of her injuries, for her entire life. Not gonna happen of course, but perhaps it should.
Last week I was out on a narrow lane, pulled over and stopped for a drink. Was passed by a shiny blue BMW doing about 50-60 and I thought then that if I hadn’t stopped I’d have been smeared over his bonnet at the blind bend just ahead…
Nearly got wiped out on
Nearly got wiped out on Sunday by an ar5e in an Audi less than 100m from my front door. The idiot overtook a group of cyclists going the other way on a blind bend, in a 30mph limit, managing to both close pass them and nearly wipe me out as the solo cyclist going the other way. And I got a w4nker sign for my trouble as he shot by.
“Avatar
“Avatar
“Perhaps he should have been ordered to contribute to her financially”
I fully agree. While the victim will presumably receive compensation via the perpetrators insurance. For convictions of deliberate acts such as dangerous and/or drink driving the insurers should be able to pursue the perp for financial loss. It must be the only crime you can insure yourself against.
“… the root cause was
“… the root cause was trees… “
If the cause was “trees” why not prosecute them?
No.
The root cause was the idiot driving dangerously and not to the conditions.
This was plainly an active choice by it.
Paton’s lawyer, Robert Logan, should be ashamed for using the trees as a defence or should have suggested to the criminal that they not try it.
But by not being admonished for it, they may try other ridiculous defences in the future.
Were the trees the cause of
Were the trees the cause of the roots, or the roots the cause of the trees? Either way, it’s not clear how either of them were relevant.
mitsky wrote:
Perhaps he felt it was a more dignified plea than blaming an inanimate object like “sun” – the position or simply the absense of it?
Agree – obvious choice for cause of crash would be something sentient like the
cardrivervictim.Absolutely disgraceful.
Absolutely disgraceful.
This sends out a message that it’s not that serious to drive dangerously and take risks, as long as you hit a cyclist and not another car.
Thats been the message
Thats been the message forever unfortunately.
Maybe I should said “..
Maybe I should said “…reinforces the message….”
Should have been jail time, a
Should have been jail time, a lengthy ban and an extended retest.
I hope the poor cyclist is at least adequately compensated financially for the damage this motorist has caused.
I think a better criminal
I think a better criminal punishment would be a life affecting £50k – £100k fine plus confiscation of the car.
Prison is too costly.
Prison needs to pay for
Prison needs to pay for itself. I would argue we ought to bring in forced labour.
Joined up thinking – combined
Joined up thinking – combined with privatised enforcement (like the PSPO-wardens) and prisons that contacted out labour the system could not just pay for itself, but turn a profit – growing every year!
In fact they could organise with the criminal groups to *only* get stimulant drugs smuggled in – even more work out!
Snark aside – what work could be forced which would make sufficient money to cover the costs of all the supervision by guards and QC (forced work is unlikely to promote quality – and maybe not even speed)? Of course, some countries have managed to make this happen with large chunks of their population. I don’t want to live in one of those countries.
There are many ‘work from
There are many ‘work from home’ jobs – perhaps jobs they are already qualified for – that they could easily do whilst incarcerated. All that is needed is a computer.
We are not talking hard labour chain gangs here.
Perhaps an alternative would be to have a system like student loans. Where a prisoner is given a loan to pay for their imposed stay, which they then make a contribution to paying back once they are released and get a job.
HoarseMann wrote:
Oh – I missed that? Have prisoners being “doing time from home” since the pandemic?
Actually – you could be on to something there. I work from home and I probably get out less than when I had to go in to an office every day. (That’s my own fault of course…)
I think the idea of “working from prison” remotely might be tricky in practice though. I suspect that the computers might not last long. And the old standby of “data entry” is probably now done far more effectively and efficiently by machine with very little human assistance. Do companies want their digital admin done by lags (recall the Shawshank Redemption)? Anyone up for prison call centres?
Ideally prison labour can help keep the costs of running the prison down (laundry, kitchen …) but I suspect a lot of the costs are just in the staff – who’d still be needed.
At least with traditional prison jobs like sewing mail bags, making road signs and Braille translation (the latter probably also migrating to machines?) the work can be QC’d and opportunities for mischief are less.
chrisonabike wrote:
Already a thing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-50003901
“Sorry, your call is held in
“Sorry, your call is held in a queue. Could be worse: we’re held in a cell…”
Sounds like they’ve some good programmes there – teaching bike repair and coffee-making, an excellent combination!
It costs around £55 kpa to
It costs around £55 kpa to keep a prisoner in jail.
Hopefully they would be employed as forced labour engineering managers, production managers, financial accountants or perhaps health and safety managers to meet this cost.
Unfortunately many offenders would not be qualified for such types of work.
A system of heavy fines and car confiscation would be a powerful deterrent ( imagine not being able to get a mortgage, a car, or go on holiday for 10 years) and would not add to the prison capacity problem, as well as contributing to the public purse.
Perhaps they could have
Perhaps they could have forced labour detective inspectors or prison governors? I guess many of those inside would have some knowledge of both the police and prisons systems and perhaps some novel insights…
A long term driving ban, 10
A long term driving ban, 10 years to life, backed up by a direct to jail suspended sentence for the entire length of the ban if caught behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. In my more retributive moods, the idea of the UK purchasing places for such people in a North Korean reeducation camp appeals.
The problem with drivers –
The problem with drivers – they aren’t outside
The problem with “criminal”
The problem with “criminal” drivers – they aren’t *inside*…
Not this case specifically,
Not this case specifically, but can someone explain to me how “I didn’t see them” is even considered a mitigating factor? We apparently have a responsibility to keep up to date with the HC and are supposed to prove we’re aware of it when taking a theory test. “I didn’t see them” is basically an admission that you were breaking rules 124-126 by travelling too fast for the prevailing conditions – “I didn’t see them” should make the sentence more severe.
Well obviously “I did see
Well obviously “I did see them” wouldn’t be mitigating, so the only way to go is “no crime at all because no mens rea” (and I believe this did work in the rather similar situation in the Helen Measures case) or mitigate with the Incompetence Defence (“terribly sorry … young and inexperienced driver … trees … sun ….”).
I realise that it’s
I realise that it’s considered an excuse in their mind because it sounds better than “I did see them, then drove straight into them anyway”, but I don’t understant why it’s accepted as a mitigating factor. “I couldn’t see the bit of road I intended to occupy, but I kept my right foot welded to the floor anyway” isn’t an excuse, it’s an admission of guilt because holding a UK driving licence means you’re aware of, and have committed to keeping up-to-date with a document that literally tells you not to do that.
In an industrial/corporate manslaughter/negligence context “Yeah, I totally ignored procedure” would be an aggrivating factor, not a mitigating one.
That story you linked brought my piss to the boil. We seriously need to consider swapping juries for panels of impartial experts in road crime trials. Most people drive, and most people drive badly, justice is stacked against the victim if the jury is made up of people that do what the defendant did day-in, day-out and just haven’t gotten “unlucky” yet.
BalladOfStruth wrote:
Agree, but sadly that driving licence is in practice something else … perhaps like a degree? Once you’ve got it, you’ve got it. It is important in that it confers status. But like the degree the knowledge and the skills will start to decay – mostly because you’re not practicing them to the same level every day. Indeed it’s quite likely (almost 100% in the case of the licence) that nobody will check you again. For most it becomes just an “entry ticket” – “driving licence – good, here’s your 4×4”.
Why? “Too many drivers to check…” – but that is in fact effectively the goal of the system. Make it so that the vast majority of adults get to drive.
Sure – some would likely be in favour of a higher barrier to driving. It would make *them* look better and perhaps bring their insurance down… I bet if it was seriously mooted we should make the test harder – to the point where a significant fraction don’t pass – or retest so people are getting nervous every e.g. 10 years – that would have people out with pitchforks. “Elitist” / “trapping the least priveledged in their homes” / “it’s my *right* to drive” etc…
While that one had a particularly unsympathetic protagonist, it is unfortunately far from the only one where “no fault by the driver” was eventually the verdict of the court, despite good evidence of utter recklessness or at least incompetence by the driver. This one didn’t even go to court – the police simply refused to recommend it go further.
Always remember your life is
Always remember your life is worthless the moment you sit on a bicycle.
Another joke sentence from
Another joke sentence from the Scottish court system. Even worse than the England and Wales one.
BLIND BEND
BLIND BEND
I hate the use of this term, a bend always has a radius & therefore a line of site. In some instances this line of site is shorter than others. The only thing that makes these bends “blind” is the drivers inabilty to stop in the distance they can see to be clear, ie they are driving to fast.
Agree (along with “fast road”
Agree (along with “fast road”…) BUT … unfortunately experiment has shown that what matters most is the MSL (Minimum Speed Limit) and people assume (despite common sense, Highway Code, lessons, reminders…) that this is the speed “for that road”.
And thus it is the fault of the designers / builders / infra.
There are subtleties as usual because “human behaviour” – and people tend to copy other people (or align with how they want to appear to others).
I also think this is mostly beyond the ability of “paint and signs” to fix – e.g. double-white no overtaking lines, “slow” signed and painted on road, even speed limit changes …
Of course a different way of looking at the problem might lead to a different solution – e.g. since many accidents occur due to overtaking into an oncoming lane, just ban it and ideally physically block it!
I also think this is mostly
I also think this is mostly beyond the ability of “paint and signs” to fix – e.g. double-white no overtaking lines, “slow” signed and painted on road…
It is when the police see it as their main mission to forgive drivers for just about any road traffic offence
https://upride.cc/incident/ku15ekc_royalmailbigvan_dwlcrossclosepass/