Death-crash driver's tracker used as evidence against him.
Discussion
3 prior bans and now this. As well as a custodial sentence he deserves to lose his licence for life imo.
scotsman.com said:
Death-crash driver broke speed limits 80 times
A SPEEDING driver who fatally injured two women pedestrians was found to have flouted speed limits at least 80 times in a 4x4 vehicle in the weeks before the deaths.
James Clunie was driving a Land Rover Discovery when he collided with Jane MacDonald and Abby Hucknall at a crossing point as they made their way to a supermarket to buy groceries.
Clunie, 36, who had previous convictions for speeding offences and had been banned, was supplied with the vehicle as a replacement provided through his insurance company.
The 4x4 was fitted with a tracker device which monitored its speed, and data revealed that in the five weeks he had it before the fatal crash, he drove at speeds of up to 115mph and at more than treble the speed limit in a residential area in a village.
A judge at the High Court in Edinburgh yesterday told Clunie: “It is plain I have been given a description of utterly shocking conduct.”
Lord Turnbull told him: “You have a significant record of prior offending under the road traffic legislation and other convictions which demonstrate a surprising breadth of anti-social conduct never to have resulted in a custodial sentence.
“It is clear that over a period of more than a month before this incident, you consistently drove in a truly shocking manner that involved driving in the dark at speeds of up to 115mph and on one occasion at least at a speed of 72mph in a residential area with a speed limit of 20mph.”
Clunie, a mechanic, of Laurel Crescent, Kirkcaldy, admitted causing the death of mother-of-three Ms MacDonald, 37, and Ms Hucknall, 18, by careless driving on 27 November, 2012, after driving at excessive speed in the Fife town’s Dunnikier Way.
He had originally faced a charge of causing their deaths by dangerous driving, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. The charge to which he pled guilty carries a maximum term of five years.
Clunie also admitted driving dangerously on various occasions between 25 October and 27 November, 2012, by driving at grossly excessive speed at various locations in Fife, including Kirkcaldy, East Wemyss, at the A92 at Cowdenbeath and Cardenden and on the M8 motorway in North Lanarkshire.
The court heard that he had been banned from the road on three previous occasions and had his licence endorsed for speeding and using a hand-held mobile phone while driving.
Defence counsel Brian McConnachie, QC, said: “This is a case where, clearly, in light of the circumstances, a custodial sentence is inevitable.”
Lord Turnbull rejected a move to continue Clunie’s bail ahead of sentencing.
He adjourned the case until • December at the High Court in Glasgow for the preparation of a background report.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/death-crash-driver-broke-speed-limits-80-times-1-3592970A SPEEDING driver who fatally injured two women pedestrians was found to have flouted speed limits at least 80 times in a 4x4 vehicle in the weeks before the deaths.
James Clunie was driving a Land Rover Discovery when he collided with Jane MacDonald and Abby Hucknall at a crossing point as they made their way to a supermarket to buy groceries.
Clunie, 36, who had previous convictions for speeding offences and had been banned, was supplied with the vehicle as a replacement provided through his insurance company.
The 4x4 was fitted with a tracker device which monitored its speed, and data revealed that in the five weeks he had it before the fatal crash, he drove at speeds of up to 115mph and at more than treble the speed limit in a residential area in a village.
A judge at the High Court in Edinburgh yesterday told Clunie: “It is plain I have been given a description of utterly shocking conduct.”
Lord Turnbull told him: “You have a significant record of prior offending under the road traffic legislation and other convictions which demonstrate a surprising breadth of anti-social conduct never to have resulted in a custodial sentence.
“It is clear that over a period of more than a month before this incident, you consistently drove in a truly shocking manner that involved driving in the dark at speeds of up to 115mph and on one occasion at least at a speed of 72mph in a residential area with a speed limit of 20mph.”
Clunie, a mechanic, of Laurel Crescent, Kirkcaldy, admitted causing the death of mother-of-three Ms MacDonald, 37, and Ms Hucknall, 18, by careless driving on 27 November, 2012, after driving at excessive speed in the Fife town’s Dunnikier Way.
He had originally faced a charge of causing their deaths by dangerous driving, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. The charge to which he pled guilty carries a maximum term of five years.
Clunie also admitted driving dangerously on various occasions between 25 October and 27 November, 2012, by driving at grossly excessive speed at various locations in Fife, including Kirkcaldy, East Wemyss, at the A92 at Cowdenbeath and Cardenden and on the M8 motorway in North Lanarkshire.
The court heard that he had been banned from the road on three previous occasions and had his licence endorsed for speeding and using a hand-held mobile phone while driving.
Defence counsel Brian McConnachie, QC, said: “This is a case where, clearly, in light of the circumstances, a custodial sentence is inevitable.”
Lord Turnbull rejected a move to continue Clunie’s bail ahead of sentencing.
He adjourned the case until • December at the High Court in Glasgow for the preparation of a background report.
From another source.
"Collision investigators concluded the Land Rover was travelling at least at 52mph at the start of emergency braking which left tyre marks on the road. The speed limit in the area was 40 mph.
Mr Scullion said: "It is accepted by the accused that the extra speed patently reduced his ability to react and increased the speed at which the impact occurred.
"It is accepted by the Crown that albeit it was dark, the Land Rover was appropriately lit; that the deceased crossed against a 'red man' and that the deceased would have been in the roadway for between 0.5 and 1.5 seconds, depending upon whether they were walking or running." "
52 in a 40, pedestrians walked/ran out in front of him leaving him not a lot of time to react. I'm not condoning him but without the insurance tracker would he be facing the same charge?
"Collision investigators concluded the Land Rover was travelling at least at 52mph at the start of emergency braking which left tyre marks on the road. The speed limit in the area was 40 mph.
Mr Scullion said: "It is accepted by the accused that the extra speed patently reduced his ability to react and increased the speed at which the impact occurred.
"It is accepted by the Crown that albeit it was dark, the Land Rover was appropriately lit; that the deceased crossed against a 'red man' and that the deceased would have been in the roadway for between 0.5 and 1.5 seconds, depending upon whether they were walking or running." "
52 in a 40, pedestrians walked/ran out in front of him leaving him not a lot of time to react. I'm not condoning him but without the insurance tracker would he be facing the same charge?
Spangles said:
From another source.
"Collision investigators concluded the Land Rover was travelling at least at 52mph at the start of emergency braking which left tyre marks on the road. The speed limit in the area was 40 mph.
Mr Scullion said: "It is accepted by the accused that the extra speed patently reduced his ability to react and increased the speed at which the impact occurred.
"It is accepted by the Crown that albeit it was dark, the Land Rover was appropriately lit; that the deceased crossed against a 'red man' and that the deceased would have been in the roadway for between 0.5 and 1.5 seconds, depending upon whether they were walking or running." "
52 in a 40, pedestrians walked/ran out in front of him leaving him not a lot of time to react. I'm not condoning him but without the insurance tracker would he be facing the same charge?
Possibly the same charge but a different sentence."Collision investigators concluded the Land Rover was travelling at least at 52mph at the start of emergency braking which left tyre marks on the road. The speed limit in the area was 40 mph.
Mr Scullion said: "It is accepted by the accused that the extra speed patently reduced his ability to react and increased the speed at which the impact occurred.
"It is accepted by the Crown that albeit it was dark, the Land Rover was appropriately lit; that the deceased crossed against a 'red man' and that the deceased would have been in the roadway for between 0.5 and 1.5 seconds, depending upon whether they were walking or running." "
52 in a 40, pedestrians walked/ran out in front of him leaving him not a lot of time to react. I'm not condoning him but without the insurance tracker would he be facing the same charge?
Spangles said:
52 in a 40, pedestrians walked/ran out in front of him leaving him not a lot of time to react. I'm not condoning him but without the insurance tracker would he be facing the same charge?
On the other hand, and I'm playing devil's advocate to a degree, but here we have an utterly shocking driver who a) it's taken a tracker and the death of two people before possibly facing a proper punishment, and b) an insurance company still covered him (on a mechanics wages?) and even gave him a 4x4 to go and drive badly with.ging84 said:
many people on here have been on speed awareness courses for doing 52 in a 40
maybe they should have been given 5 years instead
That's probably why the CPS went with a guilty plea on the lesser charge. Had he have done this whilst doing 72mph in a 20 one imagines they would not have complied.maybe they should have been given 5 years instead
Spangles said:
From another source.
"Collision investigators concluded the Land Rover was travelling at least at 52mph at the start of emergency braking which left tyre marks on the road. The speed limit in the area was 40 mph.
Mr Scullion said: "It is accepted by the accused that the extra speed patently reduced his ability to react and increased the speed at which the impact occurred.
"It is accepted by the Crown that albeit it was dark, the Land Rover was appropriately lit; that the deceased crossed against a 'red man' and that the deceased would have been in the roadway for between 0.5 and 1.5 seconds, depending upon whether they were walking or running." "
52 in a 40, pedestrians walked/ran out in front of him leaving him not a lot of time to react. I'm not condoning him but without the insurance tracker would he be facing the same charge?
Death by careless?"Collision investigators concluded the Land Rover was travelling at least at 52mph at the start of emergency braking which left tyre marks on the road. The speed limit in the area was 40 mph.
Mr Scullion said: "It is accepted by the accused that the extra speed patently reduced his ability to react and increased the speed at which the impact occurred.
"It is accepted by the Crown that albeit it was dark, the Land Rover was appropriately lit; that the deceased crossed against a 'red man' and that the deceased would have been in the roadway for between 0.5 and 1.5 seconds, depending upon whether they were walking or running." "
52 in a 40, pedestrians walked/ran out in front of him leaving him not a lot of time to react. I'm not condoning him but without the insurance tracker would he be facing the same charge?
Yes he would potentially be facing the same charge.
This is a classic example of why road safety needs to come from all angles.
This guy is clearly a knob for travelling routinely at such speeds and is being rightly punished......but at the same time, the pedestrians also made an error in judgement crossing against a red man.
Had the guy been driving within the speed limit, the outcome could have still been fatal had the pedestrians still crossed on a red man in front of a vehicle doing 40.
On the flip side, had the pedestrians obeyed the crossing signal, they would still be alive regardless of the speed of the vehicle.
I am in no way condoning his actions - but this incident clearly had more than one contributory element to it.
This guy is clearly a knob for travelling routinely at such speeds and is being rightly punished......but at the same time, the pedestrians also made an error in judgement crossing against a red man.
Had the guy been driving within the speed limit, the outcome could have still been fatal had the pedestrians still crossed on a red man in front of a vehicle doing 40.
On the flip side, had the pedestrians obeyed the crossing signal, they would still be alive regardless of the speed of the vehicle.
I am in no way condoning his actions - but this incident clearly had more than one contributory element to it.
Moonhawk said:
This is a classic example of why road safety needs to come from all angles.
This guy is clearly a knob for travelling routinely at such speeds and is being rightly punished......but at the same time, the pedestrians also made an error in judgement crossing against a red man.
Had the guy been driving within the speed limit, the outcome could have still been fatal had the pedestrians still crossed on a red man in front of a vehicle doing 40.
On the flip side, had the pedestrians obeyed the crossing signal, they would still be alive regardless of the speed of the vehicle.
I am in no way condoning his actions - but this incident clearly had more than one contributory element to it.
Very few collisions involving more than one party are 100% v 0% blame.This guy is clearly a knob for travelling routinely at such speeds and is being rightly punished......but at the same time, the pedestrians also made an error in judgement crossing against a red man.
Had the guy been driving within the speed limit, the outcome could have still been fatal had the pedestrians still crossed on a red man in front of a vehicle doing 40.
On the flip side, had the pedestrians obeyed the crossing signal, they would still be alive regardless of the speed of the vehicle.
I am in no way condoning his actions - but this incident clearly had more than one contributory element to it.
He will be dealt with for the part he played, he is at liberty to use the part of others as mitigation, though he isn't in strong position for mitigation to help him much with his antecedents.
BlackLabel said:
My guess is that he is the type of scofflaw for whom a ban means 
all.He would probably carry on driving regardless.
Spangles said:
From another source.
"It is accepted by the Crown that albeit it was dark, the Land Rover was appropriately lit; that the deceased crossed against a 'red man' and that the deceased would have been in the roadway for between 0.5 and 1.5 seconds, depending upon whether they were walking or running." "
52 in a 40, pedestrians walked/ran out in front of him leaving him not a lot of time to react. I'm not condoning him but without the insurance tracker would he be facing the same charge?
But isn't it true that when driving a vehicle, when there is a green light present the driver should only proceed if it is safe to do so? Motorists should pay particular attention when near ped crossings, as it is danger spot. "It is accepted by the Crown that albeit it was dark, the Land Rover was appropriately lit; that the deceased crossed against a 'red man' and that the deceased would have been in the roadway for between 0.5 and 1.5 seconds, depending upon whether they were walking or running." "
52 in a 40, pedestrians walked/ran out in front of him leaving him not a lot of time to react. I'm not condoning him but without the insurance tracker would he be facing the same charge?
What is clear, though, is that there really should be sentences where a lifetime driving ban is part of the penalty.
rambo19 said:
BlackLabel said:
Spangles said:
52 in a 40, pedestrians walked/ran out in front of him leaving him not a lot of time to react. I'm not condoning him but without the insurance tracker would he be facing the same charge?
That's a fair point.What is the point of the red man.
vonhosen said:
Moonhawk said:
I am in no way condoning his actions - but this incident clearly had more than one contributory element to it.
Very few collisions involving more than one party are 100% v 0% blame. Given the data from the tracker it's not difficult to imagine friends, family and colleagues and those in the locale that had witnessed his driving to utter 'He's going to kill someone driving like that.'
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff