Killer driver walks free

sbullett · May 2007

Sorry, but she's got to go to jail for this.

The basic cause of the incident has nothing to do with shoes, it is that she was indulging in "let's see what it'll do" style driving, while in a busy 30mph zone. This indicates a complete lack of thought as to the possible consequences of her actions.

Jail should only be for people who pose a danger to the public - I think this meets that criteria amply. Sending poeple to jail for failing to pay fines is a waste of moeny and time - far better to get doing something constructuve in the community, but not appropriate when you are a killer.

As for the driving ban - useless, check out the court reports in any local paper to see how many people are caught for driving while banned, and the pitifully low penalties they get.

If you kill someone as a result of not abeying the law you should be jailed, end of argument.

eternal_headwind · May 2007

The attempted suicide does indicate the driver herself does not feel adequately punished.
Perhaps a few years in one of her majesty's compulsory hotels would help her own state of mind

srw647 · May 2007

I'm fascinated by the rubbish that's been written here.
"Two previous bans" -- no. Two fixed-penalty notices.
"Driving ban - useless" -- no. The suspended sentence means that if (as many do) she's caught driving while banned she'll go to jail.
"Three strikes and she's out" -- no. That's not British law. She's convicted on the basis of one offence, not on her history.

It feels like there's an awful lot of manufactured outrage simply because the victim was a cyclist. If it had been a pedestrian, a horse-rider or another driver I'd have expected none of this stuff on this forum.

Having said that, yes, I think the sentence was too light. But then I'm not a lawyer so I'm not the best person to be commenting on the appropriateness of the sentence.

srw647 · May 2007

Originally posted by srw647

I'm fascinated by the rubbish that's been written here.
"Two previous bans" -- no. Two fixed-penalty notices.
"Driving ban - useless" -- no. The suspended sentence means that if (as many do) she's caught driving while banned she'll go to jail.
"Three strikes and she's out" -- no. That's not British law. She's convicted on the basis of one offence, not on her history.
Eat my dust -- your mate "slapped someone about a bit"? That's called assault and he deserved his sentence.
bobbyp -- you've overlooked the point that she's been proved not worthy of being allowed to drive and that privilege has been removed.

It feels like there's an awful lot of manufactured outrage simply because the victim was a cyclist. If it had been a pedestrian, a horse-rider or another driver I'd have expected none of this stuff on this forum.

Having said that, yes, I think the sentence was too light. But then I'm not a lawyer so I'm not the best person to be commenting on the appropriateness of the sentence. I'm also not revolted. A little surprised, disappointed, annoyed, but I reserve revulsion for other things.

rothbook · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> It feels like there's an awful lot of manufactured outrage simply because the victim was a cyclist. If it had been a pedestrian, a horse-rider or another driver I'd have expected none of this stuff on this forum. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

There's a clue as to why that may well be true.

Check out what this site's actually called....

linfordlunchbox · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by srw647

I'm fascinated by the rubbish that's been written here.
"Two previous bans" -- no. Two fixed-penalty notices.
"Driving ban - useless" -- no. The suspended sentence means that if (as many do) she's caught driving while banned she'll go to jail.
"Three strikes and she's out" -- no. That's not British law. She's convicted on the basis of one offence, not on her history.

It feels like there's an awful lot of manufactured outrage simply because the victim was a cyclist. If it had been a pedestrian, a horse-rider or another driver I'd have expected none of this stuff on this forum.

Having said that, yes, I think the sentence was too light. But then I'm not a lawyer so I'm not the best person to be commenting on the appropriateness of the sentence.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

For the most part, it is well justified, but you go to any horseriding site, and most car sites, and you will see exactly the same types of posts.
One or two though seem to have a real detachment from reason.

I think the description you are looking for is 'impotent rage' [:D]

"I'd clean my car with a baby elephant - if I had a baby elephant !"

rothbook · May 2007

The same judge that let this killer driver go free sent someone else to prison for nicking mobiles.

I think if I were related to Debbie Riches, the cyclist who died, I'd feel pretty upset too.

bad company · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

The same judge that let this killer driver go free sent someone else to prison for nicking mobiles.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I guess the thinking is that one crime showed intent and the death was clearly an accident albeit as a result of negligence.

I AM THE STIG - HONEST

Mister Paul · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by srw647

Originally posted by srw647

I'm fascinated by the rubbish that's been written here.
"Three strikes and she's out" -- no. That's not British law. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

who said that it was?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by srw647

It feels like there's an awful lot of manufactured outrage simply because the victim was a cyclist. If it had been a pedestrian, a horse-rider or another driver I'd have expected none of this stuff on this forum.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No, you're wrong. note the thread today about the lollipop man. It's just that cyclist killing is mentioned here more because this is a cycling forum, obviously. You'll find that cyclists, pedestrians and riders are all people.

__________________________________________________________
Road Safety Expert

BoydJ · May 2007

B-C - The tragically forseeable outcome of a deliberate breaking of the law is NOT an "accident".

Craggycp · May 2007

I bet the man sent down for 5 years for the Selby train crash wish he had this judge on his case. Comments like:

"She was guilty of fault, not deliberate wickedness - the fault of serious negligence with terrible and disproportionate results."

seem applicable in his case too, but the sentencing was a bit different.

Tourist Tony · May 2007

Withe regard to the idea of the anger on this thread coming out because it was a cyclist, I suggest that you look back at some of the threads regarding the death of pedestrians, Remember the outrage expressed here at the comment elsewhere about getting your mother to teach you to cross the road properly? No? Thought not.

With regard to the terrible consequences, here we have a major difference of opinion. Many of us here regard such behaviour as that of the idiot at Selby and this idiot woman as being the exact equivalent of running down a busy street wildly waving a sword. The difference is that death resulting from one is seen as a result of criminal lunacy, while as soon as a car gets involved it becomes "unfortunate".

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Mister Paul · May 2007

Not forgetting of course our little occasional visitor who thinks that some organisations are more deserving than others of having letter bombs sent to them. And he's from the kitten stroking site of love.

__________________________________________________________
Road Safety Expert

jamesAC · May 2007

Our local paper reported http://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/content/newham/recorder/news/story.aspx?brand=RECOnline&category=newsNEWHAM&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsnewham&itemid=WeED23%20May%202007%2016%3A35%3A24%3A973 this week.

I don't understand why such people are not banged up for years, and banned for life.

If I had a baby whelk, could I take it for a walk?

jamesAC

The Bosscp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist Tony

Withe regard to the idea of the anger on this thread coming out because it was a cyclist, I suggest that you look back at some of the threads regarding the death of pedestrians, Remember the outrage expressed here at the comment elsewhere about getting your mother to teach you to cross the road properly? No? Thought not.

With regard to the terrible consequences, here we have a major difference of opinion. Many of us here regard such behaviour as that of the idiot at Selby and this idiot woman as being the exact equivalent of running down a busy street wildly waving a sword. The difference is that death resulting from one is seen as a result of criminal lunacy, while as soon as a car gets involved it becomes "unfortunate".

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The crucial difference is that the purpose of a sword by design is as a weapon, whereas a car isn't meant to be used as a weapon.
Therefore if someone's waving a sword wildly, it can only be because they have designs on causing death or injury, therefore obviously are a criminal lunatic. The desire to get from A to B does not carry the same implications of criminal lunacy*.

*It doesn't mean they're not, though...

rothbook · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Therefore if someone's waving a sword wildly, it can only
be because they have designs on causing death or injury <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Not at all, swords are often used ceremoniously- cossacks and sword dancing for instance.

If, however , someone acted stupidly reckllessly with a sword they'd get a harsher punishment than a driver who has done exactly the same thing!

Driving at 50 in a 30 zone means that anyone you hist is very likely to die, Hunter should have been convicted of mansalughter.

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

Hunter should have been convicted of mansalughter.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Please explain how, with reference to the legal definition of manslaughter.

rothbook · May 2007

"Please explain how"

Idiot killers like Hunter will face manslaughter charges when the law changes.

natureboyz · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

"Please explain how"

Idiot killers like Hunter will face manslaughter charges when the law changes.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

When does the law change regarding the definition of manslaughter?

rothbook · May 2007

Plus, if Hunter had driven off after killing Ms Riches, she'd only have faced a magistrate's court. This is utterly wrong, some drivers leave people dying in the road and get a slapped wrist.

natureboyz · May 2007

When does the law change regarding the definition of manslaughter?
Please.

The Bosscp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Therefore if someone's waving a sword wildly, it can only
be because they have designs on causing death or injury <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Not at all, swords are often used ceremoniously- cossacks and sword dancing for instance.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Codswallop, flower - and you know it. Javelin throwers in the olympics aren't intending to injure anybody, yet the fundamental purpose of the javelin, the reason why it was invented in the first place, is as a method of attack in war. Same as the sword. The fundamental reason for the invention of the wheel is to get from A to B.
You can't nudge the argument out of my winning track by flouncing out some trumped-up diversion of cossacks.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

If, however , someone acted stupidly reckllessly with a sword they'd get a harsher punishment than a driver who has done exactly the same thing!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
But if as you say swords are valid e.g. for cossacks, then why would the penalty be harsher?

Simon L2 · May 2007

Once again...this woman was unlucky. She took a risk that she'd taken before, and that others have taken a million times, but, on this occasion, she killed someone.

She should be sent to jail for being unlucky. It's that simple. Bad luck should be punished. It'll make the rest of us concentrate a bit on lowering the odds.

rothbook · May 2007

She didn't drive at nearly twice the limit accidently. It was no accident. Do you have a log in at crapspeed boss? Do me a favour and ask that strange man with the coloured-in graphs what his qualifications are? I've tried and he deleted the question and banned me. Must be shy.

rothbook · May 2007

Busted twice for speeding, and then driving an unfamiliar car at 50 in a 30
zone is, to my mind, sufficient evidence. She's a sociopathic moron who
thinks she can do as she likes. I don't see how a slap on the wrist is in
any way commensurate. 50 isn't "a little bit over", it's *excessive* - doing
that after two tellings is unacceptable.

The Bosscp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

She didn't drive at nearly twice the limit accidently. It was no accident. Do you have a log in at crapspeed boss? Do me a favour and ask that strange man with the coloured-in graphs what his qualifications are? I've tried and he deleted the question and banned me. Must be shy.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree. She was an idiot.
I was just disagreeing with the comparison with waving a sword about purely because of the difference in the purpose of the activity, if you're waving a sword about wildly while walking down the street you're not going to be in a cossack, if it's a cossack then it's more likely to be in a field or organised so they'll have cleared the street prior.
From a danger aspect, yes they're both dangerous (not sure which is more dangerous) so I see why you make the analogy, but the fact that sword waving is a lot less likely to have innocent intentions just makes it seem a bit dramatised mate that's all.

The Bosscp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook
Busted twice for speeding, and then driving an unfamiliar car at 50 in a 30
zone is, to my mind, sufficient evidence. She's a sociopathic moron who
thinks she can do as she likes. I don't see how a slap on the wrist is in
any way commensurate. 50 isn't "a little bit over", it's *excessive* - doing
that after two tellings is unacceptable.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
And the woman in the passenger seat probably didn't tell her to slow down because she wanted her to see the performance of the car, as she was trying to sell it to her...well for god's sake why do you even need high performance anyway, what actually is the point of being able to do 0-60 in 6 seconds with the amount of congestion that we've got in britain. Maybe on the continent, in italy say I can understand the want to have a sporty car, but in britain...

Killer driver walks free

Comments

Categories