UK and Europe · Public discussion

Another wrist slapping

Started by Tony Raven · · Last activity · 107 posts · 2,279 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
22 May 2007
Last activity
15 June 2007
Original author
Tony Raven
Posts
107
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,279
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 107
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. http://tinyurl.com/2gfwmb
    Were driver's high heels to blame for death crash?
    21.05.07

    A former model may have killed a cyclist because she was wearing
    stiletto heels while test driving a sports car, a court has heard.

    Julie Hunter, 42, lost control of the Alfa Romeo Spyder as she drove
    around a parked car at 50mph in a 30mph zone.

    The car spun on to the other side of the carriageway and ploughed into
    fitness instructor Debbie Riches, 21.

    Hunter's two-and-a-quarter inch stiletto ankle boots probably
    contributed to her losing control.

    Hunter took the £15,000 car for a test drive in her home town of
    Colchester in Essex on May 12, 2005, with the owner, Heidi Holohan,
    sitting in the passenger seat.

    She had been driving with 24-year-old Miss Holohan for a few minutes
    when she tried to whip around the parked car, Chelmsford Crown Court heard.

    But the Spyder spun on to the other side of the carriageway, flinging Miss

    Riches' bicycle 20ft in the air and pinning her underneath.

    She was pronounced dead at the scene after lying trapped for 30 minutes
    until fire crews lifted the vehicle off with inflatable airbags.

    The court heard Miss Riches, also from Colchester, was working at a
    local swimming pool and had recently qualified as a gym instructor. She
    was going out with a soldier.

    Hunter was taken unconscious to Colchester General Hospital with a
    fractured skull and internal damage to her ear.

    She was not well enough to be interviewed by police until several weeks
    later. Miss Holohan was uninjured.

    A crash investigator confirmed there had been no mechanical faults with
    the car or bicycle but he added that Hunter's "very high" heels "may
    have inhibited the defendant's ability to drive".

    Prosecutor Simon Spence said: "According to what Miss Holohan was
    saying, she was driving the car too fast for the road conditions,
    perhaps to the limitations of the vehicle.

    "The Spyder crossed to the other side of the road and collided with a
    pedal cycle either

    ridden or pushed by Debbie Riches. She was trapped under the car and
    died almost immediately. The bicycle was thrown over a hedge and into a
    house."

    The court heard Hunter, who has separated from her long-term partner
    over the stress of the accident, received fixed penalty fines for
    speeding in 2003 and 2004.

    She faced up to 14 years in jail for causing death by dangerous driving
    but received an eightmonth suspended sentence and seven-year driving ban
    yesterday.

    She had pleading guilty in February on the day her trial was due to start.

    She had shown remorse for the tragedy and had tried to commit suicide
    several times since.

    Judge Anthony Goldstaub QC told her she was responsible for a "short
    burst of dangerous activity" - not 'wicked recklessness". "The
    defendant, for all her errors, didn't mean to do harm," he said.

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

    He added: "Apart from the dangers of speed itself, there was the added
    peril that the driver was not familiar with this car's particular
    handling characteristics, or what the bite of its controls were and she
    wore high heel shoes unsuitable for the operation of the pedals."

    Judge Goldstaub also praised the "magnanimity" of Miss Riches' family,
    saying: "You have not bayed for the defendant's blood, you have behaved
    with commendable dignity, strength and moderation in the face of
    terrible grief."

    --
    Tony

    "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
    is no good evidence either way."
    - Bertrand Russell

  2. "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    http://tinyurl.com/2gfwmb
    Were driver's high heels to blame for death crash?
    21.05.07

    A former model may have killed a cyclist because she was wearing stiletto
    heels while test driving a sports car, a court has heard.

    Julie Hunter, 42, lost control of the Alfa Romeo Spyder as she drove
    around a parked car at 50mph in a 30mph zone.

    I'd say the main cause of the crash was trying to swerve around a parked car
    at too high a speed. The fact it was in a built up area (assumed from the
    30 mph limit) and the stiletto heels may have had some effect.
    --
    peter

    Cheap train tickets database
    http://www.petereverett.co.uk/tickets/

    Email sent to this address is generally deleted upon arrival
    Visit website if you want to contact me

  3. Tony Raven said:

    http://tinyurl.com/2gfwmb
    Were driver's high heels to blame for death crash?
    21.05.07

    A former model may have killed a cyclist because she was wearing
    stiletto heels while test driving a sports car, a court has heard.

    Julie Hunter, 42, lost control of the Alfa Romeo Spyder as she drove
    around a parked car at 50mph in a 30mph zone.

    [...]

    Quoted message said:

    Judge Anthony Goldstaub QC told her she was responsible for a "short
    burst of dangerous activity" - not 'wicked recklessness". "The
    defendant, for all her errors, didn't mean to do harm," he said.

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

    He added: "Apart from the dangers of speed itself, there was the added
    peril that the driver was not familiar with this car's particular
    handling characteristics, or what the bite of its controls were and she
    wore high heel shoes unsuitable for the operation of the pedals."

    Googling for Judge Goldstaub is instructive.

    http://archive.basildonrecorder.co.uk/2005/10/2/233333.html

    Here he sentences a driver to 4 years for killing another motorist in a
    head-on collision. He made a point that the impact was "like driving
    into a brick wall at 100 mph". I wonder if he considered what it was
    like to for an unprotected cyclist be hit at 50 mph by a car.

    http://www.hertsessexnews.co.uk/news/observer/2007/05/03/lorry%20driver%20jailed%20for%20student%20deaths.lpf

    3 years + 5 year ban to a sleep-deprived lorry driver who killed 3 on
    the M11.

    http://archive.brentwoodweeklynews.co.uk/2007/3/27/247568.html

    Mobile phone robbery - 18 months + 10 years license.

    So -- Killing cyclists isn't worth a custodial sentence, but stealing
    phones or killing motorists is.

    Soft on wife beaters, too:

    http://archive.harwichandmanningtreestandard.co.uk/2006/10/2/239848.html

  4. Marc Brett said:


    So -- Killing cyclists isn't worth a custodial sentence, but stealing
    phones or killing motorists is.

    What leads you to that conclusion? Would you give a custodial sentence
    of equal length, to everyone who killed someone, regardless of the
    circumstances and regardless of the level of negligence and regardless
    of the intent?

    --
    Matt B

  5. On Tue, 22 May 2007 14:41:39 +0100, Matt B

    matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:
    Marc Brett said:


    So -- Killing cyclists isn't worth a custodial sentence, but stealing
    phones or killing motorists is.

    What leads you to that conclusion? Would you give a custodial sentence
    of equal length, to everyone who killed someone, regardless of the
    circumstances and regardless of the level of negligence and regardless
    of the intent?

    WHAT custodial sentence? She got NOTHING! Nada. And the level of
    negligence is pretty bloody high, what with 2 previous convictions for
    speeding, speeding on the day, and driving recklessly. At 42, she
    doesn't even have youth as an excuse. Sure, she lives with the guilt
    and is "alone on a day to day basis". Awwww. I know one place where
    she could have enjoyed lots of company.

  6. Marc Brett said:

    On Tue, 22 May 2007 14:41:39 +0100, Matt B

    matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:
    Marc Brett said:

    So -- Killing cyclists isn't worth a custodial sentence, but stealing
    phones or killing motorists is.


    What leads you to that conclusion? Would you give a custodial sentence
    of equal length, to everyone who killed someone, regardless of the
    circumstances and regardless of the level of negligence and regardless
    of the intent?

    WHAT custodial sentence?

    Answer the question. She never got one, no. So, I'll ask again: Would
    you give a custodial sentence of equal length, to everyone (including
    her) who killed someone, regardless of the circumstances and regardless
    of the level of negligence and regardless of the intent?

    --
    Matt B

  7. On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:28:22 +0100, Matt B

    matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:
    Marc Brett said:

    On Tue, 22 May 2007 14:41:39 +0100, Matt B

    matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

    Marc Brett wrote:
    > So -- Killing cyclists isn't worth a custodial sentence, but stealing
    > phones or killing motorists is.
    What leads you to that conclusion? Would you give a custodial sentence
    of equal length, to everyone who killed someone, regardless of the
    circumstances and regardless of the level of negligence and regardless
    of the intent?

    WHAT custodial sentence?

    Answer the question. She never got one, no. So, I'll ask again: Would
    you give a custodial sentence of equal length, to everyone (including
    her) who killed someone, regardless of the circumstances and regardless
    of the level of negligence and regardless of the intent?

    Elect me dictator and find out! By god, the country will be a paradise,
    if you are the right sort. Tough luck if you're not,

  8. Matt B said:


    Answer the question. She never got one, no. So, I'll ask again: Would
    you give a custodial sentence of equal length, to everyone (including
    her) who killed someone, regardless of the circumstances and regardless
    of the level of negligence and regardless of the intent?

    If it was me judging, yes! If you kill you should go down for a long
    time. Do not pass GO, do not collect £200. No get out of jail free cards.

    --
    Don Whybrow

    Sequi Bonum Non Time

    If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop
    diggin'.

  9. Marc Brett said:

    On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:28:22 +0100, Matt B

    matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:
    Marc Brett said:

    On Tue, 22 May 2007 14:41:39 +0100, Matt B
    <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

    > Marc Brett wrote:
    >> So -- Killing cyclists isn't worth a custodial sentence, but stealing
    >> phones or killing motorists is.
    > What leads you to that conclusion? Would you give a custodial sentence
    > of equal length, to everyone who killed someone, regardless of the
    > circumstances and regardless of the level of negligence and regardless
    > of the intent?
    WHAT custodial sentence?


    Answer the question. She never got one, no. So, I'll ask again: Would
    you give a custodial sentence of equal length, to everyone (including
    her) who killed someone, regardless of the circumstances and regardless
    of the level of negligence and regardless of the intent?

    Elect me dictator and find out! By god, the country will be a paradise,
    if you are the right sort. Tough luck if you're not,

    So you're not prepared to answer the question - fine. We could conclude
    that you are not prepared to acknowledge that there /could/ be reasons
    to vary the sentence, based on the circumstances. One extreme would be
    "life", the other would be a non-custodial sentence.

    --
    Matt B

  10. Don Whybrow said:
    Matt B said:


    Answer the question. She never got one, no. So, I'll ask again:
    Would you give a custodial sentence of equal length, to everyone
    (including her) who killed someone, regardless of the circumstances
    and regardless of the level of negligence and regardless of the intent?

    If it was me judging, yes! If you kill you should go down for a long
    time. Do not pass GO, do not collect £200. No get out of jail free cards.

    What about the driver of the bus in this recent tragedy:
    "A MAN was killed after he bumped into a lamppost and fell into the path
    of a bus he was running to catch."? [1] How long would you give him?

    Or the driver of the train that killed two girls? [2]

    Or the motorcyclist who killed a 12-year old playing "chicken"? [3]

    Are you /sure/ that circumstances should not be taken into account?

    [1]
    http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1006/1006346_man_dies_in_freak_accident.html
    [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/6324489.stm
    [3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/6588059.stm

    --
    Matt B

  11. "naked_draughtsman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    http://tinyurl.com/2gfwmb
    Were driver's high heels to blame for death crash?
    21.05.07

    A former model may have killed a cyclist because she was wearing stiletto
    heels while test driving a sports car, a court has heard.

    Julie Hunter, 42, lost control of the Alfa Romeo Spyder as she drove
    around a parked car at 50mph in a 30mph zone.

    I'd say the main cause of the crash was trying to swerve around a parked
    car at too high a speed. The fact it was in a built up area (assumed from
    the 30 mph limit) and the stiletto heels may have had some effect.
    --
    peter

    The report doesn't give a huge amount of information about the car either,
    by what I found on Wikipedia all AR Spyders are Front engined - Rear Wheel
    Drive.

    It is considerably easier to loose the back of a Rear Wheel drive car than a
    front wheel drive car.
    "Swerving" round a parked car at 50mph is an Autotest manouver (Swerving to
    me means she turned sharply aka Flicking), unsuprisingly she lost the back
    end and spun the damn thing.

    Stupidity and possibly (noting to confirm my suspicion here) unfamiluarity
    with Rear Wheel Drive are the more likely culprits than stupid shoes.

    The fact that she pleaded guilty and has attemtped to top her self a couple
    of times probably put a custodial sentance in the unlikely classification.
    (Would you want to put someone straight onto suicide watch?)

    Niall

  12. Niall Wallace said:

    The fact that she pleaded guilty and has attemtped to top her self a couple
    of times probably put a custodial sentance in the unlikely classification.
    (Would you want to put someone straight onto suicide watch?)

    Did an expert witness give testimony on this point?

  13. On Tue, 22 May 2007 20:42:33 +0100, Matt B

    matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:
    Don Whybrow said:
    Matt B said:


    Answer the question. She never got one, no. So, I'll ask again:
    Would you give a custodial sentence of equal length, to everyone
    (including her) who killed someone, regardless of the circumstances
    and regardless of the level of negligence and regardless of the intent?

    If it was me judging, yes! If you kill you should go down for a long
    time. Do not pass GO, do not collect £200. No get out of jail free cards.

    Are you /sure/ that circumstances should not be taken into account?

    Don't be willfully stupid. Of course circumstances differ, and of
    course judges should be free to hand out severe or lenient sentences.

    It just seems to me (and others) that the recklessness displayed in
    /this/ case warrants a stiffer sentence than a suspended sentence and a
    driving ban.

  14. Marc Brett wrote on 23/05/2007 01:43 +0100:

    Quoted message said:


    Don't be willfully stupid. Of course circumstances differ, and of
    course judges should be free to hand out severe or lenient sentences.

    It just seems to me (and others) that the recklessness displayed in
    /this/ case warrants a stiffer sentence than a suspended sentence and a
    driving ban.

    As pointed out, at least a sentence commensurate with that given for
    stealing a mobile phone is in order - or are cyclist's lives that cheap
    these days?

    --
    Tony

    "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
    is no good evidence either way."
    - Bertrand Russell

  15. Niall Wallace wrote on 22/05/2007 23:25 +0100:

    Quoted message said:


    The fact that she pleaded guilty and has attemtped to top her self a couple
    of times probably put a custodial sentance in the unlikely classification.
    (Would you want to put someone straight onto suicide watch?)

    Perhaps if she had thought about that before she discharged a dangerous
    weapon illegally in public.

    --
    Tony

    "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
    is no good evidence either way."
    - Bertrand Russell

  16. Marc Brett said:

    On Tue, 22 May 2007 20:42:33 +0100, Matt B

    matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:
    Don Whybrow said:

    Matt B wrote:
    > Answer the question. She never got one, no. So, I'll ask again:
    > Would you give a custodial sentence of equal length, to everyone
    > (including her) who killed someone, regardless of the circumstances
    > and regardless of the level of negligence and regardless of the intent?
    If it was me judging, yes! If you kill you should go down for a long
    time. Do not pass GO, do not collect £200. No get out of jail free cards.


    Are you /sure/ that circumstances should not be taken into account?

    Don't be willfully stupid. Of course circumstances differ, and of
    course judges should be free to hand out severe or lenient sentences.

    It just seems to me (and others) that the recklessness displayed in
    /this/ case warrants a stiffer sentence than a suspended sentence and a
    driving ban.

    Ah, your tune has changed. Good. Now it's down to personal prejudices.
    Have you heard/read all the evidence presented in the case?

    --
    Matt B

  17. In article said:


    The report doesn't give a huge amount of information about the car either,
    by what I found on Wikipedia all AR Spyders are Front engined - Rear Wheel
    Drive.

    The new(ish) one is front wheel drive.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa_Romeo_GTV_%26_Spider

  18. in message <[email hidden]>, Don Whybrow

    (') said:
    Matt B said:


    Answer the question. She never got one, no. So, I'll ask again: Would
    you give a custodial sentence of equal length, to everyone (including
    her) who killed someone, regardless of the circumstances and regardless
    of the level of negligence and regardless of the intent?

    If it was me judging, yes! If you kill you should go down for a long
    time. Do not pass GO, do not collect £200. No get out of jail free cards.

    For killing with a motor vehicle, I would agree. We have to get it into
    people's heads that driving a ton of metal at 30mph near to other people
    is something you have to take very, very seriously indeed, and give your
    full attention. The only way to achieve culture change on this is to shock
    people.

    So, yes. Mandatory, automatic, no exemptions, no appeal, jail time.
    Followed by an automatic life-time driving ban. Followed by more jail if
    ever caught driving again.

    --
    [email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
    ,/| _.--''^``-...___.._.,;
    /, \'. _-' ,--,,,--'''
    { \ `_-'' ' /
    `;;' ; ; ;
    ._..--'' ._,,, _..' .;.'
    (,_....----''' (,..--''

  19. Alan Braggins said:
    In article said:


    The report doesn't give a huge amount of information about the car either,
    by what I found on Wikipedia all AR Spyders are Front engined - Rear Wheel
    Drive.

    The new(ish) one is front wheel drive.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa_Romeo_GTV_%26_Spider

    even so 50 mph is more than fast enought for a sharp manvourer to go
    horribly wrong, as she and the unfortnat cyclist she killed.

    roger

  20. Marc Brett said:

    On Tue, 22 May 2007 20:42:33 +0100, Matt B

    matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:
    Don Whybrow said:

    Matt B wrote:
    >
    > Answer the question. She never got one, no. So, I'll ask again:
    > Would you give a custodial sentence of equal length, to everyone
    > (including her) who killed someone, regardless of the circumstances
    > and regardless of the level of negligence and regardless of the intent?

    If it was me judging, yes! If you kill you should go down for a long
    time. Do not pass GO, do not collect £200. No get out of jail free cards.

    Are you /sure/ that circumstances should not be taken into account?

    Don't be willfully stupid. Of course circumstances differ, and of
    course judges should be free to hand out severe or lenient sentences.

    It just seems to me (and others) that the recklessness displayed in
    /this/ case warrants a stiffer sentence than a suspended sentence and a
    driving ban.

    indeed while one can assume that her intention wasn't to kill, from the
    report it *looks* like she was quite negligent, the sentece seems rather
    lax, on the other hand the jails are full to bursting...

    roger

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.