Another wrist slapping

Simon Brooke said:

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.

The proviso "with a motor vehicle" adequately reveals your prejudice.
Thank you.

--
Matt B

spindrift said:

(Roger Merriman) said:

Marc Brett said:

On Tue, 22 May 2007 20:42:33 +0100, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

Quoted message said:

>Don Whybrow wrote:
>> Matt B wrote:

Quoted message 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?

Quoted message said:

>> 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.

Quoted message said:

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

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.

Quoted message said:

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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

seem to be having some problems with google groups there? 5 replys.

Quoted message said:

She's had two chances to modertae her speeding.

it was a tinyurl which i hate so i was only commenting on this case as
much as one can via usenet.

Quoted message said:

She did not learn anything from the first two times she put vulnerable
road users at risk and killed Debbie Riches. And she'll be back on the
roads in 7 years. There was no evidence of suicide attempts other than
what the defence claimed she told them.

i sure she does feel bad, very few people wouldn't and i'm also sure the
defence pointed this out, after all they are the defence.

Quoted message said:

I'm taking the road bike for a run this evening. Now I have to
consider whether the tyre rumble coming behind me at 60mph is being
controlled by the wrong shoes?

it has allways been so, people find it hard to judge threats, and in a
car 30 doesn't feel fast nor does 50.

even so the road deaths have fallen, but yes people do trully dumb
things.

Quoted message said:

I already have to guess whether it will pass me at the same time as
the car coming the other way, whether it will slow, whether it will
take my elbow off trying to stay within the white lines, whether I
will get a scream from the passenger, or his takeaway thrown into my
wheels. I've got to ensure that there is no chasm in the underinvested
pile of stones called a road to cause me to move out a few inches and
become an 'inconsiderate cyclist'. Oh, and watch for drain covers with
parallel gaps to trap my 23mm wheel. Or if that traffic island or
crazy-golf-course-road-narrowing thing ahead will be looked at with
more urgency than my sorry behind in the way.

if riding is become such a stressful hobby then don't. if your having
problems because of thin tires, put wider ones on.

Quoted message said:

But don't worry. The driver wasn't being 'wicked' in killing me, and
will be back on the road soon.

intent is something the law takes into account and rightly so, it is bad
to kill someone by negligence but far worse to delberly do so.

Quoted message said:

50 in a 30 = ban for life.
Cause a death by wearing the wrong shoes = ban for life.
Drive while banned = 1 year prison.

there are enought knee jerk laws about, i don't think we need a new one,
but yes some stifferning of the laws would be a good thing.

Quoted message said:

When I get on my bike I expect respect as an equal road user. When I
get in my car I accept responsibility for the lives of everyone it
passes in the vicinity of.
Can we have a driving course and test please that demands this, rather
than an exam asking where the dipstick is, and which lamp post to park
it under?

as tests only test new drivers (unless they have been forced to get new
ones) i think maybe a tv campaine? as well as.

roger

On Wed, 23 May 2007 15:27:12 +0100, [email hidden] (Roger

Merriman) said:

as tests only test new drivers (unless they have been forced to get new
ones) i think maybe a tv campaine? as well as.

AIUI, the perp in this case faces a mandatory retest as part of her
sentence for Death by Dangerous Driving.

Marc Brett said:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 15:27:12 +0100, [email hidden] (Roger

Merriman) said:

as tests only test new drivers (unless they have been forced to get new
ones) i think maybe a tv campaine? as well as.

AIUI, the perp in this case faces a mandatory retest as part of her
sentence for Death by Dangerous Driving.

that would be right.

roger

"Marc Brett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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?

Personality reports or what ever they are called?

Niall

"Roger Merriman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Alan Braggins said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Niall Wallace

Quoted message 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.

Having now seen the ThisIsLondon report it definately looks like it is a FWD
model which should be spelt Spider not Spyder. (Spyder models are even
older) </pedant>

How on earth do you spin a FWD car without using the hand brake or a
scandinavian flick, which she could have inadvertently done.
I would be tempted to go more for the over steered for the speed and
ploughed straight into cyclist than spin. If she had over corrected on the
way back in which would have sent the back out andspun i woud lexpect the
parked car to have been totaled instead.

Niall

On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:06:38 +0100,

Niall Wallace said:

"Roger Merriman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Alan Braggins said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Niall Wallace
wrote:
>
>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.

Having now seen the ThisIsLondon report it definately looks like it is a FWD
model which should be spelt Spider not Spyder. (Spyder models are even
older) </pedant>

How on earth do you spin a FWD car without using the hand brake or a
scandinavian flick, which she could have inadvertently done.
I would be tempted to go more for the over steered for the speed and
ploughed straight into cyclist than spin. If she had over corrected on the
way back in which would have sent the back out andspun i woud lexpect the
parked car to have been totaled instead.

You try to turn too fast and the car understeers. You turn the wheel
some more but it still continues to understeer. You then lift off the
throttle, the weight transfers to the front, the tyres now yank the
front of the car round and the back breaks free (or something like
that). Oversteer after lifting off the throttle is the usual problem
though - which is why so many 205 GTi ended up through the hedge on the
inside of bends.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

Marc Brett said:

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?

How does someone fail in a genuine attempt at suicide 'several times'?

I wish they had investigated the effect of her choice of shoes in more
detail. Wearing footware that prevents someone from safely operating a
vehicle should be illegal IMO.

--
***My real address is m/ike at u/nmusic d/ot co dot u/k (removing /s)
http://www.unmusic.co.uk - about me, music, geek sitcom etc.
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/amhs/ - alt.music.home-studio

Niall Wallace wrote on 23/05/2007 20:06 +0100:

Quoted message said:

How on earth do you spin a FWD car without using the hand brake or a
scandinavian flick, which she could have inadvertently done.
I would be tempted to go more for the over steered for the speed and
ploughed straight into cyclist than spin. If she had over corrected on the
way back in which would have sent the back out andspun i woud lexpect the
parked car to have been totaled instead.

Easy, just get some oversteer and don't correct it. It is a fallacy
that many 4WD drivers find out to their cost in slippery conditions that
4WD has superior lateral grip to normal cars. It doesn't. It has
superior traction and is less prone to power induced sliding of the
wheels but oversteer is just as easy if you push it too hard.

--
Tony

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

Tony Raven said:

Niall Wallace wrote on 23/05/2007 20:06 +0100:

Quoted message said:

How on earth do you spin a FWD car without using the hand brake or a
scandinavian flick, which she could have inadvertently done.
I would be tempted to go more for the over steered for the speed and
ploughed straight into cyclist than spin. If she had over corrected on the
way back in which would have sent the back out andspun i woud lexpect the
parked car to have been totaled instead.

Easy, just get some oversteer and don't correct it. It is a fallacy
that many 4WD drivers find out to their cost in slippery conditions that
4WD has superior lateral grip to normal cars. It doesn't. It has
superior traction and is less prone to power induced sliding of the
wheels but oversteer is just as easy if you push it too hard.

weight i guess all that transmition comes at a price, and now in tight
turn is working against it.

roger

In article said:

"Roger Merriman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Alan Braggins said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Niall Wallace
wrote:
>
>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.

Having now seen the ThisIsLondon report it definately looks like it is a FWD
model which should be spelt Spider not Spyder. (Spyder models are even
older) </pedant>

No, the earlier Alfa Spiders were spelt Spider too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa_Romeo_Spider
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa_Romeo_Giulietta

In article said:

Niall Wallace wrote on 23/05/2007 20:06 +0100:

Quoted message said:

How on earth do you spin a FWD car without using the hand brake or a
scandinavian flick, which she could have inadvertently done.

Easy, just get some oversteer and don't correct it. It is a fallacy
that many 4WD drivers find out to their cost in slippery conditions that
4WD has superior lateral grip to normal cars.

True, but in this context the F of FWD stands for front, not four.

In news:[email hidden],
Chris Eilbeck <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:

Quoted message said:

I can't understand how people can drive safely in heels or with no
shoes on at all. I've had to move my car on a private road to allow
someone to move another car and didn't have time to put shoes on, and
it didn't feel at all right or safe.

I, OTOH, prefer driving in bare feet...

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Krankieburgh): Would the Prime Minister
care to comment on a report in today's Guardian that he: "arrived
late for a meeting with Jacques Chirac, smelling of alcohol, and
with body language suggesting a total disregard for the rights
of ethnic minorities, lone parents and laboratory animals"?

killermike said:

I wish they had investigated the effect of her choice of shoes in
more detail. Wearing footware that prevents someone from safely
operating a vehicle should be illegal IMO.

I can't understand how people can drive safely in heels or with no
shoes on at all. I've had to move my car on a private road to allow
someone to move another car and didn't have time to put shoes on, and
it didn't feel at all right or safe.

Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck

killermike said:

Marc Brett wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

How does someone fail in a genuine attempt at suicide 'several times'?

Quoted message said:

I wish they had investigated the effect of her choice of shoes in more
detail. Wearing footware that prevents someone from safely operating a
vehicle should be illegal IMO.

That kind of footwear is also a hazard to pedestrians. Ever had your
foot stepped on by a spike heel?

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Dave Larrington said:

In news:[email hidden],
Chris Eilbeck <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:

Quoted message said:

I can't understand how people can drive safely in heels or with no
shoes on at all. I've had to move my car on a private road to
allow someone to move another car and didn't have time to put shoes
on, and it didn't feel at all right or safe.

I, OTOH, prefer driving in bare feet...

Don't you worry about hurting your feet, stubbing your toe, getting a
stone stuck on the bottom of your foot when you need to brake etc.,
and losing control? That one experience of moving a car by less than
20ft really put me off no-shoes driving.

Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck

In news:[email hidden],
Chris Eilbeck <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:

Quoted message said:

Don't you worry about hurting your feet, stubbing your toe, getting a
stone stuck on the bottom of your foot when you need to brake etc.,
and losing control? That one experience of moving a car by less than
20ft really put me off no-shoes driving.

Er, nope.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
und keine Eie.

Dave Larrington said:

In news:[email hidden],
Chris Eilbeck <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:

Quoted message said:

Don't you worry about hurting your feet, stubbing your toe, getting
a stone stuck on the bottom of your foot when you need to brake
etc., and losing control? That one experience of moving a car by
less than 20ft really put me off no-shoes driving.

Er, nope.

Fair enough.

Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck

"Dave Larrington" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I, OTOH, prefer driving in bare feet...

You ever meet people who say "ooh, that must be illegal"?

(it's occasionally asked on car NGs too)

cheers,
clive

"Chris Eilbeck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dave Larrington said:

In news:[email hidden],
Chris Eilbeck <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell
us:

Quoted message said:

I can't understand how people can drive safely in heels or with no
shoes on at all. I've had to move my car on a private road to
allow someone to move another car and didn't have time to put shoes
on, and it didn't feel at all right or safe.

I, OTOH, prefer driving in bare feet...

Don't you worry about hurting your feet, stubbing your toe, getting a
stone stuck on the bottom of your foot when you need to brake etc.,
and losing control? That one experience of moving a car by less than
20ft really put me off no-shoes driving.

Hang on, we're talking about driving, not cycling, arent's we?

I use my right foot for the brake and accelerator. Most of the time it's on
the right hand pedal, occasionally it's on the left. Very rarely it's on
neither, but it tends to be in mid air. So even if I had drawing pins
littered over my footwell, I couldn't pick up something on the bottom of my
foot when I needed to brake.

I don't worry about hurting my feet or stubbing my toe, as driving, unlike
cycling, involves very little physical force - I'm not flailing my legs
around. They stick to the footwell, which is clear of sharp pointy things,
and they move in small, well defined movements, so they don't hit unexpected
stuff, and the small forces involved mean that even if I did, it wouldn't
hurt.

I do know people who drove economy runs years ago in bare feet (or socks)
because the extra feel of the pedals they got gave them an advantage.
(whether this was real or percieved I have no way of knowing).

cheers,
clive