- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Lorraine Barrow (video still via Avon & Somerset Police).PNG“The justice system has let my beloved Lorraine down,” says widower after speeding driver who killed his wife given suspended sentence
A grieving widower has said that “the justice system has let my beloved Lorraine down” after a speeding driver who killed his wife just yards from the family home was handed a suspended sentence.
Lorraine Barrow, aged 57, was cycling home on the evening of 17 September last year when Victoria Hamer, 26, crashed into her from behind on the B3139 Mark Road near Blackford, Somerset, at around 6.20pm.
Hamer, who pleaded guilty at Taunton Crown Court to causing death by dangerous driving, claimed that she had not seen Mrs Barrow due to the sun being too low.
However, the court heard that she had been driving her Volkswagen Polo at a speed of at least 44mph despite the road having a speed limit of 30mph.
Mrs Barrow, who just three days earlier had celebrated her 35th wedding anniversary with her husband Chris, died of serious head injuries at the scene of the crash, which was recorded by a CCTV camera at a nearby house.
Yesterday, Judge Paul Cook sentenced Hamer to 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years and also imposed a six-month curfew and ordered her to carry out 200 hours’ community service.
She was also banned from driving for 30 months and will have to take an extended driving test before regaining her licence.
“This is the most saddening of cases,” the judge said. “The harm could not have been greater. You were well over the speed limit and you were driving into blinding sunlight. You were unable to see ahead of you, your proper reaction should have been to slow down – this was short-lived dangerous driving.”
The offence to which Hamer pleaded guilty carries a maximum punishment of 14 years’ imprisonment, but the judge said that in handing down the sentence he had taken account of her early guilty plea, her remorse, and the assistance she gave at the scene.
After sentencing, investigating officer Dai Nicholas of Avon & Somerset Police said: “Lorraine’s family have endured a huge amount of pain and I’d like to pay tribute to their courage throughout the legal process.
“Although Hamer’s sentencing sees the court proceedings conclude, the agony and hurt they are feeling does not simply end with it. Our sympathies are with them and we continue to support them at this time.
“Victoria Hamer will wake up every day for the rest of her life knowing her reckless actions killed an innocent and beloved woman.
“I hope all motorists take heed of this tragic tale and recognise the importance of adhering to road safety measures and speed limits because failure to do so all too often has fatal consequences and rips people’s lives apart.”
Reacting to the sentence, Mr Barrow strongly criticised the justice system, which he said had “gone too far in protecting the rights of the perpetrator losing sight of the rights of the victim.”
He said: “There is no sentence that the court could have imposed on Victoria Hamer that will ever compensate for the unnecessary, avoidable killing of Lorraine. It certainly does not bring closure as my sentence is life without Lorraine. Closure, for me, will be when my ashes join Lorraine’s.
“The justice system is not just about justice for the victim, which will never be enough, but also about setting a deterrent for others. This sentence does neither. After all the hard work done by the police, the justice system has let my beloved Lorraine down.
“Victoria Hamer will serve her sentence and most likely go on to live a normal life which, in all probability, will extend beyond Lorraine’s 57 years. Whilst Ms Hamer did plead guilty this was done in the face of overwhelming evidence and in the knowledge that by pleading guilty her sentence would be reduced.
“From our kitchen window I can view the exact stretch of road that the car travelled on its way to killing Lorraine. I can watch as the police, using their speed guns, attempt to catch drivers exceeding the limit thereby breaking the law.”
He continued: “Why does society in general think that speeding is a low-level crime? It is not. The affect it has on generations of families, in our case four generations, is devastating, shattering and crushing. We do not have a God given right to drive a vehicle how we want and without due consideration to other road users. Drivers have a duty of care. Our attitude to speed and how we control it is, quite frankly, ridiculous.
“Unlike those that carry a knife, which is unlawful in itself, road crime death, is not classed as homicide. Why is this? We have gone too far in protecting the rights of the perpetrator losing sight of the rights of the victim.
“Lorraine was doing everything right. Her road positioning was correct, her signal was clear, she was wearing light blue jeans, cycling jacket with reflective piping, high-visibility vest, and a helmet with rear facing light clearly visible against the green and brown hedge row.
“I am proud, as was Lorraine, that we live in a just society however the scales of justice, in our opinion, have become unbalanced. They tip too far in favour of the perpetrator,” Mr Barrow added.
“Those that break the law are being able to conduct a normal life for months, if not years, while we have had to wait and suffer the anguish and mental anxiety of not knowing what, if any, justice will be obtained for our loved one.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Bungle_52 2 sec ago
Mathematically 3 times less than 5 could be anything less than 15. eg 3 times 4 is 12 or 3 times -6 is -18.
- kingleo 49 min 22 sec ago
Does the coroner say that motorists and pedestrians who received a fatal head injury in a road accident should have been wearing a helmet, if not,...
- check12 1 hour 1 min ago
Get them back? They've never gone away for me, cheap tdf winning bikes on eBay with rim brakes and cheap rim brake aero wheels, just don't tell...
- Simon E 1 hour 44 min ago
It used to be called Buy Nothing Day as a protest against the the Black Friday discounting madness. The constant BF adverts, promos and stuff...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 59 min ago
Apologies - you're quite right! Something about presentation and comprehension...
- wtjs 4 hours 20 min ago
You can find out whether they're lying about 'taking action' by asking them what they actually did. When they refuse to tell you, citing various...
- chrisonabike 9 hours 4 min ago
Also don't forget - Sustrans are a charity *....
- chrisonabike 9 hours 16 min ago
Yes ... but (just due to the large numbers of people affected) this likely would only proceed in the UK at a very ... cautious ... pace....
- EK Spinner 9 hours 33 min ago
Arsehole in the van not with standing, how did they manage to get a risk assessment allowing a race (a group not a TT) group to be competing on ...
Add new comment
50 comments
A cyclist was put in prison for 6 months for injuring a girl on a pedestrian crossing.
A motorist never stopped at a pedestrian crossing, hit an elderly man, and killed him - the judge let her off because as he said, "she was only doing 18 mph".
To me, it seems like the maximum sentence possible for law-breaking cyclists and the minimum sentence possible for law-breaking motorists.
How come the CPS didn't appeal the unduly lenient sentence. This poor man has more dignity than the whole of the judicary.
That ability does not exist except for a few really serious crimes like manslaughter. It would be good to get it extended to all crimes involving a non accidental death but don't hold your breath.
Most appeals are based on there being a legal procedural error or a failure to consider all of the evidence. Either side not liking the result is not sufficient.
Here's what the CPS manual says - '
"The offences capable of review under Part IV of the Act are:
offences triable only on indictment;..."
Causing death by dangerous driving is an indictment only offence.
So in theory the sentence can be reviewed - but it probably won't be.
Per others a remarkably thoughtful and balanced response Mr. Barrow to a terrible personal tragedy. A couple of points on the judgement - it seems that the judge sort of "got it" (the extent of the punishment aside) but:
"this was short-lived dangerous driving.”
This is the "legal uncertainly principle" that everyone seems to apply to rule breaking e.g. you can break laws as long as the worse the offense, the shorter the time you do it for. Sad to see it from a judge in court. It's similar to the "unblemished record" thing. What this should have been was:
"this is dangerous driving - this was almost certainly habitual dangerous driving.”
"Dangerous" means "involving the chance of loss or injury" eg. it doesn't need an injury every time. Although I'm sure in practice you need one for it to go to law in the UK.
"...the judge said that in handing down the sentence he had taken account of her early guilty plea, her remorse, and the assistance she gave at the scene."
Ideally that the last point would be assumed to be expected behaviour. I suppose that since we have a "discount scheme" where there's default maximum sentence (if only...) anything you do to show willingness to undo your wrong will reduce that. Even if it's just getting a lawyer to read "She is terribly sorry" a year down the line. I'd certainly not want anything that might disincentivise rendering basic aid because we already have that issue. It still sometimes feels like anything an offender does that isn't celebrating, running away and badmouthing the victims afterwards counts to reduce that sentence. Actually the victim blaming doesn't seem to count either. Possible exception Charlie Alliston (" 'You have throughout sought to put your blame on her,' the judge said.")
Why is it that you can get away with killing a cyclist if you're driving a car, even if you're already breaking the law by speeding. Not only is this not justice for this gentleman's poor wife, it also fails to protect vulnerable road users in future by not sending out a strong message, that if you are driving a motorised vehicle you are responsible for doing so safely and within the law.
I hope all motorists take heed of this tragic tale and recognise the importance of adhering to road safety measures and speed limits because failure to do so all too often has f##k all consequence.
As proved by a suspended sentence.
What a speech by Mr Barrow. Dignified and powerful.
That should be printed within the next edition of The Highway Code, preferably inside the front cover, and in the section on vulnerable road users.
Sadly, I doubt that the people who need this insight buy or read THC, so let's hope they know someone who does....
A few times I've had stuff shouted about "the highway code" at me and sadly the best put-down would probably have been "no, you should read it". More useful would be for drivers to get periodic training / refreshers - effectively re-tests. Like we'd do for most other potentially dangerous activities which take place in public. Think of it as "continuing development".
“Victoria Hamer will wake up every day for the rest of her life knowing her reckless actions killed an innocent and beloved woman"' said Avon & Somerset Police.
Unlike Lorraine Barrow, who will not wake up again.
With a suspended sentence and a curfew, Hamer will also be able to sleep in her own bed and have an early night. Life will continue broadly as before, bar the minor inconvenience of a bit of community service and a spell without a licence.
Mr Barrow, I fear, will not sleep well and will wake up alone.
Grim.
I think the "blinded by the sun" bit is bollox (although the claim should be taken as a aggravating factor, not as mitigation). The black car coming the other way has no shadow ahead of it, and there is no harsh sunlight on the windscreen of the perp's car. The offender could see well enough to stay in their own lane and not collide with the oncoming car.
The cyclist was clearly signalling to turn right and appears to have started to move across the lane. She may not have heard the sudden approach of the speeding car if the sound was masked by the other car's.
I suspect the perpetrator had seen the cyclist beforehand, expected to overtake by close passing within the same lane, and for whatever reason failed to process the cyclist's clear arm signal and subsequent move across the lane.
This is why the law should be that drivers overtake in the other lane. This is the reason close passes should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. Each one is potentially a scenario such as this. Cyclists should not have to live just one step removed from sudden death.
As someone who both cycles and drives on that road on a regular basis, the slope does mean that you do get blinded by the sun even before dusk/sunset. You are driving directly into the sun at certain times of the day and manys the time I have had to slow down, almost to a stop when in the car due to visibility issues. You should be driving to the conditions and if you cant see you slow down/stop. You are also coming round a bend and hitting the slope about 50-75 yards before the point of collision so dont get early visibility again highlighting the need to stick to the limit at that point. The driver was obviously anticipating the national sped limit signs less than 100m ahead of them and was accelerating out of the village.
I'm more often than not tailgated going up the hill and its one of those roads where speed checks are not done (they are the other way going into Blackford as there is a "safe" place for the mobile unit/motorcyles to park/stand). Not sure what the solution is now that fixed camera's are seen as unacceptable by the majority these days.
There probably needs to be some fixed and significant minimum penalties for dangerous driving but I'm not holding my breath given the complete lack of action so far on the government review currently underway.
Apart from the lane up to my house (which has exactly the same issues but has more vegetation) I consider that stretch of road to be the most dangerous in the whole of the local area.
Last summer I had to attend a speed awareness course. When I got the letter from the police that I had been speeding I was mortified. I had any number of reasons why I had not been paying attention to my speed and broken the limit (my father was terminally ill, work stress, lockdown etc.etc.) but my immediate thought was if I had hit a pedestrian, cyclist or any other road user, that would have had no relevance to my victim. I was clocked at 38 in a 30 which I know well, and it was a fixed camera that had been there for 15 years! So I took the course.
When I joined the course I was really disappointed with the attitude of the trainer, his attitude was that we were all there to "play the game" and avoid the 3 points, and none of us thought we had really done anything wrong anyway. The attendees were not given an opportunity to comment on this.
What does this have to do with this story? It made me think, based on the fact that the motorist had shown "remorse" and had 200 hours community service to do, actually people like her could be a useful addition to the speed awareness course as a speaker, talking through their experience. Not only would it hopefully have an impact on those attending the course, it would fit in with the concept of restorative justice. It might also just shake the arrogant, complacent approach of the trainer to have to listen to these type of stories on a regular basis.
Here endeth the sermon
I can see that sort of approach might be pyschologically useful to get a room full of reluctant participants on board at the start, before then hitting them with some hard facts about the impact speeding has. But I've never been on any speed awareness course, let alone the same one as you. Was the trainer's attitude the same throughout?
The course focused on the futility of speeding rather than the consequences for the safety of other road users. The only reason they might have an effect on speeding is that you can't do another course for 3 years, next offence will be points. There was also a short section on passing cyclists were comments about being held up and not paying road tax were allowed from one of the attendees. I suggested that drivers dehumanised cyclists because we look superhuman in our lycra.
To my shame I've done 2 in the last 12 years and fortunately never had a trainer as poor as yours was.
The first was run by an ex-motorcycle cop and he was excellent. He spent ages on the consequences in particular when you see any additions to the normal speed limit signs it generally means there's been a KSI in the vicinity.
The second a video course was in lockdown - he was professional but very matter of fact and run of the mill about road dangers.
Why do so many people think that 'the sun was in my eyes, I couldn't see' is somehow a mitigation for whatever happened instead of an indictment of their poor driving skills?
'the sun was i my eyes' should not be allowed in court as a defence.
It should be struck off and countered with 'if you can't see the fucking road ahead of you, you shouldn't have carried on driving you stupid arsehole.'
WIth a turn of phrase like that you must be a barrister right?
Hey, I didn't say that!
Would be good if a few people in the courtroom would be so blunt. Maybe the judge?
It seems that due to the massive cockup in the justice system the main focus of the judge is to stop people ending up in prison or forcing the justice system to take any further substantial action.
Why thank you m'lud.
I agree, if you can't see (because of any reason), you need to slow down. I've had someone complain that in fog on the motorway the problem is that everyone slows down, and if we all just kept going at 70 mph, then the fog isnt an issue. It's nuts.
Another one like this that resulted in a few deaths in New Zealand was when someone overtook a small bunch of cyclists, and when they came parallell to the group, they saw an oncoming car, so swerved back away from oncoming car into the cyclists (I think they killed 3 of them).
I had conversations with people at the time who said "of course the driver pulled back into the cyclists to avoid the worse head on collision with the other car". They completely miss the point that you are not to overtake unless you have something like 200m of clear road after the overtake.
There is a serious issue with peoples ability to think more than one action ahead, and serious lack of ability to think of themselves as just one cog in a big machine, and not the most important and only cog in the machine.
In New Zealand you can (maybe not anymore, I got my licence a while ago) do a Defensive Driving Course to reduce the time you need to spend on your restricted licence. The course focused on maybe 7 causes of crashes, and basically everyone came back to the primary root cause being driver attitude. It was a real eye opener.
That on its own is worthy of serious analysis. How can it be that admitting you were blinded, could not see in front of you, and yet continued to drive, even to speed, prioritising your momentary selfish progress over the risk of death to others, how is that seen as exculpatory rather than self-incriminating? It gets me every time.
If only there were some way of knowing ahead of time that the sun would be low and to the east in mornings, and low and to the west in evenings. But no, it just randomly appears in front of us, out of nowhere, and we have to deal with its unexpected blinding death rays.
I suspect I'm in a minority here but when I was renting and commuting by car and then bike I took it into account and tried to rent places to the east of where I was working for this very reason.
I changed part of my commute into work, also with more off road, to get away from the twisty double white lined road and to come in from a direction where the sun was behind me.
Fixed it
Probably.
The sun didn't look that low from the CCTV still. I'm actually surprised that she pleaded guilty to Dangerous Driving though. Normally the CPS gives them the option of Careless or the Defence state plead not guilty to Dangerous as the jury will normally let you off.
Although it seems the sentencing judge must have not got the memo and thought it was careless looking at that sentencing. The Qatari royal I posted about in yesterdays blog got more for Careless (although still suspended).
Pages