Cyclist killed by pedestrian

[petermisc]

Is it really not the case that the cyclist's actions are irrelevant?
I was brought up to believe that cyclists have no right to cycle on pavements in the first place.  Has that changed?
Marked cycle lanes, or the road.

Even though the cyclist was acting illegally, gives you no right to deliberately put them in danger, and so should be irrelevant in deciding whether an act of manslaughter was committed.

I would argue that even if it had been a shared path and cycle way should be irrelevant - it would still give the cyclist no right to barge past the pedestrian.

My feeling was that the sentence was unduly harsh.  The judge seemed to have decided that the pedestrian was wholly to blame for the poor innocent cyclist's death, whereas my view is that the cyclist's actions were the most significant factor.

[petermisc]

There’s also the common sense view (I think, sure some cyclists will disagree) that if a cyclist is using the pavement then they need to exercise great care when getting anywhere near a pedestrian, there’s an onus on the cyclist to be very sure there’s a safe way past.

If in doubt, there’s a case for cyclist dismounting if space looks especially tight. Though seeing that done is as rare as sighting a full solar eclipse.

Agreed.  Anyone who has had a cyclist zip past just inches from them will know how unnerving it can be.  When I had a recently broken arm, that I was carefully shielding, some idiot cyclist shot past from behind with just inches to spare.

The pedestrian's unusual behaviour in this case surely didn't come out of nowhere.  I suspect that she had been unnerved by previous occasions of cyclists coming far too close.

[RedKettle]

Agreed.  Anyone who has had a cyclist zip past just inches from them will know how unnerving it can be.  When I had a recently broken arm, that I was carefully shielding, some idiot cyclist shot past from behind with just inches to spare.

The pedestrian's unusual behaviour in this case surely didn't come out of nowhere.  I suspect that she had been unnerved by previous occasions of cyclists coming far too close.

I get what you mean about lyca clad morons zipping along paths, but this was an old lady on an upright bike and there was space to get past if the pedestrian had acted normally.  Also not coming from behind so as a cyclist you tend to assume they have seen you and will not act in a panic.

Tragic case all round and the most sensible comment i heard was on the news when someone said there are no winners here.

[Doc Holliday]

I get what you mean about lyca clad morons zipping along paths, but this was an old lady on an upright bike and there was space to get past if the pedestrian had acted normally.  Also not coming from behind so as a cyclist you tend to assume they have seen you and will not act in a panic.

Tragic case all round and the most sensible comment i heard was on the news when someone said there are no winners here.

Yes and in fact she had almost come to a halt on her cycle when their paths crossed but lost her balance and fell into the road. All highly unusual circumstances.

Agree there are no winners including at the bottom end of the scale the taxpayer subsidising legal incompetence of the prosecution, the original defence and the judge.

[timsussex]

Yes and in fact she had almost come to a halt on her cycle when their paths crossed but lost her balance and fell into the road. All highly unusual circumstances.

Agree there are no winners including at the bottom end of the scale the taxpayer subsidising legal incompetence of the prosecution, the original defence and the judge.

I note that the Appeals Judgment commended the NEW defence team but of course wouldn't criticise the judge, defence or prosecution in the TWO trials

[jackdaw]

Agree there are no winners including at the bottom end of the scale the taxpayer subsidising legal incompetence of the prosecution, the original defence and the judge.

A fair number of lawyers have done quite well out of it…I doubt if anyone who messed up earlier will be refunding their fees or salaries.

And guess more to come? (Compo for wrongful imprisonment?)

[myothernameis]

The pedestrian's unusual behaviour in this case surely didn't come out of nowhere.  I suspect that she had been unnerved by previous occasions of cyclists coming far too close

I think maybe if this person is walking about town, she should have a career with her, to prevent any other incidents, especially if it involves a shared path

There a shared path in Glasgow, but due the council replacing the street lights, 10 yrs back, the road traffic signs were never replace.  This section of the road in listed a a national cycle path, route 07.

Myself and other cyclists have been shouted at and told to get of the pavement, but most of the persons shouting at us, are not from Glasgow

[Watts.E.Dunn]

This is almost an everyday occurance in Cycle city, AKA Cambridge!, they are all over the bloody place its a wonder that more of them arent killed.

Lights?, cheap as they are rarely fitted.

Old joke..

Bus driver to cyclist.. Oi sunshine! what are you reading?

Oh Classics my good man!

We try reading the fucking highway code instead!!!

[spiralnotebook]

It’s time treadmills were categorised along with other road users - mandatory bicycle licenses number plates protective clothing non pedestrian damaging friendly type approved design and speeding tickets. And isn’t it about time horses were removed off public highways?

[pbrown355]

Licence & no plates, seems reasonable. Pedestriansafe clothing, should be unnecessary as the bike is on the road and the pedestrian on the pavement (in my world)

[timsussex]

Even though the cyclist was acting illegally, gives you no right to deliberately put them in danger, and so should be irrelevant in deciding whether an act of manslaughter was committed.

......

true but
1) why should a pedestrian - going about their lawful business - need to move out of the way of a cyclist riding illegally on a pavement ?
2) why shouldnt't said pedestrian point out that this is a footpath not a cycleway ?
3) and if the cyclist was not in sufficient control of her bike that she fell over when she stopped why should a pedestrian be blamed ?

[petermisc]

I think maybe if this person is walking about town, she should have a career with her, to prevent any other incidents, especially if it involves a shared path

Why should she need to have a carer with her?  She did nothing wrong.

[petermisc]

I get what you mean about lyca clad morons zipping along paths, but this was an old lady on an upright bike and there was space to get past if the pedestrian had acted normally.  Also not coming from behind so as a cyclist you tend to assume they have seen you and will not act in a panic.

I am afraid that just characterises the high handed attitude that cyclists have to pedestrians. It is as much the responsibility of the cyclist to give way to the pedestrian.  More so when the cyclist has no right to even be on the pavement in the first place.

[petermisc]

true but
1) why should a pedestrian - going about their lawful business - need to move out of the way of a cyclist riding illegally on a pavement ?
2) why shouldnt't said pedestrian point out that this is a footpath not a cycleway ?
3) and if the cyclist was not in sufficient control of her bike that she fell over when she stopped why should a pedestrian be blamed ?

I totally agree with you on all 3 points.  A cyclist has no more right than another pedestrian to expect someone to get out of their way, and less so if they have no right to be there in the first place.

The point I was responding to was a query about whether or not the cyclist acting illegally has any bearing on whether or not a charge of manslaughter is applicable.  It isn't relevant.  Just because the person who died was acting illegally doesn't get you off a manslaughter charge.  It is whether you were acting unlawfully that matters.  And in this instance, the pedestrian was doing nothing wrong by standing her ground and gesticulating to the cyclist to get off the pavement.

[petermisc]

The woman banged up in prison,did nothing wrong

A vulnerable and disabled woman who has done nothing wrong has now spent significant time in prison.  I fail to understand why she could not have been granted bail until her appeal had been heard.  Was she really that much of a flight risk?  Was she really a risk to the general public?  It does seem that the trial judge had it in for her.

[Watts.E.Dunn]

FWIW this evening i had to go from one side of Cambridge to the other, around 3 miles, whilst doing so i counted no less than 15 cyclists with no lights at all, maybe a reflector that was all.

So how much is a set of bike lights these days?, sod all! but the stupid twats can't be arsed to buy and fit an use them, putting theirselves at risk.

[RedKettle]

I am afraid that just characterises the high handed attitude that cyclists have to pedestrians. It is as much the responsibility of the cyclist to give way to the pedestrian.  More so when the cyclist has no right to even be on the pavement in the first place.

Now you are just talking out of your arse. Where in my post did I show a high handed attitude to pedestrians?  Of course a cyclist needs to give way to pedestrians and I cycle on several shared paths that are for both and do just that.   

[petermisc]

Now you are just talking out of your arse. Where in my post did I show a high handed attitude to pedestrians? 

When you infered that there would have been no accident if the pedestrian had behaved "normally" by making space, and that cyclists assume how pedestrians will react.

[RedKettle]

When you infered that there would have been no accident if the pedestrian had behaved "normally" by making space, and that cyclists assume how pedestrians will react.

You need to put your prejudices away and try looking at things with an open mind.  I was responding in a friendly way to your comparison to someone zipping past you from behind.  Rather than say that was an idiotic comment in the circumstances of this case I choose what I thought was a non confrontational way of pointing out that here we had an old lady on a bike going slowly.  I was also trying to help you understand what is a perfectly reasonable assumption by cyclists that if they have been seen by a pedestrian that person will not move across their path.  However you are posting like many drivers drive around cyclists - aggressively.

[Doc Holliday]

Some people are interpreting this appeal judgement as Auriol Grey did nothing wrong. That is not the case. It was found that the prosecution failed to adequately define how she did anything unlawful and therefore meet the criteria of the charge of Manslaughter.

Lets be clear if she had not behaved in the confrontational and aggressive way she did that day, the cyclist would not have been hit by a car and killed. Let us not also forget that she left the scene, lied to the Police and should no remorse for her actions. What she did was not right or justified, just ultimately not proved to be unlawful.

As I said in this thread people's attitudes to this are influenced by the somewhat fractious nature of the interactions and relationships that exist between motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. I myself have many issues with cyclists on pavements and only the other day had a near miss with one approaching from behind me. It was a shared environment. Shortly before the incident another cyclist warned me of his approach with the bell and I was able to stop and allow him to pass safely. There are good and bad examples.

If you remove the cycle from the equation and lets say that day Auriol Grey was approaching a 75 year old pedestrian who she decided to shout at, swear at and encroach on her walking space when she did not need to. Finally raising an arm to her, causing the woman to veer closer to the edge of the wide pavement and step off the kerb, stumble onto the road and be hit by a car.

Would that be right and justified?

[radioman33]

It’s not breaking the law to make gestures and wave your arms at a deliveroo bike or skooter whizzing by you,if they fall off killing themselves you can’t be held responsible,we all would be in court.

[Blackpool Rock]

It’s not breaking the law to make gestures and wave your arms at a deliveroo bike or skooter whizzing by you,if they fall off killing themselves you can’t be held responsible,we all would be in court.

I'll take your post as being tongue in cheek but I believe the law changed not so long ago and it's now an offense which may even cross over into being classed as road rage -

Being abusive or making rude hand gestures to a fellow road user or pedestrian can be
considered inconsiderate, careless or dangerous driving.

I knew someone about 15 years ago whose wife was verbally abused by another driver, it was actually a bus driver who did the same trip every day (think he may have actually been the school bus driver)
This lad decided to go down the next day and have a word with him and they got into an argument about the bus driver making personal insults to his wife
Anyway the whole incident somehow got reported to the police and this lad was questioned about it, the copper then asked him how he had gone from his house down to the bus stop to confront the bus driver and he replied "I walked, why  ", the copper then said that if he'd driven down it could have been classed as road rage even if he'd parked up and got out to speak to the other driver.
How true that actually is I can't be 100% as the copper may have just been trying to shit him up a bit but people need to start realising that what they think may be a fairly tame 2 finger salute could actually have more serious consequences 

[radioman33]

I'll take your post as being tongue in cheek but I believe the law changed not so long ago and it's now an offense which may even cross over into being classed as road rage -

Being abusive or making rude hand gestures to a fellow road user or pedestrian can be
considered inconsiderate, careless or dangerous driving.

I knew someone about 15 years ago whose wife was verbally abused by another driver, it was actually a bus driver who did the same trip every day (think he may have actually been the school bus driver)
This lad decided to go down the next day and have a word with him and they got into an argument about the bus driver making personal insults to his wife
Anyway the whole incident somehow got reported to the police and this lad was questioned about it, the copper then asked him how he had gone from his house down to the bus stop to confront the bus driver and he replied "I walked, why  ", the copper then said that if he'd driven down it could have been classed as road rage even if he'd parked up and got out to speak to the other driver.
How true that actually is I can't be 100% as the copper may have just been trying to shit him up a bit but people need to start realising that what they think may be a fairly tame 2 finger salute could actually have more serious consequences 

This is about a woman who died after falling into the road,the person charged wrongly did not make physical contact.

[Doc Holliday]

It’s not breaking the law to make gestures and wave your arms at a deliveroo bike or skooter whizzing by you,if they fall off killing themselves you can’t be held responsible,we all would be in court.

I assume that is not a direct reply to my post?

[radioman33]

I assume that is not a direct reply to my post?

Hostile gesticulation is not a crime.

[Doc Holliday]

Hostile gesticulation is not a crime.

Did you actually read and understand the content of my post?

[RedKettle]

Hostile gesticulation is not a crime.

It can be, depends on context and consequences.

[Blackpool Rock]

Hostile gesticulation is not a crime.

Perhaps re-read my post and try to understand it, yes you can be prosecuted for rude hand gestures in the same way that swearing in public can see you in trouble 

[RedKettle]

Some people are interpreting this appeal judgement as Auriol Grey did nothing wrong. That is not the case. It was found that the prosecution failed to adequately define how she did anything unlawful and therefore meet the criteria of the charge of Manslaughter.

Lets be clear if she had not behaved in the confrontational and aggressive way she did that day, the cyclist would not have been hit by a car and killed. Let us not also forget that she left the scene, lied to the Police and should no remorse for her actions. What she did was not right or justified, just ultimately not proved to be unlawful.

As I said in this thread people's attitudes to this are influenced by the somewhat fractious nature of the interactions and relationships that exist between motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. I myself have many issues with cyclists on pavements and only the other day had a near miss with one approaching from behind me. It was a shared environment. Shortly before the incident another cyclist warned me of his approach with the bell and I was able to stop and allow him to pass safely. There are good and bad examples.

If you remove the cycle from the equation and lets say that day Auriol Grey was approaching a 75 year old pedestrian who she decided to shout at, swear at and encroach on her walking space when she did not need to. Finally raising an arm to her, causing the woman to veer closer to the edge of the wide pavement and step off the kerb, stumble onto the road and be hit by a car.

Would that be right and justified?

I am a driver, cyclist and pedestrian.  I see really stupid, reckless and aggressive acts by all three, often breaking the law.  I tend to think that the arse hole Audi driver is also a lyca clad aggressive moron on a bike.  Yet you see again and again posts from drivers slagging off cyclists with no acknowledgment that drivers ever do anything wrong.

Drivers have all been trained and taken a test yet still some are unable to obey rules of the road or drive with courtesy.

I completely agree that cyclists should not ride on pavements, jump red lights etc etc.  I suspect most cyclists agree with that.

[Blackpool Rock]

I am a driver, cyclist and pedestrian.  I see really stupid, reckless and aggressive acts by all three, often breaking the law.  I tend to think that the arse hole Audi driver is also a lyca clad aggressive moron on a bike.  Yet you see again and again posts from drivers slagging off cyclists with no acknowledgment that drivers ever do anything wrong.

Drivers have all been trained and taken a test yet still some are unable to obey rules of the road or drive with courtesy.

I completely agree that cyclists should not ride on pavements, jump red lights etc etc.  I suspect most cyclists agree with that.

+1 i'm also a driver; cyclist and pedestrian and i've said for a long time all 3 sets of people can be arseholes but as you say the same individual is probably an arsehole no matter what they are doing

Personally I drive / ride / walk defensively and i'd rather give way and arrive safely than defend my "Right or entitlement" to do XYZ literally to the death

[Darren101]

I agree with them overturning the verdict.  No law was broken however, I hope this ordeal teaches that woman a lesson. I hate arseholes like her.

Ditto to the above about driving defensively.  Too many idiots on the road.

[RedKettle]

+1 i'm also a driver; cyclist and pedestrian and i've said for a long time all 3 sets of people can be arseholes but as you say the same individual is probably an arsehole no matter what they are doing

Personally I drive / ride / walk defensively and i'd rather give way and arrive safely than defend my "Right or entitlement" to do XYZ literally to the death

I was probably an arsehole years ago when driving over 30k a year. One or two things happened, including getting older and wiser, and i calmed down.  Now drive defensively and simply laugh at the drivers aggressively pushing it.

Cycling you have to be careful and assume every car is trying to take you out.  I had someone try and side swipe me with their car then stop and tell me i should have been in the left hand lane.  That was a left turn only lane at a roundabout where i was going straight on so why would i be in that lane!!!

[Squire Haggard]

Instant Karma for dickhead cyclist. 

External Link/Members Only

[radioman33]

Instant Karma for dickhead cyclist. 

External Link/Members Only

Excellent,I’ve seen a deliveroo electric bike rider stack it in the high street it skidded for ages silly prick,nobody helped him.

[Blackpool Rock]

Instant Karma for dickhead cyclist. 

External Link/Members Only

The cyclist may be a dickhead however it's a bit choice coming from the delivery driver parked half on double yellows and half on the pavement, just sayin 

[threechilliman]

I was probably an arsehole years ago when driving over 30k a year. One or two things happened, including getting older and wiser, and i calmed down.  Now drive defensively and simply laugh at the drivers aggressively pushing it.

Exactly me these days.

[timsussex]

The cyclist may be a dickhead however it's a bit choice coming from the delivery driver parked half on double yellows and half on the pavement, just sayin 

that was my first thought

Councils can now claim the right to enforce parking on pavement fines - as London has done for years - I look forward to my council stopping this - especially when mothers with prams need to walk in the road

[myothernameis]

Councils can now claim the right to enforce parking on pavement fines -

My local council weren't willing to fine motorists for parking on the pavement, as they weren't will to employ traffic wardens

A small number of the public wrote to the council, if your not willing to deal with these motorist, then we will just walk on the road, and hold up the traffic

This went on around 3 weeks, and then the council in sted of employing traffic wardens, the council put of railing, and now motorist cant park on the pavement

[timsussex]

Article in Sunday Times today

Apparently Grey told the police she had no living relatives and her brother in law only found out from the media; it is only by his efforts inc getting a new legal team that she is free

The article contains a long list of Greys disabilities (blindness, cerebral palsy, reduced movement on her right side ) and something I had not seen before that she lived for the last 15 years in sheltered accommodation for disabled people near the scene of the accident. Surely that should have signified to the the police/CPS that there was something wrong ?

Apparently her right hand which is she is unable to fully extend was prised open in prison to make sure she wasn't hiding drugs, later prison officers were more kindly even cutting her food up for her and presenting her with a cake on her birthday.

Apparently the motorist has also suffered with post traumatic stress leading to her marriage breakup and it is suggested that the jury probably feel manipulated by the judge's misdirection.

[advent2016]

I was walking with a friend who has sight problems and uses a audio tri-cane. An Uber cyclist came past on the pavement , his front wheel, grabbed the cane and he came off. He came back to remonstrate to ask my my friend wasn't more careful!!!

[jackdaw]

Article in Sunday Times today

Apparently Grey told the police she had no living relatives and her brother in law only found out from the media; it is only by his efforts inc getting a new legal team that she is free

The article contains a long list of Greys disabilities (blindness, cerebral palsy, reduced movement on her right side ) and something I had not seen before that she lived for the last 15 years in sheltered accommodation for disabled people near the scene of the accident. Surely that should have signified to the the police/CPS that there was something wrong ?

Apparently her right hand which is she is unable to fully extend was prised open in prison to make sure she wasn't hiding drugs, later prison officers were more kindly even cutting her food up for her and presenting her with a cake on her birthday.

Apparently the motorist has also suffered with post traumatic stress leading to her marriage breakup and it is suggested that the jury probably feel manipulated by the judge's misdirection.

You wonder how she ended up with a three year jail sentence.

The facts don’t seem to be clear (was it a shared used path or not? Did she actually ever touch the cyclist or not?). Then no one seemed to explore what the rules were IF it was a shared path…on the ones I use the onus is still very much on the cyclist to give way, even dismount if need be.

So I don’t understand how the jury came to that verdict. (The argument that “she was a nasty piece of work that deserved punishing” ultimately isn’t good law.)

But I do accept that if I was on jury, hearing ALL the detail, I might have come to same guilty verdict.

But even after that…3 years?? Given all those disabilities?? Given that she never had any intention to actually physically hurt the other woman? That it was all a sad accident? That she had no record of crime? That there was no reason to believe she would ever commit another crime?

That sentence just looked like judge was trying to prove a point rather than sentence appropriately for what had happened.

[Doc Holliday]

Apparently Grey told the police she had no living relatives and her brother in law only found out from the media; it is only by his efforts inc getting a new legal team that she is free

Indeed and the first appeal submitted by her original legal team was rejected and which I think was based on her disabilities, rather than the successful one which was based on points of law.

Not sure if you have read the full judgement which is here and which is a fascinating read External Link/Members Only

The council has a lot to answer for as well. I gather this section of pavement was frequently and routinely used by cyclists, but they had failed to classify or designate it legally as shared use, which added to the somewhat unusual, almost unique circumstances of this case.

Edit it should also be noted that the second defence team provided their services pro bono

[timsussex]

Indeed and the first appeal submitted by her original legal team was rejected and which I think was based on her disabilities, rather than the successful one which was based on points of law.

Not sure if you have read the full judgement which is here and which is a fascinating read External Link/Members Only

The council has a lot to answer for as well. I gather this section of pavement was frequently and routinely used by cyclists, but they had failed to classify or designate it legally as shared use, which added to the somewhat unusual, almost unique circumstances of this case.

Edit it should also be noted that the second defence team provided their services pro bono

The first appeal was only against the sentence; thankfully the original team didnt appeal against the conviction so the new team was able to appeal that  - otherwise she would probably still be in prison

As i pointed out earlier a quick Google shows that the wider pavement on the other side of the road has prominent shared cyclepath signs; there were none on this side. Many of these ring roads become racetracks with drivers swapping lanes and are very frightening places for cyclists and pedestrians if tere are no crossings

[petermisc]

Indeed and the first appeal submitted by her original legal team was rejected and which I think was based on her disabilities, rather than the successful one which was based on points of law.

Not sure if you have read the full judgement which is here and which is a fascinating read External Link/Members Only

The council has a lot to answer for as well. I gather this section of pavement was frequently and routinely used by cyclists, but they had failed to classify or designate it legally as shared use, which added to the somewhat unusual, almost unique circumstances of this case.

It could be that it was not wide enough for them to designate it as shared use.  The path on the other side, that is shared use, is wider.  I understand that a path should be at least 3m wide to be shared use.  Perhaps the council should have put up some no cycling signs to make it clear it wasn't shared use?  But it isn't common practice to put up such signs on pavements.

However, whether or not the path had been shared use was surely immaterial.  Even if it were shared use, the pedestrian's actions were not unlawful.

Thanks for the link.

The judge’s legal directions contained fundamental and material misdirections of law.

That sounds pretty damning to me.  One of the main duties of a judge is to direct the jury in the legal aspects of the case.