This is the case in Japan where cyclists actually have to use footpaths in large urban areas. Then they are restricted to 13 kph (8 mph) maximum and have to give way to pedestrians where advisable. That would be a good law for us to adopt and enforce.

.

Enforcement as we all know doesn't occur over here, there may be the odd token case.

Enforcement abroad tends to be far better as a deterant then here.

Enforcement as we all know doesn't occur over here, there may be the odd token case.

Enforcement abroad tends to be far better as a deterant then here.

 

The trouble being that we've kept cycling illegal on pavements while also having ministerial permission to cycle on them. Little wonder the police dont know what to do for the best.

 

The Japanese far more sensibly don't ban pavement cycling and even enforce it in congested areas. The only law being that it must be done slowly below 8 mph and safely. That would be very easy for our police to understand and act upon.

.

The trouble being that we've kept cycling illegal on pavements while also having ministerial permission to cycle on them. Little wonder the police dont know what to do for the best.

 

The Japanese far more sensibly don't ban pavement cycling and even enforce it in congested areas. The only law being that it must be done slowly below 8 mph and safely. That would be very easy for our police to understand and act upon.

.

And with that confused, and some might say incompetent implementation of law, perhaps we should consider both parties involved in this tragic incident as victims

And with that confused, and some might say incompetent implementation of law, perhaps we should consider both parties involved in this tragic incident as victims

 

No way was the woman causing the death a victim. She is not the police so had no right of enforcement, even less her physical enforcement. She is just a nasty minded, bossy person who cared so little for the elderly victim that she walked off into the supermarket to get her shopping.

.

I have to disagree, pedestrian, cyclist and driver are all victims of the inconsistent laws relating to use of the footway. It has been reported that the pedestrian along with other problems had a visual impairment which may have made it difficult to judge distance and speed., she may have felt unsafe and overeacted. Yes her actions contributed to the tragedy and she appeared to show no empathy but again that may be another aspect of her multiple health issues. We can but hope that this unfortunate event may prompt some clarification (and enforcement) of the rules in order to protect both pedestrians and cyclists.

The lady cycling was 77 years old. If we are to have as many as possible cycling as in the Netherlands where they cycle into their nineties, we have to expect slower reactions and the occasional poor decision resulting.

 

So tolerance is called for to accommodate those less capable citizens since we all get old eventually.

 

 

 

A perfect example of how to behave with civilised tolerance for someone clearly in the wrong.

.

The comment about the Netherlands really wraps it up. Over there cyclists and pedestrians are usually separated and the former are considerate. We have a long way to go!

What’s not been reported is that the woman shoved the cyclist as she passed causing her to veer into the road and get hit. In the her testimony she said she may have made contact as she panicked and put her hands out. Judge basically didn’t believe her as she’d been untruthful from the off.

From watching the BBC video posted here frame by frame it looks like she DID push at least the back of the bike in last cpl frames towards the road.

 

If she did push her on to the road then Cerebal Palsy/medical conditions are not an excuse, a push is a calculated movement and still a push, she did had the opportunity to move away or to engage...

 

Strange there is no other footage from a different angle in this day and age.

 

3 yrs though....wtf?

I have to disagree, pedestrian, cyclist and driver are all victims of the inconsistent laws relating to use of the footway. It has been reported that the pedestrian along with other problems had a visual impairment which may have made it difficult to judge distance and speed., she may have felt unsafe and overeacted. Yes her actions contributed to the tragedy and she appeared to show no empathy but again that may be another aspect of her multiple health issues. We can but hope that this unfortunate event may prompt some clarification (and enforcement) of the rules in order to protect both pedestrians and cyclists.

 

So what do we do, let her off with a very light sentence? All that will do is reinforce her obvious belief that she can act in this way. Worse still it will give oxygen to the hordes of like minded anti-cycling public in this country.

 

The rules are perfectly clear, the problems are that a minority of cycists ride irresponsibly on the pavements and the majority of pedestrians are anti-cycling and refuse to accept cyclist's rights.

 

That was evident when in 2000 Paul Boateng as Home Secretary announced the limited permission for cyclists to use the pavements. Immediately there was storm of protest from the anti cyclist general public, backed up by the usual suspects, Daily Mail, Express etc. Clearly those people had no intention of co-operating with the change.

 

The only way to deal with that is to make them accept it and this sentence spells out the right message. As I've pointed out she won't be serving it in anything like the full sentence anyway, but the message is very important and should not be weakened. If we want to end up like the Netherlands, it starts with strong enforcement. That is what the Dutch government did in 1972 to start their modern pro cycling program, a strong crackdown, their wonderful cycling facilities only slowly following bit by bit over the years. Even today they say they still have only completed three quarters of the program.

 

What makes it work everywhere there isn't the facilities which are still absent in places. It's the strong rules which make everyone, drivers, pedestrians and cyclists behave considerately at all times. Such behaviours as drivers stopping for cyclists at junctions, cyclists ambling along slowly wherever there are pedestrians and everyone co-operating without any argument.

 

It starts with strong enforcement, like this pedestrian sentence we are discussing. Like the prison sentence cyclist Charlie Alliston got for killing a pedestrian. Like the prison sentence driver Victoria McClure got for killing a cyclist. We have at long last got the right idea. Let's stick with it and end this needless killing.

.

Edited March 4, 20233 yr by flecc

This was a jury trial in the Crown court, so presumably the defence had the opertunity to present evidence, medical reports etc.

 

Interesting how, based on a few comments on web sites, social media etc, some people can appear to form a strong view that this is a misscarriage of justice in some way.

 

Maybe if some of the posters commenting on this case, had been present in court and heard first hand, all the evidence, just like the jury did, they would take a different view.

What’s not been reported is that the woman shoved the cyclist as she passed causing her to veer into the road and get hit. In the her testimony she said she may have made contact as she panicked and put her hands out. Judge basically didn’t believe her as she’d been untruthful from the off.

Tantalisingly the CCTV footage doesn't cover the point where contact was made but it is certainly my impression from the video that the pedestrian actually shoved the cyclist into the road. It's actually irrelevant to the charge of manslaughter whether she made contact or not as she was responsible for the death.

Certified disabled people are like teflon, hard to jail. Has the video been resolution cropped as well as shortened? Security cameras are usually wide angle, that one's purpose appears to be monitoring the entrance. Perhaps the jury had access to a wider view as well as longer recording?

 

 

Edited March 5, 20233 yr by I893469365902345609348566

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64835197

 

Det Sgt Dollard, who interviewed Grey, told BBC Radio Cambridgeshire: "I'll always remember the morning after it occurred obtaining the CCTV and watching it in its entirety.

"In all honesty it's horrific and not appropriate for wider release to the public, but, if it were, then I think a lot of the arguments in relation to appropriate responses would be null and void."

 

He added that there were "considerations in relation to Auriol Grey's vulnerability" in their investigation.

"A lot of medical records... professional expert evidence was sought and presented to a jury, it's important to note, and with all that, in fact, she was found guilty of an unlawful act and that is why she was convicted," he said.

I wonder if the reason why so many drivers get off relatively lightly for killing cyclists, is because most jury members can empathise with fellow drivers? Not many of us can truly relate to being disabled.

I wonder if the reason why so many drivers get off relatively lightly for killing cyclists, is because most jury members can empathise with fellow drivers?

 

I think two factors. Jurors often being drivers are likely to have empathy for the driver, and in addition there's considerable anti-cyclist feeling among the general public. Due of course to those who cycle fast on pavements and who jump traffic lights and mix with the pedestrians crossing, sometime cutting them up. All too often some cyclists are their own worst enemy.

 

However, judges fix the sentences, so I doubt the jury has much influence.

.

It's counter-intuitive to stop and interact with someone who is shouting and agitated, disabled people can appear to be quite alarming, but I think this is what the cyclist should have done.

 

------------------

 

"It comes as Grey's neighbour leapt to her defence, saying she was on her way to drop off a prescription for medication to a surgery when she interacted with tragic Celia.

 

She immediately left the scene to buy groceries, but the neighbour insisted she was told to.

 

The neighbour told The Sun: “She looked at what happened. A man came up to her saying ‘go away love, we will deal with this’."

 

"And the neighbour revealed how she has been abused when she walks down the street by people on scooters, telling her to go away, swearing at her and call her a “spastic”.

 

He said it has happened so often that she got used to it.

 

She was also abused at her school with the nuns telling her that she was going to hell and that she is a bad person and she was disabled because God is punishing her."

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21587559/pedestrian-cyclist-pavement-death-auriol-grey/

It's counter-intuitive to stop and interact with someone who is shouting and agitated, disabled people can appear to be quite alarming, but I think this is what the cyclist should have done.

 

------------------

 

"It comes as Grey's neighbour leapt to her defence, saying she was on her way to drop off a prescription for medication to a surgery when she interacted with tragic Celia.

 

She immediately left the scene to buy groceries, but the neighbour insisted she was told to.

 

The neighbour told The Sun: “She looked at what happened. A man came up to her saying ‘go away love, we will deal with this’."

 

"And the neighbour revealed how she has been abused when she walks down the street by people on scooters, telling her to go away, swearing at her and call her a “spastic”.

 

He said it has happened so often that she got used to it.

 

She was also abused at her school with the nuns telling her that she was going to hell and that she is a bad person and she was disabled because God is punishing her."

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21587559/pedestrian-cyclist-pavement-death-auriol-grey/

 

We don't know if the cyclist had time and space to stop, it doesn't seem she had, and in any case she at 77 years was elderly, possibly with slower reactions.

 

The police officer who saw the whole video was clearly horrified by it and believed the sentence justified, as must the CPS who will also have seen the whole video.

 

As I posted earlier, the sentence to be served is 18 months, not 3 years. Since the defence is appealing on grounds of the defendents medical condition, if that is found warranted the sentence will reduce further and still be halved. She could be out in less than a year, not much for taking a life.

.

I live in a village and locals often need to cycle to a couple of garden centres along the dual carriageway. Most of the journey can be cycled/walked using a now disused road, but in order to access this, one must first negotiate 200 to 300 yards of dual carriageway and crossing it twice.

Everyone cycles the short distance on the pavement that leads to this old road to avoid doing this. The rule observed by all cyclists; in the extremely rare event of meeting a pedestrian, you jump off your bike and walk until passed. It works and no one has a problem with it.

I wonder if the reason why so many drivers get off relatively lightly for killing cyclists, is because most jury members can empathise with fellow drivers? Not many of us can truly relate to being disabled.

It's the judge who does the sentencing the jury only decide on guilt or innocence.

 

TBH I'm not sure why there needs to be a specific offence of "Causing death by dangerous driving" when the offender could be charged with Manslaughter.

TBH I'm not sure why there needs to be a specific offence of "Causing death by dangerous driving" when the offender could be charged with Manslaughter.

 

The Crown Prosecutiion Service give this explanation:

 

"Unlawful act manslaughter will be the most appropriate charge when there is evidence that a vehicle was used as an instrument of attack or to cause fright, (but where the necessary intent for murder is absent), and death occurs as a result.

 

In the context of driving offences, it is important to remember that there is a difference between cases where there is a specific unlawful act which relates to the manner and standard of the driving, and those where a death has occurred as a result of driving that is unlawful only because of the negligent manner of its performance.

 

Driving carelessly or driving dangerously do not, on their own, amount to unlawful acts for the purpose of unlawful act manslaughter - Andrews v DPP [1937] A.C. 576.

 

Unlawful act manslaughter should, therefore, only be charged instead of causing death by dangerous driving where there is evidence that the driver either intended to cause injury to the victim or was reckless as to whether injury would be caused."

 

Information Link

,

 

car vs house

The Crown Prosecutiion Service give this explanation:

 

"Unlawful act manslaughter will be the most appropriate charge when there is evidence that a vehicle was used as an instrument of attack or to cause fright, (but where the necessary intent for murder is absent), and death occurs as a result.

 

In the context of driving offences, it is important to remember that there is a difference between cases where there is a specific unlawful act which relates to the manner and standard of the driving, and those where a death has occurred as a result of driving that is unlawful only because of the negligent manner of its performance.

 

Driving carelessly or driving dangerously do not, on their own, amount to unlawful acts for the purpose of unlawful act manslaughter - Andrews v DPP [1937] A.C. 576.

 

Unlawful act manslaughter should, therefore, only be charged instead of causing death by dangerous driving where there is evidence that the driver either intended to cause injury to the victim or was reckless as to whether injury would be caused."

 

Information Link

,

So, perhaps had the woman gestured and swore from within a vehicle no custodial sentence would have been forth coming??

So, perhaps had the woman gestured and swore from within a vehicle no custodial sentence would have been forth coming??

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/priest-woman-arrested-silently-prayed-26255478

 

id not even think about it

So, perhaps had the woman gestured and swore from within a vehicle no custodial sentence would have been forth coming??

 

Of course not, because she would not be pushing the cyclist into the road. You keep making light of what she did, which was to effectively force the cyclist off the pavement and under a car, killing her. That is what she was punished for.

 

Two sets of professionals, the police and the CPS, determined that she should be prosecuted for the offence. Twelve adult jurors of good character have determined her guilt, and another professional, the Judge, had to determine the appropriate sentence.

 

All of these people have seen the full video of the offence and have been fully informed of the defendant's personal difficulties. None of the public have been so informed, therefore they should not be criticising the sentence.

 

The law has a further safeguard for the convicted woman, that of an appeal and it appears that is going to be employed. Therefore the public should not be commenting until the procedures have been exhausted.

.