[News] Pedestrian jailed for manslaughter

[Neville's Breakfast]

I'm sorry, but you're going off on yet another irrelevant tangent.

It doesn't matter whether there was a bike involved. It also doesn't matter whether the path was shared usage or not !

If there hadn't been a bike involved, and Auriol Grey had forced/pushed the elderly woman into the road, would that have changed the crime, conviction and sentence?

The cold, hard, brutal fact is that there was a bike involved, and it is irrelevant and distracting to speculate what might have happened if there wasn't.

Irrelevant ? I am discussing something you clearly don’t want to hear. Walk away if you don’t want to hear it. Of course it matters if the pathway was shared usage or not. If not then it was dangerous for the bike to be there in the first place. That’s why disability campaigners have asked the question in the first place. I think the bike itself was irrelevant, yes, because the poor victim could have been a runner, a dog walker or some other scenario. It wouldn’t have changed the facts. Unfortunately the presence of the bicycle makes some people abusive and unable to discuss.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

So if a 77 year old lady grabbed your man bag and ran off with your money, and you shouted 'I'll get you for this' and she looked back at you, stumbled onto the road and got run over, you'd expect to go to prison?

The point being that it's not as simple as 'threatened someone and they fell and died', it depends on the details of the case.

Does the pedestrian just go around threatening people because they're an angry aggressive individual, or did they react because they were worried for their own safety?

You are going over old ground which has already discussed in other posts with other people.

 

[Eric the meek]

Irrelevant ? I am discussing something you clearly don’t want to hear. Walk away if you don’t want to hear it. Of course it matters if the pathway was shared usage or not. If not then it was dangerous for the bike to be there in the first place. That’s why disability campaigners have asked the question in the first place. I think the bike itself was irrelevant, yes, because the poor victim could have been a runner, a dog walker or some other scenario. It wouldn’t have changed the facts. Unfortunately the presence of the bicycle makes some people abusive and unable to discuss.

Note the thread title 'Pedestrian jailed for manslaughter'. Having been unable to ascertain whether the pathway was shared usage, the court still convicted her of manslaughter. So whether the pathway was shared usage or not, or unknown, it was irrelevant to the court, and did not affect the verdict.

The fact that you write 'Of course it matters if the pathway was shared usage or not. If not then it was dangerous for the bike to be there in the first place.' is revealing. Are you saying that in the unconfirmed scenario of the pathway not being shared use, you are trying to attach some culpability to the victim and less blame to the culprit? Why? Isn't that victim blaming?

To be clear, pedestrians are not entitled to force/push cyclists into the road. Auriol Grey has been convicted of manslaughter, causing the horrific death of a woman, whose only misdemeanour may have been to ride her bike on a pathway, which - may - have not been shared usage, but you don't actually know whether it was or not. You claim that this is relevant. I disagree. So did the court.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Note the thread title 'Pedestrian jailed for manslaughter'. Having been unable to ascertain whether the pathway was shared usage, the court still convicted her of manslaughter. So whether the pathway was shared usage or not, or unknown, it was irrelevant to the court, and did not affect the verdict.

The fact that you write 'Of course it matters if the pathway was shared usage or not. If not then it was dangerous for the bike to be there in the first place.' is revealing. Are you saying that in the unconfirmed scenario of the pathway not being shared use, you are trying to attach some culpability to the victim and less blame to the culprit? Why? Isn't that victim blaming?

To be clear, pedestrians are not entitled to force/push cyclists into the road. Auriol Grey has been convicted of manslaughter, causing the horrific death of a woman, whose only misdemeanour may have been to ride her bike on a pathway, which - may - have not been shared usage, but you don't actually know whether it was or not. You claim that this is relevant. I disagree. So did the court.

My opinion doesn’t need ‘revealing.’ I have stated it very clearly on this thread. I said early on in this thread this incident shouldn’t really be framed by culture wars but with the wording of the opening post and subsequent angry outbursts there’s no chance of that. I’m really not being drawn into an argument about modes of transport with you or anybody else.

 

[Bodian]

I guess in a case like this a judgment has to be made whether someones actions were proportionate. So you threatening a 77 year old woman who may have been perceived as illegally cycling on a footpath causing her to fall into the road and get run over might be considered disproportionate. However a partially sighted 49 year old woman with mental and physical issues doing the same thing might have her actions considered as less disproportionate.
I don't think the pedestrian intended to kill the cyclist. The footpath is not marked up as a shared footpath. I suspect the pedestrian had in her mind that the cyclist was cycling illegally (whether she was or wasn't). Obviously no cyclist should die because they are cycling on a footpath and the case is tragic. However in this case a three year custodial sentence does not look like justice to me.

That's why it is manslaughter. If the pedestrian had 'intended' to kill the cyclist it would be murder.

Note the thread title 'Pedestrian jailed for manslaughter'. Having been unable to ascertain whether the pathway was shared usage, the court still convicted her of manslaughter. So whether the pathway was shared usage or not, or unknown, it was irrelevant to the court, and did not affect the verdict.

The fact that you write 'Of course it matters if the pathway was shared usage or not. If not then it was dangerous for the bike to be there in the first place.' is revealing. Are you saying that in the unconfirmed scenario of the pathway not being shared use, you are trying to attach some culpability to the victim and less blame to the culprit? Why? Isn't that victim blaming?

To be clear, pedestrians are not entitled to force/push cyclists into the road. Auriol Grey has been convicted of manslaughter, causing the horrific death of a woman, whose only misdemeanour may have been to ride her bike on a pathway, which - may - have not been shared usage, but you don't actually know whether it was or not. You claim that this is relevant. I disagree. So did the court.

I think many are missing the points you rightly raise. My understanding of (involuntary) manslaughter is when you do something negligent that you should have known would/could kill someone. It strikes me that this is what the pedestrian did by forcing a cyclist to fall into the path of traffic, and not showing them a normal duty of care. It matters not whether the cyclist should have been there or not.

The video also shows that the cyclist was already half past her before swerving into the road, which would strongly indicate some sort of physical interaction.

Useful definition which seems to fit what appears to have happened (although obviously I was not there or in the court).

INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER BY GROSS NEGLIGENCE​

If a person owes a duty of care to another individual and is negligent to a severe enough degree to cause the death of the victim, they may be liable for involuntary manslaughter by gross negligence.

When prosecuting for this, the courts will look for the following elements:

• The defendant owed the victim a duty of care
• The defendant breached this duty of care
• The breach was responsible for the death of the victim
• The negligence was gross, showing a significant disregard for the life and safety of others.

 

[abc]

How about everyone agreeing that whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, pedestrians, cysclits and motorists do not safely mix and all need their own 'safe space' to travel in. Pedestrians need pedestrian only pavements, cyclists need bike only cycle paths and roads are for motor vehicles only.

 

[rogersix]

How about everyone agreeing that whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, pedestrians, cysclits and motorists do not safely mix and all need their own 'safe space' to travel in. Pedestrians need pedestrian only pavements, cyclists need bike only cycle paths and roads are for motor vehicles only.

how do cyclists get from one cycle path to the next?

 

[Weststander]

how do cyclists get from one cycle path to the next?

 

[Eric the meek]

That's why it is manslaughter. If the pedestrian had 'intended' to kill the cyclist it would be murder.



I think many are missing the points you rightly raise. My understanding of (involuntary) manslaughter is when you do something negligent that you should have known would/could kill someone. It strikes me that this is what the pedestrian did by forcing a cyclist to fall into the path of traffic, and not showing them a normal duty of care. It matters not whether the cyclist should have been there or not.

The video also shows that the cyclist was already half past her before swerving into the road, which would strongly indicate some sort of physical interaction.

Useful definition which seems to fit what appears to have happened (although obviously I was not there or in the court).

INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER BY GROSS NEGLIGENCE​

If a person owes a duty of care to another individual and is negligent to a severe enough degree to cause the death of the victim, they may be liable for involuntary manslaughter by gross negligence.

When prosecuting for this, the courts will look for the following elements:

• The defendant owed the victim a duty of care
• The defendant breached this duty of care
• The breach was responsible for the death of the victim
• The negligence was gross, showing a significant disregard for the life and safety of others.

Thank you for your post. Those four bullet points do seem to fit the case. It very much looks like the verdict of manslaughter was the correct one.

It's interesting that you should mention the video at the point where pedestrian and cyclist passed each other. I continue to be troubled by that. While it isn't conclusive from the clip, that Auriol Grey pushed the cyclist into the road, the fact that the cyclist swerved into the road immediately after they had passed each other, (whereas prior to that the cyclist had been cycling in a straight line), indicates that she did, or at least held out her forearm to protect her own pavement space. In her own words, she said she "flinched out with her left arm to protect herself". Note that Auriol Grey made no attempt to move to the right to allow the cyclist to go through the gap safely.

 

[Triggaaar]

I think many are missing the points you rightly raise. My understanding of (involuntary) manslaughter is when you do something negligent that you should have known would/could kill someone. It strikes me that this is what the pedestrian did by forcing a cyclist to fall into the path of traffic, and not showing them a normal duty of care.

Looking at the video, I don't think the pedestrian forced the cyclist to fall into the path of traffic. A cyclist in control of their bike should have been able to stop. And I don't think they should have known their actions would be likely to kill anyone.

I'm guessing that the following accident was horrific, and that the pedestrian's actions from then on are a large part of the reason they were found guilty.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

My opinion doesn’t need ‘revealing.’ I have stated it very clearly on this thread. I said early on in this thread this incident shouldn’t really be framed by culture wars but with the wording of the opening post and subsequent angry outbursts there’s no chance of that. I’m really not being drawn into an argument about modes of transport with you or anybody else.

The wording of the opening post, by me, is a statement of fact.

 

[Deleted member 37369]

Looking at the video, I don't think the pedestrian forced the cyclist to fall into the path of traffic.

The convicted woman is seen flicking her arm out in the early part of the clip. If you slow the clip down you can see right at the end that she has started to extend her arm again. The way the woman on the bike fell into the road suggests to me that it was as a result of some sort of push.

BUT ... we are all speculating here ... whichever angle we are coming from. I wonder if the clip we are seeing has been cut and that the wider full CCTC image shows the incident more clearly. This is what would have been shown in court and this is what would have helped make up the minds of the jury.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Why is everyone saying there was a push?

This isn't mentioned anywhere in the coverage. The judgement was based on shouting and waving arms.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Why is everyone saying there was a push?

This isn't mentioned anywhere in the coverage. The judgement was based on shouting and waving arms.

The video stops before the actual action.

 

[Deleted member 37369]

Why is everyone saying there was a push?

This isn't mentioned anywhere in the coverage. The judgement was based on shouting and waving arms.

From BBC article I posted on page 1 ...

In police interview, Grey said she believed she had made light contact with Mrs Ward.

So she admitted she had made contact!

 

[Eric the meek]

Why is everyone saying there was a push?

This isn't mentioned anywhere in the coverage. The judgement was based on shouting and waving arms.

In the BBC report, Auriol Grey said:

'She described the pedal cycle as travelling "fast" in the centre of the pavement, stating she was "anxious that I was going to get hit by it".
She said she "may have unintentionally put" out her hand to protect herself. Ms Grey believed she had made light contact with Mrs Ward.
After being shown the CCTV footage, interviewing officer Det Sgt Mark Dollard asked her why she said what she said, to which she responded: "I don't know."

Readers can draw their own conclusions.

 

[Stat Brother]

how do cyclists get from one cycle path to the next?

Ask Lincolnshire County Council.

 

[Spiros]

Pedestrians in my experience have no notion of a 'Shared path'. A pavement is a pavement so no need to look for signs. It's human nature. These are an ill- thought Band-Aid to try to cure a problem where the ONLY answer is a segregated path. That cyclist would still be alive if that was the case, like so many hundreds of others. The anti-cycling attitude from car drivers is far, far more dangerous though. It is a privilege to have a Driving Licence, not a right. But it is a basic right to be able to walk /cycle in a safe non-threatening environment.

Funny how shared paths seem to work in other countries but seem to cause conflict in this country. The wide prom on the seafront at Nieuwport (I think it's called) in Belgium is a shared space for pedestrians and cyclists (or was when I went there about 10 years ago. Plenty of both pedestrians and cyclists, as well as kids in hired pedal cars yet no sign at all of conflict. The cyclists just ease there way along, the odd tinkle of a bell and no-one gets upset.

Contrast that to the prom at Worthing. Similar width but you get (1) some groups of pedestrians who delight in stringing themselves out right across the prom to basically force any cyclist to stop and (2) some cyclists charging along at unsafe speeds with no hands on the handlebars forcing pedestrians out of the way. I saw examples of both yesterday within the space of about 10 minutes.

The problem is less a lack of space and more a lack of consideration for others in my view, whether that be pedestrian, cyclist or driver

 

[rippleman]

Even if it wasn't a shared path, it's a £30 fine, not the death penalty.

On a shared path I would expect cyclists to slow down or stop if there's not enough space to safely pass.

But the majority don't. They just see the pavement/footpath as a faster, and safer (for them) option than riding on the roads. The police refuse to enforce the law and issue the fixed penalties which, of course, doesn't act as any deterent and more and more selfish, inconsiderate cyclists are taking to the pavements.

 

[Weststander]

But the majority don't. They just see the pavement/footpath as a faster, and safer (for them) option than riding on the roads. The police refuse to enforce the law and issue the fixed penalties which, of course, doesn't act as any deterent and more and more selfish, inconsiderate cyclists are taking to the pavements.

Cycling on roads is faster in my experience for various reasons, including roads have a level surface.

Cycling elsewhere is just safer, you're not next to 1.5T projectiles.