Should a cyclist speed up or slow down for bollards?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] Pedestrian jailed for manslaughter
- Thread starter Thunder Bolt
- Start date
Lindfield23
Well-known member
- Dec 14, 2016
- 772
The Court of Appeal has now overturned Auriol Grey's manslaughter conviction.
Good. The lesson to be learned: Don't break the law by riding bicycles on the pavement. It really is that simple.
AstroSloth
Well-known member
- Dec 29, 2020
- 1,379
It was a shared bike path not just pedestrians.
Having seen the video it's ridiculous to overturn.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 14,501
It was a shared bicycle/pedestrian footpath and it was clearly demonstrated that the cyclist did nothing wrong.
It’s clear the appeals court has taken into account heavily the mental capacity of the Karen who caused the accident leading to the victim’s death.
In my opinion, the appeals judges see it as a tragedy rather than a crime, and are overturning it more as a “time served” than a matter of wrongful conviction - no matter what their official findings state.
The Karen is very unlikely to reoffend and keeping her in prison to see out another year or so is really not worth it.
Just a sad story all round.
It’s clear the appeals court has taken into account heavily the mental capacity of the Karen who caused the accident leading to the victim’s death.
In my opinion, the appeals judges see it as a tragedy rather than a crime, and are overturning it more as a “time served” than a matter of wrongful conviction - no matter what their official findings state.
The Karen is very unlikely to reoffend and keeping her in prison to see out another year or so is really not worth it.
Just a sad story all round.
Badger Boy
Mr Badger
- Jan 28, 2016
- 3,658
Why don't you ask someone who can read to explain the facts to you?
Do people really hate cyclists enough that they are happy for them to die?
Even if the cyclist was in the wrong (which he wasn't), it's not acceptable to kill them.
Billy the Fish
Technocrat
1) It wasn't a shared path. There are no signs to indicate a shared path. The council was asked and they had no record of a shared path.
2) The original judge stated that Auriel Grey's disability didn't affect her actions. The court of appeal clearly think this is bollocks.
Will the baying mob of the cycle lobby be prepared to accept the appeal court's decision? Would be very hypocritical it they aren't.
martin tyler
Well-known member
- Jan 25, 2013
- 5,964
Reading it it seems the basis of the appeal is the lack of base of original offence of manslaughter. Her actions would not have been considered an offence assault as she just made a gesture from a distance. If hostile gesturing was an offence alone then maybe there would be a bar for the original offence but it isn’t.
Whether they then take on the fact her disabilities and visual impairment is another factor for the gesturing I don’t know but to me it clearly should have been a factor. I don’t know the extent of her vision but it’s fair to say a lack of vision would make a massive difference to how you react.
Overall this is a sad case tbh. The cyclist should never have died and she should never have gone to prison. All round sad state of affairs.
Agreed, although the lesson for the lady on the bike was way OTT for the offense she committed - riding on the pavement is wrong, but a death sentence is not appropriate! Manslaughter though? - not for me, but the shouty old bat needed some gaol time (now served) for being an arsehole and just walking away instead of trying to help.
Mr Bridger
Sound of the suburbs
So two people have been quashed.
Pondicherry
Well-known member
No offence was committed (let alone manslaughter) and should never have even got as far as the jury (twice - there was a retrial) according to the three appeal judges. The pavement was never demonstrated to be shared (as others have said). Vulnerable people needed better support from the justice system again according to the three judges. The caveat is that someone died. Lessons to be learnt all round.
AstroSloth
Well-known member
- Dec 29, 2020
- 1,379
Except for the fact on Google maps you can see a shared bike lane sign further down the same path.
And the Judge stating it was a shared path
"Judge Enright said her actions were not the result of disability, adding that the pavement was 2.4 metres wide where the accident happened, and it was a “shared path on the ring road”.
The reason it's been overturned is because they don't agree it reaches the threshold for involuntary manslaughter, something multiple other judges did think so is up to interpretation.
Super Steve Earle
Well-known member
Sounds like a VAR decision!
This has ultimately been a tragedy for all concerned. IMHO, the lesson to be learned is that pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles all need their own safe spaces. They don’t mix. Some of the annual £billions spent on road improvements could be diverted to create proper cycle lanes, decent pavements and clear signage etc and everyone could co exist peacefully and safely.
It’s a tragedy for the cyclist. Because she’s dead. And her loved ones. Because they’ve lost her. It’s not a tragedy for anyone else.
Agree that UK cycling infrastructure needs a lot of work though. It has been that way for too long. More investment needed. And that investment to be spent wisely.
- Aug 24, 2020
- 7,096
I'm not quite sure of what adjective to use here, but in the video clip halfway down the article from the BBC, a journalist is reporting from where the incident took place, and a cyclist rides right past her.
There is plenty of room on the pavement for the cyclist, the reporter and a cameraman. There was no need for this tragedy to have happened.
There is plenty of room on the pavement for the cyclist, the reporter and a cameraman. There was no need for this tragedy to have happened.
Auriol Grey has cyclist manslaughter conviction overturned
Auriol Grey's family say they are relieved her ordeal is now over following the Appeal Court ruling.
www.bbc.co.uk
Last edited: