[News] Pedestrian jailed for manslaughter

[AstroSloth]

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.

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

Almost like it's a shared bike path.

 

[Eric the meek]

Almost like it's a shared bike path.

A picture paints a thousand words.

In this case, a moving picture, a video, demonstrates that a pedestrian can meet a cyclist on that pavement and both parties can emerge alive and uninjured.
They survived it because they shared the path. Perhaps compromised a bit. Perhaps the reporter saw the cyclist coming, and positioned herself to allow him space to pass her safely. Both cyclist and pedestrian showed consideration for each other.

But when Auriol Grey had an interaction with a cyclist at the same spot, the cyclist ended up dead. If the pedestrian had been the reporter, or someone who didn't think she was entitled to sole, exclusive use of the pavement, she would still be alive. Therefore she is dead because of Auriol Grey's behaviour.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

A picture paints a thousand words.

In this case, a moving picture, a video, demonstrates that a pedestrian can meet a cyclist on that pavement and both parties can emerge alive and uninjured.
They survived it because they shared the path. Perhaps compromised a bit. Perhaps the reporter saw the cyclist coming, and positioned herself to allow him space to pass her safely. Both cyclist and pedestrian showed consideration for each other.

But when Auriol Grey had an interaction with a cyclist at the same spot, the cyclist ended up dead. If the pedestrian had been the reporter, or someone who didn't think she was entitled to sole, exclusive use of the pavement, she would still be alive. Therefore she is dead because of Auriol Grey's behaviour.

The appeal seemed to be based a lot on Grey’s disability, although the original trial judge ruled it played no part, and I wonder if her sentence had been community service rather than custodial, an appeal would’ve been launched at all?

 

[PascalGroß Tips]

Good. The lesson to be learned: Don't break the law by riding bicycles on the pavement. It really is that simple.

I'm only going to make one post on this thread as it's just too much of a bun fight with so many comments just being recycled.

Yes - the Highway Code tells cyclists not to cycle on the pavement (unless shared use etc - and it doesn't seem 100% clear on that aspect with this case anyway - but let's go with it NOT being a shared path in this case).

But - many of our roads are just not safe for more vulnerable people to cycle on e.g. the elderly (the lady who died was 77 and not a speeding MAMIL - and young kids. My own view is that I have no issue with the elderly and kids cycling on a pavement and I would accommodate them by moving to one side to allow them to pass safely.

I wonder what opinions might be if the person waving their hands and saying "get off the f***ing pavement" was a 40 year old male and the cyclist ending up dead was a 12 year old kid.

Is it really that simple?

 

[ozzygull]

This is really difficult to call, Yes the women was unpleasant to the cyclist and that caused her to lose balance and full in to a path of a car and die. But yelling at some one is not a crime (depending on what you are yelling) and there would be no reason to believe that in doing so would cause anyone physical harm. I think the odd thing is just walking off after it happened, but the women has issues. Very sad for the cyclist family

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

I'm trying to process this very sad chain of events and thinking what might have been the outcome if the roles were reversed. Say the pedestrian jumped out of the way of a cyclist, off the path, into the road and was then hit by a car?

My understanding is that the appeal judges considered that if the cyclist had only been injured and not died there could not have been an assault conviction, concluding verbal assault cannot lead to manslaughter.

All very sad and unfortunate.

Imagine being the driver of the car that killed the cyclist.

 

[ozzygull]

I'm only going to make one post on this thread as it's just too much of a bun fight with so many comments just being recycled.

Yes - the Highway Code tells cyclists not to cycle on the pavement (unless shared use etc - and it doesn't seem 100% clear on that aspect with this case anyway - but let's go with it NOT being a shared path in this case).

But - many of our roads are just not safe for more vulnerable people to cycle on e.g. the elderly (the lady who died was 77 and not a speeding MAMIL - and young kids. My own view is that I have no issue with the elderly and kids cycling on a pavement and I would accommodate them by moving to one side to allow them to pass safely.

I wonder what opinions might be if the person waving their hands and saying "get off the f***ing pavement" was a 40 year old male and the cyclist ending up dead was a 12 year old kid.

Is it really that simple?

I agree with you about that the more vulnerable (children and Elderly) should be able to ride the bike on the path as long as they are being careful.

The law would have been the same if it was a 40 year old man and a 12 year old child though

 

[PascalGroß Tips]

I agree with you about that the more vulnerable (children and Elderly) should be able to ride the bike on the path as long as they are being careful.

The law would have been the same if it was a 40 year old man and a 12 year old child though

I’ll reply to this one just in case my first post wasn’t clear enough.

I wasn’t talking about the law when referring to a 40 and 12 year old. I was referring to opinions from some on here who just seem to have a black and white approach to not being able to cycle on the pavement. No doubt they’ll say they’d feel the same when posting on here as the cyclist is in the wrong no matter what.

 

[Eric the meek]

The appeal seemed to be based a lot on Grey’s disability, although the original trial judge ruled it played no part, and I wonder if her sentence had been community service rather than custodial, an appeal would’ve been launched at all?

I don't know what sentence was appropriate or commensurate. She was offered the chance to appeal in March this year. I don't know the background to it, or the events leading up to it. Her previous appeal last year failed. Why has this one worked?

The sequence of events as I understand, was trial, retrial, conviction, appeal (failed), appeal (successful). This is (to be FAR more gracious than it warrants) is unsatisfactory.

What determines whether a person is guilty or not guilty? The unfortunate answer is 'it depends on who the judge is'. How f***ing useless is that?

 

[Billy the Fish]

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"

This isn't true.

There are markings and signs for a shared cycle path on the other side of the road, much further up.

Judge Enright was biased and wrong, and has been overruled by a higher court. The two things you've quoted from him are questionable at best, IMHO they're demonstrably false.

 

[Billy the Fish]

I think the odd thing is just walking off after it happened, but the women has issues.

She's a vulnerable person with learning difficulties.

Obviously the accident was a huge and distressing scene, she was probably in shock and didn't have the mental capacity to deal with it.

There was a witness account in a local paper that said other drivers got out to help, and told Auriel to go because she was in distress. She obviously did it because her behaviour is visibly child like.

The cycling tribe are very quick to vilify a vulnerable disabled person. There's something incredibly wrong about that.

 

[Eric the meek]

She's a vulnerable person with learning difficulties.

Obviously the accident was a huge and distressing scene, she was probably in shock and didn't have the mental capacity to deal with it.

There was a witness account in a local paper that said other drivers got out to help, and told Auriel to go because she was in distress. She obviously did it because her behaviour is visibly child like.

The cycling tribe are very quick to vilify a vulnerable disabled person. There's something incredibly wrong about that.

For the record, I am not a member of the 'cycling tribe', whatever that is.

But the cyclist was also vulnerable, and died, that's died, as a direct result of Auriol Grey's behaviour.

She didn't appear to be in the least bit vulnerable in the video clip, in which the cyclist ended up in the road.

This is just for balance you understand.

 

[7dialssouthpaw]

(please ignore)

 

[GT49er]

Yes - the Highway Code tells cyclists not to cycle on the pavement.

Is it really that simple?

Yes.


That's the law.

 

[BLOCK F]

A very tragic incident, obviously.
I have to say that I was very surprised by the original verdict and the three year prison sentence handed down to Ms. Grey, especially given her learning disabilities and poor eyesight. My original view remains the same and I think the Court of Appeal has come to the correct decision.

 

[Billy the Fish]

She didn't appear to be in the least bit vulnerable in the video clip

So you'll ignore every other bit of info that suggests she is in fact a vulnerable disabled person. They just chuck anyone in assisted living accommodation these days.

 

[Eric the meek]

So you'll ignore every other bit of info that suggests she is in fact a vulnerable disabled person. They just chuck anyone in assisted living accommodation these days.

Not at all. Again you are arriving at conclusions which are simply not supported by any evidence.

I don't know enough about her disabilities (cerebral palsy, partial blindness and a late diagnosis of autism) to say what effect they would have had on her behaviour, or if they should be a mitigating factor on any sentence if convicted.

Please don't put words in others' mouths. It isn't wise or fair.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Yes.


That's the law.

Never mind The Highway Code, common sense and decency tells people NOT to push others in front of a moving vehicle, regardless of the circumstances.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Yes.


That's the law.

The Highway Code is not a law, but rather a collection of rules and best practices that support the legislation outlined in the Road Traffic Act 1988 and other relevant motoring laws. However, many of the rules in The Highway Code represent actual laws, and disobeying them is committing a criminal offence. The words of MUST and MUST NOT in The Highway Code are the rules.

 

[B-right-on]

A picture paints a thousand words.

In this case, a moving picture, a video, demonstrates that a pedestrian can meet a cyclist on that pavement and both parties can emerge alive and uninjured.
They survived it because they shared the path. Perhaps compromised a bit. Perhaps the reporter saw the cyclist coming, and positioned herself to allow him space to pass her safely. Both cyclist and pedestrian showed consideration for each other.

I walk my dog along the Shoreham to Lancing footpath by Widewater every single day and have done for years. It was split into 2 lanes and it was a constant issue with pedestrians and dogs walking into the cycle lane and the very occasional cyclist gets really arsey about it. The footpath is probably about as wide as the one in the incident, 2.4m.

A few years ago they got rid of the lines and made it a shared path. It's a very busy cycle lane around 5-6pm and with a dog off the lead you have to be aware of cyclists.

There are cyclists who just barrel along and don't care. There are pedestrians and dog walkers who amble along and block the whole path and don't care.

I would say I've had maybe 3-4 "incidents" with cyclists over the years where they've just been a wanker. That's roughly 1 in 3,000 who are not considerate. The onus is on the cyclist due to the speed V a pedestrian. But the vast majority are pretty decent.

In my experience shared paths do work in the majority. But like a lot of things, there are exceptions to the general case.