Pedestrian causing cyclist death gets 3 years prison

[flecc]

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.
.

 

[I893469365902345609348566]

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."

Family of woman jailed for killing cyclist blast 'harsh' jail-term

THE family of a disabled woman jailed over the death of a cyclist say the three-year term she was given is “too harsh”. Auriol Grey, who has cerebral palsy and is partially blind, raised her hand a…

www.thesun.co.uk

 

[flecc]

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."

Family of woman jailed for killing cyclist blast 'harsh' jail-term

THE family of a disabled woman jailed over the death of a cyclist say the three-year term she was given is “too harsh”. Auriol Grey, who has cerebral palsy and is partially blind, raised her hand a…

www.thesun.co.uk

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.
.

 

[slowcoach]

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.

 

[nigelbb]

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.

 

[flecc]

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
,

 

[soundwave]

car vs house

 

[Zlatan]

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??

 

[soundwave]

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

Priest and woman arrested as they 'silently prayed' cleared of 'thoughtcrime'

Father Sean Gough has now accused the Government of 'censoring the streets' as it looks to expand the 'buffer zones' around all abortion facilities in the UK

www.walesonline.co.uk

id not even think about it

 

[flecc]

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.
.

 

[soundwave]

20mph speed limit roads 'causing chaos' as drivers attack changes

SPEED limit changes have been highlighted as an important step to reducing road casualties, despite backlash from some drivers.

www.express.co.uk

‘Cars should be limited to 20mph to avoid an e-scooter ban’

Interview: Electric scooter company Lime's chief Wayne Ting on safety and going green

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Zlatan]

Of course not, because she would not be pushing the cyclist into the road.

Therefore the public should not be commenting until the procedures have been exhausted.
.

Says the poster with the most to say about it.
And BTW, the police have never mentioned pushing. They said "gesturing aggressively".
As yet I have seen no evidence to suggest she pushed anything.

All reports of her crime have been along these lines.

The only place I have seen pushing mentioned was on here.
And, I have not made light of anything.
I, ve said all along all are victims in this tragic case,as "Independent" and many others seem to think.

We shouldn’t be jailing people for shouting at cyclists on pavements | John Rentoul

It is hard to see how Grey could be held responsible for the tragic consequence of her actions

www.independent.co.uk

But one thing you are correct about Flecc is we shouldn't be commenting. My last on it until appeal over.

 

[nigelbb]

Says the poster with the most to say about it.
And BTW, the police have never mentioned pushing. They said "gesturing aggressively".
As yet I have seen no evidence to suggest she pushed anything.

The full CCTV footage has not been released. There is other footage seen by the judge & jury that evidently was far more incriminating than that which we have seen.

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."

Huntingdon cyclist death: Police warn over ill-informed views

Auriol Grey has been jailed after gesturing and swearing at a woman who fell into the path of a car.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[I893469365902345609348566]

And BTW, the police have never mentioned pushing. They said "gesturing aggressively".
As yet I have seen no evidence to suggest she pushed anything.

"She said she "may have unintentionally put" out her hand to protect herself. Ms Grey believed she had made light contact with Mrs Ward. "

Huntingdon: Cyclist death accused was 'anxious' for her own safety, jury told

Auriol Grey is accused of gesturing in a "hostile" way to a cyclist who fell into the path of a car.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[flecc]

Says the poster with the most to say about it.

No I haven't had the most to say about it. I've had the most to say about those commenting and criticising the sentence.

I don't care if the offender only ends up serving three weeks, her punishment is nothing to do with me. It's the original sentencing strong message I'm defending. For three decades we've been getting it wrong with drivers and pedestrians abusing and endangering cyclists and some cyclists abusing everyone else.

In 2020 government started to do something about it with the Home Office concession on pavement use. Then over a year ago came the 29th January changes to the Highway Code, sending another strong message about consideration for vulnerable road users.

Among those were the prison sentences repeating those strong messages, those I mentioned of the cyclist jailed for killing a pedestrian and the driver jailed for killing a cyclist. This latest sentence of a pedestrian jailed for causing a cyclists death completes the message to all the road users involved.

To reach the desirable civilised state of roads usage in places like the Netherlands, Scandinavia and Japan and some others means getting tough, since all the gentle persuasion we've been trying has clearly failed.

I support that getting tough which is why I started this thread.
.

 

[Zlatan]

No I haven't had the most to say about it. I've had the most to say about those commenting and criticising the sentence.

I don't care if the offender only ends up serving three weeks, her punishment is nothing to do with me. It's the original sentencing strong message I'm defending. For three decades we've been getting it wrong with drivers and pedestrians abusing and endangering cyclists and some cyclists abusing everyone else.

In 2020 government started to do something about it with the Home Office concession on pavement use. Then over a year ago came the 29th January changes to the Highway Code, sending another strong message about consideration for vulnerable road users.

Among those were the prison sentences repeating those strong messages, those I mentioned of the cyclist jailed for killing a pedestrian and the driver jailed for killing a cyclist. This latest sentence of a pedestrian jailed for causing a cyclists death completes the message to all the road users involved.

To reach the desirable civilised state of roads usage in places like the Netherlands, Scandinavia and Japan and some others means getting tough, since all the gentle persuasion we've been trying has clearly failed.

I support that getting tough which is why I started this thread.
.

Oh, that clarifies it now Flecc. If we agree with your view it's OK to comment, but otherwise we shouldn't.
As many have said, this is a particularly tragic case for all involved. Personally, I don't believe a custodial sentence is either necessary or helpful but I can also sympathise with the family and understand why they might see it required.
To be honest, I, m just glad it's not my job to decide where the blame lies or the sentence required if it's with Auriol Grey.
Seems to me our society always needs to blame an individual and very often the system is at fault. Mixing bicycles with 20 ton trucks is doomed, as is mixing pedestrians with cycles, especially when neither are willing to follow the most basic of rules, show common decency between one and other or have a base line minimum ability. All facets involved in this case.

 

[flecc]

Oh, that clarifies it now Flecc. If we agree with your view it's OK to comment, but otherwise we shouldn't.

Correction. If you agree with the view the law took, not my view which just happens to coincide.

Mixing bicycles with 20 ton trucks is doomed,

Certainly inadvisable without complex precautions.

as is mixing pedestrians with cycles.

I disagree. Firstly since it is proven to work extremely well in many other countries, most notably in Japan where cyclists often have to use the pavements by law in congested areas like cities.

Secondly because in using the legs, cycling is only assisted walking, just as pedelecing is still just assisted cycling.
.

 

[I893469365902345609348566]

Seems to me our society always needs to blame an individual and very often the system is at fault.

It's Thatcher's fault: Care in the community doesn't work.

 

[StuartsProjects]

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

 

[saneagle]

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

It used to be that your peers decided if you're guilty or not. The jury voted "guilty" on the basis of the evidence put to them. Since then, there has been no new evidence. If I had been a jury member, I would have voted guilty. It looks to me that she did a bit more than gesticulating to cause the bike to deviate like that and fall into the road.