Pedestrian causing cyclist death gets 3 years prison

As ignorant as most are about a cyclists right to use shared pavements, or even any pavement on occasions, 49 year old pedestrian Auriol Grey receives a three year sentence for manslaughter after causing the death of a 77 year old retired midwife.

I hope this sentence receives widespread publicity.

Information Link

.

I did see that.

I get the impression that a lot of pedestrians are not aware of the concept of 'shared pavements' but that might just be me.

There is a video here, could be distressing;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64824436

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3317503,-0.1795964,3a,75y,18.04h,64.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdUsi3QF4dD4OHwR9mGiYTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11810311/Woman-49-convicted-manslaughter-raising-hand-elderly-cyclist-collision.html

The pedestrian should not have done that but no way on earth is she responsible for riders death.

The car striking her must take some blame and to be fair the lady on the bike with abilities demonstrated should not be riding either on pavement or on the road.

I suspect this verdict will be overturned on appeal. It should be.

The pedestrian should not have done that but no way on earth is she responsible for riders death.

The car striking her must take some blame and to be fair the lady on the bike with abilities demonstrated should not be riding either on pavement or on the road.

I suspect this verdict will be overturned on appeal. It should be.

that was my initial reaction - but when I read more in depth articles including the judge's summing up I now feel that the pedestrian did contribute to the death of the cyclist.

I get the impression that a lot of pedestrians are not aware of the concept of 'shared pavements' but that might just be me.

I agree, and its why I want publicity for the sentence.

However they surely should know since most shared use paths are plastered with painted images of walkers and cyclists.

However, pedestrians and cyclists are the two groups who don't need any licence or testing for competence, so I suppose we must expect the worst.

.

"As emergency services rushed to the scene, Grey fled on foot and went to a nearby Sainsbury's to buy groceries. "

IMO this action painted a very telling picture of how seriously the defendant, initially regarded the whole consequences of her outburst.

that was my initial reaction - but when I read more in depth articles including the judge's summing up I now feel that the pedestrian did contribute to the death of the cyclist.

Yep, I agree to a point. She did contribute but not cause. I feel there is a strong element of both miss carriage of justice and a judgement to put others off similar behaviour.

Last year whilst riding on a dual use pavement a chap stopped me and requested I ride on road. I didn't swerve to miss him, I stopped. Listened to his inane rant and pointed to clearly marked cyle symbol he was actually stood on. IMHO the lady didn't seem to have ability to stop. She chose to swerve into road, a terrible choice on 2 counts? One, she was incapable of completing manouvre and two, she didn't check the road??? But obviously those in power agree with you. But we, ll see.? Terrible trajedy for both families.

I believe the lady charged is partially sighted and has other serious medical issues. Doesn't excuse the outburst.

Playing devil's advocate and changing circumstance slightly...

Assume walking towards cyclist was a parent with a toddler in reins who cyclist would have struck had she not stopped or swerved. Would we now be prosecuting parent or toddler had cyclist swerved /fallen into traffic?? Exactly same really.

Edited March 2, 20233 yr by Zlatan

She did contribute but not cause.

So, if someone just 'contributes' to the death of another, what should the penalty be ?

If the pedestrian had not shouted abuse, gesticulated in obvious anger etc towards the cyclist, forcing the cyclist to try and avoid the pedestrian, there would very likley not have been a fatality.

The pedestrian should not have done that but no way on earth is she responsible for riders death.

The car striking her must take some blame and to be fair the lady on the bike with abilities demonstrated should not be riding either on pavement or on the road.

I suspect this verdict will be overturned on appeal. It should be.

I strongly disagree, the offender forced the cyclist into the road and under the car, giving the driver no chance, so I applaud the police response:

DS Mark Dollard, of Cambridgeshire police, said: “This is a difficult and tragic case. Everyone will have their own views of cyclists on pavements and cycleways, but what is clear is Grey’s response to the presence of Celia on a pedal cycle was totally disproportionate and ultimately found to be unlawful, resulting in Celia’s untimely and needless death.

“I am pleased with the verdict and hope it is a stark reminder to all road users to take care and be considerate to each other."

So I add, no matter what the circumstances or our opinions, we should all be considerate and care for each other on roads, pavements, indeed anywhere in public and at all times. No-one can risk taking a life to enforce their own opinions on a possible minor infringement.

.

Whilst this is a tragic case, its just plain wrong that a pedestrian should be so abusive, both physically and verbally, to a cyclist that was entitled to be there.

If someone did that to me, I can fully understand that I could be put off ballance trying to avoid the assault.

Would anyone have time to look behind them to see if it was safe to fall off the bike into the road ?

So, someone who kills a person on a Zebra crossing gets a 3 year ban.

And someone who gestures towards a cyclist who then falls into road gets imprisoned.

At best inconsistent.

It will be changed under appeal.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11812867/Fury-extremely-harsh-sentence-disabled-woman-gestured-cyclist-car-collision.html

Yes, I know its DM but it's not Brexit related.

Edited March 2, 20233 yr by Zlatan

to be fair the lady on the bike with abilities demonstrated should not be riding either on pavement or on the road.

IMHO the lady didn't seem to have ability to stop. She chose to swerve into road, a terrible choice on 2 counts? One, she was incapable of completing manouvre and two, she didn't check the road???

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.

Last year whilst riding on a dual use pavement a chap stopped me and requested I ride on road. I didn't swerve to miss him, I stopped. Listened to his inane rant and pointed to clearly marked cyle symbol he was actually stood on.

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

.

[ATTACH type=full" alt="Screenshot_20230302_215114.jpg]50525[/ATTACH]

So, someone who kills a person on a Zebra crossing gets a 3 year ban.

And someone who gestures towards a cyclist who then falls into road gets imprisoned.

At best inconsistent.

It will be changed under appeal.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11812867/Fury-extremely-harsh-sentence-disabled-woman-gestured-cyclist-car-collision.html

Yes, I know its DM but it's not Brexit related.

Another case of tolerance exercised for an elderly person, the lady driver being 74 years old. And she was also fined £734 which may well be a savage cost for a pensioner, not knowing her circumstances or whether she cares for someone else. At 74 and with an inevitable huge increase in her car insurance, the three year ban could effectively be a life driving ban.

.

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.

.

Totally agreed Flecc, but sending a partially sighted and cognitively challenged individual with learning difficulties to prison for gesturing and swearing at a cyclist who wasn't in full control of her bike and probably shouldn't have been on pavenent anyway hardly smacks of sense, humanity or civilised let alone tolerant.

Reading DM comments makes me more convinced they have got this wrong. It will be changed under appeal.

Prison isn't answer in this case. It's ridiculous.

So, which would you chose Flecc. 3 year ban or 3 years in prison.??

i got crashed in to 2 times during lock down both on race bikes both front wheels died and some twat tried to punch me in my face at 11 at night.

if they wont move out the way fkn run them over or let them dive in to the middle of the road

i got crashed in to 2 times during lock down both on race bikes both front wheels died and some twat tried to punch me in my face at 11 at night.

 

if they wont move out the way fkn run them over or let them dive in to the middle of the road

Always nice to hear a voice of reason.

DM's most voted for comment.

Edited March 2, 20233 yr by Zlatan

Totally agreed Flecc, but sending a partially sighted and cognitively challenged individual with learning difficulties to prison for gesturing and swearing at a cyclist who wasn't in full control of her bike and probably shouldn't have been on pavenent anyway hardly smacks of sense, humanity or civilised let alone tolerant.

Reading DM comments makes me more convinced they have got this wrong. It will be changed under appeal.

Prison isn't answer in this case. It's ridiculous.

So, which would you chose Flecc. 3 year ban or 3 years in prison.??

It was a shared use path so the cyclist wasn't in the wrong. She was in full control of her bike until that furious woman stood in her path wildly gesticulating and forcing her off the shared use path.

Regarding the offender being challenged, she is clearly able to live an independent life in the community getting her own grocery shopping etc, so also able to understand how to behave well enough.

As for the three year sentence, her actions took an innocent life of a caring person, an ex midwife. The Judge knows that all sentences are automatically halved, so the maximum term normally served will be 18 months.

The most likely outcome of an appeal if favourable could be a reduction in the term to two years, meaning one year to serve, less the period already spent inside while waiting for the appeal to be heard, usually rather long these days.

.

Always nice to hear a voice of reason.

 

DM's most voted for comment.

 

[ATTACH=full]50526[/ATTACH]

You've done it again!

After I posted a Funny to your comment on Soundwave's running over people , you added more to your post making my Funny inappropriate, so I removed it.

Beetop obviously doesn't know that cyclists can be on any pavement out of genuine fear of the traffic. LINK

.

Edited March 2, 20233 yr by flecc

just think of london like this but with ebikes and scooters

Edited March 2, 20233 yr by soundwave

Terrible that the cyclist was killed in the incident, but I also have empathy for the disabled woman, who appears to be spending no doubt a very difficult life in social isolation, and this event and her sentence will also have a profound affect upon her.

As previously said, there are no winners in this only sadness for everyone concerned

You've done it again!

 

After I posted a Funny to your comment on Soundwave's running over people , you added more to your post making my Funny inappropriate, so I removed it.

 

Beetop obviously doesn't know that cyclists can be on any pavement out of genuine fear of the traffic. LINK

.

Flecc, we are allowed to add, remove, delete or change posts without your permission. Its why there is an edit button. And, I changed the post before anyone had made further comments, preventing my making 2 posts in a row,which could upset the more fragile members.

I can see it from both sides as a pedestrian and cyclist. I've been passed by a ebike at about 20-30mph on a narrow shared path. The ebike was going fast as it was downhill so didn't need the motor assisting. This also meant its brakes would be less effective as going downhill with a slower stop time. If I had been distracted and moved to the side it would have been bad news for me and the cyclist.

In the video for this incident the pavement didn't look obviously a shared pavement and the woman clearly had balance and movement issues which meant she needed more of the path. However her actions were extremely dangerous and I feel the sentence is correct. Even in that video with the presenter talking a bike goes past her at some speed which is dangerous.

I really feel we need to move to a maximum speed for cyclists to pass pedestrians on shared paths. Maybe somewhere around 5-8mph. Perhaps then we can consider more pavements a shared path. We need to slow down as we pass each other. Also cargo bikes shouldn't be allowed on narrow shared paths. It's getting ridiculous when those things are on narrow paths filled with children and as wide as 2 maybe 3 bikes. They should have to stop completely to allow pedestrians to pass. They extend over into the pedestrian lane on narrow marked shared paths.

Flecc, we are allowed to add, remove, delete or change posts without your permission. Its why there is an edit button. And, I changed the post before anyone had made further comments, preventing my making 2 posts in a row,which could upset the more fragile members.

I wasn't speaking of permission, just explaining why I'd added a funny which later looked so odd after your amendment.

Removing it was simply a courtesy on my part.

.

Edited March 3, 20233 yr by flecc

I really feel we need to move to a maximum speed for cyclists to pass pedestrians on shared paths. Maybe somewhere around 5-8mph. Perhaps then we can consider more pavements a shared path. We need to slow down as we pass each other.

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.

.

Edited March 3, 20233 yr by flecc