Jailed for pushing a cyclist under a car
Discussion
I watched the video, entitled woman seems to not move over and intimidate an elderly cyclist. Who then tragically falls and looses her life!
The walker could have moved over 1 foot, not sworn, or intimidated the cyclist and she would have been alive. The walkers selfish actions have caused heartbreak and a death, sorry if you side with the pedestrian you are petty, self entitled and frankly small minded.
If the cyclist was a member of my family I would feel the sentence is too short if I am honest!
The walker could have moved over 1 foot, not sworn, or intimidated the cyclist and she would have been alive. The walkers selfish actions have caused heartbreak and a death, sorry if you side with the pedestrian you are petty, self entitled and frankly small minded.
If the cyclist was a member of my family I would feel the sentence is too short if I am honest!
Evanivitch said:
monthou said:
TheLurker said:
jm doc said:
There is a video, there is no push
Yes, there is. Might be half off camera, but it's pretty obvious.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
Evanivitch said:
None of the press reports suggest there was any physical contact between the two.
Do you think the pedestrians actions led to the cyclist falling into the road? The woman caused this and just walked off to sainsburys and did her shopping, its unacceptable behaviour and has rightly been punished!
TheLurker said:
jm doc said:
There is a video, there is no push
Yes, there is. Might be half off camera, but it's pretty obvious.The cyclist should never have been on the pavement, there are no signs or markings anywhere in the actual video and the reporter's piece to camera that indicate it was a shared pavement and it clearly wasn't otherwise it would have been categorically stated as such by the police and the council, neither of whom could state this. It was a complete witch hunt to attribute blame on a pedestrian feeling threatened by a cyclist riding illegally and not in full control of her bike.
jm doc said:
No there isn't and it sums up the the atitude of posters on here who keep repeating this utterly false claim. The comments are quite clear from the reports, she was verbally aggressive and gestured. If she had pushed the cyclist the case would have been completely different and the push would have been the main part of the prosecution case.
The cyclist should never have been on the pavement, there are no signs or markings anywhere in the actual video and the reporter's piece to camera that indicate it was a shared pavement and it clearly wasn't otherwise it would have been categorically stated as such by the police and the council, neither of whom could state this. It was a complete witch hunt to attribute blame on a pedestrian feeling threatened by a cyclist riding illegally and not in full control of her bike.
That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that if neither the police nor council could confirm it's not shared use at that point, then it's not unreasonable for the cyclist to use it.The cyclist should never have been on the pavement, there are no signs or markings anywhere in the actual video and the reporter's piece to camera that indicate it was a shared pavement and it clearly wasn't otherwise it would have been categorically stated as such by the police and the council, neither of whom could state this. It was a complete witch hunt to attribute blame on a pedestrian feeling threatened by a cyclist riding illegally and not in full control of her bike.
There are signs saying that it is shared use further along the road, and nothing to say that shared use ends. I posted a screenshot from google maps on the other thread.
Regarding whether there was a push or not:
1. Without incredibly solid evidence, journalists are going to be very careful about making allegations that they pushed the rider given it could be argued to create prejudice (which can be illegal in UK criminal cases). It could easily be argued an intentional shove into traffic is murder rather than manslaughter...
2. The prosecution didn't argue whether they had pushed the rider; From what I can see this was intentional on the basis that for a manslaugher charge it wasn't necessary - The rider predictably swerving because the alternative was crashing into someone intentionally trying to cause an incident or to avoid being pushed still meet the offence. So the prosecution was trying to avoid/preempt the defence trying to make the case unnecessarily dependant on whether contact was made (which is difficult to prove as the video is debatable...)
This makes perfect sense from the point that we want people to try to avoid collisions - most of the time the rider would have probably bumped down the kerb and carried on safely or had a minor fall rather than being killed by a resulting collision with nearby vehicle, and most crime is supposed to be about intent/actions not results... Trying to shove a cyclist and missing because they swerve is comparable to trying to run someone down with a car or swinging a baseball bat at them and missing because they jump out of the way; it shouldn't be a valid defence...
1. Without incredibly solid evidence, journalists are going to be very careful about making allegations that they pushed the rider given it could be argued to create prejudice (which can be illegal in UK criminal cases). It could easily be argued an intentional shove into traffic is murder rather than manslaughter...
2. The prosecution didn't argue whether they had pushed the rider; From what I can see this was intentional on the basis that for a manslaugher charge it wasn't necessary - The rider predictably swerving because the alternative was crashing into someone intentionally trying to cause an incident or to avoid being pushed still meet the offence. So the prosecution was trying to avoid/preempt the defence trying to make the case unnecessarily dependant on whether contact was made (which is difficult to prove as the video is debatable...)
This makes perfect sense from the point that we want people to try to avoid collisions - most of the time the rider would have probably bumped down the kerb and carried on safely or had a minor fall rather than being killed by a resulting collision with nearby vehicle, and most crime is supposed to be about intent/actions not results... Trying to shove a cyclist and missing because they swerve is comparable to trying to run someone down with a car or swinging a baseball bat at them and missing because they jump out of the way; it shouldn't be a valid defence...
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Does it actually need physical contact?
If I'm standing on a train platform and someone lunges at me to scare me but I'm startled and fall under a train is that just a tragic accident?
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have fallen under a train if they hadn't done it.
Not sure your analogy works in this instance..perhaps if you were running towards someone on the platform might work better?If I'm standing on a train platform and someone lunges at me to scare me but I'm startled and fall under a train is that just a tragic accident?
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have fallen under a train if they hadn't done it.
monthou said:
"She said she "may have unintentionally put" out her hand to protect herself. Ms Grey believed she had made light contact with Mrs Ward."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
But wasn't the basis for the prosecution or the conviction. Both of which were based on the pedestrians behaviour which caused the cyclist to take avoiding action and subsequently fall.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
So whilst I'm not questioning the manslaughter conviction as clearly a death occurred as a result of the pedestrians actions, I am confused how this aligns with the hierarchy of road users (Highway Code H1) which places pedestrians at the bottom. The pedestrian was elderly and physically disabled, and felt vulnerable due to the nature in which the bicycle approached (whatever that was we don't know).
LimmerickLad said:
Not sure your analogy works in this instance..perhaps if you were running towards someone on the platform might work better?
Maybe.Either way if they didn't do it I'd still be alive.
Presume the jury have had the benefit of hearing all the evidence too and think it's a little more than that sort of hand motion thing most people do when someone's coming at you and you sort of make a swerving motion with your hand as you both work out who's going past on what side etc.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:LimmerickLad said:
Not sure your analogy works in this instance..perhaps if you were running towards someone on the platform might work better?
Maybe.Either way if they didn't do it I'd still be alive.
Presume the jury have had the benefit of hearing all the evidence too and think it's a little more than that sort of hand motion thing most people do when someone's coming at you and you sort of make a swerving motion with your hand as you both work out who's going past on what side etc.
Evanivitch said:
monthou said:
"She said she "may have unintentionally put" out her hand to protect herself. Ms Grey believed she had made light contact with Mrs Ward."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
But wasn't the basis for the prosecution or the conviction. Both of which were based on the pedestrians behaviour which caused the cyclist to take avoiding action and subsequently fall.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
So whilst I'm not questioning the manslaughter conviction as clearly a death occurred as a result of the pedestrians actions, I am confused how this aligns with the hierarchy of road users (Highway Code H1) which places pedestrians at the bottom. The pedestrian was elderly and physically disabled, and felt vulnerable due to the nature in which the bicycle approached (whatever that was we don't know).
And the Judge wasn't overly impressed by her mitigation.
bbc said:
The trial heard Grey had cerebral palsy and was partially sighted, but the judge said: "These actions are not explained by disability."
He said that she had given a "dishonest account in interview" and there was "not a word about remorse until today".
Judge Enright added that "consideration of other road users is the lesson of this tragic case".
The hierarchy of road users doesn't mean a pedestrian can push a cyclist into the road.He said that she had given a "dishonest account in interview" and there was "not a word about remorse until today".
Judge Enright added that "consideration of other road users is the lesson of this tragic case".
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff