Jailed for pushing a cyclist under a car
Discussion
qwerty360 said:
IMHO the likelihood of the jury not having agreed with that given the conviction + video is in my opinion low. And the argument that shouting threats while aggresively approaching an elderly cyclist is assault (assault being the threat of violence, not violence itself) - the cyclist died trying to flee them.
It's not totally obvious from your language- are you saying the jury would have found her guilty of common assault, had they been properly asked to consider that?If so, the pertinent quotes from the appeal court judgment are;
Paragraph 35 said:
...Had Mrs Ward not died, we regard it as inconceivable that the appellant would ever have been charged with assault in circumstances where it could not be established that she had made any physical contact with the cyclist...
Paragraph 36 said:
...Had the need to identify and prove a base offence been recognised, the evidential insufficiency of the prosecution case would have been recognised. There was, in our judgment, simply no proper basis for the appellant to be convicted of manslaughter in this very tragic case...
In other words, there was never the evidence to make an assault charge stick and as such the jury should never have been given opportunity to consider it in the first place. The fact the directions were deficient cements the issue. Sheepshanks said:
I think it makes the entire legal system look beyond stupid that she could be convicted and jailed apparently without anyone realising the charged offence hadn't been proven.
I agree, it’s a tragic accident but you can’t go cycling on a pavement at a pedestrian. I can’t blame a partially blind, disabled woman for gesticulating at someone cycling at her. I feel sorry for the family of the deceased. This was just a tragic accident.
The real shame from all of this is that someone got prosecuted and jailed. How the CPS thought this was a good idea to prosecute I will never know.
MB140 said:
Sheepshanks said:
I think it makes the entire legal system look beyond stupid that she could be convicted and jailed apparently without anyone realising the charged offence hadn't been proven.
I agree, it’s a tragic accident but you can’t go cycling on a pavement at a pedestrian. I can’t blame a partially blind, disabled woman for gesticulating at someone cycling at her. I feel sorry for the family of the deceased. This was just a tragic accident.
The real shame from all of this is that someone got prosecuted and jailed. How the CPS thought this was a good idea to prosecute I will never know.
It is a shame peds and cyclists can't share footpaths more often; I could easily imagine a scenario where a 77 year old woman riding to the shops on the footway because she didn't feel safe on the road and if she couldn't would lose some freedom.
As a society, we need to decide whether to relocate more space to segregation or make drivers behave better so the young and old can have more freedom.
Been reading about this case on X, and apparently this pedestrian who was "mostly blind" left the scene and continued to do her shopping, and apparently lived alone without any help. She also lied to police.
Apparently the cyclist was partially deaf or had a hearing impairment, so avoided cycling on roads.
As said, the pedestrian was 49, the cyclist 77.
Apparently the cyclist was partially deaf or had a hearing impairment, so avoided cycling on roads.
As said, the pedestrian was 49, the cyclist 77.
heebeegeetee said:
Been reading about this case on X, and apparently this pedestrian who was "mostly blind" left the scene and continued to do her shopping, and apparently lived alone without any help. She also lied to police.
Apparently the cyclist was partially deaf or had a hearing impairment, so avoided cycling on roads.
As said, the pedestrian was 49, the cyclist 77.
It seems that she should have avoided cycling on pavements too.Apparently the cyclist was partially deaf or had a hearing impairment, so avoided cycling on roads.
As said, the pedestrian was 49, the cyclist 77.
heebeegeetee said:
Welcome to Wednesday, page 15.agtlaw said:
heebeegeetee said:
Welcome to Wednesday, page 15.
I'm surprised at some of the comments made on the 2 threads on this topic since this has been in public domain.
RumbleOfThunder said:
heebeegeetee said:
Ken_Code said:
It seems that she should have avoided cycling on pavements too.
Where should she have cycled, or how should she have travelled? RumbleOfThunder said:
She should've cycled on the road or dismounted on the path. Basic stuff.
She was 77 yrs old with a hearing impediment. She did not want to ride on a busy ring road. The judgement states that there was ample room for pedestrian and cyclist to pass. Police estimate of cyclist speed based on cctv was 4.7mph.You say it's basic stuff without any knowledge of walking ability of cyclist.
Imo building travel infra fit for 21st century (Inc a rail line) is basic stuff for any western European country, yet seems quite beyond the ability of the UK.
Type R Tom said:
RumbleOfThunder said:
heebeegeetee said:
Ken_Code said:
It seems that she should have avoided cycling on pavements too.
Where should she have cycled, or how should she have travelled? Type R Tom said:
RumbleOfThunder said:
heebeegeetee said:
Ken_Code said:
It seems that she should have avoided cycling on pavements too.
Where should she have cycled, or how should she have travelled? So it doesn't seem like it would have made much difference if that particular pavement allowed cyclists to ride on it or not, since neither party gave consideration to it either way.
RumbleOfThunder said:
Type R Tom said:
RumbleOfThunder said:
heebeegeetee said:
Ken_Code said:
It seems that she should have avoided cycling on pavements too.
Where should she have cycled, or how should she have travelled? If you're a small 77 Yr old woman with a hearing impediment but enjoys cycling, tough s
t, either get in a motor vehicle or stay indoors. heebeegeetee said:
RumbleOfThunder said:
She should've cycled on the road or dismounted on the path. Basic stuff.
She was 77 yrs old with a hearing impediment. She did not want to ride on a busy ring road. The judgement states that there was ample room for pedestrian and cyclist to pass. Police estimate of cyclist speed based on cctv was 4.7mph.You say it's basic stuff without any knowledge of walking ability of cyclist.
Imo building travel infra fit for 21st century (Inc a rail line) is basic stuff for any western European country, yet seems quite beyond the ability of the UK.
RumbleOfThunder said:
She should have dismounted then. I don't think that's an unreasonable ask and it's highly unlikely her mobility was poor, given riding a bike requires confidence, good balance, coordination and CV fitness.
You are greatly misinformed. The court head there was ample room for both parties to pass each other. Speed of cyclist estimated by police/cctv at 4.7mph. The pedestrian moved into the path of the cyclist.
I have seen myself a man who greatly struggled to walk (I guessed parkinsons) but cycled amazingly confidently on an ebike (Brompton type).
In Europe it is normal to see countless elderly people cycling. I find it incredibly rare to see this in UK, yet here we are discussing the death of an elderly cyclistwho had a hearing impediment and the a great many are of the opinion she should have got off her bike or rode on the busy ring road.
Guys, I don't think you realise how bad things are in UK and how backwards our infrastructure is, and how bad it is that you may think this is normal and how people should know their place. It's a really bad look, imo.
RumbleOfThunder said:
Type R Tom said:
RumbleOfThunder said:
heebeegeetee said:
Ken_Code said:
It seems that she should have avoided cycling on pavements too.
Where should she have cycled, or how should she have travelled? https://road.cc/content/news/shared-use-path-signs...
RumbleOfThunder said:
Sorry but that entitlement is misplaced! I would never just assume paths are there for me to ride on. I would assume the opposite, as is the case with the overwhelming majority of footpaths in this country. Do not ride on a patch UNLESS there is a sign stating otherwise.
If I may, because this talk of entitlement winds me up a bit, particularly in light of an elderly cyclist...Can I remind that it is completely illegal to drive on a pavement in a motor vehicle in order to park, yet that is precisely what 10s of millions of us do every single day, and which you undoubtedly have done yourself.
If you want to talk assumptions, there is absolutely no room to make any assumptions that it may be legal in some way to drive on a pavement in order to park. Any assumption being made should be that it is not allowed.
I would suggest that you, like the vast majority, are 'normalised' to driving on pavement in order to park, yet when discussing an elderly cyclist with a hearing impediment you use the word 'entitlement' and include an exclamation mark.
I'll say again, it's a really bad look imo.
Edited by heebeegeetee on Friday 10th May 11:36
Edited by heebeegeetee on Friday 10th May 11:37
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff