Jailed for pushing a cyclist under a car
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
Where should she have cycled, or how should she have travelled?
If she’s not able to cycle safely in the road then she needed to either walk or to dismount and walk past pedestrians.Cyclists who cycle on the pavement need to be extremely careful around pedestrians.
Type R Tom said:
I think she genuinely believed it was a shared route, and so does the council now as they are putting up more signs
https://road.cc/content/news/shared-use-path-signs...
Not quite.https://road.cc/content/news/shared-use-path-signs...
“A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online."
Now Cambridgeshire County Council has said changes will be made on the path to ensure there is clarity.
In the report, the council said: “The cycle route is on the shared use footway on the inside of the ring road from The Walks North to Riverside Road. From Riverside Road back to The Walks North the cycle route is on the shared use footway on the outside of the ring road.”
The report adds that funding is now being sought to improve signage in the town. The report says: “An audit has been undertaken of the signage of the shared use path around the ring road and some gaps have been identified, on Walden Road, Castle Moat Road, Riverside and between Sainsburys & Hartford Road. Funding is being sought to provide the missing signage.“
Peterborough Telegraph, August 2023
Ken_Code said:
heebeegeetee said:
Where should she have cycled, or how should she have travelled?
If she’s not able to cycle safely in the road then she needed to either walk or to dismount and walk past pedestrians.Cyclists who cycle on the pavement need to be extremely careful around pedestrians.
I don't agree that the already restricted choices that non-drivers endure should be restricted further, I completely disagree that cyclists should dismount to pass pedestrians.
It's worth remembering Mrs Ward was killed by a driver, but drivers are not expected to be as careful as you expect cyclists to be, and afaiaa the driving was not investigated.
It was just an unfortunate accident. Two people with vulnerabilities sharing the same space at the same time in a location where there was ambiguity about the status of the path.
Where it went wrong was the prosecution, judge and defence all failing at the most basic level to conduct a competent trial. I wouldn't want to be her original lawyers.
Where it went wrong was the prosecution, judge and defence all failing at the most basic level to conduct a competent trial. I wouldn't want to be her original lawyers.
agtlaw said:
Not quite.
“A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online."
Now Cambridgeshire County Council has said changes will be made on the path to ensure there is clarity.
In the report, the council said: “The cycle route is on the shared use footway on the inside of the ring road from The Walks North to Riverside Road. From Riverside Road back to The Walks North the cycle route is on the shared use footway on the outside of the ring road.”
The report adds that funding is now being sought to improve signage in the town. The report says: “An audit has been undertaken of the signage of the shared use path around the ring road and some gaps have been identified, on Walden Road, Castle Moat Road, Riverside and between Sainsburys & Hartford Road. Funding is being sought to provide the missing signage.“
Peterborough Telegraph, August 2023
It doesn't really matter at all what the council say.“A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online."
Now Cambridgeshire County Council has said changes will be made on the path to ensure there is clarity.
In the report, the council said: “The cycle route is on the shared use footway on the inside of the ring road from The Walks North to Riverside Road. From Riverside Road back to The Walks North the cycle route is on the shared use footway on the outside of the ring road.”
The report adds that funding is now being sought to improve signage in the town. The report says: “An audit has been undertaken of the signage of the shared use path around the ring road and some gaps have been identified, on Walden Road, Castle Moat Road, Riverside and between Sainsburys & Hartford Road. Funding is being sought to provide the missing signage.“
Peterborough Telegraph, August 2023
There is a shared path sign, and then no end of cycle route signs. Thus, even if it is not a shared path, the law against cycling on pavements is unenforceable. As you can see, present in both Sept 2018 and Sept 2021.
Forester1965 said:
It was just an unfortunate accident. Two people with vulnerabilities sharing the same space at the same time in a location where there was ambiguity about the status of the path.
Where it went wrong was the prosecution, judge and defence all failing at the most basic level to conduct a competent trial. I wouldn't want to be her original lawyers.
It went to appeal, did it not? This is the third court hearing over this case. Have I got this right? Where it went wrong was the prosecution, judge and defence all failing at the most basic level to conduct a competent trial. I wouldn't want to be her original lawyers.
Solocle said:
It doesn't really matter at all what the council say.
There is a shared path sign, and then no end of cycle route signs. Thus, even if it is not a shared path, the law against cycling on pavements is unenforceable. As you can see, present in both Sept 2018 and Sept 2021.
I mean, what sh*t path that is. Is that the actual location of this incident?There is a shared path sign, and then no end of cycle route signs. Thus, even if it is not a shared path, the law against cycling on pavements is unenforceable. As you can see, present in both Sept 2018 and Sept 2021.
That just encapsulates completely what life is like if you can't or don't drive in the UK. As motorists we get almost everything, non-drivers are left to squabble over the minimal space they are afforded, and then a load of very selfish drivers imo come on forums like this and debate/accuse over who did what wrong.
It's really not right and not fair.
(A driver, a cyclist and a pedestrian go into a bar. Barman puts out a plate of 10 crisps. The driver takes 8 and then says to the pedestrian "You want to watch that cyclist, he's trying to steal your crisp).
heebeegeetee said:
Agreed. However there is no evidence that Mrs Ward was not extremely careful. The court heard there was ample room to pass and her speed was 4.7mph. Ms Grey moved into her path/route.
I don't agree that the already restricted choices that non-drivers endure should be restricted further, I completely disagree that cyclists should dismount to pass pedestrians.
It's worth remembering Mrs Ward was killed by a driver, but drivers are not expected to be as careful as you expect cyclists to be, and afaiaa the driving was not investigated.
She fell off her bike into the road, and was very sadly killed, so I think it’s fair to say that that falls under “not careful.”I don't agree that the already restricted choices that non-drivers endure should be restricted further, I completely disagree that cyclists should dismount to pass pedestrians.
It's worth remembering Mrs Ward was killed by a driver, but drivers are not expected to be as careful as you expect cyclists to be, and afaiaa the driving was not investigated.
And of course drivers are expected to be careful, especially of more vulnerable road users, but there’s no suggestion in this case that the driver would have had time to react to a cyclist falling into the road directly ahead of them.
WRT the infrastructure.
IMHO councils should have presumed liability for all accidents involving cyclists near cycling infra that doesn't meet minimum central government guidelines (and really guidelines should be replaced/improved with legally enforced minimum standards).
If they don't want to follow the guidelines, fine; but then they should have to prove that building infra to standard wouldn't have affected any incidents or pay compensation...
We have legal requirements for roads. AFAIK councils can be held legally liable if they don't follow them; Yet they can call anything they want a cycle path... Hence this bit wasn't intended to be a cycle path. But both sides are cycle paths with no obvious difference and no signage to indicate where the status changes (hence court ruling it was a cycle path; It isn't reasonable to expect people to memorise council maps (and probably need surveyors equipment) to know where the cycle path starts/ends)
IMHO councils should have presumed liability for all accidents involving cyclists near cycling infra that doesn't meet minimum central government guidelines (and really guidelines should be replaced/improved with legally enforced minimum standards).
If they don't want to follow the guidelines, fine; but then they should have to prove that building infra to standard wouldn't have affected any incidents or pay compensation...
We have legal requirements for roads. AFAIK councils can be held legally liable if they don't follow them; Yet they can call anything they want a cycle path... Hence this bit wasn't intended to be a cycle path. But both sides are cycle paths with no obvious difference and no signage to indicate where the status changes (hence court ruling it was a cycle path; It isn't reasonable to expect people to memorise council maps (and probably need surveyors equipment) to know where the cycle path starts/ends)
Ken_Code said:
She fell off her bike into the road, and was very sadly killed, so I think it’s fair to say that that falls under “not careful.”
And of course drivers are expected to be careful, especially of more vulnerable road users, but there’s no suggestion in this case that the driver would have had time to react to a cyclist falling into the road directly ahead of them.
I think that's an extremely unfair and biased view. It's essentially taken a court 3 or 4 hearings to determine whether its an assault or not. A bizarre analogy citing football supporters has been used.And of course drivers are expected to be careful, especially of more vulnerable road users, but there’s no suggestion in this case that the driver would have had time to react to a cyclist falling into the road directly ahead of them.
Irrespective od whether contact was made or not, I think an assault was made. There was simply no need, reason or cause for Auriol Grey to get involved with the cyclist, beyond a mental health issue.
That cyclist would not have fallen into the road had the pedestrian just minded her own business.
Do we know if the driving itself was investigated?
Edited by heebeegeetee on Friday 10th May 12:49
heebeegeetee said:
I think that's an extremely unfair and biased view. It's essentially taken a court 3 or 4 hearings to determine whether its an assault or not. A bizarre analogy citing football supporters has been used.
Irrespective od whether contact was made or not, I think an assault was made. There was simply no need, reason or cause for Auriol Grey to get involved with the cyclist, beyond a mental health issue.
That cyclist would not have fallen into the road had the pedestrian just minded her own business.
Do we know if the driving itself was investigated?
The legal system disagrees with you, and the prosecution have admitted that they were wrong to prosecute as the pedestrian’s actions didn’t pass the test for assault.Irrespective od whether contact was made or not, I think an assault was made. There was simply no need, reason or cause for Auriol Grey to get involved with the cyclist, beyond a mental health issue.
That cyclist would not have fallen into the road had the pedestrian just minded her own business.
Do we know if the driving itself was investigated?
Edited by heebeegeetee on Friday 10th May 12:49
It’s terribly sad, but jailing her was clearly wrong given what is now known.
Ken_Code said:
The legal system disagrees with you, and the prosecution have admitted that they were wrong to prosecute as the pedestrian’s actions didn’t pass the test for assault.
It’s terribly sad, but jailing her was clearly wrong given what is now known.
I don't think the legal system has at all said Mrs Ward wasn't careful. I'm not even sure they've questioned or criticised her actions at all. It’s terribly sad, but jailing her was clearly wrong given what is now known.
I've based my opinion of the assault on the witness statements. I think the latest decision of the court is still questionable, as were the previous two of course, and I think the footballing analogy, in relation to the witness statements, is bizarre and highly questionable.
heebeegeetee said:
I've based my opinion of the assault on the witness statements. I think the latest decision of the court is still questionable
Court of Appeal said:
35. We discern no possible grounds for concluding that the jury could properly have been sure that Mrs Ward apprehended immediate unlawful violence...In our judgment, the prosecution case was insufficient even to be left to the jury.
Forester1965 said:
heebeegeetee said:
Irrespective od whether contact was made or not, I think an assault was made.
3 judges of the appeal court disagree with you.Forester1965 said:
heebeegeetee said:
I've based my opinion of the assault on the witness statements. I think the latest decision of the court is still questionable
Court of Appeal said:
35. We discern no possible grounds for concluding that the jury could properly have been sure that Mrs Ward apprehended immediate unlawful violence...In our judgment, the prosecution case was insufficient even to be left to the jury.
Any dispute seems to be over the legalities of decisions made, not over what actually took place.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff