Ped gets 3 years for manslaughter of cyclist hit by car…
Discussion
Southerner said:
numtumfutunch said:
Oliver Hardy said:
Something I am really tempted to do sometimes, stepped out onto the pavement from my drive today and got sworn at in Polish, two minutes later another cyclist nearly ran into me as he paddled past ne at high speed again on the pavement.
Top marks for endorsing killing cyclistsRusty Old-Banger said:
Very interesting reading back through the thread, given this news. I wonder how many of the commenters will accept the decision, or will assume that they know better and the courts got it wrong?
My takeaway from it all? Don't ride on the pedestrian areas.
Don't ride on shared paths. Use the road instead. My takeaway from it all? Don't ride on the pedestrian areas.
Rusty Old-Banger said:
Very interesting reading back through the thread, given this news. I wonder how many of the commenters will accept the decision, or will assume that they know better and the courts got it wrong?
My takeaway from it all? Don't ride on the pedestrian areas.
Ms Grey is also partially sighted and suffers from Cerebral Palsy.My takeaway from it all? Don't ride on the pedestrian areas.
I am neither supporting her nor condemning her in this, I am merely pointing out that someone cycling towards her 'may' have triggered some recollection of previous incidents whereby she suffered simply because her conditions might have made her more vunerable.
It is very sad that someone died. However, we should, in this day and age, be making cyclists safer on the road (I've seen a marked improvement in how local drivers make/give room to cyclists around North Essex - remarkable, given their usual inability to drive coherently [see mini-roundabouts, for example]) but still, if you are older or a very young cyclist, no doubt cycling on the road can be intimidating and (given the potholes in this country) frankly death defying every time you go out for a ride.
Rusty Old-Banger said:
Very interesting reading back through the thread, given this news. I wonder how many of the commenters will accept the decision, or will assume that they know better and the courts got it wrong?
My takeaway from it all? Don't ride on the pedestrian areas.
They couldn't ascertain if it was a shared-use path or not. My takeaway from it all? Don't ride on the pedestrian areas.
https://www.huntspost.co.uk/news/23781330.huntingd...
Rusty Old-Banger said:
Very interesting reading back through the thread, given this news. I wonder how many of the commenters will accept the decision, or will assume that they know better and the courts got it wrong?
My takeaway from it all? Don't ride on the pedestrian areas.
None of them will accept it let alone apologise for the myriad of insults they aimed at anybody who dared to suggest that cyclists do not have the right to do whatever they like or that heaven forbid they take responsibility for their own actions.My takeaway from it all? Don't ride on the pedestrian areas.
Vanden Saab said:
Rusty Old-Banger said:
Very interesting reading back through the thread, given this news. I wonder how many of the commenters will accept the decision, or will assume that they know better and the courts got it wrong?
My takeaway from it all? Don't ride on the pedestrian areas.
None of them will accept it let alone apologise for the myriad of insults they aimed at anybody who dared to suggest that cyclists do not have the right to do whatever they like or that heaven forbid they take responsibility for their own actions.My takeaway from it all? Don't ride on the pedestrian areas.
BikeBikeBIke said:
Vanden Saab said:
Rusty Old-Banger said:
Very interesting reading back through the thread, given this news. I wonder how many of the commenters will accept the decision, or will assume that they know better and the courts got it wrong?
My takeaway from it all? Don't ride on the pedestrian areas.
None of them will accept it let alone apologise for the myriad of insults they aimed at anybody who dared to suggest that cyclists do not have the right to do whatever they like or that heaven forbid they take responsibility for their own actions.My takeaway from it all? Don't ride on the pedestrian areas.
Vanden Saab said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Vanden Saab said:
Rusty Old-Banger said:
Very interesting reading back through the thread, given this news. I wonder how many of the commenters will accept the decision, or will assume that they know better and the courts got it wrong?
My takeaway from it all? Don't ride on the pedestrian areas.
None of them will accept it let alone apologise for the myriad of insults they aimed at anybody who dared to suggest that cyclists do not have the right to do whatever they like or that heaven forbid they take responsibility for their own actions.My takeaway from it all? Don't ride on the pedestrian areas.
The incident was captured on harrowing CCTV footage which we have viewed. In addition, the prosecution relied on evidence of motorists and passers-by. The driver of the car that struck Mrs Ward, saw two stationary people, one on a pushbike; they seemed to be chatting. Mr Walker, the driver of the car immediately behind, noticed two stationary women on the pavement and saw an arm movement from the pedestrian aimed at the cyclist which caused the cyclist to wobble and veer to the left. It was not clear to him whether contact was made. Ms Ainley was the driver of the car behind Mr Walker. She saw a pedestrian thrashing her arms around and waving her arms above her head four or five times. Another motorist whose statement was read, saw that the appellant had something in one arm and was using the other arm to shoo a cyclist who was on the pavement. Her arm was being used in a waving action.
Even if this accurately encapsulates the prosecution’s case, it follows from this that, the prosecution case taken at its highest was that Mrs Ward perhaps apprehended a blow. It was not enough however for the prosecution to prove that the appellant’s conduct may have caused Mrs Ward to apprehend immediate unlawful force. The prosecution had to make the jury sure that the appellant’s actions did have that effect. The jury were simply never asked to consider that issue.
Type R Tom said:
Clearly you are the one who didn't read it; they couldn't prove it. Two parts below:
The incident was captured on harrowing CCTV footage which we have viewed. In addition, the prosecution relied on evidence of motorists and passers-by. The driver of the car that struck Mrs Ward, saw two stationary people, one on a pushbike; they seemed to be chatting. Mr Walker, the driver of the car immediately behind, noticed two stationary women on the pavement and saw an arm movement from the pedestrian aimed at the cyclist which caused the cyclist to wobble and veer to the left. It was not clear to him whether contact was made. Ms Ainley was the driver of the car behind Mr Walker. She saw a pedestrian thrashing her arms around and waving her arms above her head four or five times. Another motorist whose statement was read, saw that the appellant had something in one arm and was using the other arm to shoo a cyclist who was on the pavement. Her arm was being used in a waving action.
Even if this accurately encapsulates the prosecution’s case, it follows from this that, the prosecution case taken at its highest was that Mrs Ward perhaps apprehended a blow. It was not enough however for the prosecution to prove that the appellant’s conduct may have caused Mrs Ward to apprehend immediate unlawful force. The prosecution had to make the jury sure that the appellant’s actions did have that effect. The jury were simply never asked to consider that issue.
Strange you left this next bit out The incident was captured on harrowing CCTV footage which we have viewed. In addition, the prosecution relied on evidence of motorists and passers-by. The driver of the car that struck Mrs Ward, saw two stationary people, one on a pushbike; they seemed to be chatting. Mr Walker, the driver of the car immediately behind, noticed two stationary women on the pavement and saw an arm movement from the pedestrian aimed at the cyclist which caused the cyclist to wobble and veer to the left. It was not clear to him whether contact was made. Ms Ainley was the driver of the car behind Mr Walker. She saw a pedestrian thrashing her arms around and waving her arms above her head four or five times. Another motorist whose statement was read, saw that the appellant had something in one arm and was using the other arm to shoo a cyclist who was on the pavement. Her arm was being used in a waving action.
Even if this accurately encapsulates the prosecution’s case, it follows from this that, the prosecution case taken at its highest was that Mrs Ward perhaps apprehended a blow. It was not enough however for the prosecution to prove that the appellant’s conduct may have caused Mrs Ward to apprehend immediate unlawful force. The prosecution had to make the jury sure that the appellant’s actions did have that effect. The jury were simply never asked to consider that issue.
judges said:
. There was however no evidence to make the jury sure that the appellant pushed or in any way touched Mrs Ward.
Not really is it as it blows your whole argument out of the water. Despite two witnesses and CCTV there was no evidence she even touched her.I will leave you to it before you start with the insults again.
Vanden Saab said:
Type R Tom said:
Clearly you are the one who didn't read it; they couldn't prove it. Two parts below:
The incident was captured on harrowing CCTV footage which we have viewed. In addition, the prosecution relied on evidence of motorists and passers-by. The driver of the car that struck Mrs Ward, saw two stationary people, one on a pushbike; they seemed to be chatting. Mr Walker, the driver of the car immediately behind, noticed two stationary women on the pavement and saw an arm movement from the pedestrian aimed at the cyclist which caused the cyclist to wobble and veer to the left. It was not clear to him whether contact was made. Ms Ainley was the driver of the car behind Mr Walker. She saw a pedestrian thrashing her arms around and waving her arms above her head four or five times. Another motorist whose statement was read, saw that the appellant had something in one arm and was using the other arm to shoo a cyclist who was on the pavement. Her arm was being used in a waving action.
Even if this accurately encapsulates the prosecution’s case, it follows from this that, the prosecution case taken at its highest was that Mrs Ward perhaps apprehended a blow. It was not enough however for the prosecution to prove that the appellant’s conduct may have caused Mrs Ward to apprehend immediate unlawful force. The prosecution had to make the jury sure that the appellant’s actions did have that effect. The jury were simply never asked to consider that issue.
Strange you left this next bit out The incident was captured on harrowing CCTV footage which we have viewed. In addition, the prosecution relied on evidence of motorists and passers-by. The driver of the car that struck Mrs Ward, saw two stationary people, one on a pushbike; they seemed to be chatting. Mr Walker, the driver of the car immediately behind, noticed two stationary women on the pavement and saw an arm movement from the pedestrian aimed at the cyclist which caused the cyclist to wobble and veer to the left. It was not clear to him whether contact was made. Ms Ainley was the driver of the car behind Mr Walker. She saw a pedestrian thrashing her arms around and waving her arms above her head four or five times. Another motorist whose statement was read, saw that the appellant had something in one arm and was using the other arm to shoo a cyclist who was on the pavement. Her arm was being used in a waving action.
Even if this accurately encapsulates the prosecution’s case, it follows from this that, the prosecution case taken at its highest was that Mrs Ward perhaps apprehended a blow. It was not enough however for the prosecution to prove that the appellant’s conduct may have caused Mrs Ward to apprehend immediate unlawful force. The prosecution had to make the jury sure that the appellant’s actions did have that effect. The jury were simply never asked to consider that issue.
judges said:
. There was however no evidence to make the jury sure that the appellant pushed or in any way touched Mrs Ward.
Not really is it as it blows your whole argument out of the water. Despite two witnesses and CCTV there was no evidence she even touched her.I will leave you to it before you start with the insults again.
The word perhaps is telling
As for insults, I stand by them; based on your attitude displayed on here, you are a danger to vulnerable road users.
Edited by Type R Tom on Wednesday 8th May 19:59
Type R Tom said:
Vanden Saab said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Vanden Saab said:
Rusty Old-Banger said:
Very interesting reading back through the thread, given this news. I wonder how many of the commenters will accept the decision, or will assume that they know better and the courts got it wrong?
My takeaway from it all? Don't ride on the pedestrian areas.
None of them will accept it let alone apologise for the myriad of insults they aimed at anybody who dared to suggest that cyclists do not have the right to do whatever they like or that heaven forbid they take responsibility for their own actions.My takeaway from it all? Don't ride on the pedestrian areas.
The incident was captured on harrowing CCTV footage which we have viewed. In addition, the prosecution relied on evidence of motorists and passers-by. The driver of the car that struck Mrs Ward, saw two stationary people, one on a pushbike; they seemed to be chatting. Mr Walker, the driver of the car immediately behind, noticed two stationary women on the pavement and saw an arm movement from the pedestrian aimed at the cyclist which caused the cyclist to wobble and veer to the left. It was not clear to him whether contact was made. Ms Ainley was the driver of the car behind Mr Walker. She saw a pedestrian thrashing her arms around and waving her arms above her head four or five times. Another motorist whose statement was read, saw that the appellant had something in one arm and was using the other arm to shoo a cyclist who was on the pavement. Her arm was being used in a waving action.
Even if this accurately encapsulates the prosecution’s case, it follows from this that, the prosecution case taken at its highest was that Mrs Ward perhaps apprehended a blow. It was not enough however for the prosecution to prove that the appellant’s conduct may have caused Mrs Ward to apprehend immediate unlawful force. The prosecution had to make the jury sure that the appellant’s actions did have that effect. The jury were simply never asked to consider that issue.
"The prosecution appear to have approached this case on the basis that hostility on the part of the appellant was enough to establish that her actions were unlawful. The legal directions did nothing to correct that misunderstanding. There was no focus on the appellant’s subjective state of mind. There was no identification of what the appellant needed to have appreciated in order to establish recklessness. No attention was given to whether she recognised that there was a risk of Mrs Ward apprehending that she would be violent towards her. The jury were not asked to determine what circumstances were known to the appellant or to decide whether she ran an unreasonable risk in those circumstances. The mental element of common assault was simply not addressed at all."
As someone above said, assault doesn't require contact. The problem here isn't that there was no assault, it's that they didn't even attempt to prove that what happened on video was an assault, presumably because it so obviously was.
dukeboy749r said:
... (I've seen a marked improvement in how local drivers make/give room to cyclists around North Essex - remarkable, given their usual inability to drive coherently [see mini-roundabouts, for example])... .
Whilst I agree ref mini roundabouts, the quality of cyclists on the country lanes around North Essex has also nose dived. Consideration for other road users is a rare commodity. A key issue for me is that these “shared paths” are almost always not designed to be shared paths. They are simply footpaths that have been rebranded as “shared” to allow cyclists to use them. It does beg the question of why cyclists are generally not allowed to use footpaths? Perhaps because pedestrians and cyclists are not a good mix (unless the path has specifically been designed for use by both?)
I can’t speak for Huntingdon there are plenty of “shared” paths in Cambridge where it is a bit of squeeze passing oncoming pedestrians so having someone ride at you can be unsettling.
I am currently living in Copenhagen and there are proper cycle paths everywhere. These are segregated from both the road and the footpath so there is no sharing.
Having not seen this thread before I was surprised at the invective aimed at the pedestrian in this case.
There didn’t seem to be any clear evidence that contact was made nor, if there was contact, whether it was intentional rather than accidental, nor what was the intent of the contact.
This seems like a tragic accident to me. Partially sighted and disabled pedestrian feeling threatened by on coming cyclist waves arms and shouts at her. Elderly cyclist, perhaps not fully in control of her bike, is unsettled by arm waving pedestrian and falls off bike into path of a car.
I can’t speak for Huntingdon there are plenty of “shared” paths in Cambridge where it is a bit of squeeze passing oncoming pedestrians so having someone ride at you can be unsettling.
I am currently living in Copenhagen and there are proper cycle paths everywhere. These are segregated from both the road and the footpath so there is no sharing.
Having not seen this thread before I was surprised at the invective aimed at the pedestrian in this case.
There didn’t seem to be any clear evidence that contact was made nor, if there was contact, whether it was intentional rather than accidental, nor what was the intent of the contact.
This seems like a tragic accident to me. Partially sighted and disabled pedestrian feeling threatened by on coming cyclist waves arms and shouts at her. Elderly cyclist, perhaps not fully in control of her bike, is unsettled by arm waving pedestrian and falls off bike into path of a car.
Murph7355 said:
dukeboy749r said:
... (I've seen a marked improvement in how local drivers make/give room to cyclists around North Essex - remarkable, given their usual inability to drive coherently [see mini-roundabouts, for example])... .
Whilst I agree ref mini roundabouts, the quality of cyclists on the country lanes around North Essex has also nose dived. Consideration for other road users is a rare commodity. That being said, personally, I would and do use a footway on my bike - if there were no peds using it. No harm, no foul, and you can't argue with it being safwr than mixing it with cars. Peds present, the either hop on to the road, stop and let them pass you, or dismount and push your bike.
ScotHill said:
For someone who was partially sighted, she sure saw the cyclist from quite a distance away...
Partially sighted does not mean no vision. She would have seen something coming toward her unless completely blind, which few with sight loss are. If it were less in focus that would likely have made it more threatening not less. Murph7355 said:
dukeboy749r said:
... (I've seen a marked improvement in how local drivers make/give room to cyclists around North Essex - remarkable, given their usual inability to drive coherently [see mini-roundabouts, for example])... .
Whilst I agree ref mini roundabouts, the quality of cyclists on the country lanes around North Essex has also nose dived. Consideration for other road users is a rare commodity. Consideration in many circumstances on the road, seems sadly lacking for many around these parts.
It may be that the quality of instruction and testing is partly to blame?
Murph7355 said:
Whilst I agree ref mini roundabouts, the quality of cyclists on the country lanes around North Essex has also nose dived. Consideration for other road users is a rare commodity.
Really?I've been riding and driving for 25 years, much of it in W. Suffolk, and cyclists seem to be much as ever they were. More numerous, sure. More assertive (what, in a time and place, would have been referred to as "uppity") - almost certainly. But are they a rougher bunch, less concerned for those around them? Not that I can see.
AmyRichardson said:
Murph7355 said:
Whilst I agree ref mini roundabouts, the quality of cyclists on the country lanes around North Essex has also nose dived. Consideration for other road users is a rare commodity.
Really?I've been riding and driving for 25 years, much of it in W. Suffolk, and cyclists seem to be much as ever they were. More numerous, sure. More assertive (what, in a time and place, would have been referred to as "uppity") - almost certainly. But are they a rougher bunch, less concerned for those around them? Not that I can see.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff