Ped gets 3 years for manslaughter of cyclist hit by car…
Discussion
Odd one
But it really doesn’t matter whether the cyclist was/was not legally riding on the pavement
The pedestrian did an act which ultimately led to the death of the cyclist, there doesn’t have to be any intention to cause serious harm/death, that little push was sufficient
Sad that it led to the death of an elderly woman, a totally avoidable tragedy really
But it really doesn’t matter whether the cyclist was/was not legally riding on the pavement
The pedestrian did an act which ultimately led to the death of the cyclist, there doesn’t have to be any intention to cause serious harm/death, that little push was sufficient
Sad that it led to the death of an elderly woman, a totally avoidable tragedy really
neilr said:
She got the sentence she deserved. Its quite worrying that there are some on here trying to make excuses for either her or the sentence given.
Forget whether she is a pedestrian and the deceased is a cyclist. Person A pushed person B into the road resulting in person b dying. Anyone pushing someone into the road knows this might happen. Throw the key away, they are a cancer on society.
Indeed.Forget whether she is a pedestrian and the deceased is a cyclist. Person A pushed person B into the road resulting in person b dying. Anyone pushing someone into the road knows this might happen. Throw the key away, they are a cancer on society.
Its easy, from the position of being for or anti to lose objectivity and attribute the blame to one or other party based on bias, reagardless of actual blame.
"The old lady is a cyclist, grrr, and she was on the pavement"
She was on the pavement, but it may well have been shared use, I have been told to get off the pavement when its shared and moving at walking pace, its weird.
Think the problem is, people get annoyed by what they read and maybe others causing them a shock by riding, at speed on the pavement in incidents that really are not acceptable, then they are then set off by a very borderline case, like this where the old lady wasnt doing anyone any harm riding slowly.
Fair play at 77 still riding around, suspect she was perhaps just keeping out of harms way, it wasnt some middle aged self obsessed "Lycra Lout" on a strava segment blasting along at 20 mph.
CT05 Nose Cone said:
Can't imagine what it must be like for the driver, knowing that even though it wasn't your fault, you still killed someone.
A handful of my mates have killed people with their trains, a couple have killed more than 1. Totally individual, some people it's like water off a ducks back, take the rest of the week off then back to normal, others never drive again and it obviously deeply affects them.
I have had words with people cycling on the path a few times recently (people old enough to know better who expect me to jump into the road to get out of their way), but pushing them into the road does seem a bit extreme. I assume her disabilities caused some of it (although the judge reckoned not) with maybe a bit of red mist too, but she will have a couple of years to think about it now. The driver that hit the old lady may have not been prosecuted, but that is a horrible thing to live with. Years ago my sil had an old lady walk straight out of a shop doorway into the road in front of her. She was driving well under the limit, but just couldn't stop in time and hit her, killing her instantly. Luckily the lady was well known for it by the local shop owners, so my sil had no charges pressed, but it`s still something that stays with her to this day.
J4CKO said:
Suspect this is in part down to all the anti cyclist rhetoric, the disabled woman was full of righteous indignation having been building up a froth like so many do, looks to me she decided that an elderly lady on a shopping bike was a valid target given her limited physical ability.
I imagine if it was 220 pounds of me and not 120 pounds of old lady, she may have left me alone and muttered something, not that I would have been on the pavement.
What Yellowjack says is correct, not all disabled folk are pleasant, I have a mate with CP and he is a star, never hides behind his disability, wife has a freind who has a non specific disability who always rattles on about it and has a real sense of entitlement.
Think a custodial sentence was right, she caused that ladies death, she wasnt really a threat to anyone toddling along on her Raleigh Twenty.
Annoys me being told as a cyclist we all are
s who ride on the pavement, we dont all ride on the pavement, I told a kid off the other day on an illegal EBike doing about twenty on the pavement a couple of months back, just because you ride a bike doesnt mean you condone the actions of every other person who rides a bike.
Entirely agree. I imagine if it was 220 pounds of me and not 120 pounds of old lady, she may have left me alone and muttered something, not that I would have been on the pavement.
What Yellowjack says is correct, not all disabled folk are pleasant, I have a mate with CP and he is a star, never hides behind his disability, wife has a freind who has a non specific disability who always rattles on about it and has a real sense of entitlement.
Think a custodial sentence was right, she caused that ladies death, she wasnt really a threat to anyone toddling along on her Raleigh Twenty.
Annoys me being told as a cyclist we all are
s who ride on the pavement, we dont all ride on the pavement, I told a kid off the other day on an illegal EBike doing about twenty on the pavement a couple of months back, just because you ride a bike doesnt mean you condone the actions of every other person who rides a bike.The irrational hatred is dumbfounding.
If I've been held up for more than a cumulative 10 minutes in my life by cyclists I'll be gobsmacked, probably doesn't even amount to 2 minutes if you discount the ones where after you've past them you quickly catch up to the car/van/lorry/tractor that was in front of you before.
Even a long wait is no more than 10-20 seconds but that seems to infuriate the self righteous.
JQ said:
Lord Marylebone said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Am I alone in thinking I can see a very distinct push which exactly coincides with the fall?
I can clearly see it. I have watched it several times. The body of the accused turns/jerks towards the cyclist, and at that exact moment the cyclists jerks towards the road and falls.She clearly pushed her and caused her to fall into the road.
When I first read about this, I thought it was really harsh against the accused. However now I have watched the video a few times, there is no doubt in my mind that she pushed her over onto the road, and that resulted in her death.
The conviction and sentence seems entirely appropriate, if not slightly lenient IMO.
Deserves everything she's got.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
There's only one point where contact could have been made so she's admitting to pushing the cyclist under a car.
If you assault someone so recklessly they die that's murder so I think this should have been a murder charge and conviction. Since it wasn't, manslaughter was totally appropriate IMHO.
J4CKO said:
Fair play at 77 still riding around, suspect she was perhaps just keeping out of harms way, it wasnt some middle aged self obsessed "Lycra Lout" on a strava segment blasting along at 20 mph.
My dad's 83 and still cycles everywhere, this stuff scares the st out of me. But then again, he wouldn't still be here, fit as a fiddle, if he wasn't doing stuff like that. Most of his mates who lived sedentary lives have unfortunately passed. It's the active ones who are still here.
BikeBikeBIke said:
Turns out Grey admits she made contact:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
There's only one point where contact could have been made so she's admitting to pushing the cyclist under a car.
If you assault someone so recklessly they die that's murder so I think this should have been a murder charge and conviction. Since it wasn't, manslaughter was totally appropriate IMHO.
It really isn’t murder, not at all https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
There's only one point where contact could have been made so she's admitting to pushing the cyclist under a car.
If you assault someone so recklessly they die that's murder so I think this should have been a murder charge and conviction. Since it wasn't, manslaughter was totally appropriate IMHO.
If we're supposed to give cyclists/pedestrians 1.5m of passing width when overtaking them on the road, why is the same not expected when those users are on the pavement?
After all, the kerb isn't a protective barrier, it's barely more than a dividing line.
When I'm driving and the road is narrow, if I see pavement users close to the edge of the pavement I deliberately move further right, ease my speed and be prepared to put the anchors on. I'd say that was simply common sense. Why, in this case, is the driver being fully cleared of any wrongdoing?
After all, the kerb isn't a protective barrier, it's barely more than a dividing line.
When I'm driving and the road is narrow, if I see pavement users close to the edge of the pavement I deliberately move further right, ease my speed and be prepared to put the anchors on. I'd say that was simply common sense. Why, in this case, is the driver being fully cleared of any wrongdoing?
Earthdweller said:
It really isn’t murder, not at all
An interesting one.I tend to err on the side of manslaughter, but I can absolutely see where the concept of it being murder comes from.
If you pushed someone off a platform in front of a train, my guess is that would absolutely be classed as murder or attempted murder, depending on the outcome.
If you push someone in front of an oncoming car? I suppose you can do that without the intention of killing them, or with the intention of killing them
I can see it from both sides.
Earthdweller said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Turns out Grey admits she made contact:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
There's only one point where contact could have been made so she's admitting to pushing the cyclist under a car.
If you assault someone so recklessly they die that's murder so I think this should have been a murder charge and conviction. Since it wasn't, manslaughter was totally appropriate IMHO.
It really isn’t murder, not at all https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
There's only one point where contact could have been made so she's admitting to pushing the cyclist under a car.
If you assault someone so recklessly they die that's murder so I think this should have been a murder charge and conviction. Since it wasn't, manslaughter was totally appropriate IMHO.
BikeBikeBIke said:
Earthdweller said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Turns out Grey admits she made contact:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
There's only one point where contact could have been made so she's admitting to pushing the cyclist under a car.
If you assault someone so recklessly they die that's murder so I think this should have been a murder charge and conviction. Since it wasn't, manslaughter was totally appropriate IMHO.
It really isn’t murder, not at all https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
There's only one point where contact could have been made so she's admitting to pushing the cyclist under a car.
If you assault someone so recklessly they die that's murder so I think this should have been a murder charge and conviction. Since it wasn't, manslaughter was totally appropriate IMHO.
The definition of manslaughter is to harm that unintentionally results in death.
Whatever you think of this woman's actions, she quite clearly didn't intend to kill the cyclist therefore a murder charge isn't correct.
BikeBikeBIke said:
Earthdweller said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Turns out Grey admits she made contact:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
There's only one point where contact could have been made so she's admitting to pushing the cyclist under a car.
If you assault someone so recklessly they die that's murder so I think this should have been a murder charge and conviction. Since it wasn't, manslaughter was totally appropriate IMHO.
It really isn’t murder, not at all https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
There's only one point where contact could have been made so she's admitting to pushing the cyclist under a car.
If you assault someone so recklessly they die that's murder so I think this should have been a murder charge and conviction. Since it wasn't, manslaughter was totally appropriate IMHO.
"Manslaughter is when a person kills another, but only intended to hurt them, or to exert some force on them. It can also be manslaughter if the attacker was negligent or reckless as to whether some harm would be caused to the victim. With murder, the intention has to be to kill the person or to commit serious harm."
I don't think she intended to kill the old lady, otherwise she'd have been more deliberate.
IF and it really isn't, however IF is was intentional murder, it is the BEST way to murder someone, by slightly pushing them and hoping everything else lines up.
It's not murder.
Lord Marylebone said:
If you pushed someone off a platform in front of a train, my guess is that would absolutely be classed as murder or attempted murder, depending on the outcome.
If you push someone in front of an oncoming car? I suppose you can do that without the intention of killing them, or with the intention of killing them
The intention doesn't have to be to kill. The intention can be to assault someone so recklessly that they die as a result. I think pushing someone by a busy road qualifies. Maybe my understanding of the law is wrong here in which case I hope someone will correct me.If you push someone in front of an oncoming car? I suppose you can do that without the intention of killing them, or with the intention of killing them
EdIT: Someone did correct me!!! Nothing to see here.
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Thursday 2nd March 14:27
BikeBikeBIke said:
Earthdweller said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Turns out Grey admits she made contact:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
There's only one point where contact could have been made so she's admitting to pushing the cyclist under a car.
If you assault someone so recklessly they die that's murder so I think this should have been a murder charge and conviction. Since it wasn't, manslaughter was totally appropriate IMHO.
It really isn’t murder, not at all https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
There's only one point where contact could have been made so she's admitting to pushing the cyclist under a car.
If you assault someone so recklessly they die that's murder so I think this should have been a murder charge and conviction. Since it wasn't, manslaughter was totally appropriate IMHO.
To get a conviction for murder, you would need to prove that there was an intent to kill - and that the defendent does not have any defense that would reduce their culpability.
Wikipedia link... but it might help explain the differences better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_in_Engl...
dundarach said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Earthdweller said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Turns out Grey admits she made contact:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
There's only one point where contact could have been made so she's admitting to pushing the cyclist under a car.
If you assault someone so recklessly they die that's murder so I think this should have been a murder charge and conviction. Since it wasn't, manslaughter was totally appropriate IMHO.
It really isn’t murder, not at all https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
There's only one point where contact could have been made so she's admitting to pushing the cyclist under a car.
If you assault someone so recklessly they die that's murder so I think this should have been a murder charge and conviction. Since it wasn't, manslaughter was totally appropriate IMHO.
"Manslaughter is when a person kills another, but only intended to hurt them, or to exert some force on them. It can also be manslaughter if the attacker was negligent or reckless as to whether some harm would be caused to the victim. With murder, the intention has to be to kill the person or to commit serious harm."
I don't think she intended to kill the old lady, otherwise she'd have been more deliberate.
IF and it really isn't, however IF is was intentional murder, it is the BEST way to murder someone, by slightly pushing them and hoping everything else lines up.
It's not murder.
ChocolateFrog said:
snip
The irrational hatred is dumbfounding.
I am going to sound a bit Trump-like here (eeeeew!) and say that there are good and bad on all sides. Some drivers are tThe irrational hatred is dumbfounding.
ts. Some cyclists are tts. Some pedestrians are tts. When t
t meets normal person in circumstances where tt is behaving like tt then the outcome will often be anger and frustration When t
t meets tt then the outcome will be confrontation. Thankfully most folk are not t
ts. Awful loss for the family of the poor lady on the bike. Regardless of whether the road has a shared pavement or not, nobody deserves to be pushed into the path of a car like that. Sentence is probably about right.
oyster said:
If we're supposed to give cyclists/pedestrians 1.5m of passing width when overtaking them on the road, why is the same not expected when those users are on the pavement?
After all, the kerb isn't a protective barrier, it's barely more than a dividing line.
When I'm driving and the road is narrow, if I see pavement users close to the edge of the pavement I deliberately move further right, ease my speed and be prepared to put the anchors on. I'd say that was simply common sense. Why, in this case, is the driver being fully cleared of any wrongdoing?
It's a good question, especially where you have very narrow pavements.After all, the kerb isn't a protective barrier, it's barely more than a dividing line.
When I'm driving and the road is narrow, if I see pavement users close to the edge of the pavement I deliberately move further right, ease my speed and be prepared to put the anchors on. I'd say that was simply common sense. Why, in this case, is the driver being fully cleared of any wrongdoing?
This is on my commute, it's a relatively narrow but steep and very busy pavement over a rail bridge in Guildford:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.235972,-0.5794768,...
I usually crawl up there at 15mph because pedestrians often 'overtake' others and get close to the edge, and on top of that people cross the road between stopped traffic the other way to get to the car park on the left. Quite often people will tailgate me aggressively for the ~20 seconds over the bridge, and while walking the bridge noticed that few drivers take much care despite it being a pretty obviously risky road, in fact twice I've seen lorries cut the corner and mount the kerb, one time when it happened right alongside me I emailed the owners and had a genuinely concerned response from the fleet manager that they would call the driver in for a chat.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff