Jailed for pushing a cyclist under a car
Discussion
PurpleTurtle said:
That's my view.
I occasionally ride on the pavement with my 9yo son on a couple of busy roads near us. If we encounter a pedestrian where there is limited passing space we come to a total dead stop to let them past. If there is loads of passing space we go by at walking pace. It really isn't difficult to share these spaces responsibly.
(Yes, I know I shouldn't be on the pavement, but the roads in question are residentials streets where HGVs will happily put a close pass on you. I don't want my kid to go under one).
Should someone shoo him under a bus, on the basis of this decision I'd get your retribution in there and then.I occasionally ride on the pavement with my 9yo son on a couple of busy roads near us. If we encounter a pedestrian where there is limited passing space we come to a total dead stop to let them past. If there is loads of passing space we go by at walking pace. It really isn't difficult to share these spaces responsibly.
(Yes, I know I shouldn't be on the pavement, but the roads in question are residentials streets where HGVs will happily put a close pass on you. I don't want my kid to go under one).
CG2020UK said:
If you are stupid enough to think this is a good outcome for some bizarre reason then let me ask you how you would feel if it was your mum in their 70s, minding her own business walking past and some crazy woman (or young man) intimidates your mum into the road and she trips coming off the kerb and ends up under a car dead. I’m sure you’d want justice to be served.
Perhaps if my 70 year old mother was flying in restricted air space when a eurofighter caused her to crash, then maybe you'd have a point.Quick reality check for those saying "just an unfortunate accident".
The pedestrian's behaviour appeared sufficiently unreasonable to the Police, the CPS, her defence team and the appeal court that no one involved claimed the whole thing was "just an unfortunate accident".
In this latest appeal the best spin that her KC could put on it was that she had behaved like a football hooligan.
Having someone die as a direct consequence of another's hooliganism stretches most people's definition of "an unfortunate accident".
The pedestrian's behaviour appeared sufficiently unreasonable to the Police, the CPS, her defence team and the appeal court that no one involved claimed the whole thing was "just an unfortunate accident".
In this latest appeal the best spin that her KC could put on it was that she had behaved like a football hooligan.
Having someone die as a direct consequence of another's hooliganism stretches most people's definition of "an unfortunate accident".
Gareth79 said:
It seems her brother-in-law is quite wealthy and funded the appeal, presumably any other person would have sat out the prison sentence, since the grounds were fairly complicated? There's a fairly detailed article in The Times last year about her life:
You may wish to google these words: pro bonoThen read the article again.
Also, with those two words in mind, read this:
https://www.qebholliswhiteman.co.uk/site/library/r...
ATG said:
In this latest appeal the best spin that her KC could put on it was that she had behaved like a football hooligan.
Having someone die as a direct consequence of another's hooliganism stretches most people's definition of "an unfortunate accident".
That's not what KC said.Having someone die as a direct consequence of another's hooliganism stretches most people's definition of "an unfortunate accident".
Nor is that the case anyone is making for an "unfortunate accident".
Auriol Grey has cyclist manslaughter conviction overturned
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
Daniel T said:
Auriol Grey has cyclist manslaughter conviction overturned
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
Bit late to the Party chap, that's what the last 4 pages of discussion have been abouthttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
heebeegeetee said:
QuickQuack said:
And that's precisely why cycling adults should never be on pavements. Shared infrastructure is an utterly stupid concept.
First time I've ever heard that.Wifey and I are are chalking up a bit of experience using shared infra in Europe, without any issues whatsoever. To describe what we've seen and used as "utterly stupid" is something else. The amount that has been built now is extraordinary
British transport infrastructure is fully 50 years out of date, you either don't realise this or you you don't care.
Probably the latter, because you're prime concern in this debate is just the usual othering. Obviously, you think the frail 77 yr old should either be forced to use motor vehicles, or stay indoors. While Europe continues to strive ahead and build, UK concentrates on limiting freedoms and choice (supported by the usual gammons).
That selfishness is the primary reason for this incident in the first place. It doesn't matter if you're a sporty 27 or a frail 77, if you're cycling towards a clearly agitated and scared elderly person, you slow down and, if necessary, stop. Or you cycle well away from them without making them scared in the first place.
In fact, let's take a further step back, why is the mostly blind, elderly lady with learning difficulties scared when she sees a cyclist coking towards her? We see why in the clip in the latest BBC piece, cyclists going past at ridiculous speed and way too close for comfort. The poor woman probably has had many terrifying experiences with other cyclists in the past which has resulted in her developing this fear and the consequent response. I've never witnessed a cyclist with that sort of very fast close pass behaviour like in that clip anywhere else in the world. Elsewhere, people cycle much slower near pedestrians and if they're going to be pedalling hard, they do that on non-shared infrastructure.
No, I don't think frail 77 year olds should stay indoors or be forced to use cars. Do you think that disabled elderly people don't have the right to walk outside their homes without being scared witless? I think both groups have those rights. However, I don't think that the British public are capable of handling or taking responsibility for their actions, following rules, using common sense or behaving in any way other than utterly selfishly either. And I'm about as close to being a gammon as Zedleg was to being a fascist.
QuickQuack said:
heebeegeetee said:
QuickQuack said:
And that's precisely why cycling adults should never be on pavements. Shared infrastructure is an utterly stupid concept.
First time I've ever heard that.Wifey and I are are chalking up a bit of experience using shared infra in Europe, without any issues whatsoever. To describe what we've seen and used as "utterly stupid" is something else. The amount that has been built now is extraordinary
British transport infrastructure is fully 50 years out of date, you either don't realise this or you you don't care.
Probably the latter, because you're prime concern in this debate is just the usual othering. Obviously, you think the frail 77 yr old should either be forced to use motor vehicles, or stay indoors. While Europe continues to strive ahead and build, UK concentrates on limiting freedoms and choice (supported by the usual gammons).
That selfishness is the primary reason for this incident in the first place. It doesn't matter if you're a sporty 27 or a frail 77, if you're cycling towards a clearly agitated and scared elderly person, you slow down and, if necessary, stop. Or you cycle well away from them without making them scared in the first place.
In fact, let's take a further step back, why is the mostly blind, elderly lady with learning difficulties scared when she sees a cyclist coking towards her? We see why in the clip in the latest BBC piece, cyclists going past at ridiculous speed and way too close for comfort. The poor woman probably has had many terrifying experiences with other cyclists in the past which has resulted in her developing this fear and the consequent response. I've never witnessed a cyclist with that sort of very fast close pass behaviour like in that clip anywhere else in the world. Elsewhere, people cycle much slower near pedestrians and if they're going to be pedalling hard, they do that on non-shared infrastructure.
No, I don't think frail 77-year-olds should stay indoors or be forced to use cars. Do you think that disabled elderly people don't have the right to walk outside their homes without being scared witless? I think both groups have those rights. However, I don't think that the British public are capable of handling or taking responsibility for their actions, following rules, using common sense or behaving in any way other than utterly selfishly either. And I'm about as close to being a gammon as Zedleg was to being a fascist.
Type R Tom said:
I think part of the issue is the anti-cycling element. This could be due to past experiences, as you say. However, I would be willing to bet that if we came into contact, I would be a greater danger to a 46-year-old woman with my weight and the speed I can walk (faster than the 4.7mph she was doing) than this old lady on her bike. There is a big issue with the perception of danger. Clearly, I wouldn't walk into her on purpose, but neither was the 77-year-old.
I have never watched the video before but it is clear she struggles to walk and if she is also partly blind as it seems she was, then I can see how a bike coming towards her (without being rude she doesn't seem to be a mensa member) could cause her concerns. I also noted the side of the footpath was fenced so she couldn't move over away from the road and, at the point of their "meeting", there was also a sign in the footpath which further reduced the width of the pathallowing them to easily pass each other...all of which helped this sad "accident" to occur IMO.
Just as a hypothetical question: what would have happened if 2 old ladies, both on bikes, going in opposite directions, or a lady with a pram was going past at the same point - who would have had the "right of way" and who would have to stop to let the other past?
Richard-D said:
What a load of nonsense. Not trusting people to cycle sensibly on the pavement because some people are selfish. By that reasoning nobody should be allowed to drive a car as selfish idiots make a mess of that too.
If you haven't noticed, people driving like pricks have become far more common in the last 5-10 years than ever before. People just don't seem to care about anybody but themselves. You may not have noticed, of course, if your driving has been contributing to the phenomenon.QuickQuack said:
Richard-D said:
What a load of nonsense. Not trusting people to cycle sensibly on the pavement because some people are selfish. By that reasoning nobody should be allowed to drive a car as selfish idiots make a mess of that too.
If you haven't noticed, people driving like pricks have become far more common in the last 5-10 years than ever before. People just don't seem to care about anybody but themselves. You may not have noticed, of course, if your driving has been contributing to the phenomenon.Richard-D said:
QuickQuack said:
Richard-D said:
What a load of nonsense. Not trusting people to cycle sensibly on the pavement because some people are selfish. By that reasoning nobody should be allowed to drive a car as selfish idiots make a mess of that too.
If you haven't noticed, people driving like pricks have become far more common in the last 5-10 years than ever before. People just don't seem to care about anybody but themselves. You may not have noticed, of course, if your driving has been contributing to the phenomenon.However, I think that my original point still stands due to the fact that too many selfish people, complete abandonment of common sense and a total lack of enforcement where needed make it unsafe for the rest. Works elsewhere, but not here.
LimmerickLad said:
Just as a hypothetical question: what would have happened if 2 old ladies, both on bikes, going in opposite directions, or a lady with a pram was going past at the same point - who would have had the "right of way" and who would have to stop to let the other past?
Rule H2Cyclists should give way to pedestrians on shared use cycle tracks and to horse riders on bridleways.
Only pedestrians may use the pavement. Pedestrians include wheelchair and mobility scooter users.
Pedestrians may use any part of the road and use cycle tracks as well as the pavement, unless there are signs prohibiting pedestrians.
agtlaw said:
It must be rare to see all three parties of the original court case, particularly the JUDGE, get a subtle b
king by the appeal court.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff