Jailed for pushing a cyclist under a car
Discussion
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British transport infrastructure is fully 50 years out of date, you either don't realise this or you you don't care.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.ATG said:
The conviction has been overturned on a "technicality", and one that seems to have been missed by her lawyers during the trial and the initial appeal.
She has already served a large chunk of any sentence she might receive at a retrial, hence no point prosecuting her again.
Thus we aren't going to see tested her barrister's claim that acting like a football hooligan on a pavement in front of an elderly cyclist is reasonable behaviour. I'm thinking, "not".
Well if you classify a technicality as failing to prove beyond reasonable doubt the most significant point necessary for her to be guilty of what she was charged with then yes. Others might argue that this is the whole basis on which the criminal justice system is based rather than a mere technicality.She has already served a large chunk of any sentence she might receive at a retrial, hence no point prosecuting her again.
Thus we aren't going to see tested her barrister's claim that acting like a football hooligan on a pavement in front of an elderly cyclist is reasonable behaviour. I'm thinking, "not".
She was charged with unlawful act manslaughter, which, not unreasonably, requires the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an unlawful act resulted in the death. In the opinion of 3 appeal court judges they didn't. Even the Crown's counsel admitted afterwards they didn't.
QuickQuack said:
Maybe I should've finished that by qualifying it with "...in Britain due to the generalised selfishness of the population." Having been spent a significant length of my life living abroad, travelled extensively and as a dual national, selfishness is the most pronounced characteristic of the general British public. It's not politeness, it's not ingenuity, it's not following rules, it's not being good at anything, it's being selfish.
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.
Which all makes your comment about shared infrastructure being utterly stupid impossible to understand, because you will have seen it widely used by all and sundry, with no problems at all, like I have. 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.
It's also difficult to understand why Ms Grey was so frightened, because if she was mostly blind as you say, she wouldn't have been able to see the cyclist coming. Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen her described as "mostly blind."
This is nothing to do with the two older ladies imo, and I have no comment on what has happened other than to repeat, no driver would have got that sentence.
This is all as a result of Britain's infrastructure being decades out of date. I also think Britain's drivers are now well behind when it comes to sharing space with vulnerable road users, but as we see daily, try to do anything about this sees the gammon TV programmes go into overdrive.
And for those carping on about cyclists on pavements, a reminder that every single car we see parked on the pavement has driven on it, which is equally illegal as cycling on the pavement.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff