Jailed for pushing a cyclist under a car
Discussion
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.
heebeegeetee said:
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."
There are many, many different aspects to blindness.heebeegeetee said:
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.
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.
Ok then "partially blind", here and in every article: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.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
BBC article said:
Miranda Moore KC, representing Grey, who has cerebral palsy and is partially blind, argued that the sentence was "excessive" and the diagnosis may have made a difference in her case.
"Partially blind" people are effectively mostly blind although plenty of mostly/partially blind people have some level sight. There are tens of thousands of people who are registered blind but have enough sight to read or even see your face or walk down the road. There are many causes of blindness which affect certain areas of the eye/retina meaning you might have "tunnel vision" only, or the opposite, peripheral vision only. Although defined as "partially blind" or "partially sighted", most of these individuals are actually mostly blind with very little vision. Some can only see like they're looking through a straw. Go read about blindness or start another thread where you can be educated on technicalities on the causes and definitions of blindness. What's happened to the hierarchy of road users with pedestrians at the very top which you keep going on about when arguing in cycling related threads? Cyclists are lower than pedestrians on that hierarchy, pedestrians are higher. They need to be mindful of those more vulnerable than themselves. This may be the only time they're not the most vulnerable road user, but they need to bear that in mind and ride accordingly. That means giving pedestrians plenty of space, slowing right down and showing them the same courtesy they expect from road users lower down the hierarchy. Cyclists are not the most vulnerable road users they make out to be, pedestrians are. Just like in a collision between a car and a cyclist 99.99% of the time it'll be the car driver's fault, when there's an incident between a cyclist and a pedestrian, it's almost guaranteed to be the cyclist's fault and could/should have been avoided by them. Age, frailty or anything else don't come anywhere near it.
As a cyclist and motorcyclist, I've been on the butt end of other people's poor driving on hundreds of occasions, and so far avoided contact mostly due to vigilance, anticipation, defensive riding and not taking silly risks. But I use that experience to be much more careful towards those who are even more vulnerable than a somebody on bicycle, not start arguing that cyclists should have the right to ride on pavements when there are too many people who ride like the twonk in the clip where the BBC reporter is talking at the accident site, which is also in the article above.
I don't condone driving or parking on the pavement at all and have submitted plenty of cars to the bad parking thread. Bringing driving on the pavement is a complete strawman in any case. Or are you trying to suggest that people crossing the pavement with their car over a dropped kerb to get to their driveway counts as shared use?
I do fully agree with you on Britain's infrastructure being out of date by decades, but that's not the only thing out date. Britain's attitude is out date. THAT also has to change. Yes, the gammon TV programmes are part of the attitude problem in perpetuating a backward mindset which they're trying to keep in 1950s-1970s when they could get away with misogyny, racism, sexual harassment, domestic violence, commercial exploitation of the poor and much more besides. Our infrastructure needs significant amounts of spending on it, but we don't seem to have the processes, companies or the people capable of doing the work at a reasonable cost within a sensible timeframe without massive inconvenience. Our infrastructure projects seem to rob the public purse blind with poor quality outcomes, way over budget and completed long beyond the projected timelines. There's something inherently wrong with our processes and our mindset which allows this to happen time after time after time.
Rough101 said:
Not good, hot headed bigoted t
t pushed the elderly woman under a car then went shopping.
Maybe you both read the same newspapers, the ones that add people on bikes to ‘othering’ lists and encourage idiotic behaviour like this.
There was a clear error made in law as the reports make clear. The initial act needs to be criminal in and of itself for the result to be classified as manslaughter, and in this case it wasn’t.t pushed the elderly woman under a car then went shopping.Maybe you both read the same newspapers, the ones that add people on bikes to ‘othering’ lists and encourage idiotic behaviour like this.
Edited by Rough101 on Wednesday 8th May 14:18
QuickQuack said:
"Partially blind" people are effectively mostly blind although plenty of mostly/partially blind people have some level sight. There are tens of thousands of people who are registered blind but have enough sight to read or even see your face or walk down the road. There are many causes of blindness which affect certain areas of the eye/retina meaning you might have "tunnel vision" only, or the opposite, peripheral vision only. Although defined as "partially blind" or "partially sighted", most of these individuals are actually mostly blind with very little vision. Some can only see like they're looking through a straw. Go read about blindness or start another thread where you can be educated on technicalities on the causes and definitions of blindness.
What's happened to the hierarchy of road users with pedestrians at the very top which you keep going on about when arguing in cycling related threads? Cyclists are lower than pedestrians on that hierarchy, pedestrians are higher. They need to be mindful of those more vulnerable than themselves. This may be the only time they're not the most vulnerable road user, but they need to bear that in mind and ride accordingly. That means giving pedestrians plenty of space, slowing right down and showing them the same courtesy they expect from road users lower down the hierarchy. Cyclists are not the most vulnerable road users they make out to be, pedestrians are. Just like in a collision between a car and a cyclist 99.99% of the time it'll be the car driver's fault, when there's an incident between a cyclist and a pedestrian, it's almost guaranteed to be the cyclist's fault and could/should have been avoided by them. Age, frailty or anything else don't come anywhere near it.
As a cyclist and motorcyclist, I've been on the butt end of other people's poor driving on hundreds of occasions, and so far avoided contact mostly due to vigilance, anticipation, defensive riding and not taking silly risks. But I use that experience to be much more careful towards those who are even more vulnerable than a somebody on bicycle, not start arguing that cyclists should have the right to ride on pavements when there are too many people who ride like the twonk in the clip where the BBC reporter is talking at the accident site, which is also in the article above.
I don't condone driving or parking on the pavement at all and have submitted plenty of cars to the bad parking thread. Bringing driving on the pavement is a complete strawman in any case. Or are you trying to suggest that people crossing the pavement with their car over a dropped kerb to get to their driveway counts as shared use?
I do fully agree with you on Britain's infrastructure being out of date by decades, but that's not the only thing out date. Britain's attitude is out date. THAT also has to change. Yes, the gammon TV programmes are part of the attitude problem in perpetuating a backward mindset which they're trying to keep in 1950s-1970s when they could get away with misogyny, racism, sexual harassment, domestic violence, commercial exploitation of the poor and much more besides. Our infrastructure needs significant amounts of spending on it, but we don't seem to have the processes, companies or the people capable of doing the work at a reasonable cost within a sensible timeframe without massive inconvenience. Our infrastructure projects seem to rob the public purse blind with poor quality outcomes, way over budget and completed long beyond the projected timelines. There's something inherently wrong with our processes and our mindset which allows this to happen time after time after time.
The case is what it is. The pedestrian isn't "mostly blind" so there's simply no point in exaggerating or changing aspects of the case, nor the waffle about degrees of blindness. The ONLY thing you know about Ms Grey in this respect is that you have read she is partially sighted.What's happened to the hierarchy of road users with pedestrians at the very top which you keep going on about when arguing in cycling related threads? Cyclists are lower than pedestrians on that hierarchy, pedestrians are higher. They need to be mindful of those more vulnerable than themselves. This may be the only time they're not the most vulnerable road user, but they need to bear that in mind and ride accordingly. That means giving pedestrians plenty of space, slowing right down and showing them the same courtesy they expect from road users lower down the hierarchy. Cyclists are not the most vulnerable road users they make out to be, pedestrians are. Just like in a collision between a car and a cyclist 99.99% of the time it'll be the car driver's fault, when there's an incident between a cyclist and a pedestrian, it's almost guaranteed to be the cyclist's fault and could/should have been avoided by them. Age, frailty or anything else don't come anywhere near it.
As a cyclist and motorcyclist, I've been on the butt end of other people's poor driving on hundreds of occasions, and so far avoided contact mostly due to vigilance, anticipation, defensive riding and not taking silly risks. But I use that experience to be much more careful towards those who are even more vulnerable than a somebody on bicycle, not start arguing that cyclists should have the right to ride on pavements when there are too many people who ride like the twonk in the clip where the BBC reporter is talking at the accident site, which is also in the article above.
I don't condone driving or parking on the pavement at all and have submitted plenty of cars to the bad parking thread. Bringing driving on the pavement is a complete strawman in any case. Or are you trying to suggest that people crossing the pavement with their car over a dropped kerb to get to their driveway counts as shared use?
I do fully agree with you on Britain's infrastructure being out of date by decades, but that's not the only thing out date. Britain's attitude is out date. THAT also has to change. Yes, the gammon TV programmes are part of the attitude problem in perpetuating a backward mindset which they're trying to keep in 1950s-1970s when they could get away with misogyny, racism, sexual harassment, domestic violence, commercial exploitation of the poor and much more besides. Our infrastructure needs significant amounts of spending on it, but we don't seem to have the processes, companies or the people capable of doing the work at a reasonable cost within a sensible timeframe without massive inconvenience. Our infrastructure projects seem to rob the public purse blind with poor quality outcomes, way over budget and completed long beyond the projected timelines. There's something inherently wrong with our processes and our mindset which allows this to happen time after time after time.
Nothing has happened to the hierarchy, and I'm not aware it has played any part in this case. Your statement about cyclists being almost always to blame is waffle, in most cases pedestrians just step into the road without looking at all. Either way, very few pedestrians indeed are killed by cyclists so it's not a major problem, but @ 500 pedestrians are killed by drivers.
My mentioning parking on pavements is in response to those taking the time to quote the law on cycling on pavements, like anyone here needs it. These same people undoubtedly themselves drive on pavements, but justify that to themselves.
As was written, the 77 year old female cyclist had a choice of riding on a busy road or pavement. I sympathise with her, you castigate her, and use this unfortunate case to criticise cycling.
I am surprised/not surprised in equal measure that there's been no mention of the driver involved, who obviously failed to avoid a situation that was developing in front of them. I watched a bit of gammon TV re the pedestrian fatality in Regents Park, it was another segment of complete misinformation so typical of these channels. Nick Freeman held the usual view that the cyclist is entirely to blame for the pedestrian stepping out in front of him, but in this case the driver gets no similar treatment at all.
As drivers we are very fortunate. Far from there being this fictitious 'war on motorists', in fact we get access to an almost different kind of law; like I said, no driver would have got the sentence that Grey got.
While I accept that both the prosecution and judge screwed up, a lot of people don't seem to have read the appeal properly...
The appeal argument was that they didn't instruct the jury correctly; that in order:
1. was that the defendant had committed assault by threatening the cyclist
2. was that it wasn't self defence
3. it resulted in death.
The judge and prosecution skipped 1 on the basis that they thought it was so obvious as to not need discussing.
IMHO the likelihood of the jury not having agreed with that given the conviction + video is in my opinion low. And the argument that shouting threats while aggresively approaching an elderly cyclist is assault (assault being the threat of violence, not violence itself) - the cyclist died trying to flee them.
But I do agree that it did need to be considered by the jury; Plausibly there are far more marginal cases where step 1 is more critical; So we have to set the case law that it is critical in all cases and cannot be assumed.
I also think that drivers have done stuff easily as bad/worse than the defendant to me other than not ending up under a car, with the system pretty much treating it as acceptable because they were driving and had to slow down (and this then gets extended to cyclists towards pedestrians because sentencing etc has to consider the lower risk from much lighter slower vehicles)... So a 3 year sentence is way worse than motorists get for comparable actions despite far greater likelihood of the result seen. At which point there is a good argument that a retrial is pointless + expensive - a resulting sentence shouldn't be significantly different to what they have already served...
The only reason for retrial would be *bleeps* who think this means it is legal to threaten cyclists on shared use paths...
The appeal argument was that they didn't instruct the jury correctly; that in order:
1. was that the defendant had committed assault by threatening the cyclist
2. was that it wasn't self defence
3. it resulted in death.
The judge and prosecution skipped 1 on the basis that they thought it was so obvious as to not need discussing.
IMHO the likelihood of the jury not having agreed with that given the conviction + video is in my opinion low. And the argument that shouting threats while aggresively approaching an elderly cyclist is assault (assault being the threat of violence, not violence itself) - the cyclist died trying to flee them.
But I do agree that it did need to be considered by the jury; Plausibly there are far more marginal cases where step 1 is more critical; So we have to set the case law that it is critical in all cases and cannot be assumed.
I also think that drivers have done stuff easily as bad/worse than the defendant to me other than not ending up under a car, with the system pretty much treating it as acceptable because they were driving and had to slow down (and this then gets extended to cyclists towards pedestrians because sentencing etc has to consider the lower risk from much lighter slower vehicles)... So a 3 year sentence is way worse than motorists get for comparable actions despite far greater likelihood of the result seen. At which point there is a good argument that a retrial is pointless + expensive - a resulting sentence shouldn't be significantly different to what they have already served...
The only reason for retrial would be *bleeps* who think this means it is legal to threaten cyclists on shared use paths...
XCP said:
What would you have charged the driver with?
'Jurors heard the vehicle had no chance to stop or take avoiding action'. 'No chance' seems a bit definitive - surely there's always something that can be done better?Most drivers are completely oblivious to anything that's happening on an adjacent pavement, shared path or cycle lane.
Competent drivers should be prepared to give people that aren't on the road a bit of consideration and space, and anticipate any possible issues. Loads of drivers hammer past inches from walkers, runners or cyclists just because they have a kerb between them - pull out further into the road a bit if it's safe surely?
Not saying it would have changed anything in this case, but there doesn't seem to have been much focus on anything the car driver did - their speed, observations, distance from the kerb etc.
Gin and Ultrasonic said:
'Jurors heard the vehicle had no chance to stop or take avoiding action'. 'No chance' seems a bit definitive - surely there's always something that can be done better?
Most drivers are completely oblivious to anything that's happening on an adjacent pavement, shared path or cycle lane.
Competent drivers should be prepared to give people that aren't on the road a bit of consideration and space, and anticipate any possible issues. Loads of drivers hammer past inches from walkers, runners or cyclists just because they have a kerb between them - pull out further into the road a bit if it's safe surely?
Not saying it would have changed anything in this case, but there doesn't seem to have been much focus on anything the car driver did - their speed, observations, distance from the kerb etc.
See recent discussions/news regarding cyclist who hit pedestrian who then died 59 days later from related causes.Most drivers are completely oblivious to anything that's happening on an adjacent pavement, shared path or cycle lane.
Competent drivers should be prepared to give people that aren't on the road a bit of consideration and space, and anticipate any possible issues. Loads of drivers hammer past inches from walkers, runners or cyclists just because they have a kerb between them - pull out further into the road a bit if it's safe surely?
Not saying it would have changed anything in this case, but there doesn't seem to have been much focus on anything the car driver did - their speed, observations, distance from the kerb etc.
And how many people can't grasp that the cyclist wasn't charged because we don't expect vehicles to allow for hazards from footway entering the road a couple of m in front of them... (Yes, the cyclist in question was exceeding the speed limit for cars; But measured speeds in 20mph zones put there speed around the same as most cars...)
I mean Charlotte Griffiths was found not guilty for hitting (and killing) a 91 year old on a zebra crossing on defence that they must have stepped out from behind a tree.
Gin and Ultrasonic said:
'Jurors heard the vehicle had no chance to stop or take avoiding action'. 'No chance' seems a bit definitive - surely there's always something that can be done better?
Most drivers are completely oblivious to anything that's happening on an adjacent pavement, shared path or cycle lane.
Competent drivers should be prepared to give people that aren't on the road a bit of consideration and space, and anticipate any possible issues. Loads of drivers hammer past inches from walkers, runners or cyclists just because they have a kerb between them - pull out further into the road a bit if it's safe surely?
Not saying it would have changed anything in this case, but there doesn't seem to have been much focus on anything the car driver did - their speed, observations, distance from the kerb etc.
Most drivers are completely oblivious to anything that's happening on an adjacent pavement, shared path or cycle lane.
Competent drivers should be prepared to give people that aren't on the road a bit of consideration and space, and anticipate any possible issues. Loads of drivers hammer past inches from walkers, runners or cyclists just because they have a kerb between them - pull out further into the road a bit if it's safe surely?
Not saying it would have changed anything in this case, but there doesn't seem to have been much focus on anything the car driver did - their speed, observations, distance from the kerb etc.
Most accidents can be avoided using the power of hindsight but unless we all become psychic or develop an ability to see into the future then sometimes things are unavoidable.
A good example is give ways. If you're approaching a give way and a car suddenly pulls out in front of you giving you no time to stop you could potentially have avoided that accident by slowing down to a speed where you can stop if a car suddently pulls out, but we don't generally slow to 10mph every time we pass a give way since 99.999% of the time we pass one cars don't suddenly drive out and cause us to crash into them
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.
She is hardly "elderly" is she ffs she is 50 & was 49 when the incident occured, im 53 & certainly do not consider myself to be elderly.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.
Retroman said:
Most accidents can be avoided using the power of hindsight but unless we all become psychic or develop an ability to see into the future then sometimes things are unavoidable.
A good example is give ways. If you're approaching a give way and a car suddenly pulls out in front of you giving you no time to stop you could potentially have avoided that accident by slowing down to a speed where you can stop if a car suddently pulls out, but we don't generally slow to 10mph every time we pass a give way since 99.999% of the time we pass one cars don't suddenly drive out and cause us to crash into them
I was referring specifically to the statement where they just say there's nothing the car driver could have done. Could they have anticipated 2 people meeting on a narrow pavement at the same time they were going to get there with their car? Were they paying enough attention? Going too fast? Too close to the path / cyclist / pedestrian? Should the highway code reference to passing distances have been considered - does it, or should it apply to people who are on a path next to the road? I appreciate the car driver wasn't on trial, and maybe all of this was thoroughly investigated by the police.
qwerty360 said:
IMHO the likelihood of the jury not having agreed with that given the conviction + video is in my opinion low. And the argument that shouting threats while aggresively approaching an elderly cyclist is assault (assault being the threat of violence, not violence itself) - the cyclist died trying to flee them.
But I do agree that it did need to be considered by the jury; Plausibly there are far more marginal cases where step 1 is more critical; So we have to set the case law that it is critical in all cases and cannot be assumed.
Hmm, no assumption has always been the law. "The prosecution must prove an intentional act (not omission); that the intentional act is unlawful; that it is an act which all sober and reasonable people would inevitably realise must subject the victim to at least some risk of harm." (CPS guidelines)But I do agree that it did need to be considered by the jury; Plausibly there are far more marginal cases where step 1 is more critical; So we have to set the case law that it is critical in all cases and cannot be assumed.
Sad case in all respects, and us internet warriors cannot know all the factual circumstances. By most social norms, the Defendant behaved badly, and maybe even unreasonably. However, the criminal test is a legal one, with onus on the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Be mindful, unlawful act manslaughter is the second most serious crime, after murder.
Threatening to punch someone who runs away into the path of a car has legal precedent as unlawful act manslaughter. A threat to punch someone is clearly unlawful (assault); but waving arms and shouting obscenities is much less obvious....and the other necessary elements are present beyond reasonable doubt?? Had the Defendant motioned to hit the approaching cyclist, then that would be a stronger case, but she didn't.
Such are the fine margins in a moment of madness with tragic consequences.
Finally the thread title needs to change, as there was no evidence she "pushed" the cyclist at all, let alone under the approaching car.
Edited by HocusPocus on Thursday 9th May 18:01
Retroman said:
Most accidents can be avoided using the power of hindsight but unless we all become psychic or develop an ability to see into the future then sometimes things are unavoidable.
A good example is give ways. If you're approaching a give way and a car suddenly pulls out in front of you giving you no time to stop you could potentially have avoided that accident by slowing down to a speed where you can stop if a car suddently pulls out, but we don't generally slow to 10mph every time we pass a give way since 99.999% of the time we pass one cars don't suddenly drive out and cause us to crash into them
In your case the collision would be avoided by the driver not pulling out from a side road. Sorry if that sounds obvious and is not the point you're trying to make, but it's definitely the case nevertheless.
In the incident we're discussing, I think the driver made a close pass. Was there any evidence that he couldn't leave 1.5m, or couldn't slow down?
I know there is a strong belief that a close pass doesn't count if the other party is in a different lane or on a pavement/cycling lane, but is there anything in law supporting this?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff