“Hostile and aggressive” pedestrian found guilty of killing 77-year-old cyclist in pavement cycling dispute

Apparently Ms Gray has lodged an appeal against the sentence.

https://metro.co.uk/2023/03/08/auriol-grey-huntingdon-woman-jailed-for-k...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11817879/Inside-lonely-life-dis...

Can't believe the Daily Hate actually did a better job. It's the Judge they are incompetent. To say someone has no learning difficulties but then aknowledge they have a cognitive impairment is double speech. They are the same thing that's what cognitive means. It's a brain impairment. Clear sign of temper control, clear access to social housing and support, ticks the boxes for a vulnerable adult. That phrase they said they don't have,. That's sounds like an attempt to avoid liability.

I do wonder the social status of the victim who sadly died. I think it may have played a part in how the judge behaved and unconscious bias (a know issue in court, judges are in no way any better then anyone else, they give harsher sentences just because they are hungry).

What a horrible tragic mess.😞

Look at the language. Swore, aggressive. That's exactly how cyclists are reported, I've sworn at drivers comming directly at me. I've shouted at cyclists riding to fast at me while walking on the canal. There is absolutely nothing criminal or unreasonable there, it's a normal reaction. If you watch the BBC lady reporting you get to see a man on a bike ride dangerously close and to fast past her (I am not saying the lady was riding to fast, I'm pointing out that it's likely a common occurrence that some cyclists do, that it's a reasonable expectation. The pedestrian has no more reason to move aside then I would if I was riding primary on the road. It's their choice and they are protecting their space.

I'd hazard a guess that it was the leaving of the scene that got the sentence here. I really do hope they had a proper cognitive assessment done. I strongly suspect they did not.

Found the video and BBC article. This does look like a miscarriage of justice. That lady can't move her body powerfully and is waving her hand around. There is no forceful hip movement that I'd expect for a shove she's still rocking side to side right to the end. The cyclist absolutely should have stopped, it's clear the pedestrian can't walk correctly and there is not enough room.

The reporting that there was nothing the car could do is not true.

That's a hazard perception fail ( yes your supposed to watch the pavement that's where people cross from). No way the driver would be prosecuted but it's simply not true there was nothing they could do. Skilled, defensively trained drivers would have had a reasonable chance of slowing down and reducing or preventing injury.

In an ideal world there will be some pronbono legal support for the lady to assess her capacity and check everything was done correctly and the council would be sued for failing to correctly manage a percieved shared space (good chance no one actually know now if it's shared or not due to poor signage and infrastructure).

This kind of one sided, poorly analysed reporting is exactly what we cyclists have to deal with. I think we have just passed it on.

Reminds me about an old women's suffrage poster. It said these people have the vote but we don't. There was an image of a conscientious objector, a shell shocked coward and a criminal. We only tend to see forms of discrimination we experience.

(Even with no LD that lady has clear and significant physical impairments)

I work as an adult SEN teacher. I think there is a reasonable chance this lady has learning difficulties. The phrase she does not consider herself to have is odd. Normally it's asked that way because people might not self identify but others, usually professionals may disagree. The nature of co-morbitities means that this is more likely with the cerebral palsy and VI. The fact she went shopping after is the bit that really got my attention. Her behaviour would be very predictable (VI, poor processing, frustrated response). You can then say she is a danger but take account all she is trying to do is walk down a pavement (that is not well designed dual use). I would be very careful of making strong judgements without more information to rule this out . If the police haven't picked up on LD issues they may not have had a responsible person present and she may not have had an appropriate defense. This is a known issue with the justice system and police behaviour.

I'm very upset that someone died, someone that could be me (I prefer cycling over driving) but their is sadly the opportunity for both parties to be victims here though one is clearly a more immediate tragedy.

If anyone can find more information about the case could they post link as I can't find much. In the future more might come out about this or there may be an appeal.

3 year custodial sentence.

What speed was the old dear riding at on the pavement, that a gesticulation caused her to crash onto the road? I suspect being 77 had a lot to do with her inability to control her bike when she got surprised by the pedestrian behaviour.

Perhaps new charges, such as causing death by dangerous walking, should be introduced. Failing that, remove the driving equivalent(s) and charge drivers with manslaughter for similar offences.

I see the resident troll is creating straw men just so they can have an argument.

It's best not to engage with those who cannot argue in good faith.

What an awful thing... 

Watching the video, I would say the balance of probability is that the poor woman was physically pushed. The angle of the turn just seems unlikely if voluntary. If someone was simply crowded off the pavement I'd expect the angle to be far less acute. 

However, you have to respect the prosecution for not going down this route and instead focus on just the shouting and gesticulation.

This is such a sad case and I feel sorry for both parties and their families. I am, however, interested in the point of law in question. There is no proof of contact between the two parties, so, on what grounds is the pedestrian being prosecuted? Does anyone know? Shouting and gesticulating with the intent of forcing someone into the path of a moving vehicle?

I can't quite get over the report that the police couldn't say whether or not it was a shared path?  How difficult can it be to go and look?  (And, if you can't tell when you do, then there's clearly a major issue about signage?)

I was Googling when the ministerial guidance for permitting cycling on a pavement was last updated, and I haven't come across any suggestion that the guidance from 25 years ago has been withdrawn, but I did come across this:

https://road.cc/content/news/108119-transport-minister-responsible-cycli...

Perhaps Simon can risk checking if this is still the case?

Those quoting the law should be aware that in court, such ministerial pronouncements have weight and are taken into consideration.