"Ill-informed" Spectator writer under fire for coverage of manslaughter sentencing for pedestrian who caused cyclist's death

interesting to read about the "enduring distress" of the car driver - that's an angle that's been almost completely ignored in all of the reporting.

open_roads wrote:

interesting to read about the "enduring distress" of the car driver - that's an angle that's been almost completely ignored in all of the reporting.

I was quite surprised by that, I didn't really think of the car driver being classified as a secondary victim of the tragic events but of course the poor woman will doubtless suffer the trauma of it for the rest of her life. I hope steps have been taken to provide her with any counselling she might need.

I think this aspect needs more discussion. Other people have mentioned it but it's difficult to comment without access to the trial notes. Whenever I cycle or drive past someone on the pavement I either give 2m or slow down. It is so easy to trip on our appallingly maintained footpaths. People cycling, especially children, are even more likely to fall off into the road. Pedestrians can also just step out into the road which has happened to me on numerous occasions when cycling.

In this case a pedestrian and a cyclist were stopped in front of one another having some sort of confrontation on the edge of the pavement. I would have been well out.

I haven't seen the full video or listened to the trial so it's difficult to comment on this case and I would like to see the reasoning behind deciding that the motorist "had no chance" but if this has been shown to be the case then obviously the driver deserves our sympathy.

Likely assumed that the driver had no chance. The driver had just returned from picking their child up and the possibility she was not paying attention to the pavement is a realistic one. In reality no one really expects drivers to do that despite it being the required standard.

Bungle_52 wrote:

I think this aspect needs more discussion. Other people have mentioned it but it's difficult to comment without access to the trial notes. Whenever I cycle or drive past someone on the pavement I either give 2m or slow down. It is so easy to trip on our appallingly maintained footpaths. People cycling, especially children, are even more likely to fall off into the road. Pedestrians can also just step out into the road which has happened to me on numerous occasions when cycling.

I walked down to the post office and shops in my village this morning.  The direct route from the top of the village (where I live) and the bottom (where the precinct is) has a footway along one side.

That footway is about one metre wide. The road is two lanes and pretty narrow, you regularly see people driving straddling the centre line if there's no oncoming motor vehicles, and I was always nervous walking the kids when they were younger, or walking the dog (it's also the bus route, and our village is on a double decker bus route) so imagine walking along there as a bus or a truck passes you, or a speeding car (even though we nominally have a 20mph speed limit now).

https://goo.gl/maps/3RC8x3HjD45qnhNT9

Thanks for the reply.

The highway code now recommends 2m for pedestrians where there is no footpath but there is no mention of narrow pavements. This seems ridiculous but it's good to hear that some motorists give room by moving over. Not many do round here in my experience.

Mentioned in quite a few articles covering it. It's the focus of at least one

Ah, you beat me to this. Someone on Reddit posted the judge's sentencing notes a couple of days ago where he explained that there clearly was a "push" aimed at Mrs Ward. Whether the push landed and that's what put Mrs Ward in front of the car or whether her attempts to dodge the push went wrong is unclear, but it's obvious that there was a little more going on here than "just a shout".

Check out blackbeltlawyer's tweet about it, she admitted to pushing her and the video shows it.

Video shows aggressive arm waving which is what witness describes.

The report says waving her hands and the witness said it contacts or the cyclists evaded. If she admitted to pushing that seems definitive until you consider that the police and court may have failed to assess her cognitive abilities and therefore taken the appropriate steps when interviewing her.

The fairness very much rests on that assumption. That she is not significantly disabled especially intellectuallly.

Notes weren't shared when most of the articles written. I made quite a few comments earlier in the week about how this case looked to me as an expert in special education. After my first initial reaction as a keen cyclists I kept seeing all these red flags. After reading the judges notes I'm still in shock. Almost every argument he makes can be used to come to almost exactly the opposite conclusion to the one he makes, those conclusions seeming to me to be way beyond any expertise he has and staggeringly prejudicial. I still want to know exactly what caused the retrial.

Because I could be wrong this is what I would expect to exist, a clinical psychologists report on mental capacity, a medical report on visual impairment, and evidence of a discussion about whether the police considered calling in an advocate during interview or an assessment of if she was a vulnerable adult was ever made.

I think it's reasonable to assume they would have been mentioned if they occurred.

Those notes should be causing people to have more doubts about the fairness of this case not less.

P.s the Spectator article is garbage, the idea that some serious disability discrimination may have occurred is not.

This is a horrible tragedy but if Ariel is vulnerable the sentence is simply another wrong especially as according to the highway code she was in fact the more vulnerable party on the road in the vast majority of such scenarios.

Incidentally closer supervision and 1:1 when out would remove any danger and be cheaper then prison. Obviously that assumes I am right about the LD. I still think that might be unjust.

Really do think this is going to be a text book case of judicial prejudice a decade from now.

Sorry pavement not road. Ironically the judge made the same error when making the argument about sharing the road. That remark made no mention of the new heirarchy.

Irrational Pi wrote:

Sorry pavement not road. Ironically the judge made the same error when making the argument about sharing the road. That remark made no mention of the new heirarchy.

I believe that the legal defintion of the road under the RTA is the whole highway, carriageway and pavements included, and road users are members of the public who use any part of the highway for any mode of transport, so in the strict legal sense in which he is used to speaking the judge was correct.

That does make sense though he does imply a level of negotiation that is not in reality the same on the pavement then the road. That's why we let children cycle on the pavement and why we wouldn't expect vulnerable people to be as alert. The lack of signage of dual use not changing that. We could expect everyone to have those skills while walking but I think it's fair to say we don't and have no intention of doing so.

So this bit in the article?

"In court, judge Sean Enright said the path was a shared cycleway, something the police nor Cambridgeshire County Council have confirmed, the council saying it is aware it is used by cyclists and "we are looking at this location to see if there is any work required to make things clearer"."

Reading helps before commenting.

She is probably one of those ridiculous swivel eyed loons - who speaks of brexthick 'benefits' that will come. One day. Soon. Maybe in 50 years or so . 

A vulnerable adult who chose a confrontation with Celia Ward, and who rather than realising the severity of what had happened and stopping to help, just walked on to the shops. I have no sympathy for her. And I note that she's not exactly being vilified in the press either.

She is. Using language often used to dehumanise cyclists. Ward also choose to continue cycling towards her, likely because she was scared and thought she could force her way past, same behaviour as many drivers dealing with an irate cyclists trying to protect their space.

Yes. Though I think she might like the independence of the walk and prefer the help at home. She apperantly enjoys walking despite the difficulty.

It's a classic writers structure to an opinion piece, you're lensing/filtering the situation through your immediate reaction to make the reader feel theres a more personable connection with you, reactions they themselves might have felt, as you build your article up.

It literally starts with "Let me confess..." and "...My first, entirely selfish,thought".

I dont think it's fair to criticise the writer or article on those grounds alone.

I'd criticise the thrust of the article, cyclists have licence to do what they want, but its built against a backdrop where even the Guardian would only describe this particular case as Auriol Grey shouted and waved at Celia Ward to get off the pavement.

Singling out the Spectator alone, when the mainstream media, some worse than others, have been as ill informed and not reported the details of the case well at all, has resulted in the comments section of those newspapers, all manner of online forums and across social media fuelled more hatred against cyclists or cyclists on shared paths.

I'm a professional writer. I'd never write a piece like that. Just saying....

Then you should be familiar with that writing style and the authors intent, that you would choose not to write it, is simply your personal choice at the end of the day