Pedestrian jailed for causing death of cyclist

[maomao]

I've noticed you just do the late shift nowadays which suggests a drink problem.

I'm inclined to trust an expert here.

 

[friedaweed]

I've noticed you just do the late shift nowadays which suggests a drink problem.

That's a bit unfair tbh. The late shift workers have always insisted that sauce is present during the toil of evening postings. The late shift on Urban is like the French Foreign Legion. Payed to whine.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

We have motorbikes race along sections of pavement round my area to get round the LTN entrances

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Magnus P.I.

Why Like Ignatius J Reilly

 

[AverageJoe]

I got hit by a cyclist from behind about an hour ago. They stopped and said sorry and it was a kid I used to mentor.

I did not wave my arms.

But I did think that my mentoring was not good enough.

That's all I've got.

 

[Orang Utan]

Not to mention they'll fuck up the clutch and/or gearbox by over-revving the engines to make as much noise as possible.

Aye, but that’s not the kind of community action that cyclists and pedestrians can take part in.

 

[Pickman's model]

The thing about a car parked on the pavement is that it must have moved along the pavement to get there. Unless someone either built a car on the pavement or built a pavement under a car.

That's it? That's the thing about cars parked on pavements? That at some point they have manoeuvred at maybe 1 or 2 mph onto the pavement? Have a pedant point for your miserable effort

 

[Orang Utan]

The thing about a car parked on the pavement is that it must have moved along the pavement to get there. Unless someone either built a car on the pavement or built a pavement under a car.

If people must treat their most prized and expensive possessions like litter and leave just lying outside in the street, they shouldn’t be surprised if it gets damaged or worse by people who are frustrated by the obstruction that tramples on their right of way.

 

[SpookyFrank]

That's it? That's the thing about cars parked on pavements? That at some point they have manoeuvred at maybe 1 or 2 mph onto the pavement? Have a pedant point for your miserable effort

Also the killing children part.

Five-month-old baby in pram killed as van mounts pavement in Waterbeach

Louis Thorold's mother was pushing the pram and is in a critical condition.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Pickman's model]

Also the killing children part.

Five-month-old baby in pram killed as van mounts pavement in Waterbeach

Louis Thorold's mother was pushing the pram and is in a critical condition.

www.bbc.co.uk

Great goalpost moving

 

[liquidindian]

Great goalpost moving

You tell him, that's a van not a car, totally different.

 

[Pickman's model]

You tell him, that's a van not a car, totally different.

I see you're happy scraping the pedantry barrel

 

[liquidindian]

548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles between between 2005 and 2018, according to RoadPeace.

 

[SpookyFrank]

548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles between between 2005 and 2018, according to RoadPeace.

That seems fine. Nothing to worry about there.

 

[liquidindian]

pedantry barrel

I think I saw them upstairs at at the Lexington once.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think I saw them upstairs at at the Lexington once.

You've not got the hang of that, the traditional urban thing to say is they supported ruddy yurts at whatever venue. Which they probably did. But not the lexington, because yurts was barred from there after an incident involving Jamesons, farts and a lighter

 

[liquidindian]

Jamesons, farts and a lighter

They had a more folky vibe downstairs at The Royal Oak.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

That's it? That's the thing about cars parked on pavements? That at some point they have manoeuvred at maybe 1 or 2 mph onto the pavement? Have a pedant point for your miserable effort

Pretty shit for wheelchair users though, and to a lesser extent people pushing buggies.

Not to mention pavement mounting caused by out of control driving, which did kill some people round our area a couple of years ago

 

[BigTom]

Possibly. But did the defendant realise that her lashing out in frustration could have led to death?
Manslaughter is company directors taking safety shortcuts to save money that leads to deaths of workers. Or murderers who get off on a technicality.
This was an unfortunate clash where the blame lies with the council if anyone.

Manslaughter is for causing death unintentionally.

I think it's reasonable for someone to understand that if they shout and move towards a cyclist, whether they actually make contact or not, that's likely to cause the cyclist to swerve and being next to a busy, fast road, the potential consequences of that action should be plain to anyone, including a child and therefore an adult with a developmental disorder (and with the note that it'll be a whole lot clearer to the jury and court then it is to us just exactly what her visual impairment and developmental level is).

I'm assuming her visual impairment meant that she couldn't tell it was an old woman riding the bike but if she could that would be another factor towards it being reasonable for her to know the possible outcomes of her actions.

I do agree that whoever has planned and designed this bit of road has the biggest blame as they created the circumstances that caused this conflict but that doesn't take away from her fault either.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Pretty shit for wheelchair users though, and to a lesser extent people pushing buggies.

Not to mention pavement mounting caused by out of control driving, which did kill some people round our area a couple of years ago

Yes even a stationary car is a hazard if it forces wheelchair users into the road as is often the case.

Londoners may not understand how bad this problem is everywhere else but London.

 

[kabbes]

Manslaughter is for causing death unintentionally

… While acting either criminally or negligently/recklessly (precise definition of both depends on your jurisdiction)

I think it's reasonable for someone to understand that if they shout and move towards a cyclist, whether they actually make contact or not, that's likely to cause the cyclist to swerve and being next to a busy, fast road, the potential consequences of that action should be plain to anyone, including a child and therefore an adult with a developmental disorder (and with the note that it'll be a whole lot clearer to the jury and court then it is to us just exactly what her visual impairment and developmental level is).

I'm assuming her visual impairment meant that she couldn't tell it was an old woman riding the bike but if she could that would be another factor towards it being reasonable for her to know the possible outcomes of her actions.

I do agree that whoever has planned and designed this bit of road has the biggest blame as they created the circumstances that caused this conflict but that doesn't take away from her fault either.

I agree in principle — somebody recklessly acting to cause another individual to fall into the road, where they are killed, has a manslaughter case to answer. And as you say, it is for a jury to decide to what extent the individual was criminally reckless, including taking into account their personal circumstances.

 

[Spymaster]

I think it's reasonable for someone to understand that if they shout and move towards a cyclist, whether they actually make contact or not, that's likely to cause the cyclist to swerve and being next to a busy, fast road, the potential consequences of that action should be plain to anyone …

I disagree. I’ve shouted at scores of pavement cyclists and not one has swerved into the road. Most just ignored me and a few told me to fuck off.

For reckless manslaughter there has to be an obvious disregard of the potential consequences of an action. If all the woman did was to shout and gesticulate at the rider, it’s quite a stretch to conclude that it was clear that shouting and gesticulating could lead to death or serious injury. All of that is bolstered by the fact that she’s partially blind and of a “childlike” disposition.

If reckless gesticulating had unintentionally knocked her into the path of an oncoming car, that would be different but the prosecution didn’t argue that.

 

[Cid]

I disagree. I’ve shouted at scores of pavement cyclists and not one has swerved into the road. Most just ignored me and a few told me to fuck off.

For recklessness manslaughter there has to be a clear disregard of the potential consequences of an action. If all the woman did was to shout and gesticulate at the rider, it’s quite a stretch to conclude that it was clear that shouting and gesticulating could lead to death or serious injury. All of that is bolstered by the fact that she’s partially blind and of a “childlike” disposition.

If reckless gesticulating had unintentionally knocked her into the path of an oncoming car, that would be different but the prosecution didn’t argue that.

It's not reckless manslaughter, it's unlawful act manslaughter. That is probably an assault (assault does not require physical contact) which resulted in a reasonably foreseeable risk of serious injury. There's a recklessness component in there (recklessness as to the consequences of the assault), but the head is unlawful act. In summary it is; an unlawful act that was dangerous (in the view of a sober and reasonable bystander) and inadvertently caused death.

Joshua Rozenburg has the sentencing notes on his substack. Now, not to tar people by spousal association, but the dude is married to Melanie Philips. Still, the sentencing notes are reproduced largely without comment so <shrug>.

The judge does not, of course, decide whether those criteria are met - that was a unanimous jury decision. He does decide on mitigating/aggravating factors, sentencing notes indicate that evidence on MH, eyesight etc was presented. We don't have that info, maybe we will if there's an appeal, but there we go.

 

[Cid]

Worth also noting that a potential defence of self defence is ruled out; it's a shared use path, Grey was aware of that and Ward presented no risk to her. Spymaster 's wild gesticulating on a normal pavement might grant him that defence, though I will happily, happily present the court with evidence of his virulent hatred of cyclists. It would be unlikely to avail him on a path he knew was shared use, and where the cyclist presented no threat to him.

 

[Pickman's model]

I disagree. I’ve shouted at scores of pavement cyclists and not one has swerved into the road. Most just ignored me and a few told me to fuck off.

For reckless manslaughter there has to be an obvious disregard of the potential consequences of an action. If all the woman did was to shout and gesticulate at the rider, it’s quite a stretch to conclude that it was clear that shouting and gesticulating could lead to death or serious injury. All of that is bolstered by the fact that she’s partially blind and of a “childlike” disposition.

If reckless gesticulating had unintentionally knocked her into the path of an oncoming car, that would be different but the prosecution didn’t argue that.

How lucky you have been

 

[Spymaster]

It's not reckless manslaughter, it's unlawful act manslaughter. That is probably an assault (assault does not require physical contact) which resulted in a reasonably foreseeable risk of serious injury. There's a recklessness component in there (recklessness as to the consequences of the assault), but the head is unlawful act. In summary it is; an unlawful act that was dangerous (in the view of a sober and reasonable bystander) and inadvertently caused death.

Joshua Rozenburg has the sentencing notes on his substack. Now, not to tar people by spousal association, but the dude is married to Melanie Philips. Still, the sentencing notes are reproduced largely without comment so <shrug>.

The judge does not, of course, decide whether those criteria are met - that was a unanimous jury decision. He does decide on mitigating/aggravating factors, sentencing notes indicate that evidence on MH, eyesight etc was presented. We don't have that info, maybe we will if there's an appeal, but there we go.

Where is the assault?

Shouting at someone "get off the fucking pavement" is not an assault. And again, the recklessness he refers to is a 'sweep of the arm' which no contact has been argued for.

 

[Cid]

Where is the assault?

Shouting at someone "get off the fucking pavement" is not an assault. And again, the recklessness he refers to is a sweep of the arm which no contact has been argued for.

The fact you don't know what assault means doesn't mean it's not assault (it's '...any act (and not mere omission to act) by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful violence.').

 

[Spymaster]

The fact you don't know what assault means doesn't mean it's not assault (it's '...any act (and not mere omission to act) by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful violence.').

So I repeat, where was the assault?

"Get off the fucking pavement", from a grey-haired old woman, caused her to fear violence was ensuing?

 

[Cid]

So I repeat, where was the assault?

An act causing someone to apprehend physical violence. You don't think swinging you arm at someone might 'cause them to apprehend physical violence'? Spitting at someone is sufficient for assault, a missed punch is sufficient for an assault. You just need to cause someone to fear immediate physical contact.

 

[Spymaster]

An act causing someone to apprehend physical violence. You don't think swinging you arm at someone might 'cause them to apprehend physical violence'?

Not in that video, no.

She doesn't swing her arm "at" the cyclist at all. She's waving her arm seemingly pointing at the road several times before the cyclist gets near. She's not waving it so as to threaten the rider.

She's saying "get off the fucking pavement" and pointing at the road.