Pedestrian jailed for causing death of cyclist

[littlebabyjesus]

It wouldn’t. The fact she was on a bike is immaterial, beyond triggering some people.

It is material to the extent that she could be diverted onto the road relatively easily without any direct contact - just with a moment's panic on the rider's part, causing her to lose control and veer out into the traffic. If she'd been thinking straight, she'd have veered into the pedestrian. Sadly, it's probably indicative of her being a nice person that her instinct was not to do that. And it all happened very quickly - there probably wasn't much clear thought on either side.

I can see how a verdict of manslaughter is justified. But I can't see the justification, nor point, in a custodial sentence, particularly given all the delays in the case. This case probably should never have gone to court, although that would have been rough on the family. But how much consolation will they get from the prison sentence? I would like to think that if I were in their position, I wouldn't be demanding prison. Enough of the suffering already. I might be going after the council, though, and that stupid fucking shared path. One thing that comes through in the judge's words is a lack of acknowledgment that the shared path is woefully inadequate. That's the real story here - shit infrastructure kills.

 

[Spymaster]

Get off the fucking pavement, and waving hand in the cyclist's face.

It wasn't in her face. Watch the video.

 

[weepiper]

It wasn't in her face. Watch the video.

I have, and you're wrong.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

She didn't do that though.

Yeah, she kind of did. 'Get off the pavement' means only one thing - go into the road.

 

[cesare]

She caused that cyclist to unbalance and the cyclist unbalanced onto the road. It's very sad but it looks as though she caused that death.

 

[Spymaster]

I have, and you're wrong.

Nope. Just watched it again. Her hand doesn't go anywhere near her face.

 

[Spymaster]

Yeah, she kind of did. 'Get off the pavement' means only one thing - go into the road.

SK is saying she forced her into the road.

She didn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[WhyLikeThis]

She caused that cyclist to unbalance and the cyclist unbalanced onto the road. It's very sad but it looks as though she caused that death.

Not to mention the perpetrator admitted they made contact with the victim during a police interview.

 

[Spymaster]

Not to mention the perpetrator admitted they made contact with the victim during a police interview.

Where does this come from?

 

[maomao]

Shouting "get off the pavement" and waving at the road doesn't satisfy 'causing someone to apprehend imminent use of force'

It literally resulted in her death and it doesn't meet your definition of 'causing someone to apprehend imminent use of force'? Lol. It's just the usual 'cyclist is always wrong' schtick but you daren't say what you think because an innocent person died horribly.

 

[sleaterkinney]

She didn't do that though.

She did, because that’s what happened and it was her intention for that to happen.

 

[xenon]

Did she wait until the cyclist was close up then wave in her face. or whilst the cyclist was at some distance?

There's a bit of a difference intent wise if you make a sudden gesture or shout at someone as they're drawing up next to you as opposed to as they're coming towards you. I still don't think she should be inside though even if the former.

 

[WhyLikeThis]

Where does this come from?

It was referenced in the BBC article I posted on this thread.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

SK is saying she forced her into the road.

She didn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

She scared a cyclist into veering into a busy road, and it was her intention in that moment to scare the cyclist into veering into a busy road. It's hard to argue otherwise.

Maybe she wasn't thinking straight, wasn't considering the danger to the cyclist, and didn't intend any harm. I think all those things are probable. But that's why it's manslaughter and not murder.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Did she wait until the cyclist was close up then wave in her face. or whilst the cyclist was at some distance?

There's a bit of a difference intent wise if you make a sudden gesture or shout at someone as they're drawing up next to you as opposed to as they're coming towards you. I still don't think she should be inside though even if the former.

Her intent was to get the cyclist off the pavement into traffic, is there any doubt about that?

 

[maomao]

Did she wait until the cyclist was close up then wave in her face. or whilst the cyclist was at some distance?

Both. She makes a series of three gestures swinging her arm out towards the road, pauses slightly then does it again at the exact moment the cyclist leaves the pavement. The lady she killed is not visible in shot until a fraction of a second after the point where her final gesture may have made contact.

 

[Spymaster]

It literally resulted in her death and it doesn't meet your definition of 'causing someone to apprehend imminent use of force'?

Don't be ridiculous.

If someone shot you in the back of the head without you knowing, would you have been caused to 'apprehend the imminent use of force?

 

[Spymaster]

It was referenced in the BBC article I posted on this thread.

Can you repost it because it's not mentioned in the judges sentencing notes.

 

[Dystopiary]

Did she wait until the cyclist was close up then wave in her face. or whilst the cyclist was at some distance?

There's a bit of a difference intent wise if you make a sudden gesture or shout at someone as they're drawing up next to you as opposed to as they're coming towards you. I still don't think she should be inside though even if the former.

She was very close to the cyclist from what I can make out. And it's possible that physical contact happened, though that would be very hard to tell.

 

[Spymaster]

She scared a cyclist into veering into a busy road, and it was her intention in that moment to scare the cyclist into veering into a busy road. It's hard to argue otherwise.

On the contrary, it's hard to argue that was her intention without her admitting it.

If Grey were to argue that her intention was to stop her riding on the pavement and use the road, then and in the future, that's not the same as "scaring her into veering into a busy road" is it?

 

[WhyLikeThis]

Spymaster

“She said she "may have unintentionally put" out her hand to protect herself. Ms Grey believed she had made light contact with Mrs Ward.”

Huntingdon: Cyclist death accused was 'anxious' for her own safety, jury told

Auriol Grey is accused of gesturing in a "hostile" way to a cyclist who fell into the path of a car.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[maomao]

Don't be ridiculous.

If someone shot you in the back of the head without you knowing, would you have been caused to 'apprehand the imminent use of force?

That's only the lower bar for assault. In this case the gestures and shouting resulted in her death so as with your trite analogy apprehension doesn't come into it.

You seem to be suggesting g she fell in the road as a result of her own actions rather than Auriol Grey's.

 

[Dystopiary]

She was very close to the cyclist from what I can make out. And it's possible that physical contact happened, though that would be very hard to tell.

Further, xenon, although the pavement/path is apparently 2.4 metres wide, in my opinion it does not look wide enough for both pedestrians and cyclists to be using without any problems.

 

[Spymaster]

Spymaster

“She said she "may have unintentionally put" out her hand to protect herself. Ms Grey believed she had made light contact with Mrs Ward.”

Huntingdon: Cyclist death accused was 'anxious' for her own safety, jury told

Auriol Grey is accused of gesturing in a "hostile" way to a cyclist who fell into the path of a car.

www.bbc.co.uk

Ok, that makes a huge difference because the contact satisfies recklessness. I didn't know that and it's also not what people on here have been arguing.

She still shouldn't have been imprisoned.

 

[Spymaster]

That's only the lower bar for assault. In this case the gestures and shouting resulted in her death so as with your trite analogy apprehension doesn't come into it.

No. The gestures and shouting have to constitute "assault" to satisfy a manslaughter charge, which is what you were arguing earlier. They don't.

As it happens it looks like you might have been right, but for the wrong reason.

 

[xenon]

Further, xenon, although the pavement/path is apparently 2.4 metres wide, in my opinion it does not look wide enough for both pedestrians and cyclists to be using without any problems.

yes, I can well imagine.


Lashing out in frustration and wrecklessness sure. But not intending the cyclist go into the road.

e2a fall into the road or be hit by a car I mean. Obviously she waned her to get off the pavement.

 

[Dystopiary]

It is material to the extent that she could be diverted onto the road relatively easily without any direct contact - just with a moment's panic on the rider's part, causing her to lose control and veer out into the traffic. If she'd been thinking straight, she'd have veered into the pedestrian. Sadly, it's probably indicative of her being a nice person that her instinct was not to do that. And it all happened very quickly - there probably wasn't much clear thought on either side.

I can see how a verdict of manslaughter is justified. But I can't see the justification, nor point, in a custodial sentence, particularly given all the delays in the case. This case probably should never have gone to court, although that would have been rough on the family. But how much consolation will they get from the prison sentence? I would like to think that if I were in their position, I wouldn't be demanding prison. Enough of the suffering already. I might be going after the council, though, and that stupid fucking shared path. One thing that comes through in the judge's words is a lack of acknowledgment that the shared path is woefully inadequate. That's the real story here - shit infrastructure kills.

I pretty much agree with all this. (Plus taking into account the effect on the poor driver and her toddler.)

 

[maomao]

No. The gestures and shouting have to constitute "assault" to satisfy a manslaughter charge, which is what you were arguing earlier. They don't.

As it happens it looks like you might have been right, but for the wrong reason.

Gestures and shouting can constitute assault and you should be very careful if you make a habit of it yourself as you claim to.

 

[Dystopiary]

yes, I can well imagine.


Lashing out in frustration and wrecklessness sure. But not intending the cyclist go into the road.

I just don't know, though I suspect there might have been a lack of understanding about her disabilities and possible cognitive issues on the judge's part.

 

[Spymaster]

Gestures and shouting can constitute assault and you should be very careful if you make a habit of it yourself as you claim to.

Only if they cause the intended recipient to fear impending physical assault.

I'm quite comfortable with my standard "IT'S A PAVEMENT!"