Pedestrian jailed for causing death of cyclist

[Agent Sparrow]

"District Judge Leo Pyle said: "Pavements are for pedestrians and people in wheelchairs or infants in prams. They are supposed to be free of vehicles of any type."

So if one judge can say this with certainty where does this leave the lady in this thread?

Linda Davis: E-scooter rider, 14, sentenced over woman's death

Linda Davis, 71, died after being hit by the teenager, who was riding a privately-owned scooter.

www.bbc.co.uk

Was it a shared path? Because whilst that E-scooter would have been driving dangerously regardless, the legality of the space is just a teeny bit relevant to the judges summing up…

 

[Spymaster]

Was it a shared path? Because whilst that E-scooter would have been driving dangerously regardless, the legality of the space is just a teeny bit relevant to the judges summing up…

It wouldn't matter. Privately owned e-scooters are legally on dodgy ground wherever they're used. They're classed as powered vehicles so they're banned from pavements and cycle lanes, and strictly speaking can only be used on roads if they're licensed and insured, which of course, they're not.

So by the current letter of the law, they're illegal everywhere except on private land.

 

[cesare]

It wouldn't matter. Privately owned e-scooters are legally on dodgy ground wherever they're used. They're classed as powered vehicles so theyre banned from pavements and cycle lanes, and strictly speaking can only be used on roads if they're licensed and insured, which of course, they're not. So by the letter of the current law, they're illegal everywhere except on private land.

They're a fucking menace.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

It wouldn't matter. Privately owned e-scooters are legally on dodgy ground wherever they're used. They're classed as powered vehicles so they're banned from pavements and cycle lanes, and strictly speaking can only be used on roads if they're licensed and insured, which of course, they're not.

So by the current letter of the law, they're illegal everywhere except on private land.

I would agree on all the above, I was more replying to what the judge’s ruling was being suggested as meaning. Specifically the suggestion that the ruling for the scooter case had applicability to the case in the OP.

E-scooters seem ridiculous to me. Unsafe on the pavement, unsafe for different reasons on the road; if they’re technically only allowed on private roads then why it is legal to sell them in such numbers?

 

[Spymaster]

I would agree on all the above, I was more relying to what the judge’s ruling was being suggested as meaning. Specifically the suggestion that the ruling for the scooter case had applicability to the case in the OP.

E-scooters seem ridiculous to me. Unsafe on the pavement, unsafe for different reasons on the road; if they’re technically only allowed on private roads then why it is legal to sell them in such numbers?

It's irrelevant to the Grey case. The kid peaded guilty to causing the woman's death whilst riding illegally. Grey pleaded not guilty to causing Celia Ward's death in very different circumstances.

And yes, they're ridiculous contraptions and should just be banned. They can't be ridden legally anywhere so why allow their sale at all?

 

[maomao]

They can't be ridden legally anywhere so why allow their sale at all?

Transport rules are barely enforced for any type of vehicle. But I think with respects to the scooters in particular, urban planners know cars are on the way out and are willing to try anything other than just making people stop driving. Accident rates are lower than for cars as far as I know but a lot of them have been on pavements and in parks where people are generally expecting to feel safe and not have to look out for traffic. I hate them.

 

[Spymaster]

Accident rates are lower than for cars as far as I know but a lot of them have been on pavements and in parks where people are generally expecting to feel safe and not have to look out for traffic.

They are lower, but the wretched things have only been around in any numbers for the last couple of years, so there's practically no case law or accident stats. Currently we've got children buzzing around on powered vehicles on pavements and public roads, with no training, licencing, or insurance. Fucking preposterous.

 

[Spymaster]

Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins says jailing of Auriol Grey was utter nonsense.

 

[Pickman's model]

Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins says jailing of Auriol Grey was utter nonsense.

he says a lot of things tho

 

[Spymaster]

he says a lot of things tho

Yeah but most of them are wrong so this is exceptional.

 

[equationgirl]

you can hear cars as they have engines. if were silent like bikes then that would be a problem, they need to make some sound. that is what bells are for. horns have a different use and a much more intrusive sound (which as mentioned is in the highway code)

I once got the fright of my life when crossing near where I worked, because a colleague had crept up in his new electric car which was near silent. I told him he needed to get fake engine noises installed.

 

[Spymaster]

I once got the fright of my life when crossing near where I worked, because a colleague had crept up in his new electric car which was near silent. I told him he needed to get fake engine noises installed.

Many a true word said in jest.

It's actually now a requirement for fully electric vehicles (not hybrids) manufactured after 2019 to make an artificial noise when they're travelling at under 12mph for exactly the reason you experienced. My guess would be that your colleagues car is older than that.

 

[maomao]

Simon Jenkins job is saying objectionable things to wind up Guardian readers. If he didn't think it was a weird and perverse position to take he wouldn't have said it.

 

[liquidindian]

Auriol Grey: Huntingdon cyclist killer fails in appeal bid

Auriol Grey confronted Celia Ward, who was cycling on a pavement and fell into the path of a car.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Dystopiary]

Auriol Grey: Huntingdon cyclist killer fails in appeal bid

Auriol Grey confronted Celia Ward, who was cycling on a pavement and fell into the path of a car.

www.bbc.co.uk

Sad story all round, for all involved.

The Court of Appeal in London heard that, after she was jailed, a psychologist - in a report paid for by Grey's family - diagnosed her with autism.

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.

She had argued the sentencing judge had made findings of fact against evidence, stating it "came as something of a shock" he found the pavement to be a shared cycleway, despite the local council being unable to confirm that.

But Mr Justice Griffiths, sitting with Lord Justice William Davis and Judge Neil Flewitt, refused to grant permission for Grey to appeal against her sentence, concluding it was "not arguably manifestly excessive".

 

[Jeff Robinson]

These directions strike me as seriously flawed. I'm surprised she is only appealing her sentence and not her conviction. As people have already noted, you need three elements for unlawful act manslaughter:

(1) an unlawful act

(2) that is dangerous

(3) and causes the death

The route to verdict instructions are fine on (2). There is no mention of (3) which strikes me as bad, but not necessarily giving rise to an unsafe verdict because causation is fairly clear cut here. What is most alarming is that there is no identification of (1) - what the unlawful act is supposed to be here. As far as I can tell that are two potentially plausible offences:

(1) assault

and

(2) battery

Battery requires the application of unlawful force. It is not at all clear to me that Grey even touched the victim so the more likely option is assault, which requires causing the victim to fear immediate unlawful force. It is far from clear that the cyclist did fear the application of force, but even if she did that would not suffice. It would also need to be shown that grey intended or was reckless as to causing her to fear immediate unlawful force. This seems even less likely to me. It seems more likely that she was gesturing at her to get her off the pavement not make her fear violence.

At any rate, leaving speculation aside, the main issue is none of this is in the judge's guidance to the jury. Some glaring omissions. It seems far from a safe conviction.

My analysis affirmed by the Court of Appeal:

The court heard Ms Grey, who attended the hearing having been released from prison in March pending the appeal, was charged with unlawful act manslaughter - which requires an unlawful action to take place that caused death.
However, her lawyers told appeal judges that no such "base offence" was ever identified at the trial.
Dame Victoria and her fellow appeal judges agreed, ruling that the jury were not asked to decide "the fundamental question of whether a base offence was established".
The senior judge continued: "Had Mrs Ward not died we regard it as inconceivable that the appellant would have been charged with assault."

Auriol Grey has cyclist manslaughter conviction overturned

Auriol Grey's family say they are relieved her ordeal is now over following the Appeal Court ruling.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Spymaster]

Correct decision for the correct reason.

 

[Jennaonthebeach]

One reason why I've given up cycling., Everyone wants to kill us. Nobody wants to take responsibility.

 

[Orang Utan]

One reason why I've given up cycling., Everyone wants to kill us. Nobody wants to take responsibility.

Lightweight. More room for the rest of us I suppose.