Yes, they could get off and push. If there are fuck all pedestrians about seems pointless though.
Pedestrian jailed for causing death of cyclist
- Thread starter xenon
- Start date
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
I'm repeatedly annoyed by clueless cyclists - but to be fair there are pedestrians that expect others to get out of their way - and I routinely get barged past on the pavement while I'm waiting for others ahead of me...
It's just that wheels tend to skew the balance of power - but not a wobbly 77 year old on a Raleigh shopper ...
It's just that wheels tend to skew the balance of power - but not a wobbly 77 year old on a Raleigh shopper ...
Jennaonthebeach
If you say so
I'm appalled that on Twitter many anti cyclists are referring to the victim using words such as "doddery" and "old bint" while referring to the younger woman as "disabled" and "partially sighted" as if that could ever be a defence for how she behaved. And they seem to be in denial about the route which is I think, by default, a shared use path, because there is signage to support that, and no signage to mark an end to shared use status. Now imagine self righteous motorists all bleating about getting fined for speeding but with no sign up to state that the speed limit had lowered.
& I've been bullied off shared use pavements by pedestrians before and have often thought that something like this would happen one day. So I have such empathy for this poor woman who died, and her husband. Of course the guilty woman won't actually serve 3 years. All those shouting about this being a disproportionate sentence really need to stop comparing it to how motorists are sentenced after killing cyclists. We know there is a problem there and that motorists need much more severe punishment - this is part of why so many roads are no go zones for cyclists. I'm terrified to cycle. I have a £1000 e-bike which I haven't used since last summer because the way drivers behave around cyclists in Kent absolutely terrifies me.
My other point is that nobody seems to have considered that maybe the motorist bears some responsibility here too. We're all taught how to spot hazards and apply emergency braking - so did she attempt to stop? Was she keeping a look out for hazards or was she distracted? We'll never know I suspect because nobody gives a crap.
& I've been bullied off shared use pavements by pedestrians before and have often thought that something like this would happen one day. So I have such empathy for this poor woman who died, and her husband. Of course the guilty woman won't actually serve 3 years. All those shouting about this being a disproportionate sentence really need to stop comparing it to how motorists are sentenced after killing cyclists. We know there is a problem there and that motorists need much more severe punishment - this is part of why so many roads are no go zones for cyclists. I'm terrified to cycle. I have a £1000 e-bike which I haven't used since last summer because the way drivers behave around cyclists in Kent absolutely terrifies me.
My other point is that nobody seems to have considered that maybe the motorist bears some responsibility here too. We're all taught how to spot hazards and apply emergency braking - so did she attempt to stop? Was she keeping a look out for hazards or was she distracted? We'll never know I suspect because nobody gives a crap.
You appear to have better information than the police in this case.
"Police inquiries failed to establish whether the pavement was a shared cycle-way or not."
From here
This happened to a poster on here a few weeks ago.
"A probation officer's report stated that Ms Grey has difficulty expressing emotions but does write them down. Her barrister Miranda Moore KC continued: "That is her way of communicating the distress, remorse and empathy she feels for all the people involved and she showed these notes to the officer.
"She does not express emotions as you or I might, but the probation officer was able to be aware of them and the acknowledgement of the devastating impact her actions have had on all.""
From here
savoloysam
Pigman's pigman's ha ha charade you are..
I don't cycle anymore (haven't since I was a teenager tbh) but I can see why cyclists use the pavements. I'd be scared af to cycle on the roads theses days (ironically)
Jennaonthebeach
If you say so
And if the police don't know then how is anyone else supposed to know. It is continuous with a section of pavement that is shared use so most people using it would have no reason to think otherwise. And anyway you're ignoring that fact that judge decided it was a shared use path.
It doesn't look that wide 30 seconds in when a bike tears past way to fast very close to the reporter.If you watch the video in the BBC article, it’s much wider than it looks in the cctv. The reporter is standing at the spot and a man cycles past. Plenty of room.
Pedestrian Auriol Grey jailed over Huntingdon cyclist death
Auriol Grey gestured and swore at Celia Ward, who fell into the path of a car and died.www.bbc.co.uk
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Thread title is a bad joke as well.
seeformiles
Lost in the wood
Yet she didn’t give a shit when someone was run over and killed in front of her as a result of her challenge? That is some breathtaking denial of reality and/or cause and effect
Another article it said there was nothing marking it as such from the pedestrians direction of travel. So you're right how is anyone supposed to know? That was kind of my point. How is the pedestrian supposed to know? So the judge saying it is a shared path after the fact and using it to put her in prison for up to three years seems a little harsh.
Jennaonthebeach
If you say so
I think that the crime committed would still be a crime even if it wasn't a shared use path. Or it should be. The woman was 77. I'm only 56 and I'm terrified to cycle on the road already.
That said I'm really not an advocate of prison so yeah i do feel bad that she's getting locked up but that's the system we have. Without that what justice do cyclists and their families have at all?
Where is that written? I saw a reference up thread to her going to the shops after but haven't seen that reported.
I'm not saying it wouldn't but it obviously has some relevance.
I was hit by a van a few years ago. Lucky to walk away from it.
seeformiles
Lost in the wood
I’ll quote the least political organ
Pedestrian jailed for manslaughter after causing cyclist to fall in front of car
Auriol Grey was sentenced in a retrial at Peterborough crown court on Thursday
www.cyclingweekly.com
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
See Jennaonthebeach post which saves me the job.
Or see the comments of the Judge
“Cambridgeshire County Council subsequently reiterated that and said it would review the location, but in his sentencing remarks Judge Sean Enright said it was a shared cycleway.
What exactly on that should I be looking at? I see nothing there against the probation officer's report of written remorse or about her going to the shops after while aware of the accident.I’ll quote the least political organ
Pedestrian jailed for manslaughter after causing cyclist to fall in front of car
Auriol Grey was sentenced in a retrial at Peterborough crown court on Thursday
See my reply to Jenna.
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
From Reclaim The Streets, anti-road protests and Critical Mass to stale fart Top Gear viewers. There’s some on here that need to take a step back and get some perspective.
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
I have. It’s all over the shop. Firstly, the Judge was clear that it was a shared path after the police failed to ‘categorically’ confirm the fact. Secondly, given the proximity of the car drivers speeding past on a narrow road where else exactly do you expect the cyclist to go? Thirdly, your argument that a possible reason the pedestrian reacted the way she did was because of a lack of clarity on the designated status of the path is risible
Agent Sparrow
the age of slippers and migraines
Jesus
Well in which case fuck her - if the bit in bold is right then it sounds like she could/should have been tried for murder.There’s also the trundling at near walking speed option.
seeformiles
Lost in the wood
Fair enough then
Agent Sparrow
the age of slippers and migraines
Cyclists on non shared pavements is often, in practice at least, a grey area. It is against the law, but the law also suggests using extreme discretion when the roads the cyclists would otherwise be on are pretty unsafe for cyclists.
If you read my reply I didn't disagree with the judge.
It looked to me like there was room on the other side of the pedestrian. I may be wrong. There was also the option to stop and let the pedestrian pass.
It was clearly an overreaction on her part. Swearing not kind but who gives a shit. Not moving the cyclist had options. Waving her arms about was shit and dangerous. I don't know why but she may have been reacting to what she thought was a cyclist where she thought (incorrectly but I'd understand the confusion) they don't belong.
I'm 46 and not that keen on cyclists on the pavement.
Obviously I wouldn't push one in the road but a bit of shouting is fair. Exceptions made for kids.
At first I thought it was a bit harsh but the press don’t appear to be saying that she all but pushed the cyclist into fast moving traffic. So pretty much deserves to be in the clink.
Artaxerxes
Look out, he's got a gnu!
It’s one of those it’s against the law but the police ignore it, unless your a minority teen or being flagrantly shit, laws
I do consider it fine and I do it myself but if you do it you have to be going walking pace and willing to pay attention to the road and world and be willing to give way to pedestrians or walk if it’s to narrow.
To many roads are just not fit for purpose to cycle on.
Why risible. Given the Police apparently couldn't even say. yes judge after the fact, after asking the council Surely if it were that obvious, just looking at the footage would make it plain. Also she is partially sighted.
That's what I do and then have some twat who thinks he's Lance Armstrong pass close at stupid speed without warning.
To which I would say, get off and walk. If there are pedestrians around. If there aren't then it's a bit trees falling in an empty forest. I think the new Highway Code at least makes this more explicit in terms of hierarchy risk wise.
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
It’s risible because the designation of the road as motive for the actions of the pedestrian is not credible. The idea that had the designation been clear that the woman would not have reacted the way she did equally lacks credibility or a shred of evidence to back it up
Similar threads
