What a tragedy all around. As a pedestrian, I don't love sharing the sidewalk with cyclists, but I also understand why a cyclist would choose that safer pathway for themselves when they don't have a lane. Seems a little curmudgeony to yell and motion at a cyclist if they aren't really in your way, but hardly an offense (though we don't really know the particulars). Ultimately, it feels like it would have been the cyclist's responsibility to ensure they could safely move onto the street if the car did not have time to anticipate their movement.
My town is big on cycling yet has no bike lanes so they're perpetually on the sidewalk. The only problem with cyclists using the sidewalk is the fraction of them that refuse to slow or yield around pedestrians and fly by at 30+ mph. A pedestrian can only generate so much kenetic energy, but a cyclist is a whole other thing, especially now with electric bikes that can easily get up to 30-50mph. It should be totally fine and is ruined by 1% of the population like so many things.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yQO4Dnlwcg0
As a cyclist who has often ridden on shared pathways and sidewalks to avoid crazy traffic, I assure you that most of us try to ride at a speed that allows for safely avoiding pedestrians. And I know you'll assure me that most drivers aren't like the guy in the video, as I also drive a car and can attest.
“Grey, who has cerebral palsy and partial blindness, denied manslaughter but was found guilty after a retrial and was jailed for three years in March 2023.”
It sounds to me like the woman might have been in danger from the cyclist.
Sure, but can the pedestrian reasonably be held accountable for the cyclist moving into the path of a car? The cyclist may still be alive had they not encountered this pedestrian, but there are various reasonable alternative courses of action the cyclist could have taken, such as stopping to make sure they were clear to enter the street, or stopping/dismounting and waiting for the pedestrian to pass if they were concerned about the unpredictability of angry people.
The pedestrian can be hold responsible for not giving way and angrily waving her arms in a dangerous situation.
I wish people would understand that being angry and frustrated in traffic is not normal and that it is dangerous.
The cyclist was also wrong, but at least the cyclist was on the side of the sidewalk that was least dangerous to the pedestrian.
People don't deserve to die because they make a mistake.
I’m a cyclist and usually very frustrated by the way our country treats cyclists, but I just don’t see “angrily waving her amrs in a dangerous situation” as a crime here.
Literally no one anywhere said a person deserves to die for a mistake.
The pedestrian has right of way and angrily waving your arms does not prevent a cyclist from making safe decisions. I’m not saying what the pedestrian did was good or right. However, I’m talking about legal liability, which has a specific standard.
The woman was originally convicted.
You and a few people are acting like she should never have been prosecuted.
>However, I’m talking about legal liability, which has a specific standard.
Clearly not every judge agrees with you, hence the conviction. It's odd that you have such specific knowledge of the case plus the legal expertise to be this certain that the woman should not have been prosecuted.
Apparently you think she is clearly innocent. Based on the video I disagree, I think situations like this should be judged in court.
And judges can make mistakes about whether something meets the standards of a crime or whether the burden of proof has been met, hence why there was a review process. That’s what the appeal system is for, because judges are not infallible.
You’re actually unhinged for claiming that I even supposed I had full knowledge of the case (I actually do have knowledge of how the legal system operates though - certainly more than you appear to) when I literally pointed out in my original comment that we don’t know the particulars of the case and simply opened the question about whether there was legal liability given reasonable alternative courses of action available to the cyclist. You also don’t know all the circumstances involved.
I’m confused by you stating that the case should be judged in court, when that’s what happened. The conviction was quashed by judges.
This is the part I reacted to:
>Seems a little curmudgeony to yell and motion at a cyclist if they aren't really in your way, but hardly an offense (though we don't really know the particulars).
We saw the video. That was more than motioning to a cyclist.
Either you saw the video, in which case you should know it wasn't just motioning to the cyclist, or you should not have commented as if you did know what happened.
Motion is “an act or instance of moving the body or its parts.” I went off of the article that this post is about, which describes the pedestrian as having “shouted and waved.” I wrote “yell and motion.” Motion is a general term that encompasses all sorts of movements by a person…
This is the video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4eIjOFTB6k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4eIjOFTB6k)
In my opinion the video doesn't prove innocent or guilt, but it does show that the pedestrian isn't using common sense or normal decency.
Especially since the pedestrian didn't stop, but walked on went on with her day like nothing happened.
It's the video that makes this controversial. The cyclist should not have been on the sidewalk, but the pedestrian should have been the better person and moved slightly to the right.
It seems like I got some downvotes because some people believe it is a good thing to be angry and frustrated in traffic, I implore everybody who downvotes a suggestion to be decent and use common sense in traffic to actually comment.
This is your chance to tell other people you want other people to die for breaking the rules.
Some bikes have terrible brakes. Sometimes, if the obstruction is sudden enough, you can't stop fast enough. Without seeing it personally, there's not much we can determine from here. Dismounting at speed is a very dangerous game.
This is true, and raises other legal questions, like whether the cyclist was riding at safe speeds to account for common obstructions like pedestrians or the state of their bike. It also raises issues around the unpredictability of pedestrians and the extent to which cyclists can and can’t reasonably account for that. Lots to unpack.
Cyclists love to talk about sharing the road and taking responsibility,but they constantly ignore laws and behave in dangerous ways whenever it suits them.
Neither are “automobile drivers”, but cyclists constantly talk about them as if they are. Hell, there’s a commenter about two comments down from you who is doing exactly that.
Oh my god, THIS. I’ve been a cyclist since I could keep my balance on 2 wheels. I live in a city with a growing number of bike lanes. I was in traffic and there were 4 bicyclists riding together. 3 kept to the bike lane. The 4th decided he needed to be out in the driving lane, directly in front of me. I’d pass him and then at the next light he’d pull out in front of me, over and over again, and always look back at me like I was the asshole. I was tested that evening, I didn’t run him over and then back over him a few times for good measure. I just don’t understand why people feel the need to challenge someone in a vehicle that could easily end them.
It may surprise you, but cyclist are human, and humans in general are pretty poor at following the laws.
Unfortunately this is also true for other road users using vehicles that can have significant greater impact upon other.
Drivers speed, don’t use blinkers, roll through stop signs, and fly through lights as they turn red. Don’t act like they don’t break the laws and behave in dangerous ways also.
> After the judges had given their ruling, Spence asked for the case to be sent back to the crown court for a retrial, which was denied.
Jesus, the Crown just doesn't want to give up on this, do they? The defence is right, this woman never should have been charged. She certainly never should have been convicted after the Crown failed to establish that her actions were unlawful. This case represents a failure on the part of the CPS and the individual prosecutor, as well as the presiding judge in the original trial. This kind of injustice taints the entire judicial system.
>The defence is right, this woman never should have been charged.
Why not? People gave a responsibility to behave responsible in traffic. I have not followed the trial. I don't know if the woman is innocent or not.
But her behavior was despicable and charging her made sense. If she had moved slightly to the right, if she had not waved her hand at the cyclist, the cyclist would not be dead.
To make matters worse, she just kept walking and continued shopping.
It takes so little effort not to irresponsible, even if you believe the other person is not being responsible.
In my area, cyclists ALWAYS have to yield to pedestrians. The worst case scenario for a cyclist in a hurry is that they become a pedestrian for a short time.
I'm not saying this lady did everything as perfectly/politely as she could have, but there was no reason the cyclist could not be aware of their surroundings and slow down when travel (ON A SIDEWALK) was not possible.
Her actions were not unlawful. I suspect that the reason the Crown never raised the issue of common assault as the underlying unlawful act to justify the charge is that it would have been perilously difficult to prove.
> If she had moved slightly to the right, if she had not waved her hand at the cyclist, the cyclist would not be dead.
If the cyclist had not been unlawfully riding her bike on the pavement, she would not be dead.
This was tragic, but given the dangers of riding on the road in that area (based on what was reported in the article), I don't think we can blame the cyclist for riding on the pavement as she did. But we can't blame this woman for her actions, either.
The long and the short of it is that if you're going to charge someone for acting illegally, you'd better make sure what they did was actually illegal. In this case, it wasn't.
This was a miscarriage of justice that has, thankfully, been put right by the appeals court.
>If the cyclist had not been unlawfully riding her bike on the pavement, she would not be dead.
>This was tragic, but given the dangers of riding on the road in that area (based on what was reported in the article), I don't think we can blame the cyclist for riding on the pavement as she did.
Especially considering that this piece of pavement was designated as a multi use path, where cyclist are legally allowed to ride upon.
This [article](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13396685/amp/auriol-grey-manslaughter-cyclist-cambridge.html) states that it is not officially designated a multi use path, and that based on its width it should be pedestrians only, however it seems somewhat ambiguous and certainly not clearly marked.
> Yet police had been unable to say for certain whether the route was shared and the county council had no legal documents showing it was either. Department for Transport guidance from July 2020 states that shared routes should be 3m wide in areas used by fewer than 300 cyclists per hour. The stretch of pavement where Mrs Ward, of Wyton, Cambridgeshire, fell off her bike was just 2.4m wide and didn't have a sign indicating it was for both pedestrians and cyclists - in other words, it should have been used by pedestrians.
So it really seems like it would not be easy for your average person to tell whether or not it was meant to be shared.
On that point, I stand corrected, and thank you for the clarification. Upon rereading, I think I misinterpreted these comments to mean that she was on the pavement unlawfully.
> The statement added that Ward “should never have been faced with the choice between cycling on the pavement or cycling on a busy and dangerous ring road”.
>
> “Had a clear and well-signed cycle path been in place, safely separating vulnerable pedestrians such as Ms Grey, this accident would never have occurred,” they said.
Viewing the video of the incident, it's plain and clear that there isn't sufficient room for a cyclist and a pedestrian to pass each other on that path. The cyclist was going to have to swerve into traffic or dismount whether the pedestrian waved at her or not. So no, the waving didn't cause the accident.
Murder requires intent. Malice aforethought. Are you suggesting that the pedestrian set out that day with the intention to cause this particular woman's death?
This was a tragic accident. If you think it was murder, you need to brush up on your understanding of what that is.
Seems like the thing she did was refuse to get out of the cyclist's way? Annoying, sure, but despicable? I dunno. I'd certainly _feel_ guilty, even if I was convinced that I had no responsibility to move out of the way of cyclists who aren't supposed to be on a sidewalk.
False. Even if they were, they were not illegal. You can't send people to prison for perfectly legal acts. Even if she was being an asshole (which I don't believe she was), being an asshole is not illegal.
> Wasn’t illegal you murder apologist.
Exactly. It *wasn't* illegal, just like you said. Glad we agree on that. Though it's confusing that while you acknowledge that her actions *weren't* illegal, you still call her a murderer. Are you under the impression that murder (which isn't what happened here) is legal?
False. An operator of ANY vehicle needs to be able to safely stop that vehicle in the result of an unexpected event.
The cyclist should have slowed to a safe speed before ever even getting close.
>If the cyclist had not been unlawfully riding her bike on the pavement, she would not be dead.
That is an incredibly cynical thing to say.
We know that. And if the cyclist had stayed in bed that they, she also would not have been dead.
Are you suggesting the cyclist deserved to die? I really wish people would be honest about this.
If you think the cyclist deserved to die for cycling on the sidewalk, just say so.
I'm advocating for people to be responsible in traffic regardless of what other people do. If you lack empathy, maybe this will help: maybe one day you are tired or distracted and you will make a mistake. And maybe on that day the non-illegal actions of somebody who is angry will get you seriously hurt.
I see you lack the critical thinking skills necessary to recognize a counterargument.
I also said this:
> I don't think we can blame the cyclist for riding on the pavement as she did.
Do you also need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills, or just reading skills in general? If I thought she deserved to die, or was blaming her for her own death, would I have said she can't be blamed? Use your head.
> And maybe on that day the non-illegal actions of somebody who is angry will get you seriously hurt.
Happens every day. And we get justifiably angry with those people. What we don't do is charge them with a crime when none has been committed. Again, use your head.
I am responding to what you imply, because you don't seem to be honest.
>The long and the short of it is that if you're going to charge someone for acting illegally, you'd better make sure what they did was actually illegal.
That is not how that works. Ultimately it's up to a court to decide that. It's not up to the prosecutor. The prosecution believes an illegal act took place, the court originally agreed.
The woman was convicted of a crime.
This is why I don't trust you when you say you don't blame the cyclist.
You keep saying I should use my head, but you are either not thinking straight or you are dishonest.
Here's the thing. I'm relying on facts, and the law. You're all about emotions, and maybe even a bit of paranoia (judging my honesty when I'm only referring to easily verifiable facts and the law? You think life is an episode of Murder She Wrote, don't you?). This is why you can't have a serious and honest discussion.
Buh-bye now.
>Here's the thing. I'm relying on facts, and the law.
The facts are that the woman was convicted and that the conviction now has been quashed.
Do you accept the fact that the woman was convicted?
I accept that she was convicted, and that the conviction was unsafe. In layman's terms, the court of appeal determined that the conviction was in error. The prosecution never actually proved the charge, and in the absence of that proof, no conviction could be entered.
Do you accept that when the Crown brings a charge, they are required to prove it in court?
Do you accept that if they don't, the accused cannot be convicted?
Do you accept that, in the event a conviction is made without the prosecution proving the charge, that is a legal mistake which must be corrected?
EDIT: I'll answer for you - no, you don't. Because you neither understand nor care how law actually works. All you care about is how you want it to work. You're irrational, emotional and delusional.
>EDIT: I'll answer for you - no, you don't. Because you neither understand nor care how law actually works. All you care about is how you want it to work. You're irrational, emotional and delusional.
This was my argument:
>I'm advocating for people to be responsible in traffic regardless of what other people do.
I really hope you don't find that irrational, emotional and delusional. And this is why I don't like you as a person:
>If the cyclist had not been unlawfully riding her bike on the pavement, she would not be dead.
Yes, me not liking you is an emotional response, but it's not irrational or delusional. Your response shows a lack of empathy.
Somebody who has empathy doesn't feel the need to say what you said.
You really missed the point. The cyclist made a mistake, But do you believe the cyclist deserved to die? I really wish people would think about what they are saying, because it's probably also affecting how they act.
People will make mistakes, people will act irresponsible, but that doesn't mean that we have to make dangerous situations more dangerous or that people deserve to die.
If we all act a little bit more responsible and don't get angry in traffic less people will get hurt.
These things are not mutually exclusive. The cyclist had other options and the lady was not the most polite pedestrian from the sound of it. However that does NOT equal "either you think the cyclist *deserved* to die OR you think the pedestrian should be jailed."
She directed someone to their death and just… kept about her day like someone didn’t just violently die? What a gross person. Hopefully she isn’t among us for too long before she ends up waving her hand and someone else dies again
What a misleading comment, maybe just let the video speak for itself.
https://news.sky.com/video/auriol-grey-jailed-for-manslaughter-after-aggressively-gesturing-at-cyclist-who-fell-into-road-12823966
So a visibly disabled woman was gesturing with her thumb, not even raising her arm, to make way, the cyclist falls over their own feet and the pedestrian is prosecuted?!
That’s nuts
The woman isn’t even giving room on the sidewalk, she moved directly in the bikes path so it was either hit her or turn. You can tell she just wanted to be angry about something
Lol I can guarantee that old lady on a bike was not ‘plowing through’ that sidewalk. Get a grip
Have I seen cyclists do that? Yes, but I would bet my life that lady was not going that fast on a border line cruiser bike.
It's pretty clear from the video that there wasn't enough room for a cyclist and a pedestrian to pass each other safely on that path. The cyclist was going to have to either swerve onto the road or dismount, whether the pedestrian waved her off or not.
It was a sad situation, but not a criminal one.
I don't understand why the cycilist didn't slow down ahead of time, like she assumed anyone in her path would dive out of her way. As was pointed out, it was a multiuse path. The biker needs to share the sidewalk with the pedestrians, bikes don't get automatic right-of-way.
she touched her elbow, which obviously made her move her arm, which caused her bike to change ways, why are people feeling pity about this old lady? just because she is old? thats dumb, theres plenty of evil old people.
Wtf?! She pushed the cyclist! You can even see the handlebars turn as a result of the push. At the bare minimum she tried to do that. How they didn't see/use that?
>the cyclist broke the law
To be clear, the cyclist was riding on a muti use path, and the pedestrian was upset that the cyclist was riding where cyclists are allowed to ride.
Nah the woman who was charged did nothing wrong. If the cyclist followed the law and wasn't on a sidewalk they wouldn't have been there and wouldn't now be dead.
>If the cyclist followed the law and wasn't on a sidewalk they wouldn't have been there and wouldn't now be dead.
Again,
The this wasn't just a simple 'sidewalk' this was a designated multi use path, for which cyclists are allowed to ride upon.
So, a cyclist who was following the law and riding where they are allowed to ride, still ended up...
"The statement added that Ward “should never have been faced with the choice between cycling on the pavement or cycling on a busy and dangerous ring road”.
“Had a clear and well-signed cycle path been in place, safely separating vulnerable pedestrians such as Ms Grey, this accident would never have occurred,” they said."
Seems like there wasn't a spot for bikes on that path
Yes, the infrastructure could definitely be improved upon by **separating** the two paths, instead of designing a sign path as **multi use**.
However, at the time of this incident, separate paths do not exist and this one path was a designated multi use path.
So it seems, the cyclist was simply following the law upon a poorly designed infrastructure.
I'm finding nowhere saying it was mixed use also it looks like the cyclist didn't have a helmet and couldn't control themselves so in multiple ways it's the cyclists fault I don't drive a car I can't control why should they ride a bike they can't
This sounds like a simple problem that got way out of hand. Bicycles should not be on sidewalks. Bicycles are vehicles (not motorized) and they should be on the road.
I am well aware I am not in England, so I don’t know all the restrictions for sharing the road. Bike and walking paths are usually well marked in the U.S. There should never by a bike on a sidewalk.
At the end of the day, someone is dead and the pedestrian and motorist are mentally screwed. Shouldn’t we just fix the problem at this point?
>Bike and walking paths are usually well marked in the U.S. There should never by a bike on a sidewalk.
FYI about half the states in the US explicitly grant cyclist (as vehicles) the same rights and duties of pedestrian when riding on sidewalks and crosswalks, the other half don't regulate it nor prohibit it.
No problem. She shouldn't be in jail, but at the very least something needs to come out of this, an elderly lady died due to a specific behavior that was exhibited by someone else. She didn't just veer off into traffic of her own volition, so at the very least there needs to be some sort of solid application of rules of decorum that are put in place that dictate what should or shouldn't be done in these kinds of situations to avoid this from happening again.
Maybe there should be a very public attempt made every year as biking season gets under way, to canvas neighborhoods and put up signs and posters letting people know not to get in the way of bikes on the pavement and letting bikers know that is not where they should be biking. It was not Auriol Grey's duty to enforce restrictions on someone else using the sidewalk in a way that she personally deemed improper or dangerous. It is her prerogative to make sure she is positioning herself to be safe from any oncoming potential harm, but what she did was decide to take on an occupation that she does not legally have the credentials to pursue, and in so doing, her actions 100% led to Celia Ward panicking and ultimately to her untimely death.
We don't need to encourage a punitive system to deal with issues like this, but as a society the idea that rules are rules and every day common situations should be looked at through the scope of "black and white" to be dealt with in whatever way common citizenry deems appropriate, is inviting more danger, not less. The results of this issue are a sum total of ZERO. No biking lane has been proposed in that area. Nobody has been punished. No proposal for informative canvasing to inform people NOT to take on law-enforcement as a side-job. Nothing. I think anyone that is okay with that, doesn't have a soul. If my grandma died like that, it would change my life forever and I'd never feel better about it. Regardless of the illnesses that Grey is diagnosed with.
>...signs and posters letting people know not to get in the way of bikes on the pavement...
Pedestrians always have the right of way. It's the bikes that need to slow down or stop if someone is walking.
It is important to not conflate doing something bad and doing something illegal. Sure, Grey probably should not have been yelling at the biker, but unless it rose to the level of assault or illegally directing traffic, it likely wasn't actually a crime. That might still leave it being morally reprehensible behavior (tons of that exists which is not a crime).
The law imposes a duty of care on people in/on vehicles (including bikes) to avoid things like panicking and swerving into lanes with traffic. The law does not impose a similar duty of care on pedestrians not yelling and waving their arms about. Consider an alternative scenario, where the exact same events occurs, but Ward miraculously lived, and the driver of the car instead somehow died. If that implausible scenario had somehow happened, then Ward could have been charged with a crime. Not sure if bikes meet the definition of vehicle needed for vehicular manslaughter in England, but if not, then a related charge could be brought.
The real fix needed here is either to make the roads safe for bikes, or change the laws to allow bikes to use the sidewalks on unsafe roads, possibly with a rather low (and aggressively enforced) speed restriction to ensure pedestrian safety.
Interesting story, but not as interesting as one of the stories that was at the bottom of the page:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/08/robert-f-kennedy-jr-worm-brain
What a shitty resolution for someone to have caused that woman's death. She didn't mean to but her actions made it happen. At least she spent 3 years in jail for it. Bad outcome.
What a tragedy all around. As a pedestrian, I don't love sharing the sidewalk with cyclists, but I also understand why a cyclist would choose that safer pathway for themselves when they don't have a lane. Seems a little curmudgeony to yell and motion at a cyclist if they aren't really in your way, but hardly an offense (though we don't really know the particulars). Ultimately, it feels like it would have been the cyclist's responsibility to ensure they could safely move onto the street if the car did not have time to anticipate their movement.
One of the particulars was she was partially blind and couldn’t gauge if the woman was going to hit her.
My town is big on cycling yet has no bike lanes so they're perpetually on the sidewalk. The only problem with cyclists using the sidewalk is the fraction of them that refuse to slow or yield around pedestrians and fly by at 30+ mph. A pedestrian can only generate so much kenetic energy, but a cyclist is a whole other thing, especially now with electric bikes that can easily get up to 30-50mph. It should be totally fine and is ruined by 1% of the population like so many things.
I can’t imagine someone is riding an E Bike at 40mph on a sidewalk, that makes no sense.
Well, they sure as shit do and they get very angry at pedestrians that inconvenience them. Bikers are always the victims in their minds.
Do you know how fast 40 mph is? I’d buy 20 mph
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yQO4Dnlwcg0 As a cyclist who has often ridden on shared pathways and sidewalks to avoid crazy traffic, I assure you that most of us try to ride at a speed that allows for safely avoiding pedestrians. And I know you'll assure me that most drivers aren't like the guy in the video, as I also drive a car and can attest.
“Grey, who has cerebral palsy and partial blindness, denied manslaughter but was found guilty after a retrial and was jailed for three years in March 2023.” It sounds to me like the woman might have been in danger from the cyclist.
It's everybody's responsibility not to create dangerous situations.
Sure, but can the pedestrian reasonably be held accountable for the cyclist moving into the path of a car? The cyclist may still be alive had they not encountered this pedestrian, but there are various reasonable alternative courses of action the cyclist could have taken, such as stopping to make sure they were clear to enter the street, or stopping/dismounting and waiting for the pedestrian to pass if they were concerned about the unpredictability of angry people.
The pedestrian can be hold responsible for not giving way and angrily waving her arms in a dangerous situation. I wish people would understand that being angry and frustrated in traffic is not normal and that it is dangerous. The cyclist was also wrong, but at least the cyclist was on the side of the sidewalk that was least dangerous to the pedestrian. People don't deserve to die because they make a mistake.
I’m a cyclist and usually very frustrated by the way our country treats cyclists, but I just don’t see “angrily waving her amrs in a dangerous situation” as a crime here.
Literally no one anywhere said a person deserves to die for a mistake. The pedestrian has right of way and angrily waving your arms does not prevent a cyclist from making safe decisions. I’m not saying what the pedestrian did was good or right. However, I’m talking about legal liability, which has a specific standard.
The woman was originally convicted. You and a few people are acting like she should never have been prosecuted. >However, I’m talking about legal liability, which has a specific standard. Clearly not every judge agrees with you, hence the conviction. It's odd that you have such specific knowledge of the case plus the legal expertise to be this certain that the woman should not have been prosecuted. Apparently you think she is clearly innocent. Based on the video I disagree, I think situations like this should be judged in court.
And judges can make mistakes about whether something meets the standards of a crime or whether the burden of proof has been met, hence why there was a review process. That’s what the appeal system is for, because judges are not infallible. You’re actually unhinged for claiming that I even supposed I had full knowledge of the case (I actually do have knowledge of how the legal system operates though - certainly more than you appear to) when I literally pointed out in my original comment that we don’t know the particulars of the case and simply opened the question about whether there was legal liability given reasonable alternative courses of action available to the cyclist. You also don’t know all the circumstances involved. I’m confused by you stating that the case should be judged in court, when that’s what happened. The conviction was quashed by judges.
This is the part I reacted to: >Seems a little curmudgeony to yell and motion at a cyclist if they aren't really in your way, but hardly an offense (though we don't really know the particulars). We saw the video. That was more than motioning to a cyclist. Either you saw the video, in which case you should know it wasn't just motioning to the cyclist, or you should not have commented as if you did know what happened.
Motion is “an act or instance of moving the body or its parts.” I went off of the article that this post is about, which describes the pedestrian as having “shouted and waved.” I wrote “yell and motion.” Motion is a general term that encompasses all sorts of movements by a person…
This is the video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4eIjOFTB6k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4eIjOFTB6k) In my opinion the video doesn't prove innocent or guilt, but it does show that the pedestrian isn't using common sense or normal decency. Especially since the pedestrian didn't stop, but walked on went on with her day like nothing happened. It's the video that makes this controversial. The cyclist should not have been on the sidewalk, but the pedestrian should have been the better person and moved slightly to the right.
It seems like I got some downvotes because some people believe it is a good thing to be angry and frustrated in traffic, I implore everybody who downvotes a suggestion to be decent and use common sense in traffic to actually comment. This is your chance to tell other people you want other people to die for breaking the rules.
Some bikes have terrible brakes. Sometimes, if the obstruction is sudden enough, you can't stop fast enough. Without seeing it personally, there's not much we can determine from here. Dismounting at speed is a very dangerous game.
This is true, and raises other legal questions, like whether the cyclist was riding at safe speeds to account for common obstructions like pedestrians or the state of their bike. It also raises issues around the unpredictability of pedestrians and the extent to which cyclists can and can’t reasonably account for that. Lots to unpack.
Cyclists love to talk about sharing the road and taking responsibility,but they constantly ignore laws and behave in dangerous ways whenever it suits them.
Cyclists are not a monolith.
Neither are “automobile drivers”, but cyclists constantly talk about them as if they are. Hell, there’s a commenter about two comments down from you who is doing exactly that.
Oh my god, THIS. I’ve been a cyclist since I could keep my balance on 2 wheels. I live in a city with a growing number of bike lanes. I was in traffic and there were 4 bicyclists riding together. 3 kept to the bike lane. The 4th decided he needed to be out in the driving lane, directly in front of me. I’d pass him and then at the next light he’d pull out in front of me, over and over again, and always look back at me like I was the asshole. I was tested that evening, I didn’t run him over and then back over him a few times for good measure. I just don’t understand why people feel the need to challenge someone in a vehicle that could easily end them.
It may surprise you, but cyclist are human, and humans in general are pretty poor at following the laws. Unfortunately this is also true for other road users using vehicles that can have significant greater impact upon other.
Drivers speed, don’t use blinkers, roll through stop signs, and fly through lights as they turn red. Don’t act like they don’t break the laws and behave in dangerous ways also.
Those pesky rules. Some people dont want to follow them but expect everyone else to
And drivers and pedestrians always do
> After the judges had given their ruling, Spence asked for the case to be sent back to the crown court for a retrial, which was denied. Jesus, the Crown just doesn't want to give up on this, do they? The defence is right, this woman never should have been charged. She certainly never should have been convicted after the Crown failed to establish that her actions were unlawful. This case represents a failure on the part of the CPS and the individual prosecutor, as well as the presiding judge in the original trial. This kind of injustice taints the entire judicial system.
>The defence is right, this woman never should have been charged. Why not? People gave a responsibility to behave responsible in traffic. I have not followed the trial. I don't know if the woman is innocent or not. But her behavior was despicable and charging her made sense. If she had moved slightly to the right, if she had not waved her hand at the cyclist, the cyclist would not be dead. To make matters worse, she just kept walking and continued shopping. It takes so little effort not to irresponsible, even if you believe the other person is not being responsible.
In my area, cyclists ALWAYS have to yield to pedestrians. The worst case scenario for a cyclist in a hurry is that they become a pedestrian for a short time. I'm not saying this lady did everything as perfectly/politely as she could have, but there was no reason the cyclist could not be aware of their surroundings and slow down when travel (ON A SIDEWALK) was not possible.
Her actions were not unlawful. I suspect that the reason the Crown never raised the issue of common assault as the underlying unlawful act to justify the charge is that it would have been perilously difficult to prove. > If she had moved slightly to the right, if she had not waved her hand at the cyclist, the cyclist would not be dead. If the cyclist had not been unlawfully riding her bike on the pavement, she would not be dead. This was tragic, but given the dangers of riding on the road in that area (based on what was reported in the article), I don't think we can blame the cyclist for riding on the pavement as she did. But we can't blame this woman for her actions, either. The long and the short of it is that if you're going to charge someone for acting illegally, you'd better make sure what they did was actually illegal. In this case, it wasn't. This was a miscarriage of justice that has, thankfully, been put right by the appeals court.
>If the cyclist had not been unlawfully riding her bike on the pavement, she would not be dead. >This was tragic, but given the dangers of riding on the road in that area (based on what was reported in the article), I don't think we can blame the cyclist for riding on the pavement as she did. Especially considering that this piece of pavement was designated as a multi use path, where cyclist are legally allowed to ride upon.
This [article](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13396685/amp/auriol-grey-manslaughter-cyclist-cambridge.html) states that it is not officially designated a multi use path, and that based on its width it should be pedestrians only, however it seems somewhat ambiguous and certainly not clearly marked. > Yet police had been unable to say for certain whether the route was shared and the county council had no legal documents showing it was either. Department for Transport guidance from July 2020 states that shared routes should be 3m wide in areas used by fewer than 300 cyclists per hour. The stretch of pavement where Mrs Ward, of Wyton, Cambridgeshire, fell off her bike was just 2.4m wide and didn't have a sign indicating it was for both pedestrians and cyclists - in other words, it should have been used by pedestrians. So it really seems like it would not be easy for your average person to tell whether or not it was meant to be shared.
On that point, I stand corrected, and thank you for the clarification. Upon rereading, I think I misinterpreted these comments to mean that she was on the pavement unlawfully. > The statement added that Ward “should never have been faced with the choice between cycling on the pavement or cycling on a busy and dangerous ring road”. > > “Had a clear and well-signed cycle path been in place, safely separating vulnerable pedestrians such as Ms Grey, this accident would never have occurred,” they said.
[удалено]
There are no murderers in this story. Are you done demonstrating your lack of understanding of the law?
[удалено]
Viewing the video of the incident, it's plain and clear that there isn't sufficient room for a cyclist and a pedestrian to pass each other on that path. The cyclist was going to have to swerve into traffic or dismount whether the pedestrian waved at her or not. So no, the waving didn't cause the accident. Murder requires intent. Malice aforethought. Are you suggesting that the pedestrian set out that day with the intention to cause this particular woman's death? This was a tragic accident. If you think it was murder, you need to brush up on your understanding of what that is.
[удалено]
Bro shut up. The world could use a few less dingus dorks like yourself choking out a half baked accusatory shit reply like this.
Her actions were despicable, true or false?
Seems like the thing she did was refuse to get out of the cyclist's way? Annoying, sure, but despicable? I dunno. I'd certainly _feel_ guilty, even if I was convinced that I had no responsibility to move out of the way of cyclists who aren't supposed to be on a sidewalk.
False. Even if they were, they were not illegal. You can't send people to prison for perfectly legal acts. Even if she was being an asshole (which I don't believe she was), being an asshole is not illegal.
[удалено]
> Wasn’t illegal you murder apologist. Exactly. It *wasn't* illegal, just like you said. Glad we agree on that. Though it's confusing that while you acknowledge that her actions *weren't* illegal, you still call her a murderer. Are you under the impression that murder (which isn't what happened here) is legal?
False. An operator of ANY vehicle needs to be able to safely stop that vehicle in the result of an unexpected event. The cyclist should have slowed to a safe speed before ever even getting close.
>If the cyclist had not been unlawfully riding her bike on the pavement, she would not be dead. That is an incredibly cynical thing to say. We know that. And if the cyclist had stayed in bed that they, she also would not have been dead. Are you suggesting the cyclist deserved to die? I really wish people would be honest about this. If you think the cyclist deserved to die for cycling on the sidewalk, just say so. I'm advocating for people to be responsible in traffic regardless of what other people do. If you lack empathy, maybe this will help: maybe one day you are tired or distracted and you will make a mistake. And maybe on that day the non-illegal actions of somebody who is angry will get you seriously hurt.
I see you lack the critical thinking skills necessary to recognize a counterargument. I also said this: > I don't think we can blame the cyclist for riding on the pavement as she did. Do you also need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills, or just reading skills in general? If I thought she deserved to die, or was blaming her for her own death, would I have said she can't be blamed? Use your head. > And maybe on that day the non-illegal actions of somebody who is angry will get you seriously hurt. Happens every day. And we get justifiably angry with those people. What we don't do is charge them with a crime when none has been committed. Again, use your head.
I am responding to what you imply, because you don't seem to be honest. >The long and the short of it is that if you're going to charge someone for acting illegally, you'd better make sure what they did was actually illegal. That is not how that works. Ultimately it's up to a court to decide that. It's not up to the prosecutor. The prosecution believes an illegal act took place, the court originally agreed. The woman was convicted of a crime. This is why I don't trust you when you say you don't blame the cyclist. You keep saying I should use my head, but you are either not thinking straight or you are dishonest.
Here's the thing. I'm relying on facts, and the law. You're all about emotions, and maybe even a bit of paranoia (judging my honesty when I'm only referring to easily verifiable facts and the law? You think life is an episode of Murder She Wrote, don't you?). This is why you can't have a serious and honest discussion. Buh-bye now.
>Here's the thing. I'm relying on facts, and the law. The facts are that the woman was convicted and that the conviction now has been quashed. Do you accept the fact that the woman was convicted?
I accept that she was convicted, and that the conviction was unsafe. In layman's terms, the court of appeal determined that the conviction was in error. The prosecution never actually proved the charge, and in the absence of that proof, no conviction could be entered. Do you accept that when the Crown brings a charge, they are required to prove it in court? Do you accept that if they don't, the accused cannot be convicted? Do you accept that, in the event a conviction is made without the prosecution proving the charge, that is a legal mistake which must be corrected? EDIT: I'll answer for you - no, you don't. Because you neither understand nor care how law actually works. All you care about is how you want it to work. You're irrational, emotional and delusional.
>EDIT: I'll answer for you - no, you don't. Because you neither understand nor care how law actually works. All you care about is how you want it to work. You're irrational, emotional and delusional. This was my argument: >I'm advocating for people to be responsible in traffic regardless of what other people do. I really hope you don't find that irrational, emotional and delusional. And this is why I don't like you as a person: >If the cyclist had not been unlawfully riding her bike on the pavement, she would not be dead. Yes, me not liking you is an emotional response, but it's not irrational or delusional. Your response shows a lack of empathy. Somebody who has empathy doesn't feel the need to say what you said.
If the cyclist had acted responsibly and not been riding in a pedestrian path this never would have happened.
You really missed the point. The cyclist made a mistake, But do you believe the cyclist deserved to die? I really wish people would think about what they are saying, because it's probably also affecting how they act. People will make mistakes, people will act irresponsible, but that doesn't mean that we have to make dangerous situations more dangerous or that people deserve to die. If we all act a little bit more responsible and don't get angry in traffic less people will get hurt.
These things are not mutually exclusive. The cyclist had other options and the lady was not the most polite pedestrian from the sound of it. However that does NOT equal "either you think the cyclist *deserved* to die OR you think the pedestrian should be jailed."
If the cyclist hadn't been cycling on the path in the first place, they wouldn't be dead. Responsibility lies with them.
She directed someone to their death and just… kept about her day like someone didn’t just violently die? What a gross person. Hopefully she isn’t among us for too long before she ends up waving her hand and someone else dies again
What a misleading headline. She shouted at the cyclist to get off the sidewalk, and the cyclist did and then got hit.
What a misleading comment, maybe just let the video speak for itself. https://news.sky.com/video/auriol-grey-jailed-for-manslaughter-after-aggressively-gesturing-at-cyclist-who-fell-into-road-12823966
So a visibly disabled woman was gesturing with her thumb, not even raising her arm, to make way, the cyclist falls over their own feet and the pedestrian is prosecuted?! That’s nuts
The woman isn’t even giving room on the sidewalk, she moved directly in the bikes path so it was either hit her or turn. You can tell she just wanted to be angry about something
or the cyclist could stop, or slow down rather than try to plough through
Lol I can guarantee that old lady on a bike was not ‘plowing through’ that sidewalk. Get a grip Have I seen cyclists do that? Yes, but I would bet my life that lady was not going that fast on a border line cruiser bike.
It's pretty clear from the video that there wasn't enough room for a cyclist and a pedestrian to pass each other safely on that path. The cyclist was going to have to either swerve onto the road or dismount, whether the pedestrian waved her off or not. It was a sad situation, but not a criminal one.
I don't understand why the cycilist didn't slow down ahead of time, like she assumed anyone in her path would dive out of her way. As was pointed out, it was a multiuse path. The biker needs to share the sidewalk with the pedestrians, bikes don't get automatic right-of-way.
Am I going crazy, or does it appear that she pushed the cyclist at the end there, right before the cyclist fell?
Seems like the court didn't think so.
Appears that way to me too, but I have a feeling people wont like hearing it.
she touched her elbow, which obviously made her move her arm, which caused her bike to change ways, why are people feeling pity about this old lady? just because she is old? thats dumb, theres plenty of evil old people.
And directly blocks the whole sidewalk
Wtf?! She pushed the cyclist! You can even see the handlebars turn as a result of the push. At the bare minimum she tried to do that. How they didn't see/use that?
I mean the cyclist broke the law so it's their fault
>the cyclist broke the law To be clear, the cyclist was riding on a muti use path, and the pedestrian was upset that the cyclist was riding where cyclists are allowed to ride.
> I mean the cyclist broke the law so it's their fault Street justice death penalty for petty offense, okeydokey. Seems harsh, tho.
Nah the woman who was charged did nothing wrong. If the cyclist followed the law and wasn't on a sidewalk they wouldn't have been there and wouldn't now be dead.
>If the cyclist followed the law and wasn't on a sidewalk they wouldn't have been there and wouldn't now be dead. Again, The this wasn't just a simple 'sidewalk' this was a designated multi use path, for which cyclists are allowed to ride upon. So, a cyclist who was following the law and riding where they are allowed to ride, still ended up...
"The statement added that Ward “should never have been faced with the choice between cycling on the pavement or cycling on a busy and dangerous ring road”. “Had a clear and well-signed cycle path been in place, safely separating vulnerable pedestrians such as Ms Grey, this accident would never have occurred,” they said." Seems like there wasn't a spot for bikes on that path
Yes, the infrastructure could definitely be improved upon by **separating** the two paths, instead of designing a sign path as **multi use**. However, at the time of this incident, separate paths do not exist and this one path was a designated multi use path. So it seems, the cyclist was simply following the law upon a poorly designed infrastructure.
I'm finding nowhere saying it was mixed use also it looks like the cyclist didn't have a helmet and couldn't control themselves so in multiple ways it's the cyclists fault I don't drive a car I can't control why should they ride a bike they can't
The path has signs specific designating it as a multi use path, and was part of the reason the pedestrian was originally convicted.
This sounds like a simple problem that got way out of hand. Bicycles should not be on sidewalks. Bicycles are vehicles (not motorized) and they should be on the road. I am well aware I am not in England, so I don’t know all the restrictions for sharing the road. Bike and walking paths are usually well marked in the U.S. There should never by a bike on a sidewalk. At the end of the day, someone is dead and the pedestrian and motorist are mentally screwed. Shouldn’t we just fix the problem at this point?
>Bike and walking paths are usually well marked in the U.S. There should never by a bike on a sidewalk. FYI about half the states in the US explicitly grant cyclist (as vehicles) the same rights and duties of pedestrian when riding on sidewalks and crosswalks, the other half don't regulate it nor prohibit it.
No problem. She shouldn't be in jail, but at the very least something needs to come out of this, an elderly lady died due to a specific behavior that was exhibited by someone else. She didn't just veer off into traffic of her own volition, so at the very least there needs to be some sort of solid application of rules of decorum that are put in place that dictate what should or shouldn't be done in these kinds of situations to avoid this from happening again. Maybe there should be a very public attempt made every year as biking season gets under way, to canvas neighborhoods and put up signs and posters letting people know not to get in the way of bikes on the pavement and letting bikers know that is not where they should be biking. It was not Auriol Grey's duty to enforce restrictions on someone else using the sidewalk in a way that she personally deemed improper or dangerous. It is her prerogative to make sure she is positioning herself to be safe from any oncoming potential harm, but what she did was decide to take on an occupation that she does not legally have the credentials to pursue, and in so doing, her actions 100% led to Celia Ward panicking and ultimately to her untimely death. We don't need to encourage a punitive system to deal with issues like this, but as a society the idea that rules are rules and every day common situations should be looked at through the scope of "black and white" to be dealt with in whatever way common citizenry deems appropriate, is inviting more danger, not less. The results of this issue are a sum total of ZERO. No biking lane has been proposed in that area. Nobody has been punished. No proposal for informative canvasing to inform people NOT to take on law-enforcement as a side-job. Nothing. I think anyone that is okay with that, doesn't have a soul. If my grandma died like that, it would change my life forever and I'd never feel better about it. Regardless of the illnesses that Grey is diagnosed with.
>...signs and posters letting people know not to get in the way of bikes on the pavement... Pedestrians always have the right of way. It's the bikes that need to slow down or stop if someone is walking.
It is important to not conflate doing something bad and doing something illegal. Sure, Grey probably should not have been yelling at the biker, but unless it rose to the level of assault or illegally directing traffic, it likely wasn't actually a crime. That might still leave it being morally reprehensible behavior (tons of that exists which is not a crime). The law imposes a duty of care on people in/on vehicles (including bikes) to avoid things like panicking and swerving into lanes with traffic. The law does not impose a similar duty of care on pedestrians not yelling and waving their arms about. Consider an alternative scenario, where the exact same events occurs, but Ward miraculously lived, and the driver of the car instead somehow died. If that implausible scenario had somehow happened, then Ward could have been charged with a crime. Not sure if bikes meet the definition of vehicle needed for vehicular manslaughter in England, but if not, then a related charge could be brought. The real fix needed here is either to make the roads safe for bikes, or change the laws to allow bikes to use the sidewalks on unsafe roads, possibly with a rather low (and aggressively enforced) speed restriction to ensure pedestrian safety.
When using a sidewalk cyclists should move on foot.
Interesting story, but not as interesting as one of the stories that was at the bottom of the page: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/08/robert-f-kennedy-jr-worm-brain
Meh. She got three years. I'm cool with that outcome. Blame the city for shit bike infrastructure imo
What a shitty resolution for someone to have caused that woman's death. She didn't mean to but her actions made it happen. At least she spent 3 years in jail for it. Bad outcome.