Woman convicted of manslaughter after swearing and gesturing at 77 year old cyclist.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Ming the Merciless

There is no mercy
Location
Inside my skull
The key crap choice was to ride on the pavemant and ignore the hierarchy of risk, choosing instead to attempt to bully the pedestrian.

Eh, it was a shared space that specifically included bikes! The only bully was that pedestrian
 

lazybloke

Considering a new username
Location
Leafy Surrey
The key crap choice was to ride on the pavemant and ignore the hierarchy of risk, choosing instead to attempt to bully the pedestrian.

1) Most sources have concluded the path was shared (albeit badly signposted)
2) EVen if it wasn't shared, I'd probably choose to ride on it rather than on a busy road. Slowly and carefully.
3) Width measurements quoted in court suggest the shared path wasn't narrow
4) What makes you think the hierachy of road users was ignored?
5) I saw no bullying of a pedestrian. Did you not see bullying of the cyclist?
(Actively blocking the way; waving to create an even larger obstacle; pushing)
6) In your understanding, how much of a bully is a 77 year old pootling along on a bike?
(the approach of the bike isn't visible, might be usefu to get some calculations/estimates of speed)
7) Although the direction actions of the pedestrian are what put Celia Ward in mortal danger, nothing else

Crap choice for me to look back at this thread and get annoyed again.
 

HMS_Dave

Grand Old Lady
The key crap choice was to ride on the pavemant and ignore the hierarchy of risk, choosing instead to attempt to bully the pedestrian.

Yes, that maniacal 77 year old lady on a shopping bike deserved her gruesome exit from this world... :headshake:

You never know though, maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge. Like @DaveReading said, how do we know we've seen the same footage as the Jury? She could have been riding with a baseball cap reversed, bunny hopping down the pavement wielding a 9 iron in a threatening manner asking passers by to empty their pockets... We may never know.
 

Mike_P

Guru
Location
Harrogate
Re the badly signposting, seems that all of the signs are on opposite side of the carriageway and there is one crossing of a road with both pedestrian and cycle red/green lights, immediately beyond that there are round shared signs whose postioning is not that clear as to what they are referring to
1680081946477.png

If where the cyclist is a shared path then their is no cycle symbols on the crossing with the next road same as that acoss the road to the right. The incident took place beyond the large sign on the opposite side of the road. Similarly if you follow the road in the opposite direction cylceway signs also simply disappear and neither instance is there an obvious end.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
Re the badly signposting, seems that all of the signs are on opposite side of the carriageway [...]
That's been debunked a few times. There are at least two sets of cycle signs on the same side of the carriageway as well: one at the junction with Priory Road (shown on TV, I think not visible on Street View due to roadworks) and one west of Ambury Road.

In theory, there should be signs both sides of every road crossing and "Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway" (or its predecessor signs) at the ends, but it's not surprising that the signs are inconsistent, given that the highway authority appeared to have no farking clue whether it was a cycleway or not. Ideally there should be paint to reinforce this (and often that's a dashed line by the kerb in Cambridgeshire), but that's not required. In practice, the judge ruled it was irrelevant and it would be disproportionate for pedestrians to kill people even if they were committing highways offences.
 
One of the problem I have seen is a sign indicating that the cycleway has finished is placed on a pole about 8 foot up in the air and is quite small
OK the cyclist should see it
but in reality a cyclist is generally looking ahead and behind - but also downwards towards the approaching path/track/road.
Hence some of the "No cycling" signs are placed in places where they are very easy to miss

such as this one near me
Screenshot 2023-03-29 at 12-12-59 Google Maps.png


The cycle path goes off to the left here - the straight on bit is no longer a cycle path but at theis point, as well as the visible junction, there is also a road leading to an old Golf course that is being 'fixed' so there are trucks and stuff coming in from behind you and people coming from the left
SO the chances of a cyclist who is not familiar with the area , seeing the "No Cycling" sign is remote
A painted sign on the road indicating cyclist need to turn left of return to the road would fix that
Of course a proper rejoining thingy would be nice - but lets not get excessive!
 

presta

Guru
Has anyone noticed the story in the news at the moment, a 12 year old charged with murder after a woman was hit by a car. He had a 'bladed article', so it makes me think it's another incident scaring someone into the road similar to this one.
 

PK99

Legendary Member
Location
SW19
Has anyone noticed the story in the news at the moment, a 12 year old charged with murder after a woman was hit by a car. He had a 'bladed article', so it makes me think it's another incident scaring someone into the road similar to this one.

I suggest you read the various reports - THERE ARE NO SIMILARITES.
 

Alex321

Veteran
Location
South Wales
Has anyone noticed the story in the news at the moment, a 12 year old charged with murder after a woman was hit by a car. He had a 'bladed article', so it makes me think it's another incident scaring someone into the road similar to this one.

Given he is accused of running her over with her own car, I don't think there is anything remotely similar.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-65645364, referenced above.
After the hearing, Grey's barrister Ms Moore told reporters: "The law of manslaughter needs to change because the perception of risk does not cater for people who are mentally challenged."
This concerns me.

I can only assume that 'catering' to those people who lack what I suppose might be called a 'normal' perception of risk means a more lenient sentence if they kill someone by their deliberate action. In a very few cases it is abundantly clear that a person is so profoundly 'mentally challenged' that they have little or no perception of risk (to themselves or others) so any and every interaction with others must be appropriately monitored and the individual in question cannot carry responsibility for their actions.

This was clearly not the case here, though.
All of us have different perceptions of risk, too - and it changes throughout our life and changes in circumstance.

What is a 'normal' perception of risk, and who or what defines it? What is 'mentally challenged' in this context?

What a box of worms and slippery slope this could be!
 

Gwylan

Veteran
Location
All at sea⛵
From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-65645364, referenced above.

This concerns me.

I can only assume that 'catering' to those people who lack what I suppose might be called a 'normal' perception of risk means a more lenient sentence if they kill someone by their deliberate action. In a very few cases it is abundantly clear that a person is so profoundly 'mentally challenged' that they have little or no perception of risk (to themselves or others) so any and every interaction with others must be appropriately monitored and the individual in question cannot carry responsibility for their actions.

This was clearly not the case here, though.
All of us have different perceptions of risk, too - and it changes throughout our life and changes in circumstance.

What is a 'normal' perception of risk, and who or what defines it? What is 'mentally challenged' in this context?

What a box of worms and slippery slope this could be!

At the risk of being provocative, " they came for the cyclists"?
 
Top Bottom