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

[mjr]

Location was here.
Nursery Rd
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ASYSe9UXytJE3Bkp8

Is there a definitive map of cycle rights of way?

Urgh. Sort of.

There's a definitive map held by the district council, but in my experience of other nearby councils, it will only show that the whole shebang is a highway. To determine the legal existence of a cycleway, you then have to look at the orders made by the county council, not all of which will be online, to find a cycleway conversion or creation order, or at least an official design for the highway showing the cycleway. That may be why the police would be unable to categorically state the existence or not: it's not normally in their records. The police rely on the signs and, if the signs are incorrect (present when should be absent or absent when should be present), someone will challenge that when penalised and then the checking would be done.

Based on memory of riding in that area, maps and checking streetview, my understanding is that the OTHER (south) side of Nursery Road is a cycleway and this side isn't, or at least isn't signed. However, that road is a shoot show, with round blue signs if you start from the Ambury Road crossroads to the west or Hartford Road to the east, but foot-only crossings in between the two and very few signs or markings along the way (fewer than I think are required by the regulations, which would be at at least every carriageway crossing). There's also a lot of old-fashioned pedestrian-sheep fences and a lack of dropped kerbs, so I can understand that someone who's come from the north might ride along the north side until they reached a wheel-friendly crossing. There's nothing to suggest you can't do that, or to suggest what you should do instead. And if you've gotten used to being directed to ride over foot-only crossings, then you might think that it's what you should do if you've come out of the medical centre and want to get to the two-way cycleway opposite: ride along the north side to the nearest crossing. You can't just cross immediately to the cycleway because the turning opposite that you'd need to ride into to reach a kerb dip is one-way against you (corrected this reason).

It may well be that even if they were pre-warned of the question and checked, police still can't say what is cycleway and what isn't, if the conversion order might not say which side of the road was converted. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen a lack of care taken over cycleways. Cyclists don't normally destroy things worth enough to make people take care.

So, in short, that area is complete rubbish. It should be re-done to current standards, but I bet it won't happen soon.

Even so, the highway code rule about not attacking other road users making mistakes still applies, so the attacker was definitely in the wrong.

 

[Cycleops]

Just been reported the woman has been sentenced to three years for manslaughter

 

[lazybloke]

A very unfortunate situation.

It looks like she tried to go to the RHS of the pedestrian, but found herself squeezed somewhat between the pedestrian and the kerb. It looks like the expletives and gestures were beginning long before the cyclist arrived at the scene. Unless there was a deliberate shove, I'm astonished that the pedestrian has been found guilty here.

In general, the cyclist has a duty of care to give way to and keep apart from the more vulnerable road user. In my view, in the absence of any markings on the ground or signage, the pedestrian is fully entitled to occupy whatsoever position on the footway they wish, and the cyclist should ride at an according speed, stopping and giving way if necessary. Think of the pedestrian as a cyclist assuming primary position on the road, and the cyclist as a motorist trying to nudge past in an unsafe way.
View attachment 680028

The hierarchy of priority is less relevant than deliberate actions that resulted in a death.

 

[mjr]

The hierarchy of priority is less relevant than deliberate actions that resulted in a death.

Indeed. Priority does not entitle a road user to obstruct the highway, and even less to initiate a deliberate collision. For example, a motorist whose traffic light goes green must not simply drive into the side of a motorist who has illegally stopped in a yellow box in front of them.

 

[mjr]

In general, the cyclist has a duty of care to give way to and keep apart from the more vulnerable road user. In my view, in the absence of any markings on the ground or signage, the pedestrian is fully entitled to occupy whatsoever position on the footway they wish, and the cyclist should ride at an according speed, stopping and giving way if necessary. Think of the pedestrian as a cyclist assuming primary position on the road, and the cyclist as a motorist trying to nudge past in an unsafe way.

In general, that's fine. In this specific case, it's not at all clear whether this was a footway (rather than a cycleway with right of way on foot), there is definitely width for a cyclist and pedestrian to pass each other comfortably, they were travelling in opposite directions, this was wide enough to pass and this is as wide as it gets nearby. It's more like a cyclist assuming primary position next to a passing place in an attempt to force a motorist to reverse to the previous passing place where you'd expect the scenario to repeat, which I feel would result in the cyclist being investigated for obstruction. All aggravated by a verbal assault, which of course makes the target less inclined to stop and risk the assault escalating.

 

[Legs]

The hierarchy of priority is less relevant than deliberate actions that resulted in a death.

Bearing in mind that she has cerebral palsy, I think it's perfectly reasonable for her to be walking in the middle of the footway. Unless the cyclist was deliberately shoved, it is the responsibility of the cyclist to be appropriately positioned and be travelling at appropriate speed to safely conduct the manoeuvre, irrespective of the legal status of the path.

 

[mjr]

Bearing in mind that she has cerebral palsy, I think it's perfectly reasonable for her to be walking in the middle of the footway. Unless the cyclist was deliberately shoved, it is the responsibility of the cyclist to be appropriately positioned and be travelling at appropriate speed to safely conduct the manoeuvre, irrespective of the legal status of the path.

Are we watching the same CCTV? It looks to me that she was walking on the left (kerbside) of the pavement and only steps to the middle as the cyclist falls off the kerb.

While the cyclist should be positioned and at a correct speed to make the pass, mistakes must not be punished by pedestrians becoming judge, jury and executioner. Well, unless cyclists are going to be allowed to execute close-passing motorists. Actually no, not even then. Fine maybe, not execute.

 

[Cycleops]

Sorry, don't agree @Legs .She may have trouble walking but that doesn't excuse her behaviour in trying to create a confrontation which ultimately led to the demise if the cyclist.

 

[tom73]

Reading the reports she’s not helped her case. By her conduct in court or when proving evidence.

 

[Legs]

Are we watching the same CCTV? It looks to me that she was walking on the left (kerbside) of the pavement and only steps to the middle as the cyclist falls off the kerb.

If that’s the case, why didn’t the cyclist pass to the left, way from the kerb?

Very poor judgments all round. I wholeheartedly agree that the defendant’s actions afterwards (and reportedly during the trial) may be reprehensible, but the cyclist is far from blameless (although she paid far too high a price for her indiscretion, obviously).

 

[mjr]

Reading the reports she’s not helped her case. By her conduct in court or when proving evidence.

What have you read? The main odd thing I've noted about her evidence is that she describes the cyclist as going fast which — while not impossible — seems rather unlikely for a 77-year-old woman on a small-wheel shopper bike who's just bumped up a kerb dip from the medical centre car park exit, and that she said she didn't remember what she said or whether she raised her arms to push the rider. Sadly, the restricted CCTV view means that it doesn't see the speed of the rider or whether there was contact.

 

[matticus]

Why should we leave 1.5m when overtaking cyclists if they don't do that when overtaking us, ask the motorists.

It's a pity, but they'll argue she got what she deserved for riding on the pavement.

You make it hard to tell what your overall point is, in between playing Motorists' Advocate:
but the fact of this matter is that the pedestrian was found Guilty of Manslaughter. Tell that to the motorists, please.

 

[Venod]

Very clever Richard but that's not what I said. Have you actually got anything useful to contribute?

The pedestrian left the scene to shop at a supermarket, before the arrival of the paramedics.

 

[mjr]

If that’s the case, why didn’t the cyclist pass to the left, way from the kerb?

I think that was most likely instinctive to avoid the verbally-abusive attacker trapping her against that fence, which probably seemed a much bigger risk than making her fall off the kerb (because most people intuitively expect that sort of action to be very very rare and unlikely). I'm certainly very hesitant to ride between an attacker and a hard obstacle like a fence unless I'm sure I can get through and out before they can reach me. Aren't you?

Very poor judgments all round. I wholeheartedly agree that the defendant’s actions afterwards (and reportedly during the trial) may be reprehensible, but the cyclist is far from blameless (although she paid far too high a price for her indiscretion, obviously).

Well, what do you expect the rider to have done in that situation? Of course she's not going to put herself by the fence, where that attacker 28 years younger and a good deal bigger can trap her. She's not going to stop and let the attacker come for her. She's not going to wait patiently for a gap in the traffic on the ring road and why should she if that's a cycleway (which isn't determined either way, but it looks the same as the cycleway on the other side). I guess she could have turned hard into the medical centre (whose CCTV is it) and wait for the attacker to pass, but that's far from an obvious decision in the heat of the moment and I don't know if that medical centre was even open in whatever tier Huntingdon was in then: quite likely it was an intercom buzz and wait to get in the door, which is naff-all comfort if you've an attacker approaching.

The small crumb of comfort from this case is that it clearly establishes that walkers causing avoidable conflicts by effing and blinding and making to push people off bikes is disproportionate and unlawful, even where it's unclear if it's a footway or a cycleway.

 

[Beebo]

The CCTV has done for her.
Without the CCTV this would have been just an unfortunate event.
I’m unsure what sending her to prison will do.
I’d much rather see drivers get similar punishments.