The key crap choice was to ride on the pavemant and ignore the hierarchy of risk, choosing instead to attempt to bully the pedestrian.
Cycling on a shared path is "bullying a pedestrian"?
Give your head a wobble.
The key crap choice was to ride on the pavemant and ignore the hierarchy of risk, choosing instead to attempt to bully the pedestrian.
The key crap choice was to ride on the pavemant and ignore the hierarchy of risk, choosing instead to attempt to bully the pedestrian.
The key crap choice was to ride on the pavemant and ignore the hierarchy of risk, choosing instead to attempt to bully the pedestrian.
The key crap choice was to ride on the pavemant and ignore the hierarchy of risk, choosing instead to attempt to bully the pedestrian.

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.Re the badly signposting, seems that all of the signs are on opposite side of the carriageway [...]
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.
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.
Not a total surprise because the powers that be were already being asked whether it was an Unduly Lenient Sentence: has that been decided yet? It's mentioned in https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64900815The high court judges have refused to grant permission for Grey to appeal against her sentence, concluding it was "not arguably manifestly excessive".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-65645364
This concerns me.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."
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!
Statements made outside court by barristers whose client has just been convicted are pretty common, and tend not to result in changes to the law.This concerns me.