Manslaughter, for shouting at a cyclist

[RolandRat]

Originally Posted by Bob001

We don't see the cyclist approaching the pedestrian. We don't know how the half-blind pedestrian perceived the cyclist. We only see the cyclist trying to force her way past the pedestrian.

The "half blind pedestrian" clearly saw the oncoming cyclist going by the gestures the pedestrian was making. The pedestrians mobility seemed fine on that particular occasion.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

The "half blind pedestrian" clearly saw the oncoming cyclist going by the gestures the pedestrian was making. The pedestrians mobility seemed fine on that particular occasion.

Yeah, and veering a little to her right would have been much easier for her than for the cyclist to veer left.

[JoeMorgue]

People are trying to passive aggressively play the "poor widdle ole lady" card with the Pedestrian and ignoring the fact that she was only 49 (I wanna say 47 at the time of incident) and the cyclists was 77.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

People are trying to passive aggressively play the "poor widdle ole lady" card with the Pedestrian and ignoring the fact that she was only 49 (I wanna say 47 at the time of incident) and the cyclists was 77.

She is also mentally and physically disabled and has lived in supervised care all her life.

Quote:

The accident happened as Grey - described as “childlike” and a “struggling loner” beset with health problems, walking on a deformed right foot - gestured to, and swore at the cyclist who was riding her bike on a path in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, on October 20, 2020.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/216296...al-celia-ward/

Quote:

Grey has cerebral palsy, is partially blind, suffers from cognitive issues and has been living in shelter accommodation for most of her life.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/she-wont-...124113262.html

This is just not someone who belongs in prison. She's already in a state facility. House arrest with an ankle monitor would make whatever point needs to be made.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Yeah, and veering a little to her right would have been much easier for her than for the cyclist to veer left.

A cyclist is expected to accommodate a pedestrian, even if it means walking their bicycle a few feet. A cyclist is also expected to control their bike at all times.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by GlennB

The question remains - What makes you think she was 'speeding'? We see the bike beginning to pass Ms Grey and then the bike and cyclist falling. There is no suggestion of speeding.

I don't know whether she was speeding. The question is whether the pedestrian perceived her as speeding.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Bob001

She is also mentally and physically disabled and has lived in supervised care all her life.

Again we all saw how good she was at turning her disability on and off.

The gesticulation was a deliberate action, deal with it.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I don't know whether she was speeding. The question is whether the pedestrian perceived her as speeding.

But the cyclist perception of her threat means nothing right?

You seem to have two sets of standards here.

We'll be arguing "In media res" soon.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

I don't think a car is supposed to leave a car's width when passing a bike. I believe it's generally considered a meter and a half is sufficient. In other words, the same amount of room as you would leave a car you were overtaking. Nobody leaves a car's width between cars when overtaking - if they did, they'd almost need a three lane highway to do it.

Thank you and spot on, I checked and the Highway Code says at least 1.5m at 30mph and more at higher speeds. I suspect I misunderstood my cyclist friend who told me the guidance was ‘to leave as much room as if you were passing a car’.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Again we all saw how good she was at turning her disability on and off.

The gesticulation was a deliberate action, deal with it.

Yup

The judge saw the sentencing reports and seems to agree.

Just because one has a bee in one's bonnet about cyclists, it's not appropriate to put them at risk of harm.

And startling or even pushing a 77 year old woman off a bike over a kerb (maybe 3-4 inches drop) would be dangerous even without any traffic.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Bob001

She is also mentally and physically disabled and has lived in supervised care all her life.

Yet she was devious enough to lie about her interaction with the cyclist:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-eng...shire-64966865

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I don't know whether she was speeding.

You previously stated that the cyclist was speeding.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

.....
It’s the pedestrian that decided she didn’t want to do that, and instead pushed the cyclist under an oncoming car that she could see, but the cyclist couldn’t.
.....

Posters here keep claiming that the pedestrian pushed the cyclist into the road. The prosecution did not make such a claim and there is no testimony or evidence that she did.

[Matthew Best]

Except the evidence that we can all see with our own eyes.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

But the cyclist perception of her threat means nothing right?

You seem to have two sets of standards here.
.....

If the cyclist had felt threatened she could have chosen to walk her bike, or pass at the pedestrian's other side, or not approach the pedestrian at all by stopping and waiting for her to pass. The fact is that the cyclist had the last best chance to avoid any confrontation, if in fact there was one.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Except the evidence that we can all see with our own eyes.

And yet not that the prosecution, judge or jury saw.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Bob001

And yet not that the prosecution, judge or jury saw.

The J6 investigation hasn't charged President Trump with inciting imminent lawless action either. Does that change your view of what he did?

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Bob001

And yet not that the prosecution, judge or jury saw.

I think they all saw it, too.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Well, in this particular case a speeding cyclist is a physical threat to a woman who is half-blind with mobility issues. Even on a "shared path," the cyclist is responsible for respecting a pedestrian's safety.

Grey’s disabilities had no bearing on the case according to the judge.

And it’s obvious she saw the victim from a fairly long way back.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Posters here keep claiming that the pedestrian pushed the cyclist into the road. The prosecution did not make such a claim and there is no testimony or evidence that she did.

Yes there was, though it was not conclusive. Apart from the video, the pedestrian admitted there may have been contact, and an eyewitness said the same.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Bob001

If the cyclist had felt threatened she could have chosen to walk her bike, or pass at the pedestrian's other side, or not approach the pedestrian at all by stopping and waiting for her to pass. The fact is that the cyclist had the last best chance to avoid any confrontation, if in fact there was one.

If you feel threatened, you don’t give up your one advantage that will allow you to escape the threat.

[Shrinker]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Posters here keep claiming that the pedestrian pushed the cyclist into the road. The prosecution did not make such a claim and there is no testimony or evidence that she did.

Actually, we can see from the judge's guidance to the jury that 'use of force' wasn't contested in the trial. The jury were not asked to consider whether force was used at all. The defence claimed the 'use of force' was in self-defence, the prosecution claimed it was disproportionate.

Whether there was contact or not seems irrelevant, as both sides seem to agree that she physically caused the cyclist to fall into the road.

[Disbelief]

Originally Posted by Bob001

If the cyclist had felt threatened she could have chosen to walk her bike, or pass at the pedestrian's other side, or not approach the pedestrian at all by stopping and waiting for her to pass. The fact is that the cyclist had the last best chance to avoid any confrontation, if in fact there was one.

So the best option was for the elderly woman who was probably frightened of the agitated pedestrian, to get off her bike? Why do you think that would be a good idea? Seems more confrontational than just trying to get away from the person.

It's bizarre the lengths you are going to make the cyclist the bad guy in this situation. She's dead mainly because of the actions of the pedestrian.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Disbelief

It's bizarre the lengths you are going to make the cyclist the bad guy in this situation. She's dead mainly because of the actions of the pedestrian.

When it comes to blaming the victim, this thread has reached rarely seen heights.

[Shrinker]

Don't let anybody tell you it's impossible for a pedestrian and cyclist to pass each other on this treacherous narrow path.

As a BBC journalist reports from the centre of the pavement a burly cyclist 'forces' his way past, causing the journalist to react in no way at all.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-eng...shire-64764411

(See the 30s mark)

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Bob001

If the cyclist had felt threatened she could have chosen to walk her bike, or pass at the pedestrian's other side, or not approach the pedestrian at all by stopping and waiting for her to pass. The fact is that the cyclist had the last best chance to avoid any confrontation, if in fact there was one.

And if the Pedestrian felt threatened by the cyclist could have NOT moved toward her shrieking and waving her arms like a wacky inflatable tube man on meth.

If the pedestrian had just acted ******* normal the cyclist wouldn't be dead. No amount of nonsense prattle will change that.

We get it, you're glad the cyclist is dead for some reason.

[Thermal]

It's funny how indirectly causing an unnecessary death is totally intolerable in like any other scenario, like police killing the wrong person. But man, get on a bicycle and your ass is on your own.

[Ron Swanson]

Just saying .. why did she wait around to be arrested??

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Shrinker

Don't let anybody tell you it's impossible for a pedestrian and cyclist to pass each other on this treacherous narrow path.

As a BBC journalist reports from the centre of the pavement a burly cyclist 'forces' his way past, causing the journalist to react in no way at all.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-eng...shire-64764411

(See the 30s mark)

Note also that Grey left the scene before emergency services had arrived

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Ron Swanson

Just saying .. why did she wait around to be arrested??

She left the scene before emergency services had arrived - from Shrinker's news report a few posts upthread.

I have been on the scene a couple of times shortly before emergency services have been called and I waited around and offered to help. Which is the normal response

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Ron Swanson

Just saying .. why did she wait around to be arrested??

aiui she didn't. She went off to do some shopping after, I think I read, other people told her to scram. I can only imagine she was still being abusive even as the cyclist lay dying, but that's just a guess.

[JoeMorgue]

The International Criminal Court has issued an (assumingly completely symbolic) arrest warrant for Putin and another high ranking Russian official, for their role in the mass kidnapping of Ukrainian children.

https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news...-23/index.html

//ETA: Obviously very wrong thread, the pitfalls of having multiple open tabs//

[RolandRat]

Originally Posted by Shrinker

Don't let anybody tell you it's impossible for a pedestrian and cyclist to pass each other on this treacherous narrow path.

As a BBC journalist reports from the centre of the pavement a burly cyclist 'forces' his way past, causing the journalist to react in no way at all.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-eng...shire-64764411

(See the 30s mark)

That video is the clearest I've seen and with audio. The pedestrian shows no mobility issues, obviously sees the cyclist coming from a decent distance away. The pedestrian reacts angrily and aggressively. There is no doubt in my mind she forced that cyclist into the road out of sheer arrogance and entitlement, causing her death.

My only issue is, I think the sentence was far too lenient.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

That video is the clearest I've seen and with audio. The pedestrian shows no mobility issues, obviously sees the cyclist coming from a decent distance away. The pedestrian reacts angrily and aggressively. There is no doubt in my mind she forced that cyclist into the road out of sheer arrogance and entitlement, causing her death.

My only issue is, I think the sentence was far too lenient.

And she didn't bother to even try to do anything to help afterwards.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

That video is the clearest I've seen and with audio. The pedestrian shows no mobility issues, obviously sees the cyclist coming from a decent distance away. The pedestrian reacts angrily and aggressively. There is no doubt in my mind she forced that cyclist into the road out of sheer arrogance and entitlement, causing her death.

My only issue is, I think the sentence was far too lenient.

The more I view it the more I see Grey positively leaning into the cyclist and shoving her. Step through it frame by frame and you'll notice Grey recoiling somewhat after contact and having to step backwards.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Part of living in a free society is putting up with other people's offensive behavior. If the guy was doing something specific -- obstructing traffic, threatening to hurt somebody, etc. -- there are specific laws that could be applied. "Causing distress" is a pretty ridiculous charge, and it could be applied to anybody -- including political protests and union picket lines -- that somebody else doesn't like.

Part of living in a free society is not causing offence to others.

Most societies have enough sense to not copy the US's obsession with free speech absolutism.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Part of living in a free society is putting up with other people's offensive behavior. If the guy was doing something specific -- obstructing traffic, threatening to hurt somebody, etc. -- there are specific laws that could be applied. "Causing distress" is a pretty ridiculous charge, and it could be applied to anybody -- including political protests and union picket lines -- that somebody else doesn't like.

He was.

He had had a suspended sentence

Quote:

Croke admitted breaking the terms of a 24-week suspended sentence imposed by magistrates on September 23 after he was caught shouting and swearing, which he was banned from doing by a criminal behaviour order imposed by magistrates in Hereford, in Birmingham New Street Station.

https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/1...earing-street/

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Shrinker

Don't let anybody tell you it's impossible for a pedestrian and cyclist to pass each other on this treacherous narrow path.

As a BBC journalist reports from the centre of the pavement a burly cyclist 'forces' his way past, causing the journalist to react in no way at all.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-eng...shire-64764411

(See the 30s mark)

Having finally watched the footage, there's definitely a push there. Grey plants her right leg solidly and then pushes off it in the direction of her victim and all she needed was a slight contact.

That was deliberate and premeditated.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

That video is the clearest I've seen and with audio. The pedestrian shows no mobility issues, obviously sees the cyclist coming from a decent distance away. The pedestrian reacts angrily and aggressively. There is no doubt in my mind she forced that cyclist into the road out of sheer arrogance and entitlement, causing her death.

My only issue is, I think the sentence was far too lenient.

If the video had shown the point of contact the peelers would have charged her with murder at the very least. Because that's missing there wasn't enough to bring such charges.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by jimbob

He was.

He had had a suspended sentence
....

I got that. I even noted it. I just don't think "shouting and swearing" by themselves merit a long jail sentence. A weekend? Maybe. But 40 weeks is absolutely crazy.