Manslaughter, for shouting at a cyclist

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Thermal

....
Seems like if you are walking, and a bike is coming towards you, you just move a little and pass each other uneventfully. The pedestrian took the SYG approach and directly caused a fatality over an utter triviality.

We can certainly agree that both parties should have been more accommodating to each other. Nobody should have died. The question here is whether the pedestrian did anything to deserve a three-year prison sentence. If the video is the only evidence, it looks to me like there's reasonable doubt.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Looking at the video closely, there is a break in the high curb to accommodate a manhole cover. And the cyclist steers right through that space into the road after she passes the pedestrian. That doesn't look like the result of a push.

Not sure what you mean here. There's no 'break' in the kerb afaics - this is the area, and the confrontation took place right by the manhole cover over from the grey pole

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Looking at the video closely, there is a break in the high curb to accommodate a manhole cover. And the cyclist steers right through that space into the road after she passes the pedestrian. That doesn't look like the result of a push.

How do I know with 100% absolute metaphysical certainty that you would also be exactly as angry/incredulous if:

- The cyclist didn't veer out of the way and just hit the pedestrian.
- The cyclist did veer out of the way and went into the street and caused an accident.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

No, there isn't. Look at the google street view that GlennB linked to.

Look closely. The manhole cover extends past the raised curb. That's where the break is. Look at the original video at about 00:15. The cyclist goes right through it.

[Disbelief]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Looking at the video closely, there is a break in the high curb to accommodate a manhole cover. And the cyclist steers right through that space into the road after she passes the pedestrian. That doesn't look like the result of a push.

Looks to me like the only reason that the cyclist "steers" towards the street is because the pedestrian pushed her.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Look closely. The manhole cover extends past the raised curb. That's where the break is. Look at the original video at about 00:15. The cyclist goes right through it.

There's a drainage hole under a cover set into the edge of the kerb, but that's roughly where the "4" of the road number points and opposite the final red fence post (apart from the one by the wall). The cyclist goes off the pavement well before that, just after the large manhole cover that is set entirely in the pavement. There is no 'break' there.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Look closely. The manhole cover extends past the raised curb. That's where the break is. Look at the original video at about 00:15. The cyclist goes right through it.

It may be ambiguous in the video due to the patchwork of different shades of tarmac, but it's really quite clear on Google Streetview. The pavement is basically level in that area and the drop from the kerb to the road is consistently about 4" all the way along the pavement shown in the video.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Disbelief

Looks to me like the only reason that the cyclist "steers" towards the street is because the pedestrian pushed her.

Exactly. And as the Google Street View makes clear, there's plenty of room for both of them, but the pedestrian didn't want to share the pavement and, one way or another, forced the cyclist off the road, into the path of a car that she (the pedestrian) knew was coming.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Look closely. The manhole cover extends past the raised curb. That's where the break is. Look at the original video at about 00:15. The cyclist goes right through it.

I have looked. I think you are unfamiliar with what UK streets look like, so you're misinterpreting what you're seeing for some reason. The pavement is (reasonably) level. The kerb is only raised in comparison with the roadway. The pavement has been dug up and patched, so there are different colours of tarmac, which might be what is confusing you.

ETA:
Image 03-03-2023 at 19.30 by zooterkin, on Flickr

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Agreed, or the cyclist should have stopped. Plus, from the direction the cyclist was coming two roads fed into that stretch, and close by at that, a matter of 50 yds maybe. There were no 'shared path' signs by the (one-way) road from those points to the site of the incident.

The bit of pavement in question -

The shared cycleway/footpath is on the other side of the road. I've looked up and down that stretch of road on google maps and seen no signs on that side of the road. There are however signs on the other side of the raod at various intervals.

eg https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.33...8i8192!5m1!1e1

Note the cyclist on the footpath further up the road.

Further the footpath on the south side of the road is narrower and more cluttered than the north side

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Lplus

The shared cycleway/footpath is on the other side of the road. I've looked up and down that stretch of road on google maps and seen no signs on that side of the road. There are however signs on the other side of the raod at various intervals.

eg https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.33...8i8192!5m1!1e1

Note the cyclist on the footpath further up the road.

Somebody here found one, about 500yds down the road in the direction the cyclist came from. Seems both sides are shared.

The one you found I can fully understand, as that stretch of road is one-way.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by lionking

To the extent cases like this and the one under discussion are often swept under the carpet, yes they are comparable. In both cases one person decided they were right and took action which caused death.

That's ridiculous. Deciding you have a right to walk on the sidewalk is not at all the same as deciding you have the right the beat someone to death with a cricket bat.

One more thing. The pedestrian had cerebral palsy, and you can see her (useless?) right arm held against her chest. This explains the 'exaggerated' movement of her left arm, which would be required for stability. The cyclist saw her doing this and yet still decided to go to her left. What was the pedestrian supposed to do, jump out of her way?

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

That's ridiculous. Deciding you have a right to walk on the sidewalk is not at all the same as deciding you have the right the beat someone to death with a cricket bat.

One more thing. The pedestrian had cerebral palsy, and you can see her (useless?) right arm held against her chest. This explains the 'exaggerated' movement of her left arm, which would be required for stability.

Nonsense; she only starts gesticulating when she sees the cyclist, she's not making exaggerated movements when we first see her in the video.

Quote:

The cyclist saw her doing this and yet still decided to go to her left. What was the pedestrian supposed to do, jump out of her way?

It may well have looked to the cyclist that the pedestrian was pointing for her to go to that side. And the pedestrian didn't need to jump, she could have simply moved to one side, rather than objecting to the cyclist's presence.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

One more thing. The pedestrian had cerebral palsy, and you can see her (useless?) right arm held against her chest. This explains the 'exaggerated' movement of her left arm, which would be required for stability.

Was she waving her arm as a way to maintain stability or as a way to indicate to the cyclist that they should be on the road and/or interfere with the bike? (I haven't seen the 'stability' argument before.)

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Somebody here found one, about 500yds down the road in the direction the cyclist came from. Seems both sides are shared.

The one you found I can fully understand, as that stretch of road is one-way.

The last one on the north side is west of the junction with Ambury Road. the next one is on the south side of the road just east of the junction with Ambury Road. From then on the signs are all on the south side of the road.

Firstly, shared footways/cycleways can change sides of the road as necessary to use the widest/best side.
Secondly, they are two way even if the vehicle traffic is restricted to one way.

I suspect the cycleway changed sides and the cyclist either ignored the fact or didn't notice it. Personally I consider the signing to be abysmal

[junkshop]

Neither the police, nor the council could confirm whether or not this was a shared pavenent.

[Uninvolved people finding signs on google street view half a kilometer away, or on the other side of the road is immaterial. Why aren't the bodies responsible for designating and enforcing the usage of the path able to confirm it's status? If they don't know, then how are the public supposed to know? Were those signs even there when the incident occurred?

Without clear signage at every point of entry to the pathway, the default position is that cyclists shouldn't be there]

Neither the prosecution, nor the Judge accused the defendent of pushing/touching the decedent.

[Uninvolved people saying that it looks like that might have happened, sort-of-maybe-probably, after the fact is immaterial. They were not accused of that, no evidence of their doing that was presented, they were not found by the court to have done that]

Unless the court was given information that the rest of us haven't been*, then I can't see this conviction being justifiable.

*which is entirely possible.

[Shrinker]

Originally Posted by Didactylos

This sign indicating shared path is in the direction the bicyclist came from, some 500 m from the spot where she died:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.33...!2i29?hl=en-GB

I couldn't see anything indicating the end of the shared path, though it crossed several roads. I feel there ideally should be a sign or other indication after each crossing. Perhaps the police is so mealy mouthed about the shared path status of the spot, because the signage is not up to code?

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. There’s no sign terminating the shared path like a blue ‘Cyclists Dismount’ sign, or arrows guiding cyclists back onto the road. There’s clearly been a mistake one way or the other, but the judge says it as he sees it; the sign renders it a shared path all the way to its natural end.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

I have looked. I think you are unfamiliar with what UK streets look like, so you're misinterpreting what you're seeing for some reason. The pavement is (reasonably) level. The kerb is only raised in comparison with the roadway. The pavement has been dug up and patched, so there are different colours of tarmac, which might be what is confusing you.

ETA: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...590486b6_z.jpg
Image 03-03-2023 at 19.30 by zooterkin, on Flickr

In the original video it looked to me like there was a raised edge or lip (curb may have been the wrong word) on the pavement, but it may just have been a trick of the lighting or the colors. I don't see it on the Google pictures.

So I stand corrected. But I still don't think the pedestrian deserves prison.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by Shrinker

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. There’s no sign terminating the shared path like a blue ‘Cyclists Dismount’ sign, or arrows guiding cyclists back onto the road. There’s clearly been a mistake one way or the other, but the judge says it as he sees it; the sign renders it a shared path all the way to its natural end.

Agreed there should have been something indicating the change of side of the road. There should also be cycle signs painted on the footway to confirm the status as a shared facility

For details of the signage see part 11.11 of chapter 3 of the traffic signs manual, particularly part 11.11.3

Quote:

11.11.3. Where a footway (forming part of a road) or footpath (e.g. through a park) has been
converted to an unsegregated route shared by pedestrians and cyclists, this is indicated by the
sign diagram 956 (S3‑2‑29, see Figure 11‑18). This prohibits the use of the route by any other
vehicles and should be located where the shared route begins. Repeater signs may be placed
along the route in order to remind both pedestrians and cyclists that pedal cycles can be legally
ridden on the footway or footpath.

and

Quote:

11.11.4. The cycle symbol marking to diagram 1057 may be used with the signs to diagram 955
and 956. This would be particularly useful on unsegregated footways and footpaths to remind
pedestrians that the route is also used by cyclists, and to reassure cyclists that they are legally
riding on the footway. The marking may be repeated more often than the upright sign and may
be provided as an alternative, i.e. where no upright repeater signs are provided along the track
or route. There is no requirement to use the marking in conjunction with an upright sign.

(Apologies for the formatting)


https://assets.publishing.service.go...chapter-03.pdf

[TruthJonsen]

Slightly off topic and not particularly relevant to this case, but I am curious. In the US, bi-directional human traffic on sidewalks and in-store aisles has a loose customary rule where the human traffic uses the same side of the path as vehicles use on the local roads. Is this true of other countries?

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by TruthJonsen

Slightly off topic and not particularly relevant to this case, but I am curious. In the US, bi-directional human traffic on sidewalks and in-store aisles has a loose customary rule where the human traffic uses the same side of the path as vehicles use on the local roads. Is this true of other countries?

Apparently not in the UK (where they also bike on pedestrian-only sidewalks). In the Google street view you can see two people walking away from us, one in the center and one on the right. They better hope no cyclists are coming or they could be charged with manslaughter!

The judge said the pavement was 2.4 meters wide where the accident happened. This is a lie. I measured the width at that point with Google maps satellite image and got 1.7 meters.

Part of the reason it's narrower is the signpost, and part the kerb stones (neither of which you would want to walk or bike on/into). But take a look at that car which happens to be right right next to the sidewalk. At 2.4 meters it would easily fit. Does it? According to my measurements it would barely scrape past, if not hit the signpost. The width of the average car is 1.8 meters.

Before the bike came along the pedestrian was walking along towards the middle on the kerb side of the pavement, with one foot on the lighter-colored strip. The cyclist then attempted to pass her on the kerb side, and she moved right to get out of the way. That was way too close. The pedestrian says she put her hand out at that point to protect herself, which is an understandable reaction to being clipped by a cyclist.

The cyclist probably didn't want to go the other way because the signpost was in the way. But what the CCTV doesn't show is where the cyclist was going before that. In the street view we see a driveway to a parking area, with the path lowered in the middle to reduce the kerb height. Logically the cyclist would have taken that in the middle, not far on the kerb side. This suggests she was headed straight at the pedestrian at that point.

In the video we see the pedestrian walking for 7 seconds before she starts gesticulating to the cyclist just before getting to the manhole cover. less than 2 seconds later they pass each other. The cyclist must have seen her long before that, and knew what path she was taking. yet she kept coming on the kerb side and deliberately passed too close for comfort.

Pedestrians might not feel obligated to follow 'road rules' when walking around, though to avoid bumping into people it makes sense for everybody to pick the same side. Cyclists OTOH should always pass on the correct side. Around here the cycle ways are marked with arrows to show which side you should be on. As a cyclist I am always ready to stop for anything, including pedestrians, cars going into / out of driveways etc. I am also keenly aware that missing the kerb and falling onto the road into oncoming traffic will probably be fatal. When passing pedestrians I always go as slow as practicable, or get off and walk the bike if I don't think there is enough room.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by junkshop

Neither the police, nor the council could confirm whether or not this was a shared pavenent.

[Uninvolved people finding signs on google street view half a kilometer away, or on the other side of the road is immaterial. Why aren't the bodies responsible for designating and enforcing the usage of the path able to confirm it's status? If they don't know, then how are the public supposed to know? Were those signs even there when the incident occurred?

Without clear signage at every point of entry to the pathway, the default position is that cyclists shouldn't be there]

Neither the prosecution, nor the Judge accused the defendent of pushing/touching the decedent.

[Uninvolved people saying that it looks like that might have happened, sort-of-maybe-probably, after the fact is immaterial. They were not accused of that, no evidence of their doing that was presented, they were not found by the court to have done that]

Unless the court was given information that the rest of us haven't been*, then I can't see this conviction being justifiable.

*which is entirely possible certain.

FTFY

[Dr. Keith]

Based on the research here I have to assume she wasn’t represented by counsel. I mean, clearly and obviously, right?

Or maybe lionking is right and we don’t have the whole picture. I guess that’s possible.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Based on the research here I have to assume she wasn’t represented by counsel. I mean, clearly and obviously, right?
....

The original link included this:

Quote:

Miranda Moore KC, representing Grey, said: “What happened took but a moment that has impacted on many.” She said Grey’s view was that cyclists should cycle on the road where pavements are narrow, adding that there had been “no intention to cause harm”, nor was there “an obvious risk of harm”.

She said witnesses had said Grey “seemed childlike”, and that she lived in adapted special accommodation.

I assume KC means King's Counsel. I wonder if that means the lawyer was appointed, like a public defender, who, in the U.S., vary enormously in quality.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I assume KC means King's Counsel. I wonder if that means the lawyer was appointed, like a public defender, who, in the U.S., vary enormously in quality.

No, a KC is a senior counsel, usually of at least 15 years experience, who specialises in court advocacy.

ETA: see, for example: https://kcappointments.org/

[gypsyjackson]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

For what it's worth:

"The trial was told that police could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway.

Cambridgeshire County Council subsequently reiterated that and said it would review the location, but in his sentencing remarks Judge Sean Enright said it was a shared cycleway."

So it looks like there was some ambiguity throughout the investigation and trial as to if it was a path or a Officially Certified Path(TM) with the Judge finally go "No it's really a full on path-path."

It is interesting. The incident happened a few hundred metres from where my brother used to live, just beside the Newtown Centre clinic. I haven’t been to Huntington for 7 years, but up until then it wasn’t a shared footpath/cycleway.

On the other hand, it’s a ring road, and normally they have shared paths because it’s a bit harsh for a cyclist to have to ride 6km clockwise to do what would be a 400m ride the other way. So I can see why it took a judge to opine.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by junkshop

....
Unless the court was given information that the rest of us haven't been*, then I can't see this conviction being justifiable.

*which is entirely possible.

The key evidence, we have seen, it is the CCTV. There is no act before or after that we have not seen, that would be evidence relevant to this case.

[gypsyjackson]

Originally Posted by Nessie

The key evidence, we have seen, it is the CCTV. There is no act before or after that we have not seen, that would be evidence relevant to this case.

I dunno, a video of the convicted woman in a pub saying she was going out to find cyclists and scare them into the paths of vehicles until one died would seem to be evidence relevant to this case.

[Shrinker]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Apparently not in the UK (where they also bike on pedestrian-only sidewalks). In the Google street view you can see two people walking away from us, one in the center and one on the right. They better hope no cyclists are coming or they could be charged with manslaughter!

The judge said the pavement was 2.4 meters wide where the accident happened. This is a lie. I measured the width at that point with Google maps satellite image and got 1.7 meters.

Part of the reason it's narrower is the signpost, and part the kerb stones (neither of which you would want to walk or bike on/into). But take a look at that car which happens to be right right next to the sidewalk. At 2.4 meters it would easily fit. Does it? According to my measurements it would barely scrape past, if not hit the signpost. The width of the average car is 1.8 meters.

Before the bike came along the pedestrian was walking along towards the middle on the kerb side of the pavement, with one foot on the lighter-colored strip. The cyclist then attempted to pass her on the kerb side, and she moved right to get out of the way. That was way too close. The pedestrian says she put her hand out at that point to protect herself, which is an understandable reaction to being clipped by a cyclist.

The cyclist probably didn't want to go the other way because the signpost was in the way. But what the CCTV doesn't show is where the cyclist was going before that. In the street view we see a driveway to a parking area, with the path lowered in the middle to reduce the kerb height. Logically the cyclist would have taken that in the middle, not far on the kerb side. This suggests she was headed straight at the pedestrian at that point.

In the video we see the pedestrian walking for 7 seconds before she starts gesticulating to the cyclist just before getting to the manhole cover. less than 2 seconds later they pass each other. The cyclist must have seen her long before that, and knew what path she was taking. yet she kept coming on the kerb side and deliberately passed too close for comfort.

Pedestrians might not feel obligated to follow 'road rules' when walking around, though to avoid bumping into people it makes sense for everybody to pick the same side. Cyclists OTOH should always pass on the correct side. Around here the cycle ways are marked with arrows to show which side you should be on. As a cyclist I am always ready to stop for anything, including pedestrians, cars going into / out of driveways etc. I am also keenly aware that missing the kerb and falling onto the road into oncoming traffic will probably be fatal. When passing pedestrians I always go as slow as practicable, or get off and walk the bike if I don't think there is enough room.

You’re overcomplicating to distract from the simple truths. Google maps shows the path wide enough for three abreast plus the lamppost. Pavement users are obliged to do nothing other than share the space with consideration with everyone else’s safety. The pedestrian hogged the centre, waved the cyclist toward the unsafe side, didn’t make any space when the cyclist adopted that side, and then of course pushed her into the path on an oncoming car, whether physically, or by suddenly leaning into her at the last minute. And in the trial she seems to have shown little remorse. I believe she was also charged with leaving the scene of the accident, reportedly continuing on her way to the shops. I feel sorry for her, but she’s a danger to innocent people around her.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by gypsyjackson

I dunno, a video of the convicted woman in a pub saying she was going out to find cyclists and scare them into the paths of vehicles until one died would seem to be evidence relevant to this case.

If there was such evidence, the charge would have been murder, not manslaughter. Since it was manslaughter, we know there was no action prior to the incident that is relevant to the incident.

[Shrinker]

Originally Posted by gypsyjackson

It is interesting. The incident happened a few hundred metres from where my brother used to live, just beside the Newtown Centre clinic. I haven’t been to Huntington for 7 years, but up until then it wasn’t a shared footpath/cycleway.

On the other hand, it’s a ring road, and normally they have shared paths because it’s a bit harsh for a cyclist to have to ride 6km clockwise to do what would be a 400m ride the other way. So I can see why it took a judge to opine.

The sign we have discussed is visible on Google Streetview in 2010.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Shrinker

...and then of course pushed her into the path on an oncoming car, whether physically, or by suddenly leaning into her at the last minute. ...

At most, the cyclist collided with her hand as she gesticulated for her to get on to the road. There was no clear step to the side, shove, lean or push to get the cyclist into the road. The cyclist is on the pavement and then topples and steers herself into the road as she over balances behind the pedestrian.

It is nowhere near clear-cut enough to prove the cyclist was actively pushed into the road. The cyclist's choice to pass the gesticulating and shouting pedestrian and her overbalancing have to be taken into account.

It is also worth noting that in the driving test hazard perception section, seeing a cyclist and pedestrian approaching each other, would be considered a hazard for a motorist to note.

[Shrinker]

Originally Posted by Nessie

At most, the cyclist collided with her hand as she gesticulated for her to get on to the road. There was no clear step to the side, shove, lean or push to get the cyclist into the road. The cyclist is on the pavement and then topples and steers herself into the road as she over balances behind the pedestrian.

It is nowhere near clear-cut enough to prove the cyclist was actively pushed into the road. The cyclist's choice to pass the gesticulating and shouting pedestrian and her overbalancing have to be taken into account.

It is also worth noting that in the driving test hazard perception section, seeing a cyclist and pedestrian approaching each other, would be considered a hazard for a motorist to note.

I already said the prosecution were wise not to claim she was physically pushed, but your use of the ‘he collided with my fist’ defence made me actually lol. You’re being unserious. I’m not going to talk anyone through frame by frame. Just watch the pedestrian’s feet, in real-time, and you’ll see exactly why the cyclist became suddenly overbalanced and steered into the road.

[Shrinker]

Originally Posted by Nessie

The key evidence, we have seen, it is the CCTV. There is no act before or after that we have not seen, that would be evidence relevant to this case.

This isn’t true, CCTV footage of the cyclist earlier in the day spontaneously tumbling into roads, would bolster your case that the cyclist coincidentally tumbled into the road just as a passing pedestrian mimed the action of giving her a shove.

[gypsyjackson]

Originally Posted by Shrinker

The sign we have discussed is visible on Google Streetview in 2010.

Fair enough.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Bob001

The original link included this:


I assume KC means King's Counsel. I wonder if that means the lawyer was appointed, like a public defender, who, in the U.S., vary enormously in quality.

Kings Counsel means a senior barrister, with at least a few years of experience and enough about them to be considered highly qualified*.

*Unless your name's Suellen Braverman, in that case you'll always be a failed conveyancing lawyer.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Nessie

The key evidence, we have seen, it is the CCTV. There is no act before or after that we have not seen, that would be evidence relevant to this case.

Well, we haven't clearly seen exactly what happened as the cyclist passed the pedestrian since it was partly out of shot. If there was another view then that could be decisive. I tend think there was a push, but it's not possible to be sure from what we have.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Apparently not in the UK (where they also bike on pedestrian-only sidewalks).

Well, the status of this particular pavement is uncertain (though you'd hope the judge wouldn't make such a statement as he did without justification).

Quote:

The judge said the pavement was 2.4 meters wide where the accident happened. This is a lie. I measured the width at that point with Google maps satellite image and got 1.7 meters.

Part of the reason it's narrower is the signpost, and part the kerb stones (neither of which you would want to walk or bike on/into). But take a look at that car which happens to be right right next to the sidewalk.

The cyclist would certainly want to avoid the signpost, but it is possible to cycle on the kerb though you'd prefer not to because you'd be close to falling off into the road. They are level with the pavement, not raised as you appear to be suggesting.

Quote:

Pedestrians might not feel obligated to follow 'road rules' when walking around, though to avoid bumping into people it makes sense for everybody to pick the same side. Cyclists OTOH should always pass on the correct side. .

As I think I've said already, pedestrians seem completely clueless on shared paths, and cyclists have to choose whichever side to pass is safest in their judgement. Sometimes that means you're then on the wrong side to pass an oncoming cyclist (some of whom seem equally unfamiliar with the normal rules of the road). Some pedestrians even get upset on those paths where there are separate paths side by side for cyclists and pedestrians are walking in the clearly marked cycle lane and you politely ring your bell to warn them of your approach.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Mojo

No, a KC is a senior counsel, usually of at least 15 years experience, who specialises in court advocacy.
....

Not experienced enough to keep her client from being convicted on the basis of awfully thin evidence.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Shrinker

I already said the prosecution were wise not to claim she was physically pushed, but your use of the ‘he collided with my fist’ defence made me actually lol. You’re being unserious. I’m not going to talk anyone through frame by frame. Just watch the pedestrian’s feet, in real-time, and you’ll see exactly why the cyclist became suddenly overbalanced and steered into the road.

You see her very briefly pause, break her steps, her feet go together, as the cyclist passes.

At most, the cyclist and her gesticulating hand come together, which is not a push, which is why the prosecution did not claim it was a push.

The reasons the cyclist over balances are

- she tried to cycle through too small a gap and misjudges it
- she is elderly and may not have great balance
- she did come together with the pedestrian's hand, which was enough to send her off balance and she could not recover
- she panicked and though the pedestrian was going to push her.