Manslaughter, for shouting at a cyclist

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by theprestige

....
Personally, I think it can be a crimes to startle someone into traffic where they die. So I have no issue with the basic premise of this case and its verdict. Do you have an issue with the premise?
....

Maybe, if, say, you sneak up behind them and blow an airhorn in their ear. In this particular case, the cyclist could see the pedestrian well in advance and note that she was gesturing and shouting. She had no reason to be startled, and she had ample opportunity to choose a course of action that would not have placed her at risk. So the premise is deeply, unjustly flawed.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Bob001

The cyclist had multiple options, including stopping to let the pedestrian pass her or passing the pedestrian on the left, away from the roadway. The cyclist made a bad choice and failed to control her vehicle (and yes, a bicycle is a vehicle that the operator is responsible for controlling).

Stop I agree with, but there was no extra room to the cyclist's left. There was possibly even less room, as there was a lamp post in that very area.

[Jack by the hedge]

The only safe recourse the cyclist had was to stop.

I'd note you really don't need to shove a cyclist hard to make them lose their balance and fall. It's enough to grab their arm, which upsets their steering and control.

It might well be enough just to make as if you were going to grab their arm, if it causes them to them flinch and that has the same effect.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by theprestige

You're begging the question that there's an issue to discuss.

In this part of the forum we discuss trials and verdicts.

Quote:

Personally, I think it can be a crimes to startle someone into traffic where they die.

Agreed. I can see how it would be reckless to creep up behind someone and shout at them, knowing they might jump forward into traffic.

Quote:

So I have no issue with the basic premise of this case and its verdict. Do you have an issue with the premise?

There is no evidence she was startled. There was no sudden shock or alarm, as the pedestrian was in clear view and had started to shout and gesticulate before the cyclist went on to the road.

Quote:

Or do you just not see how his particular incident rises to that level?

I do not see how this incident meets a level of recklessness that is beyond reasonable doubt an act of manslaughter.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

The only safe recourse the cyclist had was to stop.

I'd note you really don't need to shove a cyclist hard to make them lose their balance and fall. It's enough to grab their arm, which upsets their steering and control.

It might well be enough just to make as if you were going to grab their arm, if it causes them to them flinch and that has the same effect.

It maybe that there was a minor coming together of the pedestrian's hand and the cyclist, who going so slowly, was already struggling to balance. But, there is no evidence of that. The evidence we do have is of a cyclist, who is going very slowly, toppling over.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Nessie

It maybe that there was a minor coming together of the pedestrian's hand and the cyclist, who going so slowly, was already struggling to balance. But, there is no evidence of that. The evidence we do have is of a cyclist, who is going very slowly, toppling over.

The cyclist is also well past the pedestrian when she goes over the edge. No evidence of contact of any kind.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Bob001

The cyclist is also well past the pedestrian when she goes over the edge. No evidence of contact of any kind.

She could have knocked the cyclist, whose impetus carried her forward as she toppled in to the road. There is however, no evidence that happened. If only CCTV had covered the other side.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Bob001

The cyclist is also well past the pedestrian when she goes over the edge.

Which doesn't prove anything if the shove came just before she went over.

Quote:

No evidence of contact of any kind.

I disagree. The pedestrian's left arm goes out towards the cyclist, she also transfers her weight to her left leg, and you can, in the last frame or two, see her arm behind her which is a very unnatural position if she's not pushing the cyclist.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Nessie

It maybe that there was a minor coming together of the pedestrian's hand and the cyclist, who going so slowly,

She's not going that slowly, from the little we can see before contact.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Nessie

It maybe that there was a minor coming together of the pedestrian's hand and the cyclist, who going so slowly,

She's not going that slowly, from the little we can see before contact.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

She's not going that slowly, from the little we can see before contact.

She looks like she has slowed to walking pace, certainly slow enough that most cyclists would start to have to control the front wheel to stop it wobbling, which we see on the video.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Maybe, if, say, you sneak up behind them and blow an airhorn in their ear. In this particular case, the cyclist could see the pedestrian well in advance and note that she was gesturing and shouting. She had no reason to be startled, and she had ample opportunity to choose a course of action that would not have placed her at risk. So the premise is deeply, unjustly flawed.

The premise is sound, as you acknowledge. It's the specific circumstances of this particular case that you believe don't rise to the standard.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by lionking

Oh great. Please explain how you know better than the judge, who unlike you, had access to all the evidence presented.

Ah, of course.

Judges never make mistakes, which is why no country has higher or appellate courts.

Silly of us.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Nessie

She looks like she has slowed to walking pace, certainly slow enough that most cyclists would start to have to control the front wheel to stop it wobbling, which we see on the video.

She's 77, she's probably not going to be cycling much above walking pace anyway, especially on a shared path. The wheel doesn't seem to be wobbling before she's pushed.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Which doesn't prove anything if the shove came just before she went over.



I disagree. The pedestrian's left arm goes out towards the cyclist, she also transfers her weight to her left leg, and you can, in the last frame or two, see her arm behind her which is a very unnatural position if she's not pushing the cyclist.

I note again that the pedestrian was not charged with or accused of shoving the cyclist. You can imagine what you want, but there is no evidence to support the claim.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I note again that the pedestrian was not charged with or accused of shoving the cyclist. You can imagine what you want, but there is no evidence to support the claim.

I'm not imagining the movements the pedestrian made.

I agree the view is not conclusive, but I'm reasonably convinced that a push of some sort was involved.

I haven't seen a report of what was actually said in court; have you?

ETA: Here's a police site. It's slightly ambiguous, but one reading is that the gesticulating is separate from the 'throwing her arm' towards the cyclist.

Quote:

Auriol Grey, 49, was walking along the pavement in Nursery Road, Huntingdon, in October 2020, when she began gesturing and shouting at Celia Ward, 77, approaching in the opposite direction on her bike.

Grey shouted at Mrs Ward to get off the pavement before throwing her arm towards her.

[pdp]

www[dot]bbc[dot]co[dot]uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64835197[/Cannot link] Sorry can’t link.

link - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-64835197

Posted By:zooterkin

Quote:

In police interview, Grey said she believed she had made light contact with Mrs Ward.

Det Sgt Dollard, who interviewed Grey, told BBC Radio Cambridgeshire: "I'll always remember the morning after it occurred obtaining the CCTV and watching it in its entirety.
"In all honesty it's horrific and not appropriate for wider release to the public, but, if it were, then I think a lot of the arguments in relation to appropriate responses would be null and void."

It would appear from the quote that contact was made, and also that more CCTV footage was available than was released to the public. Presumably it was seen in court.

From what I have seen and read, Grey was acting in a threatening manner which caused the cyclist to lose control and overbalance, leading to her death. The cause and effect seem sufficient to support a manslaughter conviction.

[zooterkin]

And in an earlier report linked from that one:

Quote:

She described the pedal cycle as travelling "fast" in the centre of the pavement, stating she was "anxious that I was going to get hit by it".

She said she "may have unintentionally put" out her hand to protect herself. Ms Grey believed she had made light contact with Mrs Ward.

After being shown the CCTV footage, interviewing officer Det Sgt Mark Dollard asked her why she said what she said, to which she responded: "I don't know."

ETA: And one before that:

Quote:

The court heard Ms Grey left the scene prior to emergency services arriving and went to Sainsbury's where she bought groceries.

She was arrested the following day and, in police interview, described a pedal cycle travelling at "high speed" and said she "flinched out with her left arm to protect herself".

[Thermal]

She was playing stupid flexing games with someone else's safety, who hadn't agreed to play. It caused an utterly unnecessary death. Book her, Dano.

Would we be wringing our hands if the pedestrian was instead driving a car and played chicken with the unwitting cyclist? I would think everyone would see how wrong and reckless that would be, and deserving of jail time.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by pdp

www[dot]bbc[dot]co[dot]uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64835197[/Cannot link] Sorry can’t link.

link - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-64835197

Posted By:zooterkin

It would appear from the quote that contact was made, and also that more CCTV footage was available than was released to the public. Presumably it was seen in court.

From what I have seen and read, Grey was acting in a threatening manner which caused the cyclist to lose control and overbalance, leading to her death. The cause and effect seem sufficient to support a manslaughter conviction.

Thanks for this. An open and shut case to me. In fact, three years is a short term for manslaughter.

[novaphile]

Originally Posted by Thermal

She was playing stupid flexing games with someone else's safety, who hadn't agreed to play. It caused an utterly unnecessary death. Book her, Dano.

Would we be wringing our hands if the pedestrian was instead driving a car and played chicken with the unwitting cyclist? I would think everyone would see how wrong and reckless that would be, and deserving of jail time.

Sadly, I believe that you would be mistaken.

The irrational hatred of all cyclists, no matter where they are, is quite incredible.

If cyclists are on the road, there is a class of drivers that are driven to white-hot rage by their existence. Drivers who scream abuse, throw things, and injure cyclists by forcing them off the road. I've been hit by passengers wielding cricket bats and baseball bats.

This is on roads with clearly visible on-grade bicycle lanes.

Similarly, pedestrians who physically attack cyclists for daring to use shared-use paths.

Here in Adelaide we've even had cyclists attacked on cycle only paths like the veloway.

https://www.routeyou.com/en-au/route...uthern-veloway

[novaphile]

Originally Posted by lionking

Thanks for this. An open and shut case to me. In fact, three years is a short term for manslaughter.

If she'd caused the death of someone on a motorcycle or a car, she'd probably get life...

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by pdp

www[dot]bbc[dot]co[dot]uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64835197[/Cannot link] Sorry can’t link.

link - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-64835197

Posted By:zooterkin

It would appear from the quote that contact was made, and also that more CCTV footage was available than was released to the public. Presumably it was seen in court.
....

From your link:

Quote:

The trial was told that police could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway, but in his sentencing remarks Judge Sean Enright said it was.

Labour county councillor and disability campaigner Gerri Bird said: "The county council ought to have the information and it needs checking urgently."

A Cambridgeshire County Council spokesperson said: "We cannot categorically say it is a shared use path as we could not find any legal records to evidence this.

So it remains unknown whether the cyclist had any right to be there at all. The judge's claim is unsupported. She still had the last clear chance to avoid the incident: she could have stopped; she could have not tried to force her way past someone who was behaving erratically; she could have walked her bicycle on the narrow path. Tragic accident, not a crime.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Bob001

From your link:



So it remains unknown whether the cyclist had any right to be there at all. The judge's claim is unsupported. She still had the last clear chance to avoid the incident: she could have stopped; she could have not tried to force her way past someone who was behaving erratically; she could have walked her bicycle on the narrow path. Tragic accident, not a crime.

You are getting desperate now. Even the pedestrian has admitted that she “may” have made contact with the cyclist.

And what do you make of her not hanging around to see how she could assist, and going grocery shopping?

She is a selfish, aggressive and thoughtless woman. Her actions caused death. This was no accident and the judge was right.

Finally, are you saying that even if it wasn’t a shared path (most commentary says it is) she somehow contributed to her death? If not, what are you saying? If so, I suggest you have a closer look at manslaughter case law. For example there have been many cases where burglars (or attempted burglars) have been killed by homeowners and the homeowner was found guilty of manslaughter (although probably not in the US).

A couple of links, one in Australia.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-62439803

Another in the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/sep/11/stevenmorris

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by lionking

You are getting desperate now. Even the pedestrian has admitted that she “may” have made contact with the cyclist.

And what do you make of her not hanging around to see how she could assist, and going grocery shopping?

She is a selfish, aggressive and thoughtless woman. Her actions caused death. This was no accident and the judge was right.

Finally, are you saying that even if it wasn’t a shared path (most commentary says it is) she somehow contributed to her death? If not, what are you saying? If so, I suggest you have a closer look at manslaughter case law. For example there have been many cases where burglars (or attempted burglars) have been killed by homeowners and the homeowner was found guilty of manslaughter (although probably not in the US).



A couple of links, one in Australia.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-62439803

Another in the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/sep/11/stevenmorris

Absolutely, how dare anyone claim mitigating circumstances for a person who hurt a cyclist.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

She's 77, she's probably not going to be cycling much above walking pace anyway, especially on a shared path. The wheel doesn't seem to be wobbling before she's pushed.

Where is the evidence she was pushed? We do not see a push in the CCTV, no evidence of a push was presented at court from a witness. Where do you get the push from?

We clearly see the bike wheel is straight as she comes into view and it stays straight as she passes, but then she wobbles and loses balance as the wheel goes to her right, where you see her putting her feet down, but it looks like her right foot is going down into the road, which further overbalances her and then her front wheel goes over the kerb.

We are clearly seeing a loss of balance at low speed, we do not see a push. From the evidence we can see, there is evidence of an overbalance, not a push. You have to invent the push and imagine it has happened.

That is why this conviction is unsafe and not beyond reasonable doubt. You cannot be certain she just lost control of her bike as she was passing.

Pavements have that risk. They are not of a set width. They have street furniture. The surface is often in an even worse condition than the roads. Whilst we know to drive on the left, that convention is not set for people passing on pavements, pedestrians or cyclists.

Pedestrians do not have to get out of the way of cyclists when in the pavement, in the same way cyclists are not required to get out of the way of cars on the road. If a cyclist choses to go for a small gap to pass a pedestrian, it is on them to make sure they have the space and control to do so safely.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by lionking

... Even the pedestrian has admitted that she “may” have made contact with the cyclist.

....

The quote here is;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-64835197

"Grey said she believed she had made light contact with Mrs Ward."

I have previously said that was possible, but again, how does that fit with beyond reasonable doubt?

"Believed" is not a certainty. "Light contact" is not a push. It still does not rule out that the cyclist merely lost her own balance as she chose to ride slowly past.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Someone missed that bit, and it says to me the responsibility for the death was 100% the cyclist's own fault.

Stop the bike, wait until the pedestrian has passed, ride on, still alive.

Absurd conviction.

The pedestrian pushed her. Cyclist tried to pass safely on the right but didn't expect the last minute charge.

[Disbelief]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Where is the evidence she was pushed? We do not see a push in the CCTV, no evidence of a push was presented at court from a witness. Where do you get the push from?

We clearly see the bike wheel is straight as she comes into view and it stays straight as she passes, but then she wobbles and loses balance as the wheel goes to her right, where you see her putting her feet down, but it looks like her right foot is going down into the road, which further overbalances her and then her front wheel goes over the kerb.

We are clearly seeing a loss of balance at low speed, we do not see a push. From the evidence we can see, there is evidence of an overbalance, not a push. You have to invent the push and imagine it has happened.

That is why this conviction is unsafe and not beyond reasonable doubt. You cannot be certain she just lost control of her bike as she was passing.

Pavements have that risk. They are not of a set width. They have street furniture. The surface is often in an even worse condition than the roads. Whilst we know to drive on the left, that convention is not set for people passing on pavements, pedestrians or cyclists.

Pedestrians do not have to get out of the way of cyclists when in the pavement, in the same way cyclists are not required to get out of the way of cars on the road. If a cyclist choses to go for a small gap to pass a pedestrian, it is on them to make sure they have the space and control to do so safely.

She overbalanced because she was pushed. To me, it is obvious from the video that she moved towards the cyclist and the woman lost control because of contact. Her claim now that she "might" have made light contact with her sounds like she is downplaying her push.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

The pedestrian pushed her...

Please provide the evidence of a push.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Disbelief

She overbalanced because she was pushed. To me, it is obvious from the video that she moved towards the cyclist and the woman lost control because of contact. Her claim now that she "might" have made light contact with her sounds like she is downplaying her push.

The pedestrian maintained her position in the pavement, pausing as the cyclist passes. There is no sign on CCTV of a push and no evidence from other witnesses of a push. She admits there may have been contact, but contact is not a push.

What we do see is the cyclist overbalancing after her front wheel has passed the pedestrian. Considering the width of the gap and the gesticulating, it would be clear to the cyclist contact was possible. The cyclist decided to keep on cycling through the gap, knowing the risks. Any cyclist knows there is a risk of contact and overbalancing when passing a pedestrian in a small gap and going at low speed.

It is not reasonable for the pedestrian to have full responsibility for the progress and safety of the cyclist. Indeed, a change in the Highway Code, that has come into force since this incident, makes the cyclist responsible for the pedestrian.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/t...9-january-2022

"1. Hierarchy of road users...

The hierarchy places those road users most at risk in the event of a collision at the top of the hierarchy. It does not remove the need for everyone to behave responsibly....

3. Walking, cycling or riding in shared spaces

People cycling, riding a horse or driving a horse-drawn vehicle should respect the safety of people walking in these spaces, but people walking should also take care not to obstruct or endanger them.

People cycling are asked to:
- not pass people walking, riding a horse or driving a horse-drawn vehicle closely or at high speed, particularly from behind
- slow down when necessary and let people walking know they are there (for example, by ringing their bell)
- remember that people walking may be deaf, blind or partially sighted"

There would have been no conviction with that in force. The pedestrian does not have to get out of the way of the cyclist, it is not an obstruction to not move to make a gap bigger. Shouting and gesticulating is not endangering, if anything, it is a warning to the cyclist to be more careful.

To blame the pedestrian and hold her wholly responsible, because there was possibly a slight contact as they pass, is wrong. The cyclist has to also take responsibility, as, incidentally, does the driver of the car who ran her over.

[Matthew Best]

The pedestrian could have simply walked by without shouting, swearing, gesticulating and pushing the cyclist. If she'd done none of that, then the cyclist would be alive now. All the guff about whether it was a shared path or not is irrelevant. Her response to the sight of a 77-year-old woman cycling very slowly was totally disproportionate and, it turns out, illegal.

The woman is guilty, and deserves her sentence.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

The pedestrian could have simply walked by without shouting, swearing, gesticulating and pushing the cyclist. If she'd done none of that, then the cyclist would be alive now. All the guff about whether it was a shared path or not is irrelevant. Her response to the sight of a 77-year-old woman cycling very slowly was totally disproportionate and, it turns out, illegal.

The woman is guilty, and deserves her sentence.

Another claim of a push, with no evidence. At most the evidence is of a glancing, brief contact, and that evidence consists of the accused admitting she might have had contact.

I can play the "if only" game as well. If only the cyclist had been on the road. If only she was better at slow speed control. If only she had stopped and let the pedestrian pass.

[Matthew Best]

I guess they could both be in the wrong. In that event, they should both have been charged with something. Unfortunately only one of them is alive to be charged, so here we are.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Having reviewed the footage and seen admittance of possibly some 'slight contact' I have revised my opinion slightly though am still surprised at a manslaughter conviction.

Two key things for me that could change my view further:

1) Why was the judge so sure it was a shared path when those in the formal position to know state that wasn't clear?*

2) What is in the non-public CCTV footage that the Police refer to and heavily imply would leave no room for doubt?

*I recognise others think this unimportant but I consider it a key factor in explaining the emotional response of the pedestrian - I accept that doesn't excuse certain actions that may or may not have been taken.

Full disclosure of facts that may bias my view, I am an ex-cyclist but, as a motorist and pedestrian, find the actions of cyclists (I'm sure all posters are paragons so please don't assume this is directed at you) on the roads and pavements (shared or otherwise) intensely irritating - sometimes with what I think is good cause and other times, I'm probably wrong to do so.**

**Eg I get infuriated when they double up on a road to make passing extra difficult while they have a chat at 10 mph but I understand from cycling friends that they are actually advised to do so to ensure cars give them the same passing distance as another car. Doesn't stop me being annoyed but I can understand them following the advice.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Nessie

You are right the pedestrian contributed to the death, but in a wholly unintentional way, that a manslaughter conviction is a surprise.

If i had been intentional, we would be calling it murder.

Quote:

The jury had what we have, CCTV of what happened. The only evidence, is what we see on CCTV. To many lawyers surprise, going by twitter at least, the prosecution successfully argued the pedestrian's responsibility for the death amounted to manslaughter.

Were you at the trial? How do you know what other evidence they had?

Quote:

The cyclist can see a pissed off pedestrian walking down the middle of the pavement, shouting and gesturing for her to get onto the road. The cyclist chose to ignore her and try to cycle past in a small gap and she overbalanced and fell into the road. She could have stopped, she could have slowed, watched for traffic and entered the road, but she chose to plough on.

Maybe she thought the pedestrian would chicken out and move to the side. Maybe this was a game of chicken that went horribly wrong.

But, to hold the pedestrian responsible for causing the death, looks extreme, from that evidence.

The jury is better placed than we are to judge the evidence

And I don't agree with your characterisation of it. It seems the cylclist was just trying to go past. The pedestrian closed her down so that she was right on the edge of the path and then the pedestrian made a gesture that caused her to overbalance and get killed.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Another claim of a push, with no evidence. At most the evidence is of a glancing, brief contact, and that evidence consists of the accused admitting she might have had contact.

I can play the "if only" game as well. If only the cyclist had been on the road. If only she was better at slow speed control. If only she had stopped and let the pedestrian pass.

But, according to the pedestrian, the cyclist was approaching at high speed. We can see how unreliable that was, so should we also take her admission of 'light contact' at face value, or as another attempt to portray things in the best light for her?

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by GlennB

To correct my previous post - there were no 'shared path' signs along that stretch at the time the google street view was filmed. Street view can be a fair few years old, so maybe it's a shared path now? And maybe it can be designated as shared by an announcement rather than street signage? Dunno.

The BlackBelt Barrister did claim to find signs using Google Street View.

Given that a non shared use path attracts a fine of up to £500 for cyclists, I'm really surprised neither the police nor the council could definitively state that it was or was not shared use.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

If i had been intentional, we would be calling it murder.

Intentionally pushing someone into a road, is manslaughter, unless you can prove they knew a car was coming and their intention was to kill by pushing that person into the path of the car.

Quote:

Were you at the trial? How do you know what other evidence they had?



The jury is better placed than we are to judge the evidence

Which is the same for every single discussion in this section of the forum. Should we just scrap such discussions? Will we also just bin the forum, because people discuss things they do not know every single detail about?

Quote:

And I don't agree with your characterisation of it. It seems the cylclist was just trying to go past. The pedestrian closed her down so that she was right on the edge of the path and then the pedestrian made a gesture that caused her to overbalance and get killed.

How did the pedestrian close her down? Is a gesture really enough to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the cyclist over balanced only because of that gesture? How are you unable to rule out she just overbalanced, as people do, especially when trying to get through a narrow space at low speed?

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

But, according to the pedestrian, the cyclist was approaching at high speed. We can see how unreliable that was, so should we also take her admission of 'light contact' at face value, or as another attempt to portray things in the best light for her?

Witness estimations of speed, time, distance are all known to be unreliable. The court will take note that she thinks it was too fast, knowing someone else might not.

My issue with this is beyond reasonable doubt. People claim a push, with no evidence, so that is reasonable doubt. No one has been able to prove the cyclist did not just overbalance and she would have ended up falling into the road even if the pedestrian had not shouted or gesticulated at her.