Manslaughter, for shouting at a cyclist - Page 21

jeremyp · 25th March 2023, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

That now means pedestrians need to give way to cyclists on pavements, so that the chances of the cyclist losing balance and falling into the road is negligible. Responsibility for the cyclist falls to the pedestrian, which is the opposite of what the Highway Code now says, so that needs to be changed.

No it doesn’t. It means pedestrians can’t do reckless things that put cyclists in danger. But that was always the case.

Nessie · 25th March 2023, 01:56 AM

Originally Posted by autumn1971

It means that, regardless of the Highway Code, if not yielding puts another person in danger of harm one’s responsibility is to the person who may be put in harm’s way.

The HC now gives priority to the pedestrian and places the responsibility for their care on the cyclist. That rule was not yet in force at the time of the incident, if it was, I don't think this would have gone to court.

At the time, the cyclist still, rationally, has a duty of care for the pedestrian and themselves. She made the wrong decision and tried to cycle through the roadside gap.

Something I have raised before is the driver. In the hazard awareness test to get a licence, a cyclist passing a pedestrian on a narrow pavement would be clicked as a hazard. Now, the HC makes the driver responsible for the cyclist and the pedestrian.

All three are supposed to look out for each other. The verdict and argument here, places all responsibility on the pedestrian.

Nessie · 25th March 2023, 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by jeremyp

No it doesn’t. It means pedestrians can’t do reckless things that put cyclists in danger. But that was always the case.

Shouting and gesticulating are actions not normally considered reckless to the endangerment of life.

If the cyclist has shouted at the pedestrian to move out the way, and on passing the pedestrian on the fence side, brushed against her, resulting in the pedestrian stumbling and falling into the path of the car, would you expect the cyclist to be convicted of manslaughter?

lionking · 25th March 2023, 02:17 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

The HC now gives priority to the pedestrian and places the responsibility for their care on the cyclist. That rule was not yet in force at the time of the incident, if it was, I don't think this would have gone to court.

At the time, the cyclist still, rationally, has a duty of care for the pedestrian and themselves. She made the wrong decision and tried to cycle through the roadside gap.

Something I have raised before is the driver. In the hazard awareness test to get a licence, a cyclist passing a pedestrian on a narrow pavement would be clicked as a hazard. Now, the HC makes the driver responsible for the cyclist and the pedestrian.

All three are supposed to look out for each other. The verdict and argument here, places all responsibility on the pedestrian.

Your desperation is very annoying. That you can now lay some blame on the driver is, frankly, laughable.

Nessie · 25th March 2023, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

Your desperation is very annoying. That you can now lay some blame on the driver is, frankly, laughable.

The hazard awareness test and the new HC both place a responsibility on the driver to look out for hazards, such as someone unexpectedly entering the roadway from the pavement.

Putting the entire blame onto the pedestrian, and ascribing no blame at all to the cyclist or driver, is laughable and shows ignorance of the driving test and HC requirements. Too many people on the roads think they have priority over others, when in fact it is a shared responsibility.

zooterkin · 25th March 2023, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

Shouting and gesticulating are actions not normally considered reckless to the endangerment of life.

And those are not the actions that caused the cyclist to fall in the road.

Quote:

If the cyclist has shouted at the pedestrian to move out the way, and on passing the pedestrian on the fence side, brushed against her, resulting in the pedestrian stumbling and falling into the path of the car, would you expect the cyclist to be convicted of manslaughter?

Obviously, yes, all other things being equal. For instance, if the cyclist lied about what they had said, and what had happened, and left the scene.

zooterkin · 25th March 2023, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by Shrinker

Grey lied repeatedly to the police in her interview. The path, she said, was only wide enough for two people, the bike she said was travelling very fast, her shouting, she said was 'slow down, slow down'. When such a liar says, 'my extended arm may have made light contact with the deceased,' I would heartily lol at anyone who claims that 'light contact' was the most that could possibly have happened.

QFT

zooterkin · 25th March 2023, 02:50 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

Or the cyclist just lost balance because they were going so slowly through a narrow gap, so the pedestrian is being punished due to the cyclist's unsteadiness and poor balance and what was an accident.

That "or" is why I do not think the beyond reasonable belief bar has been cleared.

You are again ignoring the pedestrian's action as she was next to the cyclist, and I'm not aware of any evidence that the cyclist was unsteady or had poor balance.

jimbob · 25th March 2023, 03:32 AM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

You are again ignoring the pedestrian's action as she was next to the cyclist, and I'm not aware of any evidence that the cyclist was unsteady or had poor balance.

Also.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidanc...ther%20offence.

Quote:

The defendant must take his victim as he finds him under the 'egg-shell skull' rule: R v LeBrun (1991) 4 All ER 673. As a result, any pre-dispositions or inherent weaknesses or vulnerabilities of the victim are deemed irrelevant.

Self-defence is as much a defence to murder and manslaughter as to any other offence. As with all cases

Shrinker · 25th March 2023, 03:39 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

Shouting and gesticulating are actions not normally considered reckless to the endangerment of life.

Who do you think you are fooling by continuing with this? At the moment the two of them passed each other, Grey was neither shouting nor gesticulating. She was, according to Grey herself, extending an arm outward to the cyclist in self defence. One does not gesticulate in self defence.

This is why she's in jail, because she admitted to doing something more than gesticulating, and because the jury found her reasons for doing it not credible.

GlennB · 25th March 2023, 03:54 AM

And, in all this, Grey could have avoided the event by taking a pace to her right, whereas the cyclist would have had a much harder job swerving to her left, given that the 2 pavement/road ramps automatically placed her to the road side of the pavement.

Also I didn't notice Nessie respond to the image of Grey's elbow sticking out. Perhaps I missed that, but here it is again -

jimbob · 25th March 2023, 04:39 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

Or the cyclist just lost balance because they were going so slowly through a narrow gap, so the pedestrian is being punished due to the cyclist's unsteadiness and poor balance and what was an accident.

That "or" is why I do not think the beyond reasonable belief bar has been cleared.

Why was the gap so small? Because Grey was moving her hand out into the path of the cyclist. And because Grey was trying to occupy as much of the pavement as possible - 2.4m is easily wide enough for two people to pass, as can be seen in the bbc video below.

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

and as was mentioned in this link

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)

with this observation about it.

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

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.

Shrinker · 25th March 2023, 04:55 AM

In case anyone missed it, this is how easy it is for a cyclist and pedestrian to avoid a collision on that pavement. All one has to do is avoid leaning towards the cyclist and putting out an arm in 'self defence'.

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

Shrinker · 25th March 2023, 05:07 AM

Also, this is something I haven't seen pointed out before. It's Grey's hand. It's not likely to be part of the cyclist's sleeve as the poor colour rendition might suggest because that shape isn't there in the subsequent frame*. I don't expect everyone to want to see it, but there are four fingers and what might be the tip of a thumb. This is an odd posture for someone not pushing a cyclist into the road.

* Edit: The very next frame by the way, is the frame GlennB posted. Comparing the two, you can see the hand here is occluding the black strap of the victim's handbag so it can't possibly be part of the victim's sleeve.

No doubt somebody will have a complaint about the apparently blue hand, so here's another frame...

jeremyp · Today, 12:55 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

Shouting and gesticulating are actions not normally considered reckless to the endangerment of life.

It depends on the circumstances doesn’t it. If your shouting and gesticulating could cause somebody to put themselves in harms way as a result, then, yes, it could be considered to be reckless and it was in this case.

Quote:

If the cyclist has shouted at the pedestrian to move out the way, and on passing the pedestrian on the fence side, brushed against her, resulting in the pedestrian stumbling and falling into the path of the car, would you expect the cyclist to be convicted of manslaughter?

Yes. It’s the exact analogue of this situation.

jeremyp · Today, 01:09 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

The HC now gives priority to the pedestrian and places the responsibility for their care on the cyclist. That rule was not yet in force at the time of the incident, if it was, I don't think this would have gone to court.

At the time, the cyclist still, rationally, has a duty of care for the pedestrian and themselves. She made the wrong decision and tried to cycle through the roadside gap.

Something I have raised before is the driver. In the hazard awareness test to get a licence, a cyclist passing a pedestrian on a narrow pavement would be clicked as a hazard. Now, the HC makes the driver responsible for the cyclist and the pedestrian.

All three are supposed to look out for each other. The verdict and argument here, places all responsibility on the pedestrian.

The Highway Code places the responsibility on everyone for the safety of everybody. This means there is a duty of care on pedestrians not to put cyclists at risk unnecessarily, as much as the other way around. Yes the Highway Code says cyclists should give way to pedestrians on shared paths but there was plenty of room for the pedestrian in this case, she just chose to drive the cyclist off the path and to her death instead of using it.

Disbelief · Today, 03:19 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

Shouting and gesticulating are actions not normally considered reckless to the endangerment of life.

If the cyclist has shouted at the pedestrian to move out the way, and on passing the pedestrian on the fence side, brushed against her, resulting in the pedestrian stumbling and falling into the path of the car, would you expect the cyclist to be convicted of manslaughter?

She admitted to making contact with the cyclist! Why do you keep ignoring this or downplaying it?

As for moving to the fence side, that is also worrisome because of the chance of catching the handlebars in the fencing because of the clearly agitated and aggressive pedestrian. All Grey had to do was move towards the fence and not be an *******.

GlennB · Today, 05:21 AM

Originally Posted by Disbelief

She admitted to making contact with the cyclist! Why do you keep ignoring this or downplaying it?

As for moving to the fence side, that is also worrisome because of the chance of catching the handlebars in the fencing because of the clearly agitated and aggressive pedestrian. All Grey had to do was move towards the fence and not be an *******.

And if anyone believes Grey's description of the contact then I'd like to talk to them about a bridge I have for sale.

Nessie · Today, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Disbelief

She admitted to making contact with the cyclist! Why do you keep ignoring this or downplaying it?

I don't downplay it. I do not exaggerate the level of contact, such as the post before yours by jermeyp who claims "she just chose to drive the cyclist off the path".

There was light contact at most, which is not enough to say her actions were recklessly dangerous.

Quote:

As for moving to the fence side, that is also worrisome because of the chance of catching the handlebars in the fencing because of the clearly agitated and aggressive pedestrian. All Grey had to do was move towards the fence and not be an *******.

Putting all the responsibility onto the pedestrian is unfair. The cyclist, driver and pedestrian all came together at the same time in what is identified in the driving test and HC as a risk situation and so all carry some responsibility.

Disbelief · Today, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

I don't downplay it. I do not exaggerate the level of contact, such as the post before yours by jermeyp who claims "she just chose to drive the cyclist off the path".

There was light contact at most, which is not enough to say her actions were recklessly dangerous.

You downplay it constantly and you have no idea about the level of contact. You are making up light contact. Here is a previous quote from you:

Originally Posted by Nessie

By HIT, you mean the pedestrian's hand, most likely finger, may have had a glancing contact.

So claiming just a finger made contact is not downplaying it?

Originally Posted by Nessie

Putting all the responsibility onto the pedestrian is unfair. The cyclist, driver and pedestrian all came together at the same time in what is identified in the driving test and HC as a risk situation and so all carry some responsibility.

The majority of the responsibility goes to the person who initiated the confrontation, and that would be the pedestrian. She easily could have moved to the right and made some snide remark, but made the decision to engage the cyclist.

GlennB · Today, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

I don't downplay it. I do not exaggerate the level of contact, such as the post before yours by jermeyp who claims "she just chose to drive the cyclist off the path".

There was light contact at most, which is not enough to say her actions were recklessly dangerous.

Putting all the responsibility onto the pedestrian is unfair. The cyclist, driver and pedestrian all came together at the same time in what is identified in the driving test and HC as a risk situation and so all carry some responsibility.

You seem to have ignored, among many other things, the image posted upthread, which shows Grey's elbow raised to almost shoulder level. This happened at the last second and reduced the cyclist's space by about another foot. Even more if the forearm was extended to any degree.

In addition, Grey was easily the best placed to prevent a dangerous situation from occurring, but not only chose not to but instead acted in a manner which raised the danger level.

jeremyp · Today, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

I don't downplay it. I do not exaggerate the level of contact, such as the post before yours by jermeyp who claims "she just chose to drive the cyclist off the path".

She closed down the gap that the cyclist was going for and she made a gesture that caused the cyclist to overbalance and fall into the road. I don't think I was exaggerating at all.

Quote:

There was light contact at most, which is not enough to say her actions were recklessly dangerous.

She was found guilty. The court disagrees with you.

Quote:

Putting all the responsibility onto the pedestrian is unfair. The cyclist, driver and pedestrian all came together at the same time in what is identified in the driving test and HC as a risk situation and so all carry some responsibility.

But the pedestrian was the one who made a reckless gesture that caused a death.

Nessie · Today, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Disbelief

You downplay it constantly and you have no idea about the level of contact. You are making up light contact. Here is a previous quote from you:

So claiming just a finger made contact is not downplaying it?

I said hand, probably fingers. What part of the pedestrian's body do you say had contact?

Quote:

The majority of the responsibility goes to the person who initiated the confrontation, and that would be the pedestrian. She easily could have moved to the right and made some snide remark, but made the decision to engage the cyclist.

She made the decision not to move to give the cyclist more space, the cyclist made the decision that the space provided was sufficient.

The pedestrian did initiate the confrontation, which the cyclist was not so worried about that she kept cycling, so as confrontations go, it was at the very bottom end of the scale and not something that would reasonably be regarded as likely to cause a death.

Nessie · Today, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by GlennB

You seem to have ignored, among many other things, the image posted upthread, which shows Grey's elbow raised to almost shoulder level. This happened at the last second and reduced the cyclist's space by about another foot. Even more if the forearm was extended to any degree.

I have not ignored the lack of space, I have discussed it on numerous occasions, referring to slow cycling in a limited space as inherently unstable, for any cyclist.

Quote:

In addition, Grey was easily the best placed to prevent a dangerous situation from occurring, but not only chose not to but instead acted in a manner which raised the danger level.

The cyclist, an elderly lady, did not think the pedestrian posed a threat to her.

The car driver appears to not have even noticed what was happening, until it was too late for her to react.

Nessie · Today, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by jeremyp

She closed down the gap that the cyclist was going for and she made a gesture that caused the cyclist to overbalance and fall into the road. I don't think I was exaggerating at all.

She remained in the middle of the pavement and made gestures to the cyclist before they passed. The cyclist kept going, so obviously she did not think there was a threat or danger, so your hindsight position of the pedestrian posing a danger is exaggerated.

Quote:

She was found guilty. The court disagrees with you.

The jury disagree with me. The lawyers in the court, including the Judge, may well have been surprised at the verdict. The lawyers I follow on twitter were.

Quote:

But the pedestrian was the one who made a reckless gesture that caused a death.

You are another making the Jedi accusation, that gestures have the power to move objects.

This was a coming together of a pedestrian, a cyclist and a car, for which each carries a degree of responsibility, which is one reason why I do not think the beyond reasonable doubt hurdle was cleared. I think the jury was wrong.

GlennB · Today, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

I have not ignored the lack of space, I have discussed it on numerous occasions, referring to slow cycling in a limited space as inherently unstable, for any cyclist.

And the last moment reduction in space?

zooterkin · Today, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

The cyclist, an elderly lady, did not think the pedestrian posed a threat to her.

And she was wrong, because she didn't expect the pedestrian to sweep her arm towards her, almost certainly making contact and unbalancing her.

Brainster · Today, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

The jury disagree with me. The lawyers in the court, including the Judge, may well have been surprised at the verdict.

Uh, no. Here's the transcript of the judge's comments on sentencing. It's pretty plain he agrees with the verdict:

"...After careful thought, I concluded these actions are not explained by your disabilities."

"I found William Walker to be reliable and thoughtful. He is a cyclist and driver. He said that you and Mrs Ward appeared to have come to a halt in front of each other and you made a lateral sweeping movement with your left arm which was directed at Mrs Ward. He said “it either made contact or she recoiled and fell”."

I see zero evidence that the judge disagreed with the verdict and quite a bit that indicates he thought it was sound.

JoeMorgue · Today, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

She remained in the middle of the pavement and made gestures to the cyclist before they passed. The cyclist kept going, so obviously she did not think there was a threat or danger, so your hindsight position of the pedestrian posing a danger is exaggerated.

The jury disagree with me. The lawyers in the court, including the Judge, may well have been surprised at the verdict. The lawyers I follow on twitter were.

You are another making the Jedi accusation, that gestures have the power to move objects.

This was a coming together of a pedestrian, a cyclist and a car, for which each carries a degree of responsibility, which is one reason why I do not think the beyond reasonable doubt hurdle was cleared. I think the jury was wrong.

This has long ago ceased merely bordering on silly and has now fully invaded silly, has occupied silly, and has set up a puppet government in silly's capital and there's now a thread were one single poster is badly trying to explain why silly started it.

KAJ · Today, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

I said hand, probably fingers. What part of the pedestrian's body do you say had contact?

She made the decision not to move to give the cyclist more space, the cyclist made the decision that the space provided was sufficient.

The pedestrian did initiate the confrontation, which the cyclist was not so worried about that she kept cycling, so as confrontations go, it was at the very bottom end of the scale and not something that would reasonably be regarded as likely to cause a death.

Emphasis added. You keep saying this.

In #779 I posted from the sentencing remarks, emphasis added,

Quote:

...I found William Walker to be reliable and thoughtful. He is a cyclist and driver. He said that you and Mrs Ward appeared to have come to a halt in front of each other and you made a lateral sweeping movement with your left arm which was directed at Mrs Ward. He said “it either made contact or she recoiled and fell”.

I don't think you responded. Have you any reply?

Gulliver Foyle · Today, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by GlennB

And if anyone believes Grey's description of the contact then I'd like to talk to them about a bridge I have for sale.

She stated under caution that there "may have been some unintentional contact". Given the amount of porkies she stated under caution, we can take that statement to be a minimisation of what she did.

LondonJohn · Today, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

And she was wrong, because she didn't expect the pedestrian to sweep her arm towards her, almost certainly making contact and unbalancing her.

It's also worth bearing in mind that even if the pedestrian's hand didn't actually make physical contact with any part of the cyclist's body or bicycle (although, as you say, it seems highly likely that physical contact did indeed occur), the aggressive hand gesture would almost certainly in and of itself have been sufficient for a competent properly-instructed jury to conclude that the pedestrian was responsible for forcing the cyclist to unbalance and topple into the busy road right in front of a car.

For example, the cyclist might have become unbalanced and toppled to her right as a direct consequence of trying to steer the bike in order to avoid physical contact taking place. In other words, had the cyclist continued in a straight line - keeping as tight to the edge of the pavement as she could reasonably place herself - she held a reasonable belief that there would have been significant contact with the pedestrian's out-thrusted arm... so she (the cyclist) instinctively (and totally understandably) took evasive action, which is what caused her to veer to the right, lose her balance, and topple into the roadway.

Or it would also be entirely reasonable for a jury to conclude that the very act of such an aggressive sudden gesticulation by the pedestrian, just at the point where the two women were about to pass each other, gave the cyclist such (understandable) alarm and shock that she (the cyclist) instinctively veered away from the pedestrian, lost her balance, and toppled into the roadway.

In other words, IMO the pedestrian's grossly (and criminally) irresponsible action - making an aggressive sideways hand gesture towards the cyclist just as the two were about to pass by each other on the pavement - can reasonably be deemed to have directly caused the cyclist to veer away from the pedestrian, then (almost inevitably) losing her balance and falling into the road directly in front of oncoming traffic. And that holds whether or not the pedestrian's hand/arm actually made physical contact with the cyclist.

LondonJohn · Today, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

She stated under caution that there "may have been some unintentional contact". Given the amount of porkies she stated under caution, we can take that statement to be a minimisation of what she did.

Indeed. And IIRC there was another reliable & credible eyewitness who said he believed there had been contact.

It's kind of difficult to believe that, having predominantly been away doing real-life stuff for several days, I revisit this thread to find the same extraordinary intransigence (fuelled by fundamental misunderstandings of the law) on the part of one solitary poster. Even after everything that's emerged from the trial record plus huge amounts of patient analysis & explanation from so many of the main thread participants. But there you go....

25th March 2023, 01:56 AM	#802
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 14,356	Originally Posted by autumn1971 It means that, regardless of the Highway Code, if not yielding puts another person in danger of harm one’s responsibility is to the person who may be put in harm’s way. The HC now gives priority to the pedestrian and places the responsibility for their care on the cyclist. That rule was not yet in force at the time of the incident, if it was, I don't think this would have gone to court. At the time, the cyclist still, rationally, has a duty of care for the pedestrian and themselves. She made the wrong decision and tried to cycle through the roadside gap. Something I have raised before is the driver. In the hazard awareness test to get a licence, a cyclist passing a pedestrian on a narrow pavement would be clicked as a hazard. Now, the HC makes the driver responsible for the cyclist and the pedestrian. All three are supposed to look out for each other. The verdict and argument here, places all responsibility on the pedestrian.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

25th March 2023, 02:01 AM	#803
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 14,356	Originally Posted by jeremyp No it doesn’t. It means pedestrians can’t do reckless things that put cyclists in danger. But that was always the case. Shouting and gesticulating are actions not normally considered reckless to the endangerment of life. If the cyclist has shouted at the pedestrian to move out the way, and on passing the pedestrian on the fence side, brushed against her, resulting in the pedestrian stumbling and falling into the path of the car, would you expect the cyclist to be convicted of manslaughter?
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

25th March 2023, 02:17 AM	#804
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 52,896	Originally Posted by Nessie The HC now gives priority to the pedestrian and places the responsibility for their care on the cyclist. That rule was not yet in force at the time of the incident, if it was, I don't think this would have gone to court. At the time, the cyclist still, rationally, has a duty of care for the pedestrian and themselves. She made the wrong decision and tried to cycle through the roadside gap. Something I have raised before is the driver. In the hazard awareness test to get a licence, a cyclist passing a pedestrian on a narrow pavement would be clicked as a hazard. Now, the HC makes the driver responsible for the cyclist and the pedestrian. All three are supposed to look out for each other. The verdict and argument here, places all responsibility on the pedestrian. Your desperation is very annoying. That you can now lay some blame on the driver is, frankly, laughable.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

25th March 2023, 02:46 AM	#805
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 14,356	Originally Posted by lionking Your desperation is very annoying. That you can now lay some blame on the driver is, frankly, laughable. The hazard awareness test and the new HC both place a responsibility on the driver to look out for hazards, such as someone unexpectedly entering the roadway from the pavement. Putting the entire blame onto the pedestrian, and ascribing no blame at all to the cyclist or driver, is laughable and shows ignorance of the driving test and HC requirements. Too many people on the roads think they have priority over others, when in fact it is a shared responsibility.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

25th March 2023, 02:47 AM	#806
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 55,193	Originally Posted by Nessie Shouting and gesticulating are actions not normally considered reckless to the endangerment of life. And those are not the actions that caused the cyclist to fall in the road. Quote: If the cyclist has shouted at the pedestrian to move out the way, and on passing the pedestrian on the fence side, brushed against her, resulting in the pedestrian stumbling and falling into the path of the car, would you expect the cyclist to be convicted of manslaughter? Obviously, yes, all other things being equal. For instance, if the cyclist lied about what they had said, and what had happened, and left the scene.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20

25th March 2023, 01:00 AM	#801
jeremyp Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha Posts: 2,440	Originally Posted by Nessie That now means pedestrians need to give way to cyclists on pavements, so that the chances of the cyclist losing balance and falling into the road is negligible. Responsibility for the cyclist falls to the pedestrian, which is the opposite of what the Highway Code now says, so that needs to be changed. No it doesn’t. It means pedestrians can’t do reckless things that put cyclists in danger. But that was always the case.

25th March 2023, 02:48 AM	#807
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 55,193	Originally Posted by Shrinker Grey lied repeatedly to the police in her interview. The path, she said, was only wide enough for two people, the bike she said was travelling very fast, her shouting, she said was 'slow down, slow down'. When such a liar says, 'my extended arm may have made light contact with the deceased,' I would heartily lol at anyone who claims that 'light contact' was the most that could possibly have happened. QFT
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20

25th March 2023, 02:50 AM	#808
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 55,193	Originally Posted by Nessie Or the cyclist just lost balance because they were going so slowly through a narrow gap, so the pedestrian is being punished due to the cyclist's unsteadiness and poor balance and what was an accident. That "or" is why I do not think the beyond reasonable belief bar has been cleared. You are again ignoring the pedestrian's action as she was next to the cyclist, and I'm not aware of any evidence that the cyclist was unsteady or had poor balance.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20

25th March 2023, 03:32 AM	#809
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Moderator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 29,227	Originally Posted by zooterkin You are again ignoring the pedestrian's action as she was next to the cyclist, and I'm not aware of any evidence that the cyclist was unsteady or had poor balance. Also. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidanc...ther%20offence. Quote: The defendant must take his victim as he finds him under the 'egg-shell skull' rule: R v LeBrun (1991) 4 All ER 673. As a result, any pre-dispositions or inherent weaknesses or vulnerabilities of the victim are deemed irrelevant. Self-defence is as much a defence to murder and manslaughter as to any other offence. As with all cases
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK

25th March 2023, 03:39 AM	#810
Shrinker Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 1,141	Originally Posted by Nessie Shouting and gesticulating are actions not normally considered reckless to the endangerment of life. Who do you think you are fooling by continuing with this? At the moment the two of them passed each other, Grey was neither shouting nor gesticulating. She was, according to Grey herself, extending an arm outward to the cyclist in self defence. One does not gesticulate in self defence. This is why she's in jail, because she admitted to doing something more than gesticulating, and because the jury found her reasons for doing it not credible.

25th March 2023, 04:39 AM	#812
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Moderator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 29,227	Originally Posted by Nessie Or the cyclist just lost balance because they were going so slowly through a narrow gap, so the pedestrian is being punished due to the cyclist's unsteadiness and poor balance and what was an accident. That "or" is why I do not think the beyond reasonable belief bar has been cleared. Why was the gap so small? Because Grey was moving her hand out into the path of the cyclist. And because Grey was trying to occupy as much of the pavement as possible - 2.4m is easily wide enough for two people to pass, as can be seen in the bbc video below. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-eng...shire-64764411 and as was mentioned in this link 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) with this observation about it. Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle 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.
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK

25th March 2023, 04:55 AM	#813
Shrinker Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 1,141	In case anyone missed it, this is how easy it is for a cyclist and pedestrian to avoid a collision on that pavement. All one has to do is avoid leaning towards the cyclist and putting out an arm in 'self defence'. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-eng...shire-64764411

25th March 2023, 05:07 AM	#814
Shrinker Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 1,141	Also, this is something I haven't seen pointed out before. It's Grey's hand. It's not likely to be part of the cyclist's sleeve as the poor colour rendition might suggest because that shape isn't there in the subsequent frame. I don't expect everyone to want to see it, but there are four fingers and what might be the tip of a thumb. This is an odd posture for someone not pushing a cyclist into the road. Edit: The very next frame by the way, is the frame GlennB posted. Comparing the two, you can see the hand here is occluding the black strap of the victim's handbag so it can't possibly be part of the victim's sleeve. No doubt somebody will have a complaint about the apparently blue hand, so here's another frame...
	Last edited by Shrinker; 25th March 2023 at 05:41 AM.

Today, 12:55 AM	#815
jeremyp Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha Posts: 2,440	Originally Posted by Nessie Shouting and gesticulating are actions not normally considered reckless to the endangerment of life. It depends on the circumstances doesn’t it. If your shouting and gesticulating could cause somebody to put themselves in harms way as a result, then, yes, it could be considered to be reckless and it was in this case. Quote: If the cyclist has shouted at the pedestrian to move out the way, and on passing the pedestrian on the fence side, brushed against her, resulting in the pedestrian stumbling and falling into the path of the car, would you expect the cyclist to be convicted of manslaughter? Yes. It’s the exact analogue of this situation.

Today, 01:09 AM	#816
jeremyp Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha Posts: 2,440	Originally Posted by Nessie The HC now gives priority to the pedestrian and places the responsibility for their care on the cyclist. That rule was not yet in force at the time of the incident, if it was, I don't think this would have gone to court. At the time, the cyclist still, rationally, has a duty of care for the pedestrian and themselves. She made the wrong decision and tried to cycle through the roadside gap. Something I have raised before is the driver. In the hazard awareness test to get a licence, a cyclist passing a pedestrian on a narrow pavement would be clicked as a hazard. Now, the HC makes the driver responsible for the cyclist and the pedestrian. All three are supposed to look out for each other. The verdict and argument here, places all responsibility on the pedestrian. The Highway Code places the responsibility on everyone for the safety of everybody. This means there is a duty of care on pedestrians not to put cyclists at risk unnecessarily, as much as the other way around. Yes the Highway Code says cyclists should give way to pedestrians on shared paths but there was plenty of room for the pedestrian in this case, she just chose to drive the cyclist off the path and to her death instead of using it.

Today, 03:19 AM	#817
Disbelief Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 3,147	Originally Posted by Nessie Shouting and gesticulating are actions not normally considered reckless to the endangerment of life. If the cyclist has shouted at the pedestrian to move out the way, and on passing the pedestrian on the fence side, brushed against her, resulting in the pedestrian stumbling and falling into the path of the car, would you expect the cyclist to be convicted of manslaughter? She admitted to making contact with the cyclist! Why do you keep ignoring this or downplaying it? As for moving to the fence side, that is also worrisome because of the chance of catching the handlebars in the fencing because of the clearly agitated and aggressive pedestrian. All Grey had to do was move towards the fence and not be an *******.
Disbelief Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 3,147	__________________ Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same? Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman

Today, 05:21 AM	#818
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 29,294	Originally Posted by Disbelief She admitted to making contact with the cyclist! Why do you keep ignoring this or downplaying it? As for moving to the fence side, that is also worrisome because of the chance of catching the handlebars in the fencing because of the clearly agitated and aggressive pedestrian. All Grey had to do was move towards the fence and not be an *******. And if anyone believes Grey's description of the contact then I'd like to talk to them about a bridge I have for sale.

Today, 09:29 AM	#819
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 14,356	Originally Posted by Disbelief She admitted to making contact with the cyclist! Why do you keep ignoring this or downplaying it? I don't downplay it. I do not exaggerate the level of contact, such as the post before yours by jermeyp who claims "she just chose to drive the cyclist off the path". There was light contact at most, which is not enough to say her actions were recklessly dangerous. Quote: As for moving to the fence side, that is also worrisome because of the chance of catching the handlebars in the fencing because of the clearly agitated and aggressive pedestrian. All Grey had to do was move towards the fence and not be an *******. Putting all the responsibility onto the pedestrian is unfair. The cyclist, driver and pedestrian all came together at the same time in what is identified in the driving test and HC as a risk situation and so all carry some responsibility.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

Today, 10:11 AM	#820
Disbelief Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 3,147	Originally Posted by Nessie I don't downplay it. I do not exaggerate the level of contact, such as the post before yours by jermeyp who claims "she just chose to drive the cyclist off the path". There was light contact at most, which is not enough to say her actions were recklessly dangerous. You downplay it constantly and you have no idea about the level of contact. You are making up light contact. Here is a previous quote from you: Originally Posted by Nessie By HIT, you mean the pedestrian's hand, most likely finger, may have had a glancing contact. So claiming just a finger made contact is not downplaying it? Originally Posted by Nessie Putting all the responsibility onto the pedestrian is unfair. The cyclist, driver and pedestrian all came together at the same time in what is identified in the driving test and HC as a risk situation and so all carry some responsibility. The majority of the responsibility goes to the person who initiated the confrontation, and that would be the pedestrian. She easily could have moved to the right and made some snide remark, but made the decision to engage the cyclist.
Disbelief Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 3,147	__________________ Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same? Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman

Today, 10:20 AM	#821
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 29,294	Originally Posted by Nessie I don't downplay it. I do not exaggerate the level of contact, such as the post before yours by jermeyp who claims "she just chose to drive the cyclist off the path". There was light contact at most, which is not enough to say her actions were recklessly dangerous. Putting all the responsibility onto the pedestrian is unfair. The cyclist, driver and pedestrian all came together at the same time in what is identified in the driving test and HC as a risk situation and so all carry some responsibility. You seem to have ignored, among many other things, the image posted upthread, which shows Grey's elbow raised to almost shoulder level. This happened at the last second and reduced the cyclist's space by about another foot. Even more if the forearm was extended to any degree. In addition, Grey was easily the best placed to prevent a dangerous situation from occurring, but not only chose not to but instead acted in a manner which raised the danger level.
	Last edited by GlennB; Today at 11:34 AM. Reason: better phrasing

Today, 11:39 AM	#822
jeremyp Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha Posts: 2,440	Originally Posted by Nessie I don't downplay it. I do not exaggerate the level of contact, such as the post before yours by jermeyp who claims "she just chose to drive the cyclist off the path". She closed down the gap that the cyclist was going for and she made a gesture that caused the cyclist to overbalance and fall into the road. I don't think I was exaggerating at all. Quote: There was light contact at most, which is not enough to say her actions were recklessly dangerous. She was found guilty. The court disagrees with you. Quote: Putting all the responsibility onto the pedestrian is unfair. The cyclist, driver and pedestrian all came together at the same time in what is identified in the driving test and HC as a risk situation and so all carry some responsibility. But the pedestrian was the one who made a reckless gesture that caused a death.

Today, 12:06 PM	#823
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 14,356	Originally Posted by Disbelief You downplay it constantly and you have no idea about the level of contact. You are making up light contact. Here is a previous quote from you: So claiming just a finger made contact is not downplaying it? I said hand, probably fingers. What part of the pedestrian's body do you say had contact? Quote: The majority of the responsibility goes to the person who initiated the confrontation, and that would be the pedestrian. She easily could have moved to the right and made some snide remark, but made the decision to engage the cyclist. She made the decision not to move to give the cyclist more space, the cyclist made the decision that the space provided was sufficient. The pedestrian did initiate the confrontation, which the cyclist was not so worried about that she kept cycling, so as confrontations go, it was at the very bottom end of the scale and not something that would reasonably be regarded as likely to cause a death.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

Today, 12:10 PM	#824
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 14,356	Originally Posted by GlennB You seem to have ignored, among many other things, the image posted upthread, which shows Grey's elbow raised to almost shoulder level. This happened at the last second and reduced the cyclist's space by about another foot. Even more if the forearm was extended to any degree. I have not ignored the lack of space, I have discussed it on numerous occasions, referring to slow cycling in a limited space as inherently unstable, for any cyclist. Quote: In addition, Grey was easily the best placed to prevent a dangerous situation from occurring, but not only chose not to but instead acted in a manner which raised the danger level. The cyclist, an elderly lady, did not think the pedestrian posed a threat to her. The car driver appears to not have even noticed what was happening, until it was too late for her to react.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

Today, 12:16 PM	#825
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 14,356	Originally Posted by jeremyp She closed down the gap that the cyclist was going for and she made a gesture that caused the cyclist to overbalance and fall into the road. I don't think I was exaggerating at all. She remained in the middle of the pavement and made gestures to the cyclist before they passed. The cyclist kept going, so obviously she did not think there was a threat or danger, so your hindsight position of the pedestrian posing a danger is exaggerated. Quote: She was found guilty. The court disagrees with you. The jury disagree with me. The lawyers in the court, including the Judge, may well have been surprised at the verdict. The lawyers I follow on twitter were. Quote: But the pedestrian was the one who made a reckless gesture that caused a death. You are another making the Jedi accusation, that gestures have the power to move objects. This was a coming together of a pedestrian, a cyclist and a car, for which each carries a degree of responsibility, which is one reason why I do not think the beyond reasonable doubt hurdle was cleared. I think the jury was wrong.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

Today, 12:22 PM	#826
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 29,294	Originally Posted by Nessie I have not ignored the lack of space, I have discussed it on numerous occasions, referring to slow cycling in a limited space as inherently unstable, for any cyclist. And the last moment reduction in space?

Today, 12:23 PM	#827
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 55,193	Originally Posted by Nessie The cyclist, an elderly lady, did not think the pedestrian posed a threat to her. And she was wrong, because she didn't expect the pedestrian to sweep her arm towards her, almost certainly making contact and unbalancing her.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20

Today, 12:38 PM	#828
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 19,708	Originally Posted by Nessie The jury disagree with me. The lawyers in the court, including the Judge, may well have been surprised at the verdict. Uh, no. Here's the transcript of the judge's comments on sentencing. It's pretty plain he agrees with the verdict: "...After careful thought, I concluded these actions are not explained by your disabilities." "I found William Walker to be reliable and thoughtful. He is a cyclist and driver. He said that you and Mrs Ward appeared to have come to a halt in front of each other and you made a lateral sweeping movement with your left arm which was directed at Mrs Ward. He said “it either made contact or she recoiled and fell”." I see zero evidence that the judge disagreed with the verdict and quite a bit that indicates he thought it was sound.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Today, 01:17 PM	#829
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 43,036	Originally Posted by Nessie She remained in the middle of the pavement and made gestures to the cyclist before they passed. The cyclist kept going, so obviously she did not think there was a threat or danger, so your hindsight position of the pedestrian posing a danger is exaggerated. The jury disagree with me. The lawyers in the court, including the Judge, may well have been surprised at the verdict. The lawyers I follow on twitter were. You are another making the Jedi accusation, that gestures have the power to move objects. This was a coming together of a pedestrian, a cyclist and a car, for which each carries a degree of responsibility, which is one reason why I do not think the beyond reasonable doubt hurdle was cleared. I think the jury was wrong. This has long ago ceased merely bordering on silly and has now fully invaded silly, has occupied silly, and has set up a puppet government in silly's capital and there's now a thread were one single poster is badly trying to explain why silly started it.
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

Today, 01:48 PM	#830
KAJ Scholar Join Date: Dec 2017 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 67	Originally Posted by Nessie I said hand, probably fingers. What part of the pedestrian's body do you say had contact? She made the decision not to move to give the cyclist more space, the cyclist made the decision that the space provided was sufficient. The pedestrian did initiate the confrontation, which the cyclist was not so worried about that she kept cycling, so as confrontations go, it was at the very bottom end of the scale and not something that would reasonably be regarded as likely to cause a death. Emphasis added. You keep saying this. In #779 I posted from the sentencing remarks, emphasis added, Quote: ...I found William Walker to be reliable and thoughtful. He is a cyclist and driver. He said that you and Mrs Ward appeared to have come to a halt in front of each other and you made a lateral sweeping movement with your left arm which was directed at Mrs Ward. He said “it either made contact or she recoiled and fell”. I don't think you responded. Have you any reply?

Today, 03:44 PM	#831
Gulliver Foyle Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Cork baaaiii Posts: 1,296	Originally Posted by GlennB And if anyone believes Grey's description of the contact then I'd like to talk to them about a bridge I have for sale. She stated under caution that there "may have been some unintentional contact". Given the amount of porkies she stated under caution, we can take that statement to be a minimisation of what she did.

Today, 04:42 PM	#832
LondonJohn Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 20,308	Originally Posted by zooterkin And she was wrong, because she didn't expect the pedestrian to sweep her arm towards her, almost certainly making contact and unbalancing her. It's also worth bearing in mind that even if the pedestrian's hand didn't actually make physical contact with any part of the cyclist's body or bicycle (although, as you say, it seems highly likely that physical contact did indeed occur), the aggressive hand gesture would almost certainly in and of itself have been sufficient for a competent properly-instructed jury to conclude that the pedestrian was responsible for forcing the cyclist to unbalance and topple into the busy road right in front of a car. For example, the cyclist might have become unbalanced and toppled to her right as a direct consequence of trying to steer the bike in order to avoid physical contact taking place. In other words, had the cyclist continued in a straight line - keeping as tight to the edge of the pavement as she could reasonably place herself - she held a reasonable belief that there would have been significant contact with the pedestrian's out-thrusted arm... so she (the cyclist) instinctively (and totally understandably) took evasive action, which is what caused her to veer to the right, lose her balance, and topple into the roadway. Or it would also be entirely reasonable for a jury to conclude that the very act of such an aggressive sudden gesticulation by the pedestrian, just at the point where the two women were about to pass each other, gave the cyclist such (understandable) alarm and shock that she (the cyclist) instinctively veered away from the pedestrian, lost her balance, and toppled into the roadway. In other words, IMO the pedestrian's grossly (and criminally) irresponsible action - making an aggressive sideways hand gesture towards the cyclist just as the two were about to pass by each other on the pavement - can reasonably be deemed to have directly caused the cyclist to veer away from the pedestrian, then (almost inevitably) losing her balance and falling into the road directly in front of oncoming traffic. And that holds *whether or not* the pedestrian's hand/arm actually made physical contact with the cyclist.

Today, 04:49 PM	#833
LondonJohn Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 20,308	Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle She stated under caution that there "may have been some unintentional contact". Given the amount of porkies she stated under caution, we can take that statement to be a minimisation of what she did. Indeed. And IIRC there was another reliable & credible eyewitness who said he believed there had been contact. It's kind of difficult to believe that, having predominantly been away doing real-life stuff for several days, I revisit this thread to find the same extraordinary intransigence (fuelled by fundamental misunderstandings of the law) on the part of one solitary poster. Even after everything that's emerged from the trial record plus huge amounts of patient analysis & explanation from so many of the main thread participants. But there you go....