Manslaughter, for shouting at a cyclist

[Nessie]

I find this case puzzling. An lady is walking along the pavement, and another lady is riding her bike on the pavement, so they are heading towards each other.

The lady pedestrian shouts and points at the cyclist to get off the pavement and as they pass, the cyclist loses balance, goes into the roadway and is struck by a passing car and dies.

The lady pedestrian is found guilty of manslaughter and sent to prison for 3 years.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...car-huntingdon

CCTV footage here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4eIjOFTB6k

I cannot see how this is anything more than a tragic accident. If the lady pedestrian had pushed the cyclist into the road, that would be reckless. But she walks along the pavement, not altering her position and merely gesticulates to the cyclist to get off. The verdict is to be appealed, and I cannot see how it was a conviction in the first place.

[theprestige]

Unnecessarily startling the cyclist into doing something unsafe, resulting in their untimely demise.

[Thermal]

Hot damn! Didn't happen in the US! Whoo hoo!

My guess is that the conviction was secured not because the woman shouted, but because she waved her arm aggressively, which scared the cyclist into believing she was being attacked.

ETA: ninja'd by theprestige

[Carrot Flower King]

Bear in mind, per that Graun link, that this is a shared path and it is over 2m wide. A cyclist has the same right to be on it as a pedestrian.

Not having seen the CCTV footage of the incident, which the court has, we don't know how close to the cyclist the gesticulating and shouting actually was.

I've seen both cyclists and pedestrians behave badly in those sort of situations (we have a good long bit of shared path near here, which is not as wide as that in this case), up to and including physical contact.

[JoeMorgue]

//I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor did I watch an episode of Matlock at the bar with the sound off but I think I got the gist of it. Legal concepts are complicated hereby duly acknowledged//

Legally speaking I think what we're looking at is "Would a reasonable person respond to your actions in a way that put them in harm's way."

A person operating a vehicle in/near traffic has to maintain some level of concentration and self awareness for reasons of safety. Distracting them leading to a dangerous situation is something that a "reasonable person" should be able to account for.

Distracting a cyclist who is riding right next to a busy road leading to a dangerous situation isn't an absolute outcome, which I why I'm assuming we're talking manslaughter and not murder, but it is a reasonably expected possible outcome.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Unnecessarily startling the cyclist into doing something unsafe, resulting in their untimely demise.

The cyclist does not do what would be unsafe, which is to cycle off the pavement into the road without looking. She clearly loses her balance and has her feet on the ground, when she falls into the road.

How startled would any cyclist be, by being shouted and gesticulated at to get off the pavement?

[Elaedith]

Well I did just see the clip from the CCTV footage, and it appears that Grey may not have left enough room for a cyclist to pass safely, as she was walking in the middle of the path and didn't move over. However, it is possible her cerebral palsy contributed to that.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King

Bear in mind, per that Graun link, that this is a shared path and it is over 2m wide. A cyclist has the same right to be on it as a pedestrian.

Not having seen the CCTV footage of the incident, which the court has, we don't know how close to the cyclist the gesticulating and shouting actually was.

I've seen both cyclists and pedestrians behave badly in those sort of situations (we have a good long bit of shared path near here, which is not as wide as that in this case), up to and including physical contact.

I linked to CCTV. The pedestrian shouts & gesticulates before we see the cyclist appearing and she continues to gesticulate as the cyclist passes. The cyclist starts to lose her balance as they pass and falls into the road after she has passed.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King

Bear in mind, per that Graun link, that this is a shared path and it is over 2m wide. A cyclist has the same right to be on it as a pedestrian.

The highway code seems to disagree:

Rule 64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129

n.b. "pavement" is sidewalk in the USA

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by GlennB

The highway code seems to disagree:

Rule 64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129

n.b. "pavement" is sidewalk in the USA

I wonder if there is signage? Here sidewalks are not shared usage. Unless otherwise signed that they are. There are shared bikepaths along arroyo's (aka drainage ditches) here, and almost always there's signage that they are shared usage.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by GlennB

The highway code seems to disagree:

Rule 64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129

n.b. "pavement" is sidewalk in the USA

That was my first thought when I heard about the story, but the article explicitly says that this is a shared path.

Quote:

Sentencing her, Judge Enright said her actions were not the result of disability, adding that the pavement was 2.4 metres wide where the accident happened, and it was a “shared path on the ring road”.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by GlennB

The highway code seems to disagree:

Rule 64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129

n.b. "pavement" is sidewalk in the USA

The Highway Code disagrees that this was a shared path?

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

Well I did just see the clip from the CCTV footage, and it appears that Grey may not have left enough room for a cyclist to pass safely, as she was walking in the middle of the path and didn't move over. However, it is possible her cerebral palsy contributed to that.

The Highway Code has a hierarchy of responsibility for care. Pedestrians come first, followed by cyclists.

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

3. Walking, cycling or riding in shared spaces

"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

If the cyclist is in doubt, the onus is on them to stop or safely make space.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

The Highway Code disagrees that this was a shared path?

Ah yes, my mistake. Never heard of one, but there we go.

[Jack by the hedge]

Well, it's a fairly narrow pavement and she's walking right down the middle of it. She doesn't yield any space at all, which I suppose was her right as there shouldn't be cyclists on the pavement. If the other woman had been walking instead of cycling it would have been reasonable to expect she'd move to one side so they could pass each other.

Instead she asserts her right to keep going right down the middle and keeps gesticulating at the other woman right up to and including the moment they pass. She might have been within her rights to insist the cyclist stopped and got off her bike or off the pavement, but when the cyclist didn't stop, the pedestrian didn't just keep walking, she reached out at her again and, if you look closely you'll see that she reaches out with an open hand that time, as if she was going to grab the woman's arm or push her. The hand moves out of sight but you can see that she turns part way round and her left elbow comes into view behind her, indicating her hand moved back in time with the cyclist passing.

I'm really not convinced she didn't actually push her or at least nudge the arm she was steering her bike with.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

The Highway Code disagrees that this was a shared path?

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."

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Well, it's a fairly narrow pavement and she's walking right down the middle of it. She doesn't yield any space at all, which I suppose was her right as there shouldn't be cyclists on the pavement. If the other woman had been walking instead of cycling it would have been reasonable to expect she'd move to one side so they could pass each other.

Is there something about it being a shared path that isn't correct?

Quote:

Instead she asserts her right to keep going right down the middle and keeps gesticulating at the other woman right up to and including the moment they pass. She might have been within her rights to insist the cyclist stopped and got off her bike or off the pavement, but when the cyclist didn't stop, the pedestrian didn't just keep walking, she reached out at her again and, if you look closely you'll see that she reaches out with an open hand that time, as if she was going to grab the woman's arm or push her. The hand moves out of sight but you can see that she turns part way round and her left elbow comes into view behind her, indicating her hand moved back in time with the cyclist passing.

If you look closely you'll see that she didn't have these rights.

Judge Enright said ... that the pavement was ... a “shared path on the ring road”.

[Thermal]

NJ USA is a pain in the ass with bicycle laws. There is no statewide ordinance prohibiting bikes from being on the sidewalks, but a local municipality will ban them on specific sidewalks, usually the ones with heavy pedestrian congestion. But a bike is always considered a motor vehicle, which has to obey all the laws a car does. Also, pedestrians who are not in a crosswalk have 100% responsibility to yeild to all vehicular traffic, including bicycles (no, pedestrians do not always have the right of way, as the urban myth has it).

So technically, a cyclist can cruise along the sidewalk at the local speed limit, in this case 25 mph, and responsibility to yeild falls entirely on the pedestrian. It takes about 30 seconds in my town before you mow down some tourist diddy bopping out of a store. Claims made by parties involved in crashes get into some logic-twisting arguments.

[GlennB]

The offence was in Oct 2020. Advice on 'shared paths' without divisions or markings seems to have entered the highway code in early 2022.

I agree that the pedestrian was well out of order, but the cyclist's right to be on the pavement is not at all clear, afaics.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Nessie

The cyclist does not do what would be unsafe, which is to cycle off the pavement into the road without looking. She clearly loses her balance and has her feet on the ground, when she falls into the road.

How startled would any cyclist be, by being shouted and gesticulated at to get off the pavement?

Appeal to incredulity noted. The jury, having examined all the evidence presented to them, obviously reached a different conclusion.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Well, it's a fairly narrow pavement and she's walking right down the middle of it. She doesn't yield any space at all, which I suppose was her right as there shouldn't be cyclists on the pavement. If the other woman had been walking instead of cycling it would have been reasonable to expect she'd move to one side so they could pass each other.

Instead she asserts her right to keep going right down the middle and keeps gesticulating at the other woman right up to and including the moment they pass. She might have been within her rights to insist the cyclist stopped and got off her bike or off the pavement, but when the cyclist didn't stop, the pedestrian didn't just keep walking, she reached out at her again and, if you look closely you'll see that she reaches out with an open hand that time, as if she was going to grab the woman's arm or push her. The hand moves out of sight but you can see that she turns part way round and her left elbow comes into view behind her, indicating her hand moved back in time with the cyclist passing.

I'm really not convinced she didn't actually push her or at least nudge the arm she was steering her bike with.

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Is there something about it being a shared path that isn't correct?



If you look closely you'll see that she didn't have these rights.

Judge Enright said ... that the pavement was ... a “shared path on the ring road”.

Having the right of way does not entitle you to scare interlopers into traffic.

Not having the right of way does not entitle others to be careless with your safety.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Whether the cyclist has a right to be there seems a crucial part of the judgement so it’s interesting that the judge feels that they did but the body actually responsible for deciding that (ie is it a cycle path or shared path rather than a pavement) seems unsure. Presumably the woman also felt the cyclist shouldn’t be there as it is ‘well known’ that cyclists are not supposed to be on the pavement but should be on a designated cycle path or the road if there isn’t one and it doesn’t seem that this (possibly) shared path was clearly marked.

NB I haven’t watched the footage but given the uncertainty it does seem a harsh judgement. Cyclist on the pavement can be a menace / scary for pedestrians and a shared path sounds a recipe for disaster.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Is there something about it being a shared path that isn't correct?

If you look closely you'll see that she didn't have these rights.

Judge Enright said ... that the pavement was ... a “shared path on the ring road”.

Weird. It was easy to find the name of the road and have a look on google maps / street view. There are no 'shared path' signs, at least within a couple of hundred yards of the spot where the incident happened.

(Yes, I have too much time on my hands )

[Carrot Flower King]

Originally Posted by GlennB

The offence was in Oct 2020. Advice on 'shared paths' without divisions or markings seems to have entered the highway code in early 2022.

I agree that the pedestrian was well out of order, but the cyclist's right to be on the pavement is not at all clear, afaics.

That's where it becomes interesting: our shared paths near here have had signage indicating that it is shared for at least 20 years that I know of. What the signage etc is in this instance...

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by GlennB

The offence was in Oct 2020. Advice on 'shared paths' without divisions or markings seems to have entered the highway code in early 2022.

I agree that the pedestrian was well out of order, but the cyclist's right to be on the pavement is not at all clear, afaics.

Which does not make the pedestrian out of order, to shout at a cyclist cycling towards her and to gesticulate, get on to the road.

If the cyclist had just lost her balance and fallen, the issue would purely be her poor balance.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Appeal to incredulity noted. The jury, having examined all the evidence presented to them, obviously reached a different conclusion.

Based on the CCTV, I am incredulous she has been convicted of manslaughter.

I associate manslaughter with actions such as, punching the cyclist, who then dies. Or, pushing her into the road and she dies. Not just shouting and pointing.

How can she be responsible for another person's poor balance and inability to control a bicycle?

[Shrinker]

Watch that video. She jerks a thumb three times, but the final gesture is different - there's a pause until they are close, then she has an open hand raised to the cyclist, not a pointed finger or thumb. The prosecution were wise not to make the claim because it's out of the CCTV frame, but it looks to me like she either pushed her or tugged her arm.

In fact, even better, watch her feet. She pushed her, I have no doubt.

[Ron Obvious]

At any rate, what's the point of putting the pedestrian in jail for three years exactly?

And I say that as a cyclist.

[lionking]

A fair sentence to me.

In a similar vein, an Australian has been committed to trial for manslaughter after beating someone who stole a charity jar with $15 in it to death with a cricket bat.

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/nat...ource=rss_feed

Ten years for this guy I hope.

[Bob001]

Here's a question: Was the cyclist on the wrong side of the path? You guys keep to the left, right? The pedestrian was walking along the path next to the road -- her left. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass her on her right, the left side of the path. But the cyclist was riding on the right side, next to the curb, and facing the pedestrian head-on. That's what the pedestrian was yelling at. And then the cyclist moved even farther to her right and closer to the road, where she lost control. It looks to me like the cyclist was at fault for being in the wrong place and failing to control her bicycle.

[JoeMorgue]

I'm going to advance the radical idea that in any sane place would have zero chance of being controversial yet here I know it will that people should be able to settle minor issues with right of way in traffic flow WITHOUT a person dead in the street a "LOL well" accepted outcome.

[Thermal]

This is the kind of **** that happens when you stand your ground and flex that you're in the right instead of just taking a little half step to the side and everyone goes about their day, alive and unincarcerated.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Nessie

If the cyclist is in doubt, the onus is on them to stop or safely make space.

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.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Shrinker

Watch that video. She jerks a thumb three times, but the final gesture is different - there's a pause until they are close, then she has an open hand raised to the cyclist, not a pointed finger or thumb. The prosecution were wise not to make the claim because it's out of the CCTV frame, but it looks to me like she either pushed her or tugged her arm.

In fact, even better, watch her feet. She pushed her, I have no doubt.

I'm not sure that there's no doubt, but having watched a couple times more, I'm inclined to agree with you that it's quite possible the pedestrian pushed the cyclist. As you say, we can't see what she does with her hands, and she alters her step; the cyclist's fall into the road seems strange otherwise.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Here's a question: Was the cyclist on the wrong side of the path? You guys keep to the left, right? The pedestrian was walking along the path next to the road -- her left. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass her on her right, the left side of the path. But the cyclist was riding on the right side, next to the curb, and facing the pedestrian head-on. That's what the pedestrian was yelling at. And then the cyclist moved even farther to her right and closer to the road, where she lost control. It looks to me like the cyclist was at fault for being in the wrong place and failing to control her bicycle.

Yes, we drive on the left, but in my experience with shared use paths, pedestrians (and some cyclists) tend to be completely oblivious to that fact, so cyclists have to use their judgement as to the safest side to pass someone.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Yes, we drive on the left, but in my experience with shared use paths, pedestrians (and some cyclists) tend to be completely oblivious to that fact, so cyclists have to use their judgement as to the safest side to pass someone.

In this case, the pedestrian was at her left. The cyclist had plenty of room to pass at her own left and the pedestrian's right. But she remained at her right, confronting the pedestrian, and even moved further to her right. Hardly sound judgment.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Based on the CCTV, I am incredulous she has been convicted of manslaughter.

I associate manslaughter with actions such as, punching the cyclist, who then dies. Or, pushing her into the road and she dies. Not just shouting and pointing.

How can she be responsible for another person's poor balance and inability to control a bicycle?

I think startling someone into an unsafe reaction can indeed be the startler's responsibility.

Someone's handling molten metal. You creep up behind and shout "boo!" They flinch, and spill molten metal all over their foot. You'd run away laughing, "it's just a prank, bro!" Because how could you possibly be responsible for their lack of poise and weak grip? If they can't hang on to a smelting ladle, they shouldn't be handling one, right?

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Is there something about it being a shared path that isn't correct?



If you look closely you'll see that she didn't have these rights.

Judge Enright said ... that the pavement was ... a “shared path on the ring road”.

No, I was just unaware that shared paths were a thing. Seems like the convicted woman was similarly convinced that cyclists were not allowed on the pavement.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

No, I was just unaware that shared paths were a thing. Seems like the convicted woman was similarly convinced that cyclists were not allowed on the pavement.

I note again that the cyclist had plenty of room to pass the pedestrian at her own left and the pedestrian's right. Not only did she not do that, but she tried to move farther to her right toward the road to go around the pedestrian. That's when she went over the curb. The story notes that the pedestrian has cerebral palsy and lives in "special accommodation." I wonder if the 77-year-old cyclist had any physical or mental impairment.

[novaphile]

Sadly, this level of utter stupidity and arrogance of pedestrians is all too common.

While cycling on a shared use path on the way to work, a guy jumped in front of me and screamed "Get off the foot path!" as loud as he could.

I had no chance to stop, because he had jumped out in front of me at the last possible second.

The end result was that he copped my front wheel in his nuts, my handlebars in his guts, and my helmet in his face. (remember I weigh 115kg, so there was a fair amount of momentum in the impact.)

He ended up on the ground, lying on the 'shared use' symbol on the path (a picture of a bicycle and a pedestrian) in quite a bad way.

To my utter disgust, the police refused to charge him with assault or anything else.

To my utter shame, after I skittled him, and while I was still freaked out, I screamed at him: "It's a ******* shared use path, you ******* useless ******* oxygen thief."

Sadly, that was only the worst of more than a dozen episodes of pedestrians trying to injure/block cyclists for using cycling infrastructure that I've personally experienced, so I've assumed it's a common form of Karenism/mental illness.

Note, this particular path did not exist in any form until it was built as a dedicated cycle path, and then later re-badged as a 'shared-use' path.

Note also, South Australia has 'bicycle only' paths, and the local police are utterly resistant to the idea that pedestrians should be ticketed for using/blocking them.

And one final comment, it is also legal for cyclists to use foot paths here.