Manslaughter, for shouting at a cyclist

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by lionking

Do you realise that this incident didn’t happen on a sidewalk?

Sure looks like one to me.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Sure looks like one to me.

There are shared use paths that look little different that I'm familiar with

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by jimbob

There are shared use paths that look little different that I'm familiar with

I've never seen shared use paths that butt up against buildings*, that have street lights near the middle of them, and uneven gutter covers. It's wholly inappropriate for cycling. I'll maintain it was never intended as shared use, and was only designated as such due to expediency.

*Someone upthread noted sidewalks have people going in and out of buildings and window shopping etc. Which is why people don't always walk in one side. Good point. And it makes it unsuitable for cycling.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

I've never seen shared use paths that butt up against buildings*, that have street lights near the middle of them, and uneven gutter covers. It's wholly inappropriate for cycling. I'll maintain it was never intended as shared use, and was only designated as such due to expediency.

*Someone upthread noted sidewalks have people going in and out of buildings and window shopping etc. Which is why people don't always walk in one side. Good point. And it makes it unsuitable for cycling.

What point are you trying to make? I’ve seen many like that, particularly in inner city areas.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

I've never seen shared use paths that butt up against buildings*, that have street lights near the middle of them, and uneven gutter covers. It's wholly inappropriate for cycling. I'll maintain it was never intended as shared use, and was only designated as such due to expediency.

*Someone upthread noted sidewalks have people going in and out of buildings and window shopping etc. Which is why people don't always walk in one side. Good point. And it makes it unsuitable for cycling.

Cycle facility of the month (mostly around Warrington, in NW England)

A random month somewhere in the middle.

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of.../April2016.htm

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Lplus

How far? 100 yards? I mile? 10 miles? all the way round the block till you get back to the same point?

A shared footway/cycleway should be signed on or immediately adjacent to the facility. Note that shortly after the sign you show the signs appear only on the other side of the road and stay that way via various signs to well beyond the scene of the incident.

There should be plans showing the intended area of the shared route together with a sign schedule which between them indicate the location of the signs. It's no good handing the sign gang a bunch of signs and telling them to stick them up wherever they can find a space. That the county council doesn't know the exact location of the route astounds me. Maybe they lost the plans, or maybe it was the local authority acting for the county council who put up the signs.

None of that matters. If you are cycling on a shared path, you are going to assume it stays shared until there is a sign or road markings saying it is no longer a shared path. It doesn’t become not a shared path just because another shared path appears on the other side of the road. Cyclists can’t be expected to check the plans at the local highway department if they are cycling along and there hasn’t been a sign for a bit.

Furthermore, even if it was not a shared path, it might justify Grey’s anger but it does not justify her actions which led to the death of a human being.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Cycle facility of the month (mostly around Warrington, in NW England)

A random month somewhere in the middle.

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of.../April2016.htm

In fact the penultimate one

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of...anuary2019.htm

Quote:

Newport City Council recognise the importance of good lighting to ensure that cyclists can clearly see objects that may be obstructing their progress. In this case visibility has been further enhanced by the addition of white paint to highlight the post.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

None of that matters. If you are cycling on a shared path, you are going to assume it stays shared until there is a sign or road markings saying it is no longer a shared path. It doesn’t become not a shared path just because another shared path appears on the other side of the road. Cyclists can’t be expected to check the plans at the local highway department if they are cycling along and there hasn’t been a sign for a bit.

Furthermore, even if it was not a shared path, it might justify Grey’s anger but it does not justify her actions which led to the death of a human being.

Absolutely.

[Shrinker]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

I've never seen shared use paths that butt up against buildings*, that have street lights near the middle of them, and uneven gutter covers. It's wholly inappropriate for cycling. I'll maintain it was never intended as shared use, and was only designated as such due to expediency.

*Someone upthread noted sidewalks have people going in and out of buildings and window shopping etc. Which is why people don't always walk in one side. Good point. And it makes it unsuitable for cycling.

I think the issue here is that you’ve never noticed such paths. They are all around, and not always boldly marked. And, I would say, the unsegregated paths are almost always adapted from pedestrian-only pavements, warts and all, for expediency as you say. I could point you to a bunch of them with various obstacles, and it’s just not a problem, and maybe even a benefit in a ‘self explaining roads’ way. Cyclists on those paths should be going slowly and carefully anyway. The blue sign is not a license to ride on it as if it were the road.

I know of one local shared pavement which does have shops and cafes, but the idea that it’s fraught with danger is just a fantasy. It wouldn’t have been designated if there weren’t plenty of space, and nobody is speeding across it in their full body speedos.Those guys take the road anyway because all the breaks for side junctions make pavement riding just too slow and tedious for anyone in a hurry.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

None of that matters. If you are cycling on a shared path, you are going to assume it stays shared until there is a sign or road markings saying it is no longer a shared path. It doesn’t become not a shared path just because another shared path appears on the other side of the road. Cyclists can’t be expected to check the plans at the local highway department if they are cycling along and there hasn’t been a sign for a bit.

Furthermore, even if it was not a shared path, it might justify Grey’s anger but it does not justify her actions which led to the death of a human being.

1, A cyclist should ensure they stay on the cycle path, since failing to do so might lead to a fine

2, The local authority should provide adequate signs to allow 1, but I consider they failed.

3, A regular cyclist on the route should be able to comprehend the way the shared route goes despite the poor signage, but a first time cyclist might well be confused. I do not know if the cyclist regularly used the route.

It is quite possible that the verdict and sentencing took no account of the status of the footway, but since it was part of the evidence it is impossible to tell. You think it makes no difference and you may be right, but as a retired civil engineer who had to deal with road and roadsign design at various times, I consider the status of the footway a reasonable subject of discussion.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Shrinker

I think the issue here is that’s you’ve never noticed such paths. They are all around, and not always boldly marked. And, I would say, the unsegregated paths are almost always adapted from pedestrian-only pavements, warts and all, for expediency as you say. I could point you to a bunch of them with various obstacles, and it’s just not a problem, and maybe even a benefit in a ‘self explaining roads’ way. Cyclists on those paths should be going slowly and carefully anyway. The blue sign is not a license to ride on it as if it were the road.

I know of one local shared pavement which does have shops and cafes, but the idea that it’s fraught with danger is just a fantasy. It wouldn’t have been designated if there weren’t plenty of space, and nobody is speeding across it in their full body speedos.Those guys take the road anyway because all the breaks for side junctions make pavement riding just too slow and tedious for anyone in a hurry.

I'm not particularly fast but indeed it is tedious, energy sapping and also often dangerous.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by lionking

What point are you trying to make? I’ve seen many like that, particularly in inner city areas.

I guess, I don't get out much. Here the mixed use paths look like:

https://www.railstotrails.org/media/...eljkelller.jpg In the distance you can see a bridge, thats for bikes and pedestrians only.

Then, on a lot of streets theres a sidewalk. To the outside of that sidewalk, there is often a bike lane, just for cyclists. There are admittedly some busy streets with no bikelane. Where cyclists illegally bike on the sidewalk, even though they are legally supposed to be on traffic lanes, but thats risky.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by lionking

Surprising this passed without comment. Hopefully justice will be done and Grey gets a sentence more appropriate for manslaughter.

Or the sentence is reduced at appeal.

[catsmate]

Wrt the status of the path as a 'shared cycleway', the Local Authority, police and prosecution all failed to confirm this legal status.
Which in itself, in conjunction with the Judge's remarks, is probably sufficient for an appeal against the conviction.

BTW, I don't think it has been mentioned, but this was the second trial; in the first the jury failed to reach a verdict.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Wrt the status of the path as a 'shared cycleway', the Local Authority, police and prosecution all failed to confirm this legal status.
Which in itself, in conjunction with the Judge's remarks, is probably sufficient for an appeal against the conviction.

BTW, I don't think it has been mentioned, but this was the second trial; in the first the jury failed to reach a verdict.

Disagree - he states whether it was a designated shared path is not relevant to the conviction.

"...This was, I think, a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians that allowed them to go around the busy ring road. The vital point is this: I am sure you knew cyclists used that path and you were not taken by surprise or in fear for your safety. The path at the point of collision 2.4 metres wide..."

Have to say given what I've read and now seen I wouldn't have been able to say that it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that she caused the accident by her arm movement so I couldn't have said she was guilty of manslaughter. But of course like all of us I didn't sit through the entire re-trial so can't claim any certainty that I wouldn't have voted for guilty if I'd been on the jury.

I think it was a terrible and stupid accident.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Wrt the status of the path as a 'shared cycleway', the Local Authority, police and prosecution all failed to confirm this legal status.
Which in itself, in conjunction with the Judge's remarks, is probably sufficient for an appeal against the conviction.

BTW, I don't think it has been mentioned, but this was the second trial; in the first the jury failed to reach a verdict.

Hmm, interesting - especially as some seem to think this was an open and shut case...though perhaps more evidence came to light the second time?

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Originally Posted by Darat

Disagree - he states whether it was a designated shared path is not relevant to the conviction.

"...This was, I think, a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians that allowed them to go around the busy ring road. The vital point is this: I am sure you knew cyclists used that path and you were not taken by surprise or in fear for your safety. The path at the point of collision 2.4 metres wide..."

Have to say given what I've read and now seen I wouldn't have been able to say that it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that she caused the accident by her arm movement so I couldn't have said she was guilty of manslaughter. But of course like all of us I didn't sit through the entire re-trial so can't claim any certainty that I wouldn't have voted for guilty if I'd been on the jury.

I think it was a terrible and stupid accident.

It would be interesting to know what made the judge so sure she knew that and was not taken by surprise.* I'd got the impression she didn't go out much unsupervised...she certainly won't now .

*She doesn't seem to have helped herself with her behaviour since, so perhaps that has created the impression.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen

It would be interesting to know what made the judge so sure she knew that and was not taken by surprise.* I'd got the impression she didn't go out much unsupervised...she certainly won't now .

*She doesn't seem to have helped herself with her behaviour since, so perhaps that has created the impression.

Sounds like the judge had extensive reports about her and how she lived her life (from the judgement statement "I read the character statements detailing your lifestyle. I have also read the pre-sentence report and medical evidence and have learned as much about you as I can.").

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Originally Posted by Darat

Sounds like the judge had extensive reports about her and how she lived her life (from the judgement statement "I read the character statements detailing your lifestyle. I have also read the pre-sentence report and medical evidence and have learned as much about you as I can.").

Ta.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by Darat

Disagree - he states whether it was a designated shared path is not relevant to the conviction.

"...This was, I think, a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians that allowed them to go around the busy ring road. The vital point is this: I am sure you knew cyclists used that path and you were not taken by surprise or in fear for your safety. The path at the point of collision 2.4 metres wide..."

Have to say given what I've read and now seen I wouldn't have been able to say that it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that she caused the accident by her arm movement so I couldn't have said she was guilty of manslaughter. But of course like all of us I didn't sit through the entire re-trial so can't claim any certainty that I wouldn't have voted for guilty if I'd been on the jury.

I think it was a terrible and stupid accident.

I wonder what evidence the judge had that that side of the road was used at least fairly regularly by cyclists.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Lplus

I wonder what evidence the judge had that that side of the road was used at least fairly regularly by cyclists.

I can't imagine it would be very difficult to find out. Get someone to review a fair amount of the CCTV, for example?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by GlennB

I can't imagine it would be very difficult to find out. Get someone to review a fair amount of the CCTV, for example?

But that isn't the judge's job in a UK court. I assume the prosecution will have made that claim and supported it in the trial.

[lobosrul5]

I've found about where this incident happened and just yards down the road (Nursery Rd), the pavement looks like:



I'm sorry, but if that pavement is ACTUALLY designated as dual use for cyclists then the person doing so is a moron. Thats an accident waiting to happen... which I do understand does not absolve the pedestrian one way or the other.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

I've found about where this incident happened and just yards down the road (Nursery Rd), the pavement looks like:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0b15f3b415.jpg

I'm sorry, but if that pavement is ACTUALLY designated as dual use for cyclists then the person doing so is a moron. Thats an accident waiting to happen... which I do understand does not absolve the pedestrian one way or the other.

Which is perhaps why the shared route signs are on the other footway....

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Lplus

Which is perhaps why the shared route signs are on the other footway....

The one on the other side of the road... that is also blocked mostly by a road sign and which the cyclist was not using Piss poor planning and infrastructure. If you want cyclists in your town maybe spend some money and put in bike lanes?

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Lplus

Which is perhaps why the shared route signs are on the other footway....

For maybe the 5th time ... there's one on the left too, down the road apiece in the direction the cyclist was coming from.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

I've found about where this incident happened and just yards down the road (Nursery Rd), the pavement looks like:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0b15f3b415.jpg

I'm sorry, but if that pavement is ACTUALLY designated as dual use for cyclists then the person doing so is a moron. Thats an accident waiting to happen... which I do understand does not absolve the pedestrian one way or the other.

It's not at all uncommon. For a start, it almost certainly wasn't designed to be shared use, originally being a regular pavement, but was most likely (assuming it was) designated in response to the council being required or requested to provide more safe cycling routes. Different councils regard this with varying degrees of seriousness; some putting in well-considered dedicated cycle paths and shared used facilities (which obviously costs money), others simply painting lines and words on existing pavements, regardless of things like access to houses on the path, or telegraph poles in the middle of the pavement (and see some of the examples linked earlier).

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

I've found about where this incident happened and just yards down the road (Nursery Rd), the pavement looks like:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0b15f3b415.jpg

I'm sorry, but if that pavement is ACTUALLY designated as dual use for cyclists then the person doing so is a moron. Thats an accident waiting to happen... which I do understand does not absolve the pedestrian one way or the other.

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of...tember2017.htm

Quote:

Bringing Culture to the National Cycle Network
cycle path obstructed by a barrier, passes a cyclists dismount sign then heads down steps
Sarah Davis
This surrealist art installation (The Physical Impossibility of Cycling in the Mind of a Traffic Engineer) was commissioned by Staffordshire County Council to raise the profile of National Cycle Route 54 in Burton-on-Trent, and has been shortlisted for the 2017 Turner Prize.


Sustrans is the charity behind practical and innovative solutions to some of the UK's biggest transport challenges, including the award-winning National Cycle Network
Staffordshire County Council
Location Map
Cycle Streets

And sarcasm alert.

Quote:

This site is dedicated to highlighting examples of how innovative design and outstanding engineering offer safety, utility, and comfort to cyclists. If you know of a cycle facility worthy of inclusion on this site, either within Warrington or beyond, then send a photo (jpg) and short description to Pete Owens.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

It's not at all uncommon. For a start, it almost certainly wasn't designed to be shared use, originally being a regular pavement, but was most likely (assuming it was) designated in response to the council being required or requested to provide more safe cycling routes. Different councils regard this with varying degrees of seriousness; some putting in well-considered dedicated cycle paths and shared used facilities (which obviously costs money), others simply painting lines and words on existing pavements, regardless of things like access to houses on the path, or telegraph poles in the middle of the pavement (and see some of the examples linked earlier).

The sign on the left side pavement, where the cyclist was makes it impossible for a pedestrian and cyclist to cross. The sign on the right side looks to make it impossible for... anyone over maybe 4 feet tall to use the pavement. They could've at least changed the road signs for a different design. Maybe the town of Huntingdon council area etc should be sued (I'm thinking like an American).

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Lplus

That's guidance only, a convention if you will, that the person next to the kerb should be facing the oncoming traffic in the adjacent part fo the road, so in the UK pedestrians tend to pass right hand to right hand on a footway.

On a two-way street; I think the road in this case is a one-way stretch of road, you are correct for the side where the incident occurred, but on the other side they would pass left hand to left hand.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by jimbob

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of...tember2017.htm



And sarcasm alert.

They put THAT on a cycling path to raise awareness for cycling ?

That looks like some left over jungle gym type playground equipment leftover from 50 years ago.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

It's not at all uncommon. For a start, it almost certainly wasn't designed to be shared use, originally being a regular pavement, but was most likely (assuming it was) designated in response to the council being required or requested to provide more safe cycling routes. Different councils regard this with varying degrees of seriousness; some putting in well-considered dedicated cycle paths and shared used facilities (which obviously costs money), others simply painting lines and words on existing pavements, regardless of things like access to houses on the path, or telegraph poles in the middle of the pavement (and see some of the examples linked earlier).

And there's possibly another factor at play in this case - that stretch is one-way for a good distance (maybe the entire Huntingdon ring road is, I couldn't find a handy diagram). If a cyclist wants to travel a short distance in the other direction they might have to pedal the entire length of the ring road. That's no biggie for a driver but tough on a cyclist.

Sad eta: I just 'drove' the entire ring road back to the accident scene. One-way all the way.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

They put THAT on a cycling path to raise awareness for cycling ?

That looks like some left over jungle gym type playground equipment leftover from 50 years ago.

I refer to your comments about morons

I have seen some idiotic design myself

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by jimbob

I refer to your comments about morons

I have seen some idiotic design myself

This has now been painted over, but yes that was the entirety of the cycle lane

123 Bramhall Moor Ln
https://maps.app.goo.gl/5UFgQGYVXGjf267o6

Yes, a bit longer than a medium sized hatchback

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

They put THAT on a cycling path to raise awareness for cycling ?

That looks like some left over jungle gym type playground equipment leftover from 50 years ago.

nm

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by GlennB

And there's possibly another factor at play in this case - that stretch is one-way for a good distance (maybe the entire Huntingdon ring road is, I couldn't find a handy diagram). If a cyclist wants to travel a short distance in the other direction they might have to pedal the entire length of the ring road. That's no biggie for a driver but tough on a cyclist.

Indeed; my town has a one-way system, and there's a couple of places where I will cycle on the pavement (if the way is clear of pedestrians) for a few metres to avoid cycling for half a kilometre or more in two lanes of traffic.

[RolandRat]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Interfere with. Manslaughter requires a reckless act that a reasonable man would know had a good chance of causing death.

Pedestrians shouting and gesticulating at cyclists has been going ever since cycles were invented and vice versa. That level of interference is not normally associated with death. The reasonable man would not think, better not shout at that cyclist in case they die.

Going by the link in the quote below, the bar for manslaughter is much lower than you state:

Originally Posted by Shrinker

Here's the specific guidance given by the judge to the jury in this case...

https://www.scribd.com/document/6301...ctions-of-Law#

"Manslaughter - A person commits manslaughter if he/she does an unlawful act that a sane and reasonable person would realise would inevitably expose another person to the risk of some harm ( and that other person dies as a result)."

The actions of the pedestrian seem to more than fulfil that requirement to me.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

Going by the link in the quote below, the bar for manslaughter is much lower than you state:



"Manslaughter - A person commits manslaughter if he/she does an unlawful act that a sane and reasonable person would realise would inevitably expose another person to the risk of some harm ( and that other person dies as a result)."

The actions of the pedestrian seem to more than fulfil that requirement to me.

It would seem manslaughter actually has a HIGHER bar than in the US, where its reckless or negligent behavior (although those are usually a shorter sentence). The only unlawful act she may have committed is pushing the cyclist... and I do not see video evidence proof. Surely shouting and gesticulating is not unlawful in the UK?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

....
"Manslaughter - A person commits manslaughter if he/she does an unlawful act that a sane and reasonable person would realise would inevitably expose another person to the risk of some harm ( and that other person dies as a result)."

The actions of the pedestrian seem to more than fulfil that requirement to me.

Does it? Would a reasonable person believe that cursing and gesturing could cause someone's death? The cyclist could have stopped and let the agitated pedestrian pass, or walked her bicycle, or passed at the pedestrian's other side. The pedestrian had no reason to think the cyclist would force her way past next to the roadway and lose control.

[JoeMorgue]

We're getting back into the edges of the insane "I intended the action and I knew the action would kill them, but that doesn't mean I wanted them to die" stuff.

She knew the cyclist would move away from her. Away from her was the street. What did she expect the cyclists to do jump straight up 20 vertical feet? Borrow under ground to go around her?