Manslaughter, for shouting at a cyclist - Page 15

Shrinker · 15th March 2023, 07:10 AM

This is the site of the accident where you can clearly see the width of the path and what it would be like for a cyclist and a pedestrian to pass with other around the signpost.

https://goo.gl/maps/FYikVmfKD9FJh14p9

lobosrul5 · 15th March 2023, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by Lplus

It seems to be reasonablly wide here : https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.33...8i8192!5m1!1e1

I'm not sure which sign lobrul5 is referring to, perhaps this one https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.33...8i8192!5m1!1e1

Which has been supported on posts either side of the footway to allow access.

There's a lamp column here https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.33...8i8192!5m1!1e1

Which is in the footway but there's plenty of room around it.

On the left, see the road sign, that is the side of the pavement they were on. A cyclist would have to weave to the right of the sign, then back left to get by the traffic light. In neither case would there be room for two pedestrian let alone a cyclist and a pedestrian to cross. Its a bad design for a shared use path. Although it seems, that side of the road wasn't intended to be. On the right... so cyclists are mean to go inbetween the sign posts?

jeremyp · 15th March 2023, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen

Yeah, I wouldn't go as far as 'miscarriage of justice', there certainly seems enough there to indicate a fair bit of culpability, I still remain slightly surprised and used the word 'indicate' deliberately because my surprise is more that they were certain beyond reasonable doubt rather than that I think it's a clearly wrong verdict. Also mildly surprised at the certainty that the pedestrian's disability didn't play a bit, partly because I can see how it might (even if to just making her feel more vulnerable) and partly because people normally pussy foot around that. It does seem that she completely failed to impress the judge!

Just as a point of information: the standard is not "beyond reasonable doubt". The jury is directed to reach a guilty verdict if the prosecution has proved its case "so that you [the jury] are sure". The standard hasn't been literally "beyond reasonable doubt" in England for some years.

Lplus · 15th March 2023, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

On the left, see the road sign, that is the side of the pavement they were on. A cyclist would have to weave to the right of the sign, then back left to get by the traffic light. In neither case would there be room for two pedestrian let alone a cyclist and a pedestrian to cross. Its a bad design for a shared use path. Although it seems, that side of the road wasn't intended to be. On the right... so cyclists are mean to go inbetween the sign posts?

Ok, thanks, my mistake. Agreed the north side of the road is unsuitable. The idea of spacing signposts to allow passage bewteen is not unusual in the UK.

Brainster · 15th March 2023, 10:45 AM

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 thought it was silly too, but then I looked closer. You can see there is a sign saying "Cyclists Dismount" as the route continues down some steps. I suspect that not enough cyclists were obeying the instruction and putting pedestrians on the steps at risk, and that the maze was a way of ensuring they got off the bike.

jimbob · 15th March 2023, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

I thought it was silly too, but then I looked closer. You can see there is a sign saying "Cyclists Dismount" as the route continues down some steps. I suspect that not enough cyclists were obeying the instruction and putting pedestrians on the steps at risk, and that the maze was a way of ensuring they got off the bike.

They are often a copout.

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of...tember2007.htm

Quote:

Essex County Council is promoting cycling as an effective and enjoyable form of aerobic exercise to reduce the incidence heart disease, high blood pressure and obesity in the county. Unfortunately it was discovered that, rather than pedalling briskly, Harlow's cyclists were freewheeling down this gently sloping path. To counter this, signs have been introduced at regular intervals requiring cyclists to get off and walk.

This particularly daunting section, requires seven dismounts within a distance of 380 yards Note, how at each junction the kerbs are maintained on the downhill side of the path, thus ensuring that even the laziest cyclists gain the full health benefits from their activity.

Essex County Council
Location Map
Cycle Streets

Check out the idiotic arrangement here.

Hardly conducive to utility transport not leisure.

And a fine example why cyclists often use the road instead of the cycle facilities in the UK.

Darat · 15th March 2023, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Just as a point of information: the standard is not "beyond reasonable doubt". The jury is directed to reach a guilty verdict if the prosecution has proved its case "so that you [the jury] are sure". The standard hasn't been literally "beyond reasonable doubt" in England for some years.

No but it is still about the best way to summarise the process.

autumn1971 · 15th March 2023, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by RolandRat

The link states some harm that leads to a death. I think a reasonable person would judge pushing someone on a bike could cause "some harm". This "some harm" led to a death. This is rightfully manslaughter.

I’m going to assume the UK has a similar type of law that covers what in the US is assault. No physical contact needs to happen for a reasonable person to expect that a motion might result in injurious physical contact.
Is it legal in the UK to take-punch someone? Or make aggressive movements that a reasonable person assumes may result in contact that counts as battery?

Ethan Thane Athen · 15th March 2023, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Shrinker

You were talking specifically about the case of somebody getting off their bike to walk around a pedestrian, not stop and exchange pleasantries. You were trying to make the case that the Highway Code requires it.

Er no, sorry if I didn't make myself clear. the stopping is to avoid a squeeze past and the exchanging pleasantries normally occurs as a result of that. I didn't mean that the exchanging pleasantries was the reason for stopping.

Then again, I live in a part of the country where people will take any excuse for a bit of chatter about the weather etc. Took my wife (from London) ages to get used to. For a while she assumed I knew everyone we 'bumped into'.

Ethan Thane Athen · 15th March 2023, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Just as a point of information: the standard is not "beyond reasonable doubt". The jury is directed to reach a guilty verdict if the prosecution has proved its case "so that you [the jury] are sure". The standard hasn't been literally "beyond reasonable doubt" in England for some years.

Thanks - appreciate the update.

Ethan Thane Athen · 15th March 2023, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Shrinker

This is the site of the accident where you can clearly see the width of the path and what it would be like for a cyclist and a pedestrian to pass with other around the signpost.

https://goo.gl/maps/FYikVmfKD9FJh14p9

Genuine question, honestly not being arsey, how much room is a cyclist meant to leave when passing a pedestrian? I know a car is meant to leave a cars width when passing a bike ie manoeuvre as if the bike was the width of a car but I don't know the guidelines for bikes and people.

RolandRat · 15th March 2023, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

So you can call someone an idiot in the UK and go to jail for 6 months... I think I'll pass on ever travelling there. ETA: although the highlighted sure seems like a highbar to prove. Are you sure those were the pedestrians intentions, beyond a reasonable doubt?

That's the point, it is a highbar to prove. Innocent until proven guilty. You're not going to prison for calling someone a twat.

Originally Posted by Bob001

I'd like to see some cases where prosecutions have been made successfully. Looks to me like some pretty broad gray areas requiring interpretation of intent, threatening, abusive, insulting, disorderly, harassment, alarm, distress, and "writing, sign or other visible representation." If a grocery advertises lamb on sale, maybe with a picture, and a vegan is "alarmed or distressed," is that a crime?

The grocer isn't going to prison. If he threw the leg of lamb through a window into a vegan meeting, then maybe. The link below has an incident where someone was jailed under these laws:

https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/1...earing-street/

Originally Posted by autumn1971

I’m going to assume the UK has a similar type of law that covers what in the US is assault. No physical contact needs to happen for a reasonable person to expect that a motion might result in injurious physical contact.
Is it legal in the UK to take-punch someone? Or make aggressive movements that a reasonable person assumes may result in contact that counts as battery?

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the actions you describe would be covered under the legislation mentioned above.

Bob001 · 15th March 2023, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Just as a point of information: the standard is not "beyond reasonable doubt". The jury is directed to reach a guilty verdict if the prosecution has proved its case "so that you [the jury] are sure". The standard hasn't been literally "beyond reasonable doubt" in England for some years.

That sounds like an even vaguer standard. There is always debate about what constitutes "reasonable" doubt. "Are you sure?" is even less precise.

Bob001 · 15th March 2023, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by RolandRat

....
The link below has an incident where someone was jailed under these laws:

https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/1...earing-street/
....

From your link:

Quote:

The court heard the 55-year-old had caused harassment, alarm, and distress by shouting and swearing in the street in Birmingham on September 27.

And for that he got 40 weeks in jail, including a suspended sentence for a previous infraction.

That's just crazy. In the U.S. somebody might -- maybe, possibly -- get a citation for disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct. Nothing like this.

lionking · 15th March 2023, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

From your link:

And for that he got 40 weeks in jail, including a suspended sentence for a previous infraction.

That's just crazy. In the U.S. somebody might -- maybe, possibly -- get a citation for disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct. Nothing like this.

So great to hear how wonderful the US justice system is…….

lobosrul5 · 15th March 2023, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

So great to hear how wonderful the US justice system is…….

No, we suck. We just don't codify it in law... ie there was a guy arrested and held for a number of weeks for insulting a cop. Of course, eventually, he received a huge settlement payout and everyone in the town is a bit poorer.

ETA: I must say though, that its pretty neat that the UK has so much money to spare that they can afford to jail a person for wondering around and shouting obscenities for several months. I mean the NHS must be flush with cash for them to proritize that, than giving nurses a raise! Amazing!!! /s

lobosrul5 · 15th March 2023, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by autumn1971

I’m going to assume the UK has a similar type of law that covers what in the US is assault. No physical contact needs to happen for a reasonable person to expect that a motion might result in injurious physical contact.
Is it legal in the UK to take-punch someone? Or make aggressive movements that a reasonable person assumes may result in contact that counts as battery?

Do you mean fake-punch? Yeah if the pedestrian had done that, and that had caused the cyclist to fall into traffic and die. I would make no argument, thats manslaughter. Not seeing that in the video though.

JoeMorgue · 15th March 2023, 01:18 PM

Is there any question (or reasonable doubt or this or that or whatever the **** you want to call it) that if the pedestrian had just walked normally down the sidewalk without gesturing or gesticulating the cyclist would still be alive?

It seems we're wasting a lot of words arguing about a lot that isn't that.

GlennB · 15th March 2023, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

From your link:

And for that he got 40 weeks in jail, including a suspended sentence for a previous infraction.

That's just crazy. In the U.S. somebody might -- maybe, possibly -- get a citation for disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct. Nothing like this.

Or shot by trigger-happy cops annoyed at a loony who wouldn't comply with police orders?

lobosrul5 · 15th March 2023, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Is there any question (or reasonable doubt or this or that or whatever the **** you want to call it) that if the pedestrian had just walked normally down the sidewalk without gesturing or gesticulating the cyclist would still be alive?

It seems we're wasting a lot of words arguing about a lot that isn't that.

If the UK defined manslaughter as any actions which cause another persons death as manslaughter* then we'd be done here. But they do not.

*or murder if its intent to kill obviously

Bob001 · 15th March 2023, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by GlennB

Or shot by trigger-happy cops annoyed at a loony who wouldn't comply with police orders?

Sure,. that could happen, too. But it would not be a sentence imposed by the judicial process.

RolandRat · 15th March 2023, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

From your link:

And for that he got 40 weeks in jail, including a suspended sentence for a previous infraction.

That's just crazy. In the U.S. somebody might -- maybe, possibly -- get a citation for disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct. Nothing like this.

The guy was obviously a serial offender, he was already on an order prohibiting him from being dick in public.

It just highlights that you can be jailed for causing distress and as such, the pedestrian's actions can easily be construed to be illegal and as they led to a death, manslaughter, IMO, was the rightful verdict.

Lplus · 15th March 2023, 01:52 PM

For the second night running the road on which the incident occured is closed according to Google Maps - from Ambury Road to Hartford Road. It mayh ave been closed on previous nights but I didn't check.

I wonder what they are doing....

Bob001 · 15th March 2023, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by RolandRat

The guy was obviously a serial offender, he was already on an order prohibiting him from being dick in public.
.....

Being a dick in public isn't generally treated as a crime, certainly not one meriting a long jail term. I see the belligerent drunks staggering in the streets when the bars close as intimidating and distressing, but the cops aren't scooping them up. It looks like freedom of speech isn't much of a concept in the UK.

RolandRat · 15th March 2023, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Being a dick in public isn't generally treated as a crime, certainly not one meriting a long jail term. I see the belligerent drunks staggering in the streets when the bars close as intimidating and distressing, but the cops aren't scooping them up. It looks like freedom of speech isn't much of a concept in the UK.

I don't want to derail the thread talking about this idiot, to finalise on his case, I don't see why other people should have to put up with some prat who can't control himself. He's done it plenty of times, he didn't heed the warnings.

Feck around and find out.

Matthew Best · 15th March 2023, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen

Genuine question, honestly not being arsey, how much room is a cyclist meant to leave when passing a pedestrian? I know a car is meant to leave a cars width when passing a bike ie manoeuvre as if the bike was the width of a car but I don't know the guidelines for bikes and people.

I don't think a car is supposed to leave a car's width when passing a bike. I believe it's generally considered a meter and a half is sufficient. In other words, the same amount of room as you would leave a car you were overtaking. Nobody leaves a car's width between cars when overtaking - if they did, they'd almost need a three lane highway to do it.

Bob001 · 15th March 2023, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by RolandRat

I don't want to derail the thread talking about this idiot, to finalise on his case, I don't see why other people should have to put up with some prat who can't control himself. He's done it plenty of times, he didn't heed the warnings.

Feck around and find out.

Part of living in a free society is putting up with other people's offensive behavior. If the guy was doing something specific -- obstructing traffic, threatening to hurt somebody, etc. -- there are specific laws that could be applied. "Causing distress" is a pretty ridiculous charge, and it could be applied to anybody -- including political protests and union picket lines -- that somebody else doesn't like.

JoeMorgue · 16th March 2023, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Part of living in a free society is putting up with other people's offensive behavior.

Okay so why does not apply to the pedestrian just getting over her hang-ups about cyclists driving on "her" sidewalk?

Why is our discourse completely controlled by people who think standards only exist to excuse bad people and punish good people?

catsmate · 16th March 2023, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Just as a point of information: the standard is not "beyond reasonable doubt". The jury is directed to reach a guilty verdict if the prosecution has proved its case "so that you [the jury] are sure". The standard hasn't been literally "beyond reasonable doubt" in England for some years.

Not exactly. While the guidance given to judges, to pass on to jurors, no longer includes the particular phrase, it remains within the law.

Quote:

The burden of proving the guilt of the defendant lies on the prosecution, who must prove the particulars of the offence beyond reasonable doubt; the jury or magistrates should only convict if they are sure of the defendant's guilt.

Quote:

In criminal proceedings, the prosecution normally has the legal burden of proving, beyond reasonable doubt, all elements of the offence.

Bob001 · 16th March 2023, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Okay so why does not apply to the pedestrian just getting over her hang-ups about cyclists driving on "her" sidewalk?
.....

Well, in this particular case a speeding cyclist is a physical threat to a woman who is half-blind with mobility issues. Even on a "shared path," the cyclist is responsible for respecting a pedestrian's safety.

JoeMorgue · 16th March 2023, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Well, in this particular case a speeding cyclist is a physical threat to a woman who is half-blind with mobility issues. Even on a "shared path," the cyclist is responsible for respecting a pedestrian's safety.

Exactly how long are you going to ignore the fact that this pedestrian had been harassing cyclists on this path for a while?

Bob001 · 16th March 2023, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Exactly how long are you going to ignore the fact that this pedestrian had been harassing cyclists on this path for a while?

Where's the evidence for that? And by "harassing," do you mean "Don't hit me with your stupid bicycle!"

JoeMorgue · 16th March 2023, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Where's the evidence for that? And by "harassing," do you mean "Don't hit me with your stupid bicycle!"

No I mean her childish "This sidewalk is for me and me only!" attitude.

GlennB · 16th March 2023, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Well, in this particular case a speeding cyclist is a physical threat to a woman who is half-blind with mobility issues. Even on a "shared path," the cyclist is responsible for respecting a pedestrian's safety.

What makes you think she was 'speeding'? That's certainly not evident from the cctv footage.

Bob001 · 16th March 2023, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by GlennB

What makes you think she was 'speeding'? That's certainly not evident from the cctv footage.

We don't see the cyclist approaching the pedestrian. We don't know how the half-blind pedestrian perceived the cyclist. We only see the cyclist trying to force her way past the pedestrian.

GlennB · 16th March 2023, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Bob001

We don't see the cyclist approaching the pedestrian. We don't know how the half-blind pedestrian perceived the cyclist. We only see the cyclist trying to force her way past the pedestrian.

The question remains - What makes you think she was 'speeding'? We see the bike beginning to pass Ms Grey and then the bike and cyclist falling. There is no suggestion of speeding.

Disbelief · 16th March 2023, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Well, in this particular case a speeding cyclist is a physical threat to a woman who is half-blind with mobility issues. Even on a "shared path," the cyclist is responsible for respecting a pedestrian's safety.

Obviously the threat was the pedestrian, as the cyclist was the one who died.

JoeMorgue · 16th March 2023, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Disbelief

Obviously the threat was the pedestrian, as the cyclist was the one who died.

Yeah people keep glossing over the tiny little piddling detail.

The Common Potato · 16th March 2023, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Is there any question (or reasonable doubt or this or that or whatever the **** you want to call it) that if the pedestrian had just walked normally down the sidewalk without gesturing or gesticulating the cyclist would still be alive?

It seems we're wasting a lot of words arguing about a lot that isn't that.

In my view, had the cyclist approached from behind the pedestrian, the entire event would have been written off as an unfortunate accident. But she didn't and it wasn't.

I also think that we right-pondians are quite pragmatic; we try to act within the spirit or any law and not necessarily it's exactness.

jimbob · 16th March 2023, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by GlennB

The question remains - What makes you think she was 'speeding'? We see the bike beginning to pass Ms Grey and then the bike and cyclist falling. There is no suggestion of speeding.

And there would have been plenty of space to pass safely. We can see the cyclist had not been cycling quickly.

15th March 2023, 07:38 AM	#562
lobosrul5 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 4,687	Originally Posted by Lplus It seems to be reasonablly wide here : https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.33...8i8192!5m1!1e1 I'm not sure which sign lobrul5 is referring to, perhaps this one https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.33...8i8192!5m1!1e1 Which has been supported on posts either side of the footway to allow access. There's a lamp column here https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.33...8i8192!5m1!1e1 Which is in the footway but there's plenty of room around it. On the left, see the road sign, that is the side of the pavement they were on. A cyclist would have to weave to the right of the sign, then back left to get by the traffic light. In neither case would there be room for two pedestrian let alone a cyclist and a pedestrian to cross. Its a bad design for a shared use path. Although it seems, that side of the road wasn't intended to be. On the right... so cyclists are mean to go inbetween the sign posts?
lobosrul5 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 4,687

15th March 2023, 09:23 AM	#564
Lplus Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 1,708	Originally Posted by lobosrul5 On the left, see the road sign, that is the side of the pavement they were on. A cyclist would have to weave to the right of the sign, then back left to get by the traffic light. In neither case would there be room for two pedestrian let alone a cyclist and a pedestrian to cross. Its a bad design for a shared use path. Although it seems, that side of the road wasn't intended to be. On the right... so cyclists are mean to go inbetween the sign posts? Ok, thanks, my mistake. Agreed the north side of the road is unsuitable. The idea of spacing signposts to allow passage bewteen is not unusual in the UK.
Lplus Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 1,708

15th March 2023, 10:45 AM	#565
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 19,863	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 thought it was silly too, but then I looked closer. You can see there is a sign saying "Cyclists Dismount" as the route continues down some steps. I suspect that not enough cyclists were obeying the instruction and putting pedestrians on the steps at risk, and that the maze was a way of ensuring they got off the bike.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

15th March 2023, 10:53 AM	#566
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Moderator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 29,973	Originally Posted by Brainster I thought it was silly too, but then I looked closer. You can see there is a sign saying "Cyclists Dismount" as the route continues down some steps. I suspect that not enough cyclists were obeying the instruction and putting pedestrians on the steps at risk, and that the maze was a way of ensuring they got off the bike. They are often a copout. http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of...tember2007.htm Quote: Essex County Council is promoting cycling as an effective and enjoyable form of aerobic exercise to reduce the incidence heart disease, high blood pressure and obesity in the county. Unfortunately it was discovered that, rather than pedalling briskly, Harlow's cyclists were freewheeling down this gently sloping path. To counter this, signs have been introduced at regular intervals requiring cyclists to get off and walk. This particularly daunting section, requires seven dismounts within a distance of 380 yards Note, how at each junction the kerbs are maintained on the downhill side of the path, thus ensuring that even the laziest cyclists gain the full health benefits from their activity. Essex County Council Location Map Cycle Streets Check out the idiotic arrangement here. Hardly conducive to utility transport not leisure. And a fine example why cyclists often use the road instead of the cycle facilities in the UK.
	__________________ 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

15th March 2023, 10:55 AM	#567
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 109,503	Originally Posted by jeremyp Just as a point of information: the standard is not "beyond reasonable doubt". The jury is directed to reach a guilty verdict if the prosecution has proved its case "so that you [the jury] are sure". The standard hasn't been literally "beyond reasonable doubt" in England for some years. No but it is still about the best way to summarise the process.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

15th March 2023, 07:10 AM	#561
Shrinker Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 1,185	This is the site of the accident where you can clearly see the width of the path and what it would be like for a cyclist and a pedestrian to pass with other around the signpost. https://goo.gl/maps/FYikVmfKD9FJh14p9

15th March 2023, 08:16 AM	#563
jeremyp Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha Posts: 2,791	Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen Yeah, I wouldn't go as far as 'miscarriage of justice', there certainly seems enough there to indicate a fair bit of culpability, I still remain slightly surprised and used the word 'indicate' deliberately because my surprise is more that they were certain beyond reasonable doubt rather than that I think it's a clearly wrong verdict. Also mildly surprised at the certainty that the pedestrian's disability didn't play a bit, partly because I can see how it might (even if to just making her feel more vulnerable) and partly because people normally pussy foot around that. It does seem that she completely failed to impress the judge! Just as a point of information: the standard is not "beyond reasonable doubt". The jury is directed to reach a guilty verdict if the prosecution has proved its case "so that you [the jury] are sure". The standard hasn't been literally "beyond reasonable doubt" in England for some years.

15th March 2023, 11:07 AM	#568
autumn1971 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 4,190	Originally Posted by RolandRat The link states some harm that leads to a death. I think a reasonable person would judge pushing someone on a bike could cause "some harm". This "some harm" led to a death. This is rightfully manslaughter. I’m going to assume the UK has a similar type of law that covers what in the US is assault. No physical contact needs to happen for a reasonable person to expect that a motion might result in injurious physical contact. Is it legal in the UK to take-punch someone? Or make aggressive movements that a reasonable person assumes may result in contact that counts as battery?
autumn1971 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 4,190	__________________ 'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."' -The Bard

15th March 2023, 11:23 AM	#569
Ethan Thane Athen Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,764	Originally Posted by Shrinker You were talking specifically about the case of somebody getting off their bike to walk around a pedestrian, not stop and exchange pleasantries. You were trying to make the case that the Highway Code requires it. Er no, sorry if I didn't make myself clear. the stopping is to avoid a squeeze past and the exchanging pleasantries normally occurs as a result of that. I didn't mean that the exchanging pleasantries was the reason for stopping. Then again, I live in a part of the country where people will take any excuse for a bit of chatter about the weather etc. Took my wife (from London) ages to get used to. For a while she assumed I knew everyone we 'bumped into'.
	Last edited by Ethan Thane Athen; 15th March 2023 at 11:33 AM.

15th March 2023, 11:27 AM	#570
Ethan Thane Athen Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,764	Originally Posted by jeremyp Just as a point of information: the standard is not "beyond reasonable doubt". The jury is directed to reach a guilty verdict if the prosecution has proved its case "so that you [the jury] are sure". The standard hasn't been literally "beyond reasonable doubt" in England for some years. Thanks - appreciate the update.

15th March 2023, 11:31 AM	#571
Ethan Thane Athen Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,764	Originally Posted by Shrinker This is the site of the accident where you can clearly see the width of the path and what it would be like for a cyclist and a pedestrian to pass with other around the signpost. https://goo.gl/maps/FYikVmfKD9FJh14p9 Genuine question, honestly not being arsey, how much room is a cyclist meant to leave when passing a pedestrian? I know a car is meant to leave a cars width when passing a bike ie manoeuvre as if the bike was the width of a car but I don't know the guidelines for bikes and people.

15th March 2023, 11:50 AM	#572
RolandRat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2018 Location: Essex UK Posts: 1,649	Originally Posted by lobosrul5 So you can call someone an idiot in the UK and go to jail for 6 months... I think I'll pass on ever travelling there. ETA: although the highlighted sure seems like a highbar to prove. Are you sure those were the pedestrians intentions, beyond a reasonable doubt? That's the point, it is a highbar to prove. Innocent until proven guilty. You're not going to prison for calling someone a twat. Originally Posted by Bob001 I'd like to see some cases where prosecutions have been made successfully. Looks to me like some pretty broad gray areas requiring interpretation of intent, threatening, abusive, insulting, disorderly, harassment, alarm, distress, and "writing, sign or other visible representation." If a grocery advertises lamb on sale, maybe with a picture, and a vegan is "alarmed or distressed," is that a crime? The grocer isn't going to prison. If he threw the leg of lamb through a window into a vegan meeting, then maybe. The link below has an incident where someone was jailed under these laws: https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/1...earing-street/ Originally Posted by autumn1971 I’m going to assume the UK has a similar type of law that covers what in the US is assault. No physical contact needs to happen for a reasonable person to expect that a motion might result in injurious physical contact. Is it legal in the UK to take-punch someone? Or make aggressive movements that a reasonable person assumes may result in contact that counts as battery? I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the actions you describe would be covered under the legislation mentioned above.

15th March 2023, 12:26 PM	#573
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,613	Originally Posted by jeremyp Just as a point of information: the standard is not "beyond reasonable doubt". The jury is directed to reach a guilty verdict if the prosecution has proved its case "so that you [the jury] are sure". The standard hasn't been literally "beyond reasonable doubt" in England for some years. That sounds like an even vaguer standard. There is always debate about what constitutes "reasonable" doubt. "Are you sure?" is even less precise.

15th March 2023, 12:32 PM	#574
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,613	Originally Posted by RolandRat .... The link below has an incident where someone was jailed under these laws: https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/1...earing-street/ .... From your link: Quote: The court heard the 55-year-old had caused harassment, alarm, and distress by shouting and swearing in the street in Birmingham on September 27. And for that he got 40 weeks in jail, including a suspended sentence for a previous infraction. That's just crazy. In the U.S. somebody might -- maybe, possibly -- get a citation for disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct. Nothing like this.

15th March 2023, 01:08 PM	#575
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 53,364	Originally Posted by Bob001 From your link: And for that he got 40 weeks in jail, including a suspended sentence for a previous infraction. That's just crazy. In the U.S. somebody might -- maybe, possibly -- get a citation for disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct. Nothing like this. So great to hear how wonderful the US justice system is…….
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

15th March 2023, 01:13 PM	#576
lobosrul5 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 4,687	Originally Posted by lionking So great to hear how wonderful the US justice system is……. No, we suck. We just don't codify it in law... ie there was a guy arrested and held for a number of weeks for insulting a cop. Of course, eventually, he received a huge settlement payout and everyone in the town is a bit poorer. ETA: I must say though, that its pretty neat that the UK has so much money to spare that they can afford to jail a person for wondering around and shouting obscenities for several months. I mean the NHS must be flush with cash for them to proritize that, than giving nurses a raise! Amazing!!! /s
lobosrul5 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 4,687	Last edited by lobosrul5; 15th March 2023 at 01:20 PM.

15th March 2023, 01:15 PM	#577
lobosrul5 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 4,687	Originally Posted by autumn1971 I’m going to assume the UK has a similar type of law that covers what in the US is assault. No physical contact needs to happen for a reasonable person to expect that a motion might result in injurious physical contact. Is it legal in the UK to take-punch someone? Or make aggressive movements that a reasonable person assumes may result in contact that counts as battery? Do you mean fake-punch? Yeah if the pedestrian had done that, and that had caused the cyclist to fall into traffic and die. I would make no argument, thats manslaughter. Not seeing that in the video though.
lobosrul5 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 4,687

15th March 2023, 01:18 PM	#578
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 44,039	Is there any question (or reasonable doubt or this or that or whatever the **** you want to call it) that if the pedestrian had just walked normally down the sidewalk without gesturing or gesticulating the cyclist would still be alive? It seems we're wasting a lot of words arguing about a lot that isn't that.
	__________________ "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.

15th March 2023, 01:20 PM	#579
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 29,687	Originally Posted by Bob001 From your link: And for that he got 40 weeks in jail, including a suspended sentence for a previous infraction. That's just crazy. In the U.S. somebody might -- maybe, possibly -- get a citation for disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct. Nothing like this. Or shot by trigger-happy cops annoyed at a loony who wouldn't comply with police orders?

15th March 2023, 01:21 PM	#580
lobosrul5 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 4,687	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Is there any question (or reasonable doubt or this or that or whatever the **** you want to call it) that if the pedestrian had just walked normally down the sidewalk without gesturing or gesticulating the cyclist would still be alive? It seems we're wasting a lot of words arguing about a lot that isn't that. If the UK defined manslaughter as any actions which cause another persons death as manslaughter* then we'd be done here. But they do not. *or murder if its intent to kill obviously
lobosrul5 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 4,687

15th March 2023, 01:33 PM	#581
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,613	Originally Posted by GlennB Or shot by trigger-happy cops annoyed at a loony who wouldn't comply with police orders? Sure,. that could happen, too. But it would not be a sentence imposed by the judicial process.

15th March 2023, 01:40 PM	#582
RolandRat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2018 Location: Essex UK Posts: 1,649	Originally Posted by Bob001 From your link: And for that he got 40 weeks in jail, including a suspended sentence for a previous infraction. That's just crazy. In the U.S. somebody might -- maybe, possibly -- get a citation for disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct. Nothing like this. The guy was obviously a serial offender, he was already on an order prohibiting him from being dick in public. It just highlights that you can be jailed for causing distress and as such, the pedestrian's actions can easily be construed to be illegal and as they led to a death, manslaughter, IMO, was the rightful verdict.

15th March 2023, 01:52 PM	#583
Lplus Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 1,708	For the second night running the road on which the incident occured is closed according to Google Maps - from Ambury Road to Hartford Road. It mayh ave been closed on previous nights but I didn't check. I wonder what they are doing....
Lplus Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 1,708

15th March 2023, 02:21 PM	#584
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,613	Originally Posted by RolandRat The guy was obviously a serial offender, he was already on an order prohibiting him from being dick in public. ..... Being a dick in public isn't generally treated as a crime, certainly not one meriting a long jail term. I see the belligerent drunks staggering in the streets when the bars close as intimidating and distressing, but the cops aren't scooping them up. It looks like freedom of speech isn't much of a concept in the UK.

15th March 2023, 02:26 PM	#585
RolandRat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2018 Location: Essex UK Posts: 1,649	Originally Posted by Bob001 Being a dick in public isn't generally treated as a crime, certainly not one meriting a long jail term. I see the belligerent drunks staggering in the streets when the bars close as intimidating and distressing, but the cops aren't scooping them up. It looks like freedom of speech isn't much of a concept in the UK. I don't want to derail the thread talking about this idiot, to finalise on his case, I don't see why other people should have to put up with some prat who can't control himself. He's done it plenty of times, he didn't heed the warnings. Feck around and find out.

15th March 2023, 02:34 PM	#586
Matthew Best Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 9,883	Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen Genuine question, honestly not being arsey, how much room is a cyclist meant to leave when passing a pedestrian? I know a car is meant to leave a cars width when passing a bike ie manoeuvre as if the bike was the width of a car but I don't know the guidelines for bikes and people. I don't think a car is supposed to leave a car's width when passing a bike. I believe it's generally considered a meter and a half is sufficient. In other words, the same amount of room as you would leave a car you were overtaking. Nobody leaves a car's width between cars when overtaking - if they did, they'd almost need a three lane highway to do it.

15th March 2023, 03:03 PM	#587
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,613	Originally Posted by RolandRat I don't want to derail the thread talking about this idiot, to finalise on his case, I don't see why other people should have to put up with some prat who can't control himself. He's done it plenty of times, he didn't heed the warnings. Feck around and find out. Part of living in a free society is putting up with other people's offensive behavior. If the guy was doing something specific -- obstructing traffic, threatening to hurt somebody, etc. -- there are specific laws that could be applied. "Causing distress" is a pretty ridiculous charge, and it could be applied to anybody -- including political protests and union picket lines -- that somebody else doesn't like.

16th March 2023, 07:46 AM	#588
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 44,039	Originally Posted by Bob001 Part of living in a free society is putting up with other people's offensive behavior. Okay so why does not apply to the pedestrian just getting over her hang-ups about cyclists driving on "her" sidewalk? Why is our discourse completely controlled by people who think standards only exist to excuse bad people and punish good people?
	__________________ "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.

16th March 2023, 08:25 AM	#589
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 28,564	Originally Posted by jeremyp Just as a point of information: the standard is not "beyond reasonable doubt". The jury is directed to reach a guilty verdict if the prosecution has proved its case "so that you [the jury] are sure". The standard hasn't been literally "beyond reasonable doubt" in England for some years. Not exactly. While the guidance given to judges, to pass on to jurors, no longer includes the particular phrase, it remains within the law. Quote: The burden of proving the guilt of the defendant lies on the prosecution, who must prove the particulars of the offence beyond reasonable doubt; the jury or magistrates should only convict if they are sure of the defendant's guilt. Quote: In criminal proceedings, the prosecution normally has the legal burden of proving, beyond reasonable doubt, all elements of the offence.
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

16th March 2023, 09:24 AM	#590
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,613	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Okay so why does not apply to the pedestrian just getting over her hang-ups about cyclists driving on "her" sidewalk? ..... Well, in this particular case a speeding cyclist is a physical threat to a woman who is half-blind with mobility issues. Even on a "shared path," the cyclist is responsible for respecting a pedestrian's safety.

16th March 2023, 09:25 AM	#591
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 44,039	Originally Posted by Bob001 Well, in this particular case a speeding cyclist is a physical threat to a woman who is half-blind with mobility issues. Even on a "shared path," the cyclist is responsible for respecting a pedestrian's safety. Exactly how long are you going to ignore the fact that this pedestrian had been harassing cyclists on this path for a while?
	__________________ "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.

16th March 2023, 09:28 AM	#592
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,613	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Exactly how long are you going to ignore the fact that this pedestrian had been harassing cyclists on this path for a while? Where's the evidence for that? And by "harassing," do you mean "Don't hit me with your stupid bicycle!"
	Last edited by Bob001; 16th March 2023 at 09:29 AM.

16th March 2023, 09:33 AM	#593
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 44,039	Originally Posted by Bob001 Where's the evidence for that? And by "harassing," do you mean "Don't hit me with your stupid bicycle!" No I mean her childish "This sidewalk is for me and me only!" attitude.
	__________________ "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.

16th March 2023, 09:43 AM	#594
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 29,687	Originally Posted by Bob001 Well, in this particular case a speeding cyclist is a physical threat to a woman who is half-blind with mobility issues. Even on a "shared path," the cyclist is responsible for respecting a pedestrian's safety. What makes you think she was 'speeding'? That's certainly not evident from the cctv footage.

16th March 2023, 09:55 AM	#595
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,613	Originally Posted by GlennB What makes you think she was 'speeding'? That's certainly not evident from the cctv footage. We don't see the cyclist approaching the pedestrian. We don't know how the half-blind pedestrian perceived the cyclist. We only see the cyclist trying to force her way past the pedestrian.