Manslaughter, for shouting at a cyclist - Page 2

Bob001 · 2nd March 2023, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by 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.
.....

In this particular case, the pedestrian didn't do anything like that. She was walking on her side of the path, and the cyclist approached her head-on.

novaphile · 2nd March 2023, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

In this particular case, the pedestrian didn't do anything like that. She was walking on her side of the path, and the cyclist approached her head-on.

I disagree.

Pause the video, use the '.' key to advance the video frame by frame.

You can clearly see the pedestrian twist her upper body around, plant her feet and shove the cyclist.

Bob001 · 2nd March 2023, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by novaphile

.....
You can clearly see the pedestrian twist her upper body around, plant her feet and shove the cyclist.

No, I don't see anything like that. What I see is the cyclist forcing her way around the pedestrian at the far right of the path next to the curb at the ped's left, when she had plenty of room to pass at her own left and the ped's right. The cyclist shouldn't have been where she was.

The Atheist · 2nd March 2023, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

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

Especially when you use an analogy that isn't in the same universe as analagous to the case in question. The cyclist saw her the entire time, there was nobody creeping up behind deliberately.

Originally Posted by novaphile

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

And all cyclists are paragons of courtesy and safety, amirite?

Originally Posted by novaphile

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.

I solve that problem by only cycling on roads.

A couple of months back, I had a truck swerve into the bike lane so he could miss me by millimetres instead of the feet the lane gave me.

Originally Posted by novaphile

You can clearly see the pedestrian twist her upper body around, plant her feet and shove the cyclist.

The woman definitely pauses, but saying you can see a clear push is incorrect. It looks like she may have, but I also note the cyclist doesn't lose balance until her body is past the woman.

I think it's fair to say there's a "probable" push, but whether it meets the standard for beyond reasonable doubt, I certainly wouldn't be convinced.

Bob001 · 2nd March 2023, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

.....
I think it's fair to say there's a "probable" push, but whether it meets the standard for beyond reasonable doubt, I certainly wouldn't be convinced.

Maybe. Or maybe the pedestrian was just turning to make room for the cyclist to squeeze past between her and the curb.

GlennB · 2nd March 2023, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

No, I don't see anything like that. What I see is the cyclist forcing her way around the pedestrian at the far right of the path next to the curb at the ped's left, when she had plenty of room to pass at her own left and the ped's right. The cyclist shouldn't have been where she was.

Agreed, or the cyclist should have stopped. Plus, from the direction the cyclist was coming two roads fed into that stretch, and close by at that, a matter of 50 yds maybe. There were no 'shared path' signs by the (one-way) road from those points to the site of the incident.

The bit of pavement in question -

Matthew Best · 2nd March 2023, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

In this particular case, the pedestrian didn't do anything like that. She was walking on her side of the path, and the cyclist approached her head-on.

There is no side of the path that the cyclist or the pedestrian can lay claim to - they are supposed to share it.

It’s the pedestrian that decided she didn’t want to do that, and instead pushed the cyclist under an oncoming car that she could see, but the cyclist couldn’t.

Lock her up - three years isn’t enough.

Roger Ramjets · 2nd March 2023, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes, because the two situations are totally comparable.

I watched the video. This was in the UK, where cars drive on the left side of the road and cyclists should do the same on a cycle way. The Judge said there was 2.4m so they should have been able to pass. I'm not so sure, but either way the cyclist should have been on the left, not the right. The correct thing to do would be to stop and walk the bike - it's what I would do, long before getting close to the pedestrian.

Originally Posted by Shrinker

She jerks a thumb three times, but the final gesture is different

No, it isn't.

The cyclist went by on the very edge of the path. This alone was stupid. I don't know how she managed to find room without hitting the pedestrian, but suspect she leaned out, then had to correct by steering right. At this point the front wheel went into the gutter and she fell over into the oncoming car.

"Steering right?", you say "Why would she do that when she needed to weave left?"

Countersteering

Quote:

Countersteering is used by single-track vehicle operators, such as cyclists and motorcyclists, to initiate a turn toward a given direction by momentarily steering counter to the desired direction ("steer left to turn right"). To negotiate a turn successfully, the combined center of mass of the rider and the single-track vehicle must first be leaned in the direction of the turn, and steering briefly in the opposite direction causes that lean.

This is a terrible miscarriage of justice, caused by people not knowing how a bicycle works.

Brainster · 2nd March 2023, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

Had the same thing happen years ago on a single-track desert trail. The signage all says that bikes yield to horses and pedestrians, but most of the time if hiker hears you coming they will pull off to the side of the trail as a courtesy. This guy and his girlfriend do it, then he jumps out. I had time but really no place to go so I lowered my head and kept my line and he had to be the one to take evasive action, cursing. I braked to a stop and tossed the bike down, ready for anything, and there behind him comes my riding buddy. Two against one and my buddy is 6'4" and I'm 6'2" (something he may not have spotted while I was riding). We convinced him that an apology was in order.

GlennB · 2nd March 2023, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

There is no side of the path that the cyclist or the pedestrian can lay claim to - they are supposed to share it.

True, but if the pedestrian is already at the extreme, closest to the road, then the cyclist has no business insisting on claiming that part of the pavement. The pedestrian has greater rights than the cyclist.

The cyclist should have moved left well before, or have stopped, at the point of the incident.

Matthew Best · 2nd March 2023, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

I watched the video. This was in the UK, where cars drive on the left side of the road and cyclists should do the same on a cycle way.

Citation needed

Matthew Best · 2nd March 2023, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by GlennB

True, but if the pedestrian is already at the extreme, closest to the road, then the cyclist has no business insisting on claiming that part of the pavement. The pedestrian has greater rights than the cyclist.

The cyclist should have moved left well before, or have stopped, at the point of the incident.

The cyclist isn’t “claiming” that part of the pavement - the pedestrian is directing her towards it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bob001 · 2nd March 2023, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

There is no side of the path that the cyclist or the pedestrian can lay claim to - they are supposed to share it.

It’s the pedestrian that decided she didn’t want to do that, and instead pushed the cyclist under an oncoming car that she could see, but the cyclist couldn’t.

Lock her up - three years isn’t enough.

What was the pedestrian supposed to do? Why was she at fault for not jumping out of the path of the cyclist, but the cyclist was not at fault for refusing to go around the pedestrian? The cyclist had more options, including steering around the pedestrian. This is a gross miscarriage of justice, and hope she wins on appeal.

Bob001 · 2nd March 2023, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Citation needed

Common sense. Common decency.

The Atheist · 2nd March 2023, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Maybe. Or maybe the pedestrian was just turning to make room for the cyclist to squeeze past between her and the curb.

That one definitely doesn't work - she was steadfast in the middle of the path, and could (and should) easily have moved 500mm right.

That's another reason why the cyclist should have dismounted.

I thought we liked people to think for themselves? Assess situation, see likely danger, stop.

Bob001 · 2nd March 2023, 07:50 PM

It appears that what you call "pavement" is what we across the pond would call a sidewalk. This was not a bicycle path, as I at first thought. Cyclists aren't supposed to be there at all.

Quote:

Rule 64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-high...lists-59-to-82

Quote:

The Highway Code states this more emphatically, stating in Rule 64 that “You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement”. It also advises that cyclists “take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room”.

In 1999, the government made cycling on the pavement a fixed penalty offence. At the time, the government said: “The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users.

“Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road. Sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”

Cyclists on the pavement can face fines of up to £500. But this rule doesn’t tend to be enforced by many police forces. In the majority of cases when a fine is actually issued, cyclists will have to pay around £50.

https://www.first4lawyers.com/news-a...are-the-rules/

If the pedestrian shoved her -- not proven at all -- she was simply assisting the cyclist to return to her proper place on the roadway. The cyclist paid a high price for her selfish violation of the law.

Sideroxylon · 2nd March 2023, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

What was the pedestrian supposed to do? Why was she at fault for not jumping out of the path of the cyclist, but the cyclist was not at fault for refusing to go around the pedestrian? The cyclist had more options, including steering around the pedestrian. This is a gross miscarriage of justice, and hope she wins on appeal.

You want talk about the number of options for the cyclist but frame the pedestrian’s alternative as “jumping” out of the path of the cyclist.

How about instead of holding ground in the middle of the path, vocalising and gesticulating for a quite a decent amount of time, rather moving to left or right of the path and smiling at the elderly cyclist as she went by?

Don’t know about you but on a narrower path this I would take the side closest to oncoming traffic for the safety of others.

lionking · 2nd March 2023, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Yes, because the two situations are totally comparable.

.

To the extent cases like this and the one under discussion are often swept under the carpet, yes they are comparable. In both cases one person decided they were right and took action which caused death.

Bob001 · 2nd March 2023, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

You want talk about the number of options for the cyclist but frame the pedestrian’s alternative as “jumping” out of the path of the cyclist.

How about instead of holding ground in the middle of the path, vocalising and gesticulating for a quite a decent amount of time, rather moving to left or right of the path and smiling at the elderly cyclist as she went by?
....

Who says she was in the "middle" of the pavement? It looks to me like she's walking close to the roadway, and there's plenty of space on her right for the cyclist to pass on the left.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4eIjOFTB6k

jeremyp · 3rd March 2023, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Who says she was in the "middle" of the pavement? It looks to me like she's walking close to the roadway, and there's plenty of space on her right for the cyclist to pass on the left.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4eIjOFTB6k

Your video shows her in the middle.

Watching it, whatever the cyclist could or should have done, the pedestrian contributed to her death. In the UK all road users including pedestrians have a duty of care to all other road users which means that you shouldn’t do things to endanger them regardless of whether you perceive them to be in the wrong.

The jury, probably with a lot more information than we have here, found her guilty.

Matthew Best · 3rd March 2023, 02:16 AM

Originally Posted by Bob001

It appears that what you call "pavement" is what we across the pond would call a sidewalk. This was not a bicycle path, as I at first thought. Cyclists aren't supposed to be there at all.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-high...lists-59-to-82

https://www.first4lawyers.com/news-a...are-the-rules/

If the pedestrian shoved her -- not proven at all -- she was simply assisting the cyclist to return to her proper place on the roadway. The cyclist paid a high price for her selfish violation of the law.

What do judges know, right?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

zooterkin · 3rd March 2023, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by Bob001

It appears that what you call "pavement" is what we across the pond would call a sidewalk. This was not a bicycle path, as I at first thought. Cyclists aren't supposed to be there at all.

If it were a normal pavement, yes, though that would still not make the pedestrian's actions legitimate. However, in this case the judge made a specific reference to it being a shared use path, which would be a strange thing to do if it still held the default status of a pavement.

zooterkin · 3rd March 2023, 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

The cyclist isn’t “claiming” that part of the pavement - the pedestrian is directing her towards it.

That's a good point; whether it's what she intended by her gestures or not, it would probably look from the point of view of the cyclist that the pedestrian is telling her to steer to the right.

Nessie · 3rd March 2023, 03:21 AM

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.

The cyclist can see the gesture, but continues to cycle, rather than stop, so she thinks she can get past. If there was contact, then was that contact to stop her, rather than a push to get her into the road?

The cyclist can see an obvious hazard, but has chosen to keep going. She then loses control and falls into the road.

GlennB · 3rd March 2023, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

If it were a normal pavement, yes, though that would still not make the pedestrian's actions legitimate. However, in this case the judge made a specific reference to it being a shared use path, which would be a strange thing to do if it still held the default status of a pavement.

This is a part I really don't get. 'Shared use' paths are marked by a specific type of road sign. This stretch of pavement doesn't have them, so how would anybody be supposed to know the bicycle was entitled to be on it?

Nessie · 3rd March 2023, 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Your video shows her in the middle.

Watching it, whatever the cyclist could or should have done, the pedestrian contributed to her death. In the UK all road users including pedestrians have a duty of care to all other road users which means that you shouldn’t do things to endanger them regardless of whether you perceive them to be in the wrong.

The jury, probably with a lot more information than we have here, found her guilty.

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

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

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

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

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

Carrot Flower King · 3rd March 2023, 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by GlennB

This is a part I really don't get. 'Shared use' paths are marked by a specific type of road sign. This stretch of pavement doesn't have them, so how would anybody be supposed to know the bicycle was entitled to be on it?

Why does the judge think it is a shared use path (Bob, these really are A Thing in the UK, as I said, there is one a hundred metres from me as I type)? Surely he had that checked before his pronouncements? If not I'm sure we'll be hearing from the defendant's learned friends.

GlennB · 3rd March 2023, 03:37 AM

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King

Why does the judge think it is a shared use path (Bob, these really are A Thing in the UK, as I said, there is one a hundred metres from me as I type)? Surely he had that checked before his pronouncements? If not I'm sure we'll be hearing from the defendant's learned friends.

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

Jack by the hedge · 3rd March 2023, 04:05 AM

Originally Posted by Bob001

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.

I think you're mistaken about there being enough room. The pedestrian looks to me to be right in the middle of the pavement. Had there been another pedestrian coming the other way it would have been quite natural to expect her to move slightly to one side or the other. Here she chose not to do so. A cyclist is instinctively not going to try to pass her on the fence side due to the risk of the handlebar hitting the fence and knocking you over, and especially here due to there being a sign post making the gap even more narrow. There's also her gesticulation indicating she wanted the cyclist to move toward (or onto) the road.

And the more I view it the more convinced I become that she pushed her.

commandlinegamer · 3rd March 2023, 04:20 AM

Bicycling on pavements in the UK is a complicated situation as, despite it being illegal to do so unless specifically authorised (shared-use), few cyclists are ever prosecuted for it, unless they actually cause an accident (there was a case a few years ago when a pedestrian was run over and killed IIRC).

GlennB · 3rd March 2023, 04:30 AM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

I think you're mistaken about there being enough room. The pedestrian looks to me to be right in the middle of the pavement...

Yep. Check the manhole cover in the cctv and here on street view.

Didactylos · 3rd March 2023, 06:01 AM

This sign indicating shared path is in the direction the bicyclist came from, some 500 m from the spot where she died:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.33...!2i29?hl=en-GB

I couldn't see anything indicating the end of the shared path, though it crossed several roads. I feel there ideally should be a sign or other indication after each crossing. Perhaps the police is so mealy mouthed about the shared path status of the spot, because the signage is not up to code?

Three years seems rather harsh, considering a case of an inattentive bicyclist killing british van-driver I read about, who was charged but not sentenced. But also, I get that bicyclists on the pavement can make pedestrians uneasy, however slowly they ride, like Ward did. But on the cctv recording Grey doesn't look like she's worried about her safety, more like she relished being mad at someone she felt she was entitled to be mad at. Whether she pushed her or not, were I in Wards place I would have interpreted Greys stance as that of someone who was about to push me.

Matthew Best · 3rd March 2023, 06:58 AM

If she wanted to kill a cyclist that much, she should have done it in a car - then she probably would have got off Scot-free.

zooterkin · 3rd March 2023, 07:22 AM

This map appears to show a lot of the roads in Huntingdon as having cycle routes separate from traffic, which would appear to be the pavement. As far as I can tell, it includes the road where the incident happened, though of course it might not have applied at that time.

Thermal · 3rd March 2023, 07:40 AM

Does the right of way really have anything to do with anything? On a given stretch of pavement that you are walking on, would you normally be aware of whether or not it is shared with cyclists? Are signs like every few feet or something? Who cares whether the bike is technically (and in this case, ambiguously) supposed to be there? It's a cyclist and a pedestrian. Just move around each other.

Seems like if you are walking, and a bike is coming towards you, you just move a little and pass each other uneventfully. The pedestrian took the SYG approach and directly caused a fatality over an utter triviality.

JoeMorgue · 3rd March 2023, 07:47 AM

The whole "Did that one path officially initial box 34A on Form 87F for it to be declared an Official Dual Use Path" and "Right of Way" arguments do seem rather beside the point.

It's two people on a sidewalk. It's not the Suez Canal. It's not the Air Traffic Control Procedures at O'Hare during a Holiday weekend. It's not one car going 100mph overtaking another car going 100mph on the 2nd corner at Daytona.

We shouldn't need "rules" for one side to point at and go "I'm right" for a situation like this to not end up with someone dead in the street.

Thermal · 3rd March 2023, 07:58 AM

Yeah, I just can't understand people who don't want to get on with their day, and want to declare a life and death standoff over who gets to walk through a door first and who steps aside for a second.

Bob001 · 3rd March 2023, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

.....
And the more I view it the more convinced I become that she pushed her.

Looking at the video closely, there is a break in the high curb to accommodate a manhole cover. And the cyclist steers right through that space into the road after she passes the pedestrian. That doesn't look like the result of a push.

Bob001 · 3rd March 2023, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by jeremyp

....
The jury, probably with a lot more information than we have here, found her guilty.

Not to digress too far, but how do juries work in the UK? In the U.S., in a criminal case a 12-person (usually) jury would be selected at random from registries of local residents, with both sides having the chance to challenge any particular prospective juror for bias or other unfitness. In some cases a judge can direct a verdict of acquittal, but never of guilt. How many people are on a UK jury? How are they selected? How are they screened? How much influence does the judge have on their deliberations?

zooterkin · 3rd March 2023, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Looking at the video closely, there is a break in the high curb to accommodate a manhole cover.

No, there isn't. Look at the google street view that GlennB linked to.

2nd March 2023, 04:36 PM	#42
novaphile Quester of Doglets Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Sunny South Australia Posts: 4,949	Originally Posted by Bob001 In this particular case, the pedestrian didn't do anything like that. She was walking on her side of the path, and the cyclist approached her head-on. I disagree. Pause the video, use the '.' key to advance the video frame by frame. You can clearly see the pedestrian twist her upper body around, plant her feet and shove the cyclist.
	__________________ We would be better, and braver, to engage in enquiry, rather than indulge in the idle fancy, that we already know -- Plato.

2nd March 2023, 04:43 PM	#43
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,613	Originally Posted by novaphile ..... You can clearly see the pedestrian twist her upper body around, plant her feet and shove the cyclist. No, I don't see anything like that. What I see is the cyclist forcing her way around the pedestrian at the far right of the path next to the curb at the ped's left, when she had plenty of room to pass at her own left and the ped's right. The cyclist shouldn't have been where she was.
	Last edited by Bob001; 2nd March 2023 at 04:45 PM.

2nd March 2023, 04:53 PM	#44
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 33,607	Originally Posted by theprestige I think startling someone into an unsafe reaction can indeed be the startler's responsibility. Especially when you use an analogy that isn't in the same universe as analagous to the case in question. The cyclist saw her the entire time, there was nobody creeping up behind deliberately. Originally Posted by novaphile Sadly, this level of utter stupidity and arrogance of pedestrians is all too common. And all cyclists are paragons of courtesy and safety, amirite? Originally Posted by novaphile 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. I solve that problem by only cycling on roads. A couple of months back, I had a truck swerve into the bike lane so he could miss me by millimetres instead of the feet the lane gave me. Originally Posted by novaphile You can clearly see the pedestrian twist her upper body around, plant her feet and shove the cyclist. The woman definitely pauses, but saying you can see a clear push is incorrect. It looks like she may have, but I also note the cyclist doesn't lose balance until her body is past the woman. I think it's fair to say there's a "probable" push, but whether it meets the standard for beyond reasonable doubt, I certainly wouldn't be convinced.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

2nd March 2023, 05:27 PM	#48
Roger Ramjets Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 6,336	Originally Posted by 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. Yes, because the two situations are totally comparable. I watched the video. This was in the UK, where cars drive on the left side of the road and cyclists should do the same on a cycle way. The Judge said there was 2.4m so they should have been able to pass. I'm not so sure, but either way the cyclist should have been on the left, not the right. The correct thing to do would be to stop and walk the bike - it's what I would do, long before getting close to the pedestrian. Originally Posted by Shrinker She jerks a thumb three times, but the final gesture is different No, it isn't. The cyclist went by on the very edge of the path. This alone was stupid. I don't know how she managed to find room without hitting the pedestrian, but suspect she leaned out, then had to correct by steering right. At this point the front wheel went into the gutter and she fell over into the oncoming car. "Steering right?", you say "Why would she do that when she needed to weave left?" Countersteering Quote: Countersteering is used by single-track vehicle operators, such as cyclists and motorcyclists, to initiate a turn toward a given direction by momentarily steering counter to the desired direction ("steer left to turn right"). To negotiate a turn successfully, the combined center of mass of the rider and the single-track vehicle must first be leaned in the direction of the turn, and steering briefly in the opposite direction causes that lean. This is a terrible miscarriage of justice, caused by people not knowing how a bicycle works.
	__________________ We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

2nd March 2023, 05:29 PM	#49
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 19,886	Originally Posted by 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. Had the same thing happen years ago on a single-track desert trail. The signage all says that bikes yield to horses and pedestrians, but most of the time if hiker hears you coming they will pull off to the side of the trail as a courtesy. This guy and his girlfriend do it, then he jumps out. I had time but really no place to go so I lowered my head and kept my line and he had to be the one to take evasive action, cursing. I braked to a stop and tossed the bike down, ready for anything, and there behind him comes my riding buddy. Two against one and my buddy is 6'4" and I'm 6'2" (something he may not have spotted while I was riding). We convinced him that an apology was in order.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

2nd March 2023, 04:28 PM	#41
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,613	Originally Posted by 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. ..... In this particular case, the pedestrian didn't do anything like that. She was walking on her side of the path, and the cyclist approached her head-on.

2nd March 2023, 05:06 PM	#45
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,613	Originally Posted by The Atheist ..... I think it's fair to say there's a "probable" push, but whether it meets the standard for beyond reasonable doubt, I certainly wouldn't be convinced. Maybe. Or maybe the pedestrian was just turning to make room for the cyclist to squeeze past between her and the curb.

2nd March 2023, 05:16 PM	#47
Matthew Best Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 9,913	Originally Posted by Bob001 In this particular case, the pedestrian didn't do anything like that. She was walking on her side of the path, and the cyclist approached her head-on. There is no side of the path that the cyclist or the pedestrian can lay claim to - they are supposed to share it. It’s the pedestrian that decided she didn’t want to do that, and instead pushed the cyclist under an oncoming car that she could see, but the cyclist couldn’t. Lock her up - three years isn’t enough.

2nd March 2023, 05:33 PM	#50
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 29,730	Originally Posted by Matthew Best There is no side of the path that the cyclist or the pedestrian can lay claim to - they are supposed to share it. True, but if the pedestrian is already at the extreme, closest to the road, then the cyclist has no business insisting on claiming that part of the pavement. The pedestrian has greater rights than the cyclist. The cyclist should have moved left well before, or have stopped, at the point of the incident.
	__________________ "There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury

2nd March 2023, 06:27 PM	#51
Matthew Best Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 9,913	Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets I watched the video. This was in the UK, where cars drive on the left side of the road and cyclists should do the same on a cycle way. Citation needed

2nd March 2023, 06:31 PM	#52
Matthew Best Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 9,913	Originally Posted by GlennB True, but if the pedestrian is already at the extreme, closest to the road, then the cyclist has no business insisting on claiming that part of the pavement. The pedestrian has greater rights than the cyclist. The cyclist should have moved left well before, or have stopped, at the point of the incident. The cyclist isn’t “claiming” that part of the pavement - the pedestrian is directing her towards it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2nd March 2023, 07:09 PM	#53
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,613	Originally Posted by Matthew Best There is no side of the path that the cyclist or the pedestrian can lay claim to - they are supposed to share it. It’s the pedestrian that decided she didn’t want to do that, and instead pushed the cyclist under an oncoming car that she could see, but the cyclist couldn’t. Lock her up - three years isn’t enough. What was the pedestrian supposed to do? Why was she at fault for not jumping out of the path of the cyclist, but the cyclist was not at fault for refusing to go around the pedestrian? The cyclist had more options, including steering around the pedestrian. This is a gross miscarriage of justice, and hope she wins on appeal.

2nd March 2023, 07:10 PM	#54
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,613	Originally Posted by Matthew Best Citation needed Common sense. Common decency.

2nd March 2023, 07:39 PM	#55
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 33,607	Originally Posted by Bob001 Maybe. Or maybe the pedestrian was just turning to make room for the cyclist to squeeze past between her and the curb. That one definitely doesn't work - she was steadfast in the middle of the path, and could (and should) easily have moved 500mm right. That's another reason why the cyclist should have dismounted. I thought we liked people to think for themselves? Assess situation, see likely danger, stop.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

2nd March 2023, 07:50 PM	#56
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,613	It appears that what you call "pavement" is what we across the pond would call a sidewalk. This was not a bicycle path, as I at first thought. Cyclists aren't supposed to be there at all. Quote: Rule 64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-high...lists-59-to-82 Quote: The Highway Code states this more emphatically, stating in Rule 64 that “You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement”. It also advises that cyclists “take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room”. In 1999, the government made cycling on the pavement a fixed penalty offence. At the time, the government said: “The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users. “Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road. Sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.” Cyclists on the pavement can face fines of up to £500. But this rule doesn’t tend to be enforced by many police forces. In the majority of cases when a fine is actually issued, cyclists will have to pay around £50. https://www.first4lawyers.com/news-a...are-the-rules/ If the pedestrian shoved her -- not proven at all -- she was simply assisting the cyclist to return to her proper place on the roadway. The cyclist paid a high price for her selfish violation of the law.

2nd March 2023, 08:21 PM	#57
Sideroxylon Featherless biped Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Aporia Posts: 26,429	Originally Posted by Bob001 What was the pedestrian supposed to do? Why was she at fault for not jumping out of the path of the cyclist, but the cyclist was not at fault for refusing to go around the pedestrian? The cyclist had more options, including steering around the pedestrian. This is a gross miscarriage of justice, and hope she wins on appeal. You want talk about the number of options for the cyclist but frame the pedestrian’s alternative as “jumping” out of the path of the cyclist. How about instead of holding ground in the middle of the path, vocalising and gesticulating for a quite a decent amount of time, rather moving to left or right of the path and smiling at the elderly cyclist as she went by? Don’t know about you but on a narrower path this I would take the side closest to oncoming traffic for the safety of others.

2nd March 2023, 08:47 PM	#58
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 53,483	Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets Yes, because the two situations are totally comparable. . To the extent cases like this and the one under discussion are often swept under the carpet, yes they are comparable. In both cases one person decided they were right and took action which caused death.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

2nd March 2023, 09:00 PM	#59
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,613	Originally Posted by Sideroxylon You want talk about the number of options for the cyclist but frame the pedestrian’s alternative as “jumping” out of the path of the cyclist. How about instead of holding ground in the middle of the path, vocalising and gesticulating for a quite a decent amount of time, rather moving to left or right of the path and smiling at the elderly cyclist as she went by? .... Who says she was in the "middle" of the pavement? It looks to me like she's walking close to the roadway, and there's plenty of space on her right for the cyclist to pass on the left. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4eIjOFTB6k

3rd March 2023, 01:00 AM	#60
jeremyp Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha Posts: 2,804	Originally Posted by Bob001 Who says she was in the "middle" of the pavement? It looks to me like she's walking close to the roadway, and there's plenty of space on her right for the cyclist to pass on the left. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4eIjOFTB6k Your video shows her in the middle. Watching it, whatever the cyclist could or should have done, the pedestrian contributed to her death. In the UK all road users including pedestrians have a duty of care to all other road users which means that you shouldn’t do things to endanger them regardless of whether you perceive them to be in the wrong. The jury, probably with a lot more information than we have here, found her guilty.

3rd March 2023, 02:16 AM	#61
Matthew Best Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 9,913	Originally Posted by Bob001 It appears that what you call "pavement" is what we across the pond would call a sidewalk. This was not a bicycle path, as I at first thought. Cyclists aren't supposed to be there at all. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-high...lists-59-to-82 https://www.first4lawyers.com/news-a...are-the-rules/ If the pedestrian shoved her -- not proven at all -- she was simply assisting the cyclist to return to her proper place on the roadway. The cyclist paid a high price for her selfish violation of the law. What do judges know, right? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

3rd March 2023, 02:49 AM	#62
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 55,835	Originally Posted by Bob001 It appears that what you call "pavement" is what we across the pond would call a sidewalk. This was not a bicycle path, as I at first thought. Cyclists aren't supposed to be there at all. If it were a normal pavement, yes, though that would still not make the pedestrian's actions legitimate. However, in this case the judge made a specific reference to it being a shared use path, which would be a strange thing to do if it still held the default status of a pavement.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20

3rd March 2023, 02:54 AM	#63
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 55,835	Originally Posted by Matthew Best The cyclist isn’t “claiming” that part of the pavement - the pedestrian is directing her towards it. That's a good point; whether it's what she intended by her gestures or not, it would probably look from the point of view of the cyclist that the pedestrian is telling her to steer to the right.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20

3rd March 2023, 03:21 AM	#64
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 14,758	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. The cyclist can see the gesture, but continues to cycle, rather than stop, so she thinks she can get past. If there was contact, then was that contact to stop her, rather than a push to get her into the road? The cyclist can see an obvious hazard, but has chosen to keep going. She then loses control and falls into the road.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

3rd March 2023, 03:24 AM	#65
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 29,730	Originally Posted by zooterkin If it were a normal pavement, yes, though that would still not make the pedestrian's actions legitimate. However, in this case the judge made a specific reference to it being a shared use path, which would be a strange thing to do if it still held the default status of a pavement. This is a part I really don't get. 'Shared use' paths are marked by a specific type of road sign. This stretch of pavement doesn't have them, so how would anybody be supposed to know the bicycle was entitled to be on it?
	__________________ "There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury

3rd March 2023, 03:31 AM	#66
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 14,758	Originally Posted by jeremyp Your video shows her in the middle. Watching it, whatever the cyclist could or should have done, the pedestrian contributed to her death. In the UK all road users including pedestrians have a duty of care to all other road users which means that you shouldn’t do things to endanger them regardless of whether you perceive them to be in the wrong. The jury, probably with a lot more information than we have here, found her guilty. You are right the pedestrian contributed to the death, but in a wholly unintentional way, that a manslaughter conviction is a surprise. The jury had what we have, CCTV of what happened. The only evidence, is what we see on CCTV. To many lawyers surprise, going by twitter at least, the prosecution successfully argued the pedestrian's responsibility for the death amounted to manslaughter. The cyclist can see a pissed off pedestrian walking down the middle of the pavement, shouting and gesturing for her to get onto the road. The cyclist chose to ignore her and try to cycle past in a small gap and she overbalanced and fell into the road. She could have stopped, she could have slowed, watched for traffic and entered the road, but she chose to plough on. Maybe she thought the pedestrian would chicken out and move to the side. Maybe this was a game of chicken that went horribly wrong. But, to hold the pedestrian responsible for causing the death, looks extreme, from that evidence.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

3rd March 2023, 03:31 AM	#67
Carrot Flower King Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2020 Location: Northumberland, UK Posts: 3,728	Originally Posted by GlennB This is a part I really don't get. 'Shared use' paths are marked by a specific type of road sign. This stretch of pavement doesn't have them, so how would anybody be supposed to know the bicycle was entitled to be on it? Why does the judge think it is a shared use path (Bob, these really are A Thing in the UK, as I said, there is one a hundred metres from me as I type)? Surely he had that checked before his pronouncements? If not I'm sure we'll be hearing from the defendant's learned friends.

3rd March 2023, 03:37 AM	#68
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 29,730	Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King Why does the judge think it is a shared use path (Bob, these really are A Thing in the UK, as I said, there is one a hundred metres from me as I type)? Surely he had that checked before his pronouncements? If not I'm sure we'll be hearing from the defendant's learned friends. To correct my previous post - there were no 'shared path' signs along that stretch at the time the google street view was filmed. Street view can be a fair few years old, so maybe it's a shared path now? And maybe it can be designated as shared by an announcement rather than street signage? Dunno.
	__________________ "There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury

3rd March 2023, 04:05 AM	#69
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 14,703	Originally Posted by Bob001 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. I think you're mistaken about there being enough room. The pedestrian looks to me to be right in the middle of the pavement. Had there been another pedestrian coming the other way it would have been quite natural to expect her to move slightly to one side or the other. Here she chose not to do so. A cyclist is instinctively not going to try to pass her on the fence side due to the risk of the handlebar hitting the fence and knocking you over, and especially here due to there being a sign post making the gap even more narrow. There's also her gesticulation indicating she wanted the cyclist to move toward (or onto) the road. And the more I view it the more convinced I become that she pushed her.

3rd March 2023, 04:20 AM	#70
commandlinegamer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Mazes of Menace Posts: 9,321	Bicycling on pavements in the UK is a complicated situation as, despite it being illegal to do so unless specifically authorised (shared-use), few cyclists are ever prosecuted for it, unless they actually cause an accident (there was a case a few years ago when a pedestrian was run over and killed IIRC).
	__________________ He bade me take any rug in the house.

3rd March 2023, 04:30 AM	#71
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 29,730	Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge I think you're mistaken about there being enough room. The pedestrian looks to me to be right in the middle of the pavement... Yep. Check the manhole cover in the cctv and here on street view.
	__________________ "There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury

3rd March 2023, 06:01 AM	#72
Didactylos Scholar Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: East of the sun, west of the moon, first left turn past the trailer park... Posts: 72	This sign indicating shared path is in the direction the bicyclist came from, some 500 m from the spot where she died: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.33...!2i29?hl=en-GB I couldn't see anything indicating the end of the shared path, though it crossed several roads. I feel there ideally should be a sign or other indication after each crossing. Perhaps the police is so mealy mouthed about the shared path status of the spot, because the signage is not up to code? Three years seems rather harsh, considering a case of an inattentive bicyclist killing british van-driver I read about, who was charged but not sentenced. But also, I get that bicyclists on the pavement can make pedestrians uneasy, however slowly they ride, like Ward did. But on the cctv recording Grey doesn't look like she's worried about her safety, more like she relished being mad at someone she felt she was entitled to be mad at. Whether she pushed her or not, were I in Wards place I would have interpreted Greys stance as that of someone who was about to push me.

3rd March 2023, 06:58 AM	#73
Matthew Best Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 9,913	If she wanted to kill a cyclist that much, she should have done it in a car - then she probably would have got off Scot-free.

3rd March 2023, 07:22 AM	#74
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 55,835	This map appears to show a lot of the roads in Huntingdon as having cycle routes separate from traffic, which would appear to be the pavement. As far as I can tell, it includes the road where the incident happened, though of course it might not have applied at that time.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20

3rd March 2023, 07:40 AM	#75
Thermal Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: In the Troll Ignoring Section Posts: 22,645	Does the right of way really have anything to do with anything? On a given stretch of pavement that you are walking on, would you normally be aware of whether or not it is shared with cyclists? Are signs like every few feet or something? Who cares whether the bike is technically (and in this case, ambiguously) supposed to be there? It's a cyclist and a pedestrian. Just move around each other. Seems like if you are walking, and a bike is coming towards you, you just move a little and pass each other uneventfully. The pedestrian took the SYG approach and directly caused a fatality over an utter triviality.
	__________________ "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" -Mark Twain "Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet

3rd March 2023, 07:47 AM	#76
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 44,144	The whole "Did that one path officially initial box 34A on Form 87F for it to be declared an Official Dual Use Path" and "Right of Way" arguments do seem rather beside the point. It's two people on a sidewalk. It's not the Suez Canal. It's not the Air Traffic Control Procedures at O'Hare during a Holiday weekend. It's not one car going 100mph overtaking another car going 100mph on the 2nd corner at Daytona. We shouldn't need "rules" for one side to point at and go "I'm right" for a situation like this to not end up with someone dead in the street.
	__________________ "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. Last edited by JoeMorgue; 3rd March 2023 at 07:50 AM.