Manslaughter, for shouting at a cyclist

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

The BlackBelt Barrister did claim to find signs using Google Street View.

Given that a non shared use path attracts a fine of up to £500 for cyclists, I'm really surprised neither the police nor the council could definitively state that it was or was not shared use.

I'm not surprised, considering the bureaucracy involved in road signage, markings and authorisation. It is not uncommon for signage to no non-compliant and so unenforceable. I have got off two fixed penalty tickets by proving the signage was wrong.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Nessie

That is a very low bar you set for recklessness. Shout and gesticulate at someone, who the falls, possibly due to their own inability to control a bike at low speed and you go to prison.

Think how that translates to all sorts of minor actions, that could now get you sent to prison, if, the other person ends up dying.

I don't know anybody personally in my more than half a century of life on Earth who has got involved in a confrontation that led to the death of the other party. I imagine that if they did, it would be treated very seriously and could end in a trial and a conviction for manslaughter. And it should do.

It's worth noting, by the way, that in England, the judge has a very wide range of sentences available for manslaughter, ranging from community service to life imprisonment. I think the only reason why this ended in a custodial sentence is because Ms Grey left the scene before the emergency services arrived and showed absolutely no remorse right up until the moment she was convicted and realised there would be consequences for her actions. She watched a woman die in fromt of her and then went shopping.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Witness estimations of speed, time, distance are all known to be unreliable. The court will take note that she thinks it was too fast, knowing someone else might not.

My issue with this is beyond reasonable doubt. People claim a push, with no evidence, so that is reasonable doubt. No one has been able to prove the cyclist did not just overbalance and she would have ended up falling into the road even if the pedestrian had not shouted or gesticulated at her.

There is evidence, it's just not conclusive. If you step through the frames as the cyclist passes the pedestrian, you can see the pedestrian's left arm go out towards the cyclist. You can't see contact (but bear in mind the pedestrian admits there was contact), but the fact that the cyclist overbalances just after this leads me to believe there was sufficient contact to cause the fall.

[jeremyp]

never mind. I misread the post to which I was replying.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by novaphile

Sadly, I believe that you would be mistaken.

The irrational hatred of all cyclists, no matter where they are, is quite incredible....

I've heard that before, and it sounds so strange. I mean, why would you hate a cyclist? The worst thing you could possibly say about them is that a motorist might have to be a tad careful when they are sharing a roadway. Big deal. It just seems so inexplicable a hatred.

In my beach town, we have some obnoxious people on bikes who tool along at 5mph in the middle of the street, impeding traffic and just generally being hyper entitled ********. But it's just a few individuals, and I'd venture they are ******** much of the time, and said ******* -ery is unrelated to cycling.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

The BlackBelt Barrister did claim to find signs using Google Street View.

Given that a non shared use path attracts a fine of up to £500 for cyclists, I'm really surprised neither the police nor the council could definitively state that it was or was not shared use.

Sure there was a sign on that side of the road but it was significantly further west and from that point eastwards all the signs were on the other side of the road. It is clear to me the shared cycleway changed sides of the road at Ambury Road where a pedestrian crossing was available. As to why the authority and the police don't know? possibly because no one bothers to police shared cycleways so they don't really care. In the absence of authority policing the cycleways the only way they are policed is by the public shouting at the cyclists - and look where that leads....

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Nessie

That is a very low bar you set for recklessness. Shout and gesticulate at someone, who the falls, possibly due to their own inability to control a bike at low speed and you go to prison.

Think how that translates to all sorts of minor actions, that could now get you sent to prison, if, the other person ends up dying.

AIUI the bar is what would a sober reasonable passerby regard as 'reckless'? Whilst I understand the sympathy for this unfortunate lady, OTOH the family of the deceased have rights, too. What if that cyclist had been one's own seven-year-old self? Would we be so predisposed to let the accused off because she had problems in her life? Half of the people in prison right now also have had lives filled with deprivation and sorrow.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Intentionally pushing someone into a road, is manslaughter, unless you can prove they knew a car was coming and their intention was to kill by pushing that person into the path of the car.

Well she could se there were cars coming. That a push could easily result in the death of a cyclist pushed in front of them should have occurred to her. I would not have been at all surprised if Grey would have been done for murder if an intentional push could be proved.

Incidentally, all the talk of was she pushed or wasn't she is a little bit pointless. The prosecution isn't claiming there was a push and police don't seem to be claiming it - aside from reporting Grey's statement.

Actual contact was not part of the prosecution's case.

Quote:

Which is the same for every single discussion in this section of the forum. Should we just scrap such discussions? Will we also just bin the forum, because people discuss things they do not know every single detail about?

I absolutely don't mind people discussing things where they don't know every detail, but an acknowledgement of that fact would not go amiss. You disagree with the jury's verdict which is fine, but it's pretty arrogant to assume that you have a complete view of the fact s and therefore they are simply wrong. In fact, you went so far as to deny that there could be any relevant evidence other than what we've read in the media. Absent any further evidence coming to light (for example, in an appeal), if I have to choose between you and the jury, I'm quite confident it is you that is wrong.

Quote:

How did the pedestrian close her down? Is a gesture really enough to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the cyclist over balanced only because of that gesture? How are you unable to rule out she just overbalanced, as people do, especially when trying to get through a narrow space at low speed?

It wouldn't have been a narrow space and she wouldn't have needed to be at low speed if Grey had given her space as the Highway Code says she should.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by Thermal

I've heard that before, and it sounds so strange. I mean, why would you hate a cyclist? The worst thing you could possibly say about them is that a motorist might have to be a tad careful when they are sharing a roadway. Big deal. It just seems so inexplicable a hatred.

In my beach town, we have some obnoxious people on bikes who tool along at 5mph in the middle of the street, impeding traffic and just generally being hyper entitled ********. But it's just a few individuals, and I'd venture they are ******** much of the time, and said ******* -ery is unrelated to cycling.

Cyclists are the one significant road user who deliberately sets off on a journey in the certainty that they will obstruct the free passage of every vehicle travelling in the same direction that comes up behind them - car, van, hgv. bus etc. That wouldn't be so bad if they really needed to cycle as it was the only way to get to work or whatever, but so many are cycling for their own personal entertainment/benefit and seem to think the right to use the highway includes the right to get in everyone else's way.

[Matthew Best]

You are Jeremy Clarkson and I claim my £5.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Thermal

I've heard that before, and it sounds so strange. I mean, why would you hate a cyclist? The worst thing you could possibly say about them is that a motorist might have to be a tad careful when they are sharing a roadway. Big deal. It just seems so inexplicable a hatred.

In my beach town, we have some obnoxious people on bikes who tool along at 5mph in the middle of the street, impeding traffic and just generally being hyper entitled ********. But it's just a few individuals, and I'd venture they are ******** much of the time, and said ******* -ery is unrelated to cycling.

People hate cyclists for the same reason that they hate BMW drivers. Some of them are arrogant and selfish and this gets generalised to the whole group.

Every day you see cyclists ignoring the rules of the road, most commonly by running red lights, or riding on the wrong side of the road or without lights at night, at least you do if the selfish cyclist meme has taken hold. You ignore the cyclists that do obey the rules and the car drivers that break the rules and it reinforces your opinion.

[Disbelief]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

There is evidence, it's just not conclusive. If you step through the frames as the cyclist passes the pedestrian, you can see the pedestrian's left arm go out towards the cyclist. You can't see contact (but bear in mind the pedestrian admits there was contact), but the fact that the cyclist overbalances just after this leads me to believe there was sufficient contact to cause the fall.

100% this. You can see her shift her weight to the left her left arm go out. Admitted contact from the pedestrian and the overbalance right after that leads me to believe it was more than light contact.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Lplus

Cyclists are the one significant road user who deliberately sets off on a journey in the certainty that they will obstruct the free passage of every vehicle travelling in the same direction that comes up behind them - car, van, hgv. bus etc. That wouldn't be so bad if they really needed to cycle as it was the only way to get to work or whatever, but so many are cycling for their own personal entertainment/benefit and seem to think the right to use the highway includes the right to get in everyone else's way.

Isn't that a fairly small subset tho? 99% of the cyclists I see are keeping on or as near as possible to the shoulder, mostly to protect their own asses, I would think, but likely with some degree of a share the road mentality.

As far as whether they are going to work or not, I don't see why they can't use a road recreationally or for endurance training. People surely go out for non-work rides in their cars, yes? The proverbial slow Sunday drivers?

In my little beach town, we are the termination point for many many long distance bike races/fund raisers, many originating in the adjacent state. Super annoying because heavily travelled roads are closed off or have a cop stopping traffic to let a long, long line of cyclists pass by. Yeah, speaking as a very aggressive driver, it's annoying. But live and let live. They have the right to do so once in a while. It's their jam, and I think they are being fair enough to only do it once in a while. I mean, the average motorist surely pisses me off more than the occasional endurance athlete on a training ride.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

You are Jeremy Clarkson and I claim my £5.

You got me bang to right guv. Post your bank details and be ready for a surprise...

Originally Posted by Thermal

Isn't that a fairly small subset tho? 99% of the cyclists I see are keeping on or as near as possible to the shoulder, mostly to protect their own asses, I would think, but likely with some degree of a share the road mentality.

As far as whether they are going to work or not, I don't see why they can't use a road recreationally or for endurance training. People surely go out for non-work rides in their cars, yes? The proverbial slow Sunday drivers?

In my little beach town, we are the termination point for many many long distance bike races/fund raisers, many originating in the adjacent state. Super annoying because heavily travelled roads are closed off or have a cop stopping traffic to let a long, long line of cyclists pass by. Yeah, speaking as a very aggressive driver, it's annoying. But live and let live. They have the right to do so once in a while. It's their jam, and I think they are being fair enough to only do it once in a while. I mean, the average motorist surely pisses me off more than the occasional endurance athlete on a training ride.

It really makes no difference if the cyclist is trying to keep to the left, their very presence is an obtruction to free passage, particularly given the recent rulings regarding passing clearance. (There are many country roads where allowing the regulation clearance is impossible without driving into the opposite ditch)

The whole point is the "not holding up traffic" bit, leisure drivers who don't do that don''t register because they maintain traffic speed. Those who go out for a Sunday drive but hold up traffic are no different to the leisure cyclists in my view, though they might well be moving somewhat faster.

The public highway should not be an alternative to the gym.

Organised road racing is another thing all together - infrequent and planned in advance.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by lionking

You are getting desperate now. Even the pedestrian has admitted that she “may” have made contact with the cyclist.

And what do you make of her not hanging around to see how she could assist, and going grocery shopping?

She is a selfish, aggressive and thoughtless woman. Her actions caused death. This was no accident and the judge was right.

Finally, are you saying that even if it wasn’t a shared path (most commentary says it is) she somehow contributed to her death? If not, what are you saying? If so, I suggest you have a closer look at manslaughter case law. For example there have been many cases where burglars (or attempted burglars) have been killed by homeowners and the homeowner was found guilty of manslaughter (although probably not in the US).
....

The cyclist certainly contributed to her death. In fact, in law there is a concept called contributory negligence that reduces a civil defendant's responsibility if the plaintiff also erred. The cyclist was riding toward a partially blind, physically and mentally impaired woman who perceived her as a threat and yelled and gestured at her. Instead of stopping and letting the pedestrian pass her, or walking her vehicle (and a bicycle is a vehicle) around the pedestrian, she insisted on forcing her way through a narrow space and lost control. It looks to me like she confronted the pedestrian unnecessarily. She made multiple bad choices.

And who are you comparing to a burglar? I don't get your analogy. In the U.S., there are the castle doctrine ("a man's home is his castle"), a right to keep guns and a right to self-defense. If a homeowner shoots a true burglar (not a teenager sneaking home after curfew or a drunk neighbor banging on the wrong door), it will almost certainly be deemed justified. Do you think the aggressive cyclist was like a burglar, and the pedestrian was defending herself? That would strengthen the pedestrian's case.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

....
She watched a woman die in fromt of her and then went shopping.

Did she? The cyclist went over the curb after she passed the pedestrian. She's partially blind and otherwise impaired. What did the pedestrian actually know? Maybe she just kept walking and didn't look back because she didn't know what else to do.

I keep coming back to the fact that the pedestrian has been living in "special accommodation" (which sounds like a supervised group home) all her life. There are no reports about her education or employment. She does not appear to be a fully functioning adult.

[Oystein]

Without getting into the details of the case or British or local traffic laws, a perspective from a European mainland frequent bicycler:

On your bike, you need to consider at all times that you are the most vulnerable among cars and pedestrians: More kinetic energy to break your bones than a walker, far less passive protection around you. It is always prudent to make this the base consideration of all your biking decisions.

In German traffic law, there is a base rule (I don't know whether this is explicitly coded, or just a maxim that decades of legal opinions have converged upon) that says that you must drive "defensively" at all times. Which basically means that you must be able to come to a stop, avoid a collision etc even when you have the righ of way.

For a rider in a shared path, this means that if you are not really quite sure that a pedestrian ahead will leave you enough space to pass safely, you MUST slow down, or choose on another, safer path.

In this case, the two obviously saw one another approaching, and both had that same obligation to do what they reasonably can to avoid a collision - and neither did! So it's partial guilt for either. The pedestrian could have stepped to the side, the bicyclist, seeing that the pedestrian was NOT stepping to the side and was signalling an intention not to give way, should definitely have been much slower by the time both met.

There is one thing we don't see in the CCTV, and I don't know whether we know reliably from witness testimony: What did the bicyclist do before driving into the camera's field of view? Did she perhaps drive on her left side, only to swing right at the last second? Did she perhaps likewise gesture the pedestrian to please deviate left, or right? Perhaps the pedestrian simply didn't know which side it was safe to go?

In my own experience with pedestrians in shared paths, what I much prefer is if they simply do not react to me at all, and simply continue exactly as they were - that way I can best predict their motion. Ideally, they signal that they are aware of me and just keep going. Usually, when we face each other, making eye contact will solve 96% of possible problems. When I come from behind, I ring my bell if, and only if, I see no safe passage, and need for them to make a bit of room. In that case, I slow down, if need be, and wait for them to have opened that space for me. If there already is enough room, I don't ring (even though I may be supposed to), so they don't alter their path in unpredictable ways as a result, and just swish by silently and swiftly.

So, having said all that, my intuition is that in this case, both parties carry partial blame, and the relative amount of blame would much depend on the (unknown) behaviour of the cyclist before she comes into view.
"Manslaughter" seems a bit harsh. But that is perhaps me not understanding the range of offenses catured by that term under UK law. 3 years also seems to be (far too) harsh - how does that advance any purpose?

----

As regards my cycling interactions with cars, I always compute what is, in fact, safest for me (while not increasing danger to anyone else). For example, at some intersections, it is objectively safer for me to cross while there is absolutely no one else in sight while my light is red, than to wait for green and cars to arrive that then have a chance to not see me and kill me. So yeah, perhaps I am one of those giving bicyclists a bad name...

Oh one thing I hate: when car drivers want to be nice and boke (bike-woke ) and stop or slow down to let me cross, even though they have the right of way: I very much prefer to cross behind a car than in front of it! Such interactions sometimes end in battles of friendly eye contact which either of us politely gesturing the other to go first - and we both end up losing a few seconds (and I lose speed and rhythm).

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Lplus

You got me bang to right guv. Post your bank details and be ready for a surprise...


It really makes no difference if the cyclist is trying to keep to the left, their very presence is an obtruction to free passage, particularly given the recent rulings regarding passing clearance. (There are many country roads where allowing the regulation clearance is impossible without driving into the opposite ditch)

The whole point is the "not holding up traffic" bit, leisure drivers who don't do that don''t register because they maintain traffic speed. Those who go out for a Sunday drive but hold up traffic are no different to the leisure cyclists in my view, though they might well be moving somewhat faster.

The public highway should not be an alternative to the gym.

Organised road racing is another thing all together - infrequent and planned in advance.

Ok, since you are saying they keep to the left, I'm assuming you are not in the States, where we would keep to the right. I'll concede that you may be having a radically different experience than I am familiar with.

Over here, I'm ok with sharing the road, even though I am an anarchy level aggressive driver. But it's their country too, and if they want distance endurance training (which is dramatically different than a stationary bike at the gym), they have the same rights as I to use that asphalt. I'll keep safely clear of them (whether legally or not) and be on with our respective days.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

I don't know anybody personally in my more than half a century of life on Earth who has got involved in a confrontation that led to the death of the other party. I imagine that if they did, it would be treated very seriously and could end in a trial and a conviction for manslaughter. And it should do.

It's worth noting, by the way, that in England, the judge has a very wide range of sentences available for manslaughter, ranging from community service to life imprisonment. I think the only reason why this ended in a custodial sentence is because Ms Grey left the scene before the emergency services arrived and showed absolutely no remorse right up until the moment she was convicted and realised there would be consequences for her actions. She watched a woman die in fromt of her and then went shopping.

The Sentencing Council guidelines explain the sentence and lack of remorse is a major factor. She likely does not think she is responsible and it is not her fault, a view likely reinforced by her defence lawyer.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

There is evidence, it's just not conclusive. If you step through the frames as the cyclist passes the pedestrian, you can see the pedestrian's left arm go out towards the cyclist. You can't see contact (but bear in mind the pedestrian admits there was contact), but the fact that the cyclist overbalances just after this leads me to believe there was sufficient contact to cause the fall.

Your admission the evidence is not conclusive, means the bar of beyond reasonable belief has not been cleared.

That the cyclist just lost her balance as she went slowly through the gap, is also a potential reason for her ending up in the road. That also means the bar of beyond reasonable belief has not been cleared.

Then there is the issue of contact. The pedestrian certainly did not shove the cyclist into the road and a brief contact as she passes, is not enough to think she would end up in the road, unlike a push. We now have three reasons to argue the bar of beyond reasonable belief has not been cleared.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Well she could se there were cars coming. That a push ...

What push?

Quote:

Incidentally, all the talk of was she pushed or wasn't she is a little bit pointless. The prosecution isn't claiming there was a push and police don't seem to be claiming it - aside from reporting Grey's statement.

Actual contact was not part of the prosecution's case.

Which makes the verdict all the more puzzling as the link between shouting and gesturing the cyclist losing balance is far weaker than any push. That she just overbalanced cannot be ruled out.

Quote:

I absolutely don't mind people discussing things where they don't know every detail, but an acknowledgement of that fact would not go amiss. You disagree with the jury's verdict which is fine, but it's pretty arrogant to assume that you have a complete view of the fact s and therefore they are simply wrong. In fact, you went so far as to deny that there could be any relevant evidence other than what we've read in the media. Absent any further evidence coming to light (for example, in an appeal), if I have to choose between you and the jury, I'm quite confident it is you that is wrong.

I am quite sure there will be an appeal.

Quote:

It wouldn't have been a narrow space and she wouldn't have needed to be at low speed if Grey had given her space as the Highway Code says she should.

Where does the HC state pedestrians must move out of the way of cyclists, when on a pavement?

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

"Rule 63

Sharing space with pedestrians, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles. When riding in places where sharing with pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles is permitted, take care when passing pedestrians and horse riders, especially children, older adults or disabled people. Slow down when necessary and let them know you are there; for example, by ringing your bell (it is recommended that a bell is fitted to your bike), or by calling out politely.

Remember that pedestrians may be deaf, blind or partially sighted and that this may not be obvious.

Do not pass pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles closely or at high speed, particularly from behind. You should not pass a horse on their left. Remember that horses can be startled if passed without warning. Always be prepared to slow down and stop when necessary."

The onus is on the cyclist, not the pedestrian.

[Myriad]

Is there any legal principle in the UK or anywhere else that restricts manslaughter to cases in which the victim is entirely blameless?

I routinely walk along a raised walkway along a mile-long stretch of road that has no shoulder, so the fast motor traffic (up to 75 kph/45 mph, despite a large "35 mph strictly enforced" sign) is right next to the curb which is the edge of the sidewalk, much like in the case at hand. In places, the other side of the sidewalk is a metal guard rail, presumably designed to prevent errant cars and trucks from plunging down some adjacent steep banks, with no evident regard to whatever or whoever might be caught in between. This is fear-inducing for everyone using the walkway, resulting in cyclists and pedestrians alike being very polite and cautious with one another against the obvious common hazard. In my legally irrelevant personal opinion, they both acted badly as the situation developed, and had the cyclist plowed into the pedestrian and it was the latter who died, she would be just as at fault for causing a death. But given what actually happened, the pedestrian is the only one who can be held accountable in court.

[Vixen]

Further to Oystein's rules for Germany, here in Finland, a cyclist need never use the road. There are parallel cycle paths with virtually every road, and where there is not, they are free to ride ont he pavement. The rule is on a shared cycle path with pedestrians, is to keep to the right. Tourists in the large towns aren't aware of this, which is a constant annoyance to cyclists. I was once strolling along on the left and a cyclist came straight at me. I was irritated that I had to step aside but actually she had right of way, as I should have been on the right.

Just about every schoolkid here from an early age cycles to school and back. Whole groups of them. It is a pity that would be far too unsafe in the UK.

If one lesson can be learnt in the current case, is for clear signage, better conditions for cyclists and for everyone to know the rules.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I disagree with this;

"Grey has cerebral palsy, is partially blind, suffers from cognitive issues and has been living in shelter accommodation for most of her life.
During sentencing, Judge Sean Enright said: "These actions are not explained by disability."

Her actions are entirely explained by her medical conditions. She is vulnerable due to her palsy. She is likely a poor judge of space and distance due to her poor eyesight. She is a poor judge of situations due to her cognitive issues.

If she is really a 'poor judge of space due to eyesight' then that's all the more reason for her NOT to be waving her arms about, since she might not be able to adequately judge the distance between her and a cyclist.

Originally Posted by Nessie

"Grey said she believed she had made light contact with Mrs Ward."

I have previously said that was possible, but again, how does that fit with beyond reasonable doubt?

"Believed" is not a certainty. "Light contact" is not a push. It still does not rule out that the cyclist merely lost her own balance as she chose to ride slowly past.

"Believed" may not be certainty, but the fact that she admits with a high probability that she contacted the cyclist should be enough to view this as more than just "pointing/indicating". And if her actions of waving her arms were to the point where even she was at the very least uncertain whether she did make contact with the victim, then the cyclist would probably have felt the need to make excessive course adjustments. (Another poster's comment about "stop hitting my fist with your face" applies.)

And "Light Contact" may not be a "push", but it could certainly be enough to disrupt a cyclist. (And who judges what "light contact" is, compared to "a push"?)

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen

Having reviewed the footage and seen admittance of possibly some 'slight contact' I have revised my opinion slightly though am still surprised at a manslaughter conviction.

Two key things for me that could change my view further:

1) Why was the judge so sure it was a shared path when those in the formal position to know state that wasn't clear?*

Perhaps the judge (and I think the prosecutor might have also said so) was the only one who bothered to actually investigate the issue?

Maybe investigators just got lazy? Assumed that it was such a clear-cut case that they didn't need to look for signage either way?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Is there any legal principle in the UK or anywhere else that restricts manslaughter to cases in which the victim is entirely blameless?

Not in the UK or Australia at least. I posted two cases (I could have added dozens more) where burglars were killed by homeowners and the homeowners were convicted of manslaughter and jailed. For some reason at least one supporter of the pedestrian has deemed this irrelevant. In fact it goes directly to this case. The victim does not need to be blameless. It’s the proportionality one consequences of the reaction which is of paramount importance. Saying “the cyclist shouldn’t have been there” has little weight in the UK.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

If she is really a 'poor judge of space due to eyesight' then that's all the more reason for her NOT to be waving her arms about, since she might not be able to adequately judge the distance between her and a cyclist.

"Believed" may not be certainty, but the fact that she admits with a high probability that she contacted the cyclist should be enough to view this as more than just "pointing/indicating". And if her actions of waving her arms were to the point where even she was at the very least uncertain whether she did make contact with the victim, then the cyclist would probably have felt the need to make excessive course adjustments. (Another poster's comment about "stop hitting my fist with your face" applies.)

And "Light Contact" may not be a "push", but it could certainly be enough to disrupt a cyclist. (And who judges what "light contact" is, compared to "a push"?)

How many people have shouted and gesticulated to cyclists to get off the pavement over the years? Thousands, maybe every week. How many brush past each other, with slight contact? I am sure that happens a lot.

How many people deliberately shove people off the pavement into the face of oncoming vehicles? Very few.

The reason for that is the former is not normally associated with a fatal risk, but the latter is.

There have been many here who have claimed a push happened and they do that because they know shouting and gesticulating and possibly a slight contact is not enough to be considered reckless, but pushing someone into the road is.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Nessie

There have been many here who have claimed a push happened and they do that because they know shouting and gesticulating and possibly a slight contact is not enough to be considered reckless, but pushing someone into the road is.

As I recently said, it’s the disproportionality and consequences of the action that is important. Add in leaving the scene and lack of remorse. Open and shut.

ETA “very few” doesn’t add anything to your argument at all.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by lionking

As I recently said, it’s the disproportionality and consequences of the action that is important. Add in leaving the scene and lack of remorse. Open and shut.

ETA “very few” doesn’t add anything to your argument at all.

Shouting a rude request to get on the road, gesticulating and then a slight coming together, if that did happen, for which the cyclist also carries responsibility, is a very low bar for reckless conduct.

It means manslaughter is pretty much all acts that result in a death.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

If she is really a 'poor judge of space due to eyesight' then that's all the more reason for her NOT to be waving her arms about, since she might not be able to adequately judge the distance between her and a cyclist.
.....

And if someone is cursing and waving her arms, that's plenty of reason for the cyclist to keep a safe distance from her rather than forcing their way past her on a narrow path.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Shouting a rude request to get on the road, gesticulating and then a slight coming together, if that did happen, for which the cyclist also carries responsibility, is a very low bar for reckless conduct.

It means manslaughter is pretty much all acts that result in a death.

Yeah where would the line be drawn precisely... say you notice a pick pocket take your wallet and yell at them, you startle them and they run into traffic and die, is it manslaughter in the UK??

ETA: which is a perfectly reasonable action... I don't think yelling at a cyclist, whom you believe is not following the law, or indeed putting you at risk of injury as a pedestrian is all that unreasonable either tbh. EVEN IF the accused was in the wrong. ETA2: also wasn't the cyclist on the wrong side of the path if indeed it was a shared path? ETA3: Ive been yelled at a time or 3 for walking on the wrong side of a shared usage path by a cyclists. If I stumbled in the ditch next to the path and broke my neck did they commit manslaughter?

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Nessie

There have been many here who have claimed a push happened and they do that because they know shouting and gesticulating and possibly a slight contact is not enough to be considered reckless, but pushing someone into the road is.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I claim a push happened because it looks to me as though a push happened, for reasons I've already mentioned in the thread.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

I can't speak for anyone else, but I claim a push happened because it looks to me as though a push happened, for reasons I've already mentioned in the thread.

And yet that claim was never made by the police, the prosecutors or the judge.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

I can't speak for anyone else, but I claim a push happened because it looks to me as though a push happened, for reasons I've already mentioned in the thread.

As I said earlier, the fact the pedestrian said she “may have” made contact is very telling. Given the adversarial nature of trials, it’s effectively an admission.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Bob001

And yet that claim was never made by the police, the prosecutors or the judge.

The police certainly questioned her about it, and she did admit some contact.

Maybe the prosecution thought they already had a watertight case. And they were correct.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Bob001

And yet that claim was never made by the police, the prosecutors or the judge.

Could you link to the transcript of the trial that you clearly have access to?

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Nessie

How many people have shouted and gesticulated to cyclists to get off the pavement over the years? Thousands, maybe every week. How many brush past each other, with slight contact? I am sure that happens a lot.

I am sure there are a lot of cases in general (not just cycling) where 2 people can engage in nearly identical acts, where thanks to randomness one causes death (and someone gets charged for manslaughter) and another causes no death (and thus the incident becomes irrelevant.)

Should we totally dispense with the charge of "manslaughter" then? Because for every time where someone's actions lead to death you can probably find cases where the same actions cause no death.

The pedestrian is to blame for multiple mistakes on her part:
- Incorrectly assuming that it was a pedestrian only lane, where the judge (and signage) indicated it was multi-use
- Acting in a way that would have impeded the cyclist (causing them to lose control).
The fact that those actions lead to death in one case but probably happen with no fatalities or charges in other cases doesn't mean her bad acts did not occur.

Quote:

There have been many here who have claimed a push happened and they do that because they know shouting and gesticulating and possibly a slight contact is not enough to be considered reckless, but pushing someone into the road is.

You keep using the term 'gesturing' like the 2 individuals were yards apart. But the fact that they were close enough where the pedestrian was close enough to actually touch the cyclist (and may have actually done so) should change the way her actions were viewed.

One of the things bullies do to torment kids is pretend they are going to hit their victim, stop before any contact, and then tell their victim "made you flinch!". Well, of course you made them flinch... people tend not to like their personal space invaded (much less getting actually hit), even if there was no actual contact made.

The moment the cyclist was within arm's distance of the pedestrian she should have stopped "gesturing", since either she was going to come into contact with the cyclist (with little control over the strength of the contact) or at least put them in a situation where they would "flinch" and risk losing control of their bike.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Quote:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I claim a push happened because it looks to me as though a push happened, for reasons I've already mentioned in the thread.

And yet that claim was never made by the police, the prosecutors or the judge.

You are right, they didn't make a claim of being "pushed".

Probably because of a combination of:
- They did not NEED to make that claim in order to prove their case (i.e. simply interfering with the path of the bike by waving arms was enough)
- While many think a push was LIKELY, the evidence for it would not reach the level of certainty that would be required for a criminal case.

Perhaps if they did have solid evidence of a push, they might have tried for a stiffer sentence.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

.....
You keep using the term 'gesturing' like the 2 individuals were yards apart. But the fact that they were close enough where the pedestrian was close enough to actually touch the cyclist (and may have actually done so) should change the way her actions were viewed.
.....

And how did the cyclist come to be that close to the pedestrian? She put herself there herself, despite her other options.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

You are right, they didn't make a claim of being "pushed".

Probably because of a combination of:
- They did not NEED to make that claim in order to prove their case (i.e. simply interfering with the path of the bike by waving arms was enough)
- While many think a push was LIKELY, the evidence for it would not reach the level of certainty that would be required for a criminal case.

Perhaps if they did have solid evidence of a push, they might have tried for a stiffer sentence.

In other words she was convicted for yelling and gesticulating. Whether she pushed the cyclist or not had no bearing on the case... because its inconclusive whether she did or not. I do not know if the judge is allowed to base her sentencing on whether she thinks its likely that the convicted did push her not.