Manslaughter, for shouting at a cyclist

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Quote:

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.

While the cyclist may have been out of visual range, I suspect hitting a pedestrian would have caused a significant amount of noise/commotion. Hard to imagine her being unaware of what happened to the cyclist.

Was the pedestrian herself saying she "didn't know" there was an accident? I don't recall reading anything to suggest she didn't know.

Quote:

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.

She has cerebral palsy... its largely affects motor control. I do not think it commonly affects other mental faculties, such as empathy or reasoning skills.

If she did have any sort of diminished mental capacity, her defense team should have gone with an "insanity" plea.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by pdp

www[dot]bbc[dot]co[dot]uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64835197

How ironic that during the speak to camera a cyclist goes hurtling past.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Quote:

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.

The cyclist was using a pathway which, according to the judge and street signs found by people here, was a shared path, so the cyclist had a right to be using it.

Furthermore, a cyclist should expect other users to respect certain protocols, such as don't interfere with other people's usage of the path. (The pedestrian, by her nature of walking down the center of the path, and waving her arms, was not respecting the idea of the shared path.)

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Bob001

The cyclist certainly contributed to her death.

Debatable.

Quote:

In fact, in law there is a concept called contributory negligence that reduces a civil defendant's responsibility if the plaintiff also erred.

Even if the cyclist did make mistakes (I don't think they did), that doesn't absolve the pedestrian in this case. Maybe the sentence might have been more lenient otherwise, but they would still be liable.

Quote:

The cyclist was riding...

On a path that that she had a legal right to use (according to the judge and others)...

Quote:

...toward a partially blind...

How would the cyclist know she was partly blind?

Quote:

...physically and mentally impaired woman...

How do we know she was "mentally impaired"? She was described as having cerebral palsy, which affects motor skills, but doesn't necessarily affect the brain functions.

And if her impairment was so great, why didn't she take plans to eliminate any risk when travelling? What if she had encountered someone in a wheel chair or a woman pushing a baby stroller? If she were so impaired that she couldn't handle a bike in her vicinity, would she have reacted similarly to other potential path users?

Quote:

...who perceived her as a threat...

How do we know she considered the cyclist as "a threat", and didn't just have a hostile attitude towards cyclists in general?

If the cyclist was such a threat, why didn't she move to the edge of the path in an attempt to put distance between her and the bike (and doing what a considerate person might do), instead of continuing to walk down the center?

Quote:

and yelled and gestured at her.

Again as I pointed out before... I think if a person is waving their arms so close to a person that they probably made contact (as the pedestrian herself claimed), it goes above and beyond simple "gestures". People have an expectation that their personal space won't be violated, and trying to avoid contact (even if the pedestrian labeled it as "light" contact) is a natural instinct.

Quote:

Instead of stopping and letting the pedestrian pass her, or walking her vehicle (and a bicycle is a vehicle) around the pedestrian

The cyclist was using a pathways that she had every right to be on, in a way that was legally allowed to use. (Unless of course you can point to a law or a street sign telling cyclists that they are required to stop when encountering pedestrians.)

And frankly the suggestion that she needed to stop every time she encountered a pedestrian is rather foolish. People use bikes because they want to travel in a fairly quick, efficient manner. I suspect most pedestrians who encounter bikes on shared paths are capable of dealing with bikes without trying to force them onto the road.

Quote:

...she insisted on forcing her way through a narrow space and lost control....

Made all the more narrow because the pedestrian decided to 1) walk down the center of the path (instead of to one side) and 2) waved her arms, further cutting down the amount of space that the cyclist would have had.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

.....
And frankly the suggestion that she needed to stop every time she encountered a pedestrian is rather foolish.
.....

No one suggests that. What the cyclist knew was that a woman in front of her was cursing and waving at her. I would not have approached her, and I certainly would not have tried to force my way past her on a narrow path. That was the point on that particular occasion where the cyclist could have walked her vehicle a few feet -- and lived.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Bob001

No one suggests that. What the cyclist knew was that a woman in front of her was cursing and waving at her. I would not have approached her, and I certainly would not have tried to force my way past her on a narrow path. That was the point on that particular occasion where the cyclist could have walked her vehicle a few feet -- and lived.

If a lunatic is angrily approaching you, swearing and acting in a threatening behaviour, I do not blame anyone for trying to get around her quickly. You also can't, from the video, tell how fast the bike was travelling. It may not have been feasible to try and stop quickly on a fairly narrow path.

In any case, you still seem to be saying that this whole event is the cyclist's fault, while clutching at straws to defend the pedestrian. Why? Can you also explain why she left the scene when even an idiot would know the cyclist was at the very least badly hurt? This alone would have increased the sentence, even though she still got off lightly.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Bob001

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.

That's exactly right.

I'm a large, very strong bloke, and with a clear nutcase in front of me, I'd have stopped until she passed.

Sadly, we live in a world where personal responsibility doesn't appear to exist any more.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by lionking

....
You also can't, from the video, tell how fast the bike was travelling. It may not have been feasible to try and stop quickly on a fairly narrow path.
....

If the cyclist couldn't stop quickly as she approached a pedestrian -- any pedestrian -- that's more evidence that she wasn't in full control of her vehicle.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by lionking

....
Can you also explain why she left the scene when even an idiot would know the cyclist was at the very least badly hurt? This alone would have increased the sentence, even though she still got off lightly.

I have no idea why she didn't stop. It's more evidence that there is something wrong with her. It's certainly not normal behavior. But it doesn't have anything to do with why the cyclist went into the roadway, and it shouldn't have had any impact on her sentence.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

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??

I doubt that very much, though after this case, it would not surprise me if the shouter was charged with manslaughter.

Quote:

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?

There is a link to a video of another similar incident on a shared path here;

https://twitter.com/AdamBronkhorst/s...40682770128898

The debate follows a similar line to here, with some in favour of the cyclist and others pointing to the HC and what it states about pedestrian priority.

[Nessie]

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.

My miss the point that there needs to be beyond reasonable doubt to get a conviction. The court accepted there was none for a push, so they went with her shouting, gesticulating and a possible contact, as enough to make her wholly to blame for the cyclist overbalancing into the road.

My argument is that slow speed, a narrow space and her age could all account for her overbalancing. That is the reasonable doubt.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

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 standard is called reasonable man, which means is it reasonable to think an act is likely to cause danger? Pushing someone into a road is clearly dangerous. Shouting and gesticulating at cyclists is not. If it was, there would be multiple cyclists fatalities every day.

Quote:

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

There is uncertainty about that and whether it was shared use at that point.

Quote:

- Acting in a way that would have impeded the cyclist (causing them to lose control).

She paused, she did not actively imped the cyclist who was left with space to pass. The HC, Sec 63 states

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/rules-for-cyclists.html

"Do not pass pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles closely or at high speed, particularly from behind."

The cyclist chose to ignore that rule and closely pass the pedestrian. That is at her risk.

Quote:

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.

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.

Thousands of cyclists and pedestrians pass each other on narrow paths very day, most without incident, some with an argument and on this case, it ended up with the cyclist losing control and falling into the roadway. You and the court are wrong to but the entire blame for that on the pedestrian, when the cyclist, as shown in the Highway Code, has responsibilities and chose to try and squeeze past and take a risk.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I have no idea why she didn't stop. It's more evidence that there is something wrong with her. It's certainly not normal behavior. But it doesn't have anything to do with why the cyclist went into the roadway, and it shouldn't have had any impact on her sentence.

Not true.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by Nessie

The standard is called reasonable man, which means is it reasonable to think an act is likely to cause danger? Pushing someone into a road is clearly dangerous. Shouting and gesticulating at cyclists is not. If it was, there would be multiple cyclists fatalities every day.



There is uncertainty about that and whether it was shared use at that point.



She paused, she did not actively imped the cyclist who was left with space to pass. The HC, Sec 63 states

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/rules-for-cyclists.html

"Do not pass pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles closely or at high speed, particularly from behind."

The cyclist chose to ignore that rule and closely pass the pedestrian. That is at her risk.



Thousands of cyclists and pedestrians pass each other on narrow paths very day, most without incident, some with an argument and on this case, it ended up with the cyclist losing control and falling into the roadway. You and the court are wrong to but the entire blame for that on the pedestrian, when the cyclist, as shown in the Highway Code, has responsibilities and chose to try and squeeze past and take a risk.

The location of the signs on the other side of the road at that point tends to be a clue. Those signs aren't used to designate an entire road/footway system as shared, they are used to designate a specific footway.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Nessie

My miss the point that there needs to be beyond reasonable doubt to get a conviction. The court accepted there was none for a push, so they went with her shouting, gesticulating and a possible contact, as enough to make her wholly to blame for the cyclist overbalancing into the road.

My argument is that slow speed, a narrow space and her age could all account for her overbalancing. That is the reasonable doubt.

You were doubting my motives for claiming a push. I wasn't seeking to justify the verdict, since I do not have access to all the information the jury was given. It looks to me as though there was a push in that video, but, by itself, there may be enough doubt that I might well say not guilty. Which does suggest to me that there was more information available to the jury.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Lplus

The location of the signs on the other side of the road at that point tends to be a clue. Those signs aren't used to designate an entire road/footway system as shared, they are used to designate a specific footway.

And yet the judge declared it was a shared path. Nessie is correct to state that there is some uncertainty.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

You were doubting my motives for claiming a push. I wasn't seeking to justify the verdict, since I do not have access to all the information the jury was given. It looks to me as though there was a push in that video, but, by itself, there may be enough doubt that I might well say not guilty. Which does suggest to me that there was more information available to the jury.

I'd contend that even if there wasn't what might reasonably be construed as "a push" - and, for that matter, even if there wasn't actually any physical contact at all between the two people - there's ample evidence that the pedestrian's forceful gesticulations, right at the point when the cyclist was within a yard or so of passing her, were sufficient to cause the cyclist to imbalance herself and swerve out onto the carriageway.

And I suspect that this is probably the very line that the prosecution took in this case - and that it was sufficient to convince the jury that the threshold for manslaughter had been passed. As you say, there may well have been more evidence available to the jury than we know about (although, as has been pointed out, it's fairly likely IMO that this sort of evidence would have found its way into the media as the trial progressed). But I'd argue that the video alone was probably sufficient to prove manslaughter, for the reasons I give here.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

And yet the judge declared it was a shared path. Nessie is correct to state that there is some uncertainty.

As I think others have pointed out: even if there was no provision for cyclists to use this stretch of pavement, this is effectively irrelevant when it comes to assessing the pedestrians actions, and the result of her actions.

An example to illustrate this principle is a real-life instance (in England, probably a few years ago now) of a house burglary and theft, where the homeowner chased the burglar out of the house and right down the street, caught up with the burglar, and beat him to death. The fact that the burglar was breaking the law in the first instance does not give the homeowner the right to chase and kill the burglar.

So, going back to the case being discussed in this thread: the fact (if it did turn out to be the fact) that the cyclist was unlawfully using that stretch of pavement did not give the pedestrian the right to effectively force the cyclist into the roadway right in front of an oncoming vehicle.

[Gulliver Foyle]

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.

So people should only be allowed to use the road when absolutely necessary? Or is this simply just another Clarksonian rant resulting from a lack of the common decency to share the road with other users?

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

And yet the judge declared it was a shared path. Nessie is correct to state that there is some uncertainty.

Upthread a poster went down the street on 'this' side of the road and found a 'shared path' sign. I streetviewed from there to the accident spot and there was no sign negating it. From that alone, I think it's reasonable to assume it was a shared path.

The sign

eta: Checking the street view history, it was there in 2014 too.

[JoeMorgue]

I refuse to believe that it's impossible for two disparate moods of transportation to share a path unless some kind of complicated rules of the road are created and 100% clear.

Like I said earlier this isn't the Air Traffic Control Space around O'Hare or a maritime traffic through the Dover Straight.

It's someone walking and someone riding a bike on a sidewalk. Whether or not it was formally declared a dual use path by the Queen in an official ceremony seems so far the point we'd need a dual use path to get there.

[I Am The Scum]

The presence/absence of a shared roadway or signs has no bearing on the pedestrian's guilt. If I'm driving drunk and I swerve into a lane where someone was jaywalking, I don't get a free pass because they were walking somewhere they shouldn't have. It may factor into my sentencing, but I'm still guilty.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

The presence/absence of a shared roadway or signs has no bearing on the pedestrian's guilt.

I agree. That's why I'm confused as to why that question has been about 50-75% of this thread.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

... there's ample evidence that the pedestrian's forceful gesticulations, right at the point when the cyclist was within a yard or so of passing her, were sufficient to cause the cyclist to imbalance herself and swerve out onto the carriageway.

...

Pedestrian Jedi is she?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Pedestrian Jedi is she?

I don't know what's more despicable: You pretending that's what happened, or you pretending it's the victim's fault for lacking the necessary aplomb.

Do you make a habit of causing people to flinch unnecessarily, even in situations where their concentration and peace of mind are rather important? No? Then you will probably never run afoul of such charges.

And if you do make a habit of causing people to flinch unnecessarily, especially in situations where their concentration and peace of mind are rather important? Then I tend to think you probably should run afoul of such charges.

You're at a level of protest that I normally only encounter with Just a Prank Bros.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Nessie

.....
There is a link to a video of another similar incident on a shared path here;

https://twitter.com/AdamBronkhorst/s...40682770128898

The debate follows a similar line to here, with some in favour of the cyclist and others pointing to the HC and what it states about pedestrian priority.

In that video the cyclist is moving at a pretty good clip, and the pedestrians make way for him. One says something unintelligible as he goes by, and instead of just continuing on his business the cyclist stops, turns around, goes back and confronts the pedestrians. That's just stupid and unnecessary.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Bob001

In that video the cyclist is moving at a pretty good clip,

6mph, actually.

[I Am The Scum]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I agree. That's why I'm confused as to why that question has been about 50-75% of this thread.

Because it's irrelevant. You should know that by now, Joe.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by lionking

How on earth do you know that? The business of newspapers is to publish stories which will be read. Cases like this will never be covered in fine detail by newspapers.

I have a good deal of confidence in the UK justice system (as distinct from the US system). This case was judged on its merits. The actions of the pedestrian caused the death of the cyclist, and I do not think there is any doubt, reasonable or otherwise, about that. Manslaughter it is.

There was an item on LBC today (short newsbreaks during other shows on what is now a National radio station covering headline stories) about a man who tried and failed to pull a woman in front of an Underground train, both survived. A story like this about someone dying in an accident, as you say, this isn't big news, a story about someone doing it deliberately honestly would have been.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I don't know what's more despicable: You pretending that's what happened, or you pretending it's the victim's fault for lacking the necessary aplomb.

Do you make a habit of causing people to flinch unnecessarily, even in situations where their concentration and peace of mind are rather important? No? Then you will probably never run afoul of such charges.

And if you do make a habit of causing people to flinch unnecessarily, especially in situations where their concentration and peace of mind are rather important? Then I tend to think you probably should run afoul of such charges.

You're at a level of protest that I normally only encounter with Just a Prank Bros.

I was mocking London John for his comment about the "pedestrian's forceful gesticulations".

How do you know she did not just lose her balance as she slowed to pass the pedestrian? When was the last time you were on a bike and rode it at walking pace? It is hard to keep your balance at that speed.

[JoeMorgue]

"Maybe the cyclists just up and decided to fall over at that moment by pure random chance, did you ever think of that?"

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

6mph, actually.

Source? (And even that would still be a lot faster than walking.)

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

So people should only be allowed to use the road when absolutely necessary? Or is this simply just another Clarksonian rant resulting from a lack of the common decency to share the road with other users?

Neither.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

The presence/absence of a shared roadway or signs has no bearing on the pedestrian's guilt. If I'm driving drunk and I swerve into a lane where someone was jaywalking, I don't get a free pass because they were walking somewhere they shouldn't have. It may factor into my sentencing, but I'm still guilty.

I thought that was the whole point of the Jaywalking laws, that the driver is responsible whatever the pedestrian does. The UK doesn't have a Jaywalking law so your example is invalid.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Source? (And even that would still be a lot faster than walking.)

The twitter thread.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Lplus

Neither.

....

...

..

Then should ******* cyclists be on the road "for enjoyment" or goddamn not?

Jesus Christ.

[lionking]

As a one time long distance runner who used shared paths, cyclists, particularly when there is more than one, are sometimes inconsiderate if not dangerous. Some insist on riding tandem and forcing pedestrians off the path. So some dislike of cyclists is understandable.

Of course, none of this applies to this poor cyclist who simply had the misfortune of confronting an angry, entitled idiot who caused her death and did not even stay at the scene to try to help. Justice was done, even if the sentence is insufficient in my view.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

....

...

..

Then should ******* cyclists be on the road "for enjoyment" or goddamn not?

Jesus Christ.

They have an inalienable right to use the public highway. They do not have an inalienable right to screw up everyone else's journey whilst they are on the highway.

[RolandRat]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I was mocking London John for his comment about the "pedestrian's forceful gesticulations".

How do you know she did not just lose her balance as she slowed to pass the pedestrian? When was the last time you were on a bike and rode it at walking pace? It is hard to keep your balance at that speed.

Losing her balance at the same moment the pedestrian moved her arm towards her. I think the pedestrians actions clear the "reasonable doubt" bar. She made a conscious decision to interfere with the cyclist and that interference led to the cyclists death.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

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.

I think some road users just hate everyone else who uses 'their' roads, but speaking as a long term motorcyclist, near constant pedestrian & sometime cyclist it's hard not to take it personally when you're at the business end of the order of vulnerability.

I'd place money though that the people who jump lights on their bikes are also driving & parking like twats in their cars (probably even to other cyclists), and close passing pedestrians at speed on shared rights of way. Some people are just ********* irregardless of the form of transport they're currently using.

Off topic, but I spend a lot of time walking on country rights of way like the Ridgeway, if a cyclist warns me they're coming I'll be at the side of the trail with my dogs sat out of the way, they don't even have to slow, and most cyclists are like that, but there's always one or two who come flying up behind you and either squeal to a halt up right behind you or pass inches from you at speed even in the narrowest parts, these people never have bloody bells on their handlebars! I don't get it, bells carry well, they cut through background noise and people know it's a bike, ping a bell when you see me and by the time you reach me I'll make sure your passage is unimpeded and even thank you for it. (BTW: I've also been on the other side of this and my experience was that if people know you're coming 99% of people make room).