Auriol Grey conviction overturned

[Icantpossibly]

The original decision split opinion and I have no doubt today’s one will do the same.
I saw the report in The Independent online.
Aplogies if this duplicates another post. I looked and couldn’t see one

What I read months ago was that there were signs up earlier along the path stating it was a shared path….and there were no signs saying end of shared path, and legally the shared path doesn’t end until there’s a sign saying it’s ended. So no surprise that a cyclist would assume they’re still on a shared path as legally they’d be correct. The discussions in court were surrounding whether there should have been an end of cycle path sign which hadn’t been put up.

It's a really long shared path on the ring road. There were some parts which weren't clearly signed and better signage has since been installed.

As @entiawest says it’s a long shared path but which didn’t have good signage as to end of cycle path.

So really the road signage should’ve been better and clearer.

There’s a blind spot at the end of the right hand side of my street where delivery drivers constantly park and obstruct the view out to the right. The road which is at the top is quite a busy road which vehicles use at speed too so it can be precarious.

I should really write to the council about some sort of signage.

I'd expect a shared path to go all the way around a ring road. If the path narrowed so that wasn't possible then the road needs to be made safe for cyclists instead, including for elderly and child cyclists.

I’d expect the same thing really.

But there definitely needs to be clear signage for cycle lanes and where pedestrians walk as there are still areas (I came across one today in SE London) where it wasn’t clearly marked. Luckily I worked it out for myself.

Do you have lots of cycleways/wide shared pathways? This is a big part of the problem in UK - cycling is very popular but the infrastructure isn't there, cities are designed around car use and councils increasingly designate pavements and eg one-way streets as cycle routes without adequate signs/road markings.

Even where shared paths are clearly marked with pedestrian lanes and cycle lane, people will walk in the cycle lane and cyclists will veer onto the pedestrian side.

There's also some deep-rooted cultural element that I've never understood where a lot of drivers and pedestrians just think cyclists are arrogant and a pita.

Actually, hang on a sec. Yes we don’t have brilliant infrastructures here for cycle lanes or routes but what’s there is there.

Doesn’t stop cyclists cycling across me as a car driver and expecting me to magically see them or wearing all black on a dark night with no reflective clothing.

Then I have cyclists almost daily cutting red lights and push button crossings on red, cycling at speed. That’s without e cycles.

Not saying all cyclists are like this but don’t you understand why some do get a bad rap?

There is a lot of anger online against Grey, primarily for her arrogance of going like a bull at a gate to her victim, and Also for being completely callous and uncaring.
Even if there were to be a designated cycle lane, who's to say Grey won't target another vulnerable cyclist ? She had allegedly hit a cyclist {again a female} prior to causing the death of her latest cycling victim.

Grey is a danger to the public- her aggression is a concern for anyone she sees as a target.

Likely older woman and children - it won't be men she's targeting.

A lot of times anger has fear behind it. The fight response might be more likely to kick in if you know that your flight response won't work.

In this case, flight, or whatever just moving to the side in self protection is called, would work. Moving directly into someone's path is likely to end in someone getting hurt, you, them, or both.

But if meeting someone head on is an appropriate fear response then it is appropriate for both parties.

Of course I do and I've been arguing from the pedestrian pov (while being labelled 'victim blaming' 🙄) for my trouble. You're really demonstrating my point about the cultural dislike of cyclists because yes, some of them behave like idiots or just thoughtlessly but most are no more thoughtless than drivers and the issues they cause are far less.

I could make a huge list of the dangerous things drivers have done to me when I'm cycling - and this is one of the reasons that cyclists will use the pavement when it's safer, which then makes pedestrians less safe and brings us into potential confrontations.

Have j got it wrong or if after pushing her into the road did she not stop to check or help and seeing her ran over went on with her day shopping?

She didn't push her into the road.

I thought the police showed her a close up of her fingers on Celia's clothing? She refused to share the space, was violently flinging her arm about in Celia's direction, and Celia was forced into traffic.

Flinging her arms around and potentially touching Celia's clothing are not the same as pushing her into the road. If she had done that there would clearly have been a 'base offence' - the absence of a base offence is the reason her conviction was overturned.

Maybe the poster meant pushing without necessarily using physical force? Like I was pushed off the road onto the hard shoulder by a friend's mentally ill ex partner when driving once.

You mean you were forced off the road (must have been terrifying I hope you were ok?) - that's clearly an offence.

The issue here is that Police didn't establish an offence - ie that AG actually pushed CW or otherwise intended to force her into the road. She was clearly shouting, gesturing and even getting in her way but those aren't offences that I'm aware of? As I understood it CW lost her balance when she realised she couldn't get past AG and fell into the road where a car was coming and had no time to stop.

Yes, he moved his car towards mine, into my space, pushing me off the road. No contact, I had to move to avoid contact. I was okay, obviously shaken up.

Push is often used to mean to force or pressure. Those are legitimate uses of the word.

Although there were not clearly defined lanes on the shared path like there were on the motorway, the understanding is that you pick a side and stick to it while passing in order to share the space. An offence may not have been committed. The mistake was that common assault wasn't brought up I thought?

Auriol Grey admitted making physical contact with Celia Ward, when she was shown close up photographic evidence which she couldn't deny.

She claimed that verbally she just said 'slow down' until the police proved otherwise with the audio recording of her shouting 'get off the fucking pavement' at Celia.

Shouting at and swearing aggressively and making unwanted physical contact can actually constitute assault @VinnieVanDog
Auriol Grey wasn't charged with assault which was an error imo and meant that ultimately the manslaughter verdict didn't stick.

Auriol Grey may not have shoved Celia but she did make contact and did push, as in force, her into the road by entering her personal space.

@VinnieVanDog shouting and gesturing like she did is an offence even without contact. It counts as assault. Unfortunately the police ballsed up didn’t charge her with that. Hence her conviction wasn’t technically correct and overturned.

In my town most of the pavements are quite wide, and designated shared paths but no separate cycle lanes. Some pavements are narrower and not technically shared paths but everyone cycles on them anyway but with consideration for pedestrians. And about half the roads have no pavements at all so cars, bikes and pedestrians are all sharing the same space, mostly without issue (sometimes from the cars)

Went to a nearby city yesterday and in the centre there was clearly marked separate cycle lanes and wide pavements, looked really good and well thought out.

Grey made contact and was belligerent and verbally aggressive.
After the contact, and the victim was dying , Grey callously stomped off to do her shopping- then went home.

Awful, inexcusable behaviour.
Zero care given by the aggressor- Even young children have more of a moral compass than Grey.

It wasn't just technically incorrect - there really wasn't enough evidence to make such a charge stick.

"Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Mrs Justice Yip and Mrs Justice Farbey, said: "In our judgment, the prosecution case was insufficient even to be left to the jury....The senior judge continued: "Had Mrs Ward not died we regard it as inconceivable that the appellant would have been charged with assault."