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

The conviction was overturned.

The fact remains that Auriol Grey shouted 'get off the fucking pavement'and gesticulated aggressively at an elderly cyclist WHO HAD EVERY RIGHT TO BE CYCLING ON THE SHARED PATH and made physical contact.

She then lied, 'forgot' and 'don't knower' her way through the police interview.

Why anyone is keen to defend her behaviour is bizarre.

This is the footpath, it is not wide & there is very little in the way of signposting to say it is a shared path.

She then lied, 'forgot' and 'don't knower' her way through the police interview.

It's sad that she is now likely to think she was in the right. She is likely to both act aggressively and then to lie about it in future.

@Gerkinsandwich it may not be a very wide path but it is a shared path for pedestrians and cyclists and therefore the cyclist had every right to be there

This isn't the place, it was in front of a surgery with a red fence.

The footpath looks to be a couple of metres wide, wide enough for a pedestrian and cyclist to safely pass each other. There are similarly wide shared paths near me.

2m wide is not wide enough. The minimum recommended width for a shared path is 3m.
A cyclist who is fully in control and an able bodied pedestrian could probably get past each other without incident but anyone the least bit wobbly is going to feel unsafe with a bicycle coming at them. It still hasn’t been explained why the cyclist didn’t dismount as most considerate riders would do when approaching a disabled pedestrian on a path as narrow as that.
Auriol Grey was wrong to believe bikes weren’t allowed on the path but given the lack of signage and the fact the path didn’t meet normal requirements it was far from an unreasonable belief.

Many paths are less than a metre wide though, with cars next to you, not just a bike! Three metres may be recommended but I regularly walk on shared paths and two metres works perfectly well around here. I wouldn't want a cyclist to have to use a ring road rather than share a path.

Well it must be wide enough as I believe signage has now been improved to make it clear it’s a shared path. 🤷‍♀️

Grey was steaming along, not looking remotely disabled.

No stick , nothing to show she was likely to blow up at a cyclist.

She deliberately walked TOWARDS the victim.

Yes and the RNIB have been constantly warning of the danger of such paths for the visually impaired. The fact that councils have been doing this doesn’t mean it’s safe for all users.
Like I said, a narrow shared path might work perfectly well for the fully able bodied but it doesn’t mean it’s safe for everyone.

Whether it was 2 metres wide or 3 metres wide the fact is, it is a designated shared path for pedestrians and cyclists and both have a right to be there. Auriol Grey had no right to shout at the cyclist to get off the fucking pavement and aggressively fling her arm out and make contact.

It's a about 50m to the surgery on the left of the path.
I cycle along it, the path is also obstrcted by road signs . The ring road has cars accelerating to get through the traffic lights. Pedestrian/ cycle paths are tricky to navigate, even when being used correctly.

It still hasn’t been explained why the cyclist didn’t dismount as most considerate riders would do when approaching a disabled pedestrian on a path as narrow as that.

Maybe because the cyclist is unable to explain now? I can put myself in her situation and I, personally, would have been afraid to stop. I'm afraid of aggressive behaviour due to past violence. I would have either crossed at lights if possible and crossed back over when safe, or kept going, aiming to get past and away from the threat.

Calling something a shared space doesn't make it a safe space.

It wasn't safe because one user refused to share.

It didn't look like there was room to share, even if Auriol Grey was behaving appropriately someone needed to give way.

Well, did anyone notice Grey 'dawdling' along the pavement? She was certainly able to walk at a good speed and no walking stick or other walking aid either. It's also apparent during the police interview that she lied or answered 'don't know' to many of the questions. Her demeanor towards the police was certainly different to how she behaved towards the victim.

Let's also not forget that she left a woman lying in the road and walked off (I cannot believe she wasn't aware - or made aware by reactions of others around - of what she'd done). There are many people who suffer from disabilities the same as hers or worse, but would never dream of behaving in this way or showing this level of aggression, and it's important to bear this in mind, too. I would hope someone goes with her now if she needs to go out, she obviously has problems with lack of self-control.

Absolutely right.

It still hasn’t been explained why the cyclist didn’t dismount as most considerate riders would do when approaching a disabled pedestrian on a path as narrow as that.

The video shows Grey walking at a reasonable speed along the footpath without visible walking aids. In this case, unless the cyclist was psychic, how would she have known that Grey was disabled? Yes, in some instances it's clear-cut - the person might have a walking aid. But not in this one and it's important to remember this.

I just wonder when coming up with these shared spaces is there an assumption that all pedestrians are able bodied, fully sighted and able to move out of the way quickly?

For all the condemnation of Auriol Greys behaviour there are other people with similar cognitive abilities and behaviour in the community. They are allowed to use these shared spaces.

We can't just assume that pedestrians and cyclists who don't have to get a license or pass any medical test to use shared spaces will always do so perfectly. I get that accidents aren't always preventable but some of these narrow paths next to busy roads just seem too risky for cycling whether it's officially allowed or not. The shared spaces where pedestrians have to press into hedges don't strike me as safe either.

There's a completely valid case for reviewing shared spaces and looking at how to improve them.

But none of this is an excuse for Auriol Grey's aggressive behaviour towards another person who was using that space legitimately and had as much right to be there as she did. That aggression led to the death of the other user of that space. If the cyclist had screamed, sworn and flung their arm out at the pedestrian causing them to fall off the path under a car, would anyone be excusing it?

To lie about what happened means there must be an understanding that they have done wrong.

If she had been a sweet scared innocent as some people want to portray her, then when questioned she'd have simply said the truth, because she would have seen no reason not to.
Lying shows she knew she had been wrong.

Nobody has suggested she is sweet. That is a ridiculous straw man. Vulnerable people are not necessarily nice.

I am surprised by the people who claim you can’t tell she’s disabled in the videos. The unevenness of her gait is obvious. Not every disability requires a walking aid, you know.

Picking on one word of a post and dismissing the meaning by using that to call it a straw man arguement doesn't strike you as a tad ironic?

It's not a matter of excusing anything.

It's about what can be proved in a court of law.

Despite 2 trials and 2 appeals, no one has managed to prove that Auriol Grey committed a crime.

Furthermore, the appeal court that quashed her conviction refused a retrial. That implies to me they believe it is not realistically possible (at least with current evidence) to prove she committed the crime she was charged with.

If a cyclist commits a crime then yes they should be punished for it. As should a pedestrian.

We can't just go around locking people up if we can't prove they did anything wrong.