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

how close were they to each other when Gray moved towards her shouting and gesticulating?

Because I got the impression that the cyclist didn’t have much time to react? So quite close to each other. And that the cyclist’s instinctive reaction was to swerve a bit hence how she ended up in the road getting run over.

Yes, rather inconsistent to say the least, isn't it?

Because you're the sort of poster who likes to start unpleasant arguments on any thread and will stay up til the early hours to do that?

In a nutshell, VinnieVanDog.

From what I could see, Auriol Grey chose rightly or wrongly to approach and even try to stop Celia Ward from cycling.

I am guessing Auriol was partly scared but also irritated that a cyclist was cycling where to Auriol’s mind “she shouldn’t be cycling”. Hence Auriol’s response.

Don’t flatter yourselves. I found arguments that the cyclist should have behaved differently akin to victim blaming (because it is and other people have pointed that out too).

I haven’t been unpleasant. Haven’t used foul language, been aggressive, personalised the discussion. If you’re uncomfortable with me pointing out victim blaming then ask yourselves why.

This is a really tragic case. I honestly think it was a sad accident and Auriol absolutely did not intend these awful consequences.
I hope she is now getting better support.

I’d stop posting now if I were you

On the contrary! I love your replies, so amusing.

I think if you were walking and scared by a cyclist coming towards you, then you would move to the side then shout anything you wanted to say after them. The response does not suggest fear to me, more hostility and seeking to control.

Grey does appear to have had “Previous “ for attacking and going for cyclists.

Her anger could get her into serious trouble- But she probably only targets older and more vulnerable cyclists-

A man or a teen would give her short shrift.

*From what I could see, Auriol Grey chose rightly or wrongly to approach and even try to stop Celia Ward from cycling.

I am guessing Auriol was partly scared but also irritated that a cyclist was cycling where to Auriol’s mind “she shouldn’t be cycling”. Hence Auriol’s response.*

It's not 'rightly or wrongly'. Auriol Gray had no right to try to prevent Celia Ward from cycling because it was a SHARED PATH.
And whether Auriol liked that fact or not (she clearly didn't) and whether the path was wide enough or not in the opinion of random MNetters is irrelevant. Auriol Gray has the capacity to go shopping independent using a shared pedestrian and cycle path. She just didn't like the fact Celia Gray was doing what she had every right to do, and was verbally and physically aggressive to her. Anyone trying to claim Celia Gray 'should' have done something different is victim blaming however much they try to deny it.
^
In my view Auriol Gray is morally responsible for causing Celia Gray's death and the suffering of the car driver.^

"Auriol Gray had no right to try to prevent Celia Ward from cycling because it was a SHARED PATH."

@entiawest I've seen it stated a few times on the thread that it was a shared path but never seen it elsewhere - was it definitely designated as a shared path?

Yes it's a shared facility on the ring road. More signs have since been put up as some sections were poorly signed before.

The police interview is also enlightening. When the police officer states to Auriol Grey that on cctv it's clear her mouth is moving, and asks what she was saying to Celia Ward, Grey replied 'slow down. Just slow down.' The officer then tells her there is sound on the cctv and plays it, and she's shouting, 'get off the fucking pavement.' When asked what she meant by that, Grey says 'I can't remember.'

The lies and utter lack of accountability is shocking.

Thanks that's interesting because a significant part of the reporting on the case was to do with cyclists using pavements 'illegally' and causing problems for pedestrians.

There was loads of reporting on all sorts of angles and also confusion about whether it was a shared facility; with the conclusion in court being it was.

The police interview strongly suggests Auriol Grey knew she'd done wrong because otherwise why lie about what she shouted? She obviously didn't realise the cctv had recorded sound too and thought she'd get away with it. There would just be no reason to lie if she thought she hadn't done anything wrong

The appeal court approved judgement section 2 details what was established at the trial re the status of the "shared path".

If I was walking I'd obviously turn round and go the other way. Same with cycling if there was room to turn without dismounting but if I had to dismount I'd rather just cycle past as quick as possible than risk getting attacked while turning my bike round. Luckily I am unlikely to ever face this situation because pedestrians and cyclists share spaces with zero issue where I live, no random angry people trying to knock cyclists in the road and no lycra clad twats speeding past pedestrians with little regard.

I don't think any of us would like to repeat something rude that we said in an intemperate moment, would we? Especially to the police. It doesn't mean that we think we're guilty of something bigger.

What you might do under threat and what someone with limited sight, movement and IQ would do could be vastly different.

@Orangemangogrape you don't think anyone would be honest in a police interview? You're kidding right?
It's not a drinks party ffs where one is being careful to modify their language.
She had been either arrested or at the very least was being interviewed under caution about a fatal incident.
She lied. The most obvious reason for that is that at this stage the officer had only said her mouth could be seen moving: he hadn't yet disclosed the cctv had sound too. When she was confronted with what she'd actually said, she couldn't explain what she meant by it.

It honestly beggars belief that people are trying to minimise how she behaved.

"Luckily I am unlikely to ever face this situation because pedestrians and cyclists share spaces with zero issue where I live, no random angry people trying to knock cyclists in the road and no lycra clad twats speeding past pedestrians with little regard."

@Natsku where do you live? Everywhere in England the war of Pedestrians v Cyclists is such a trigger issue for people and escalated now by the massive increase in delivery bikers.

Finland. Biking is very common here so people are much more tolerant of it but it's not delivery bikers (in my area anyway) or middle aged men in lycra, its just normal people from little children to the elderly riding city bikes around.

I'd expect them to act in a more defensive way than myself, to move away from a potential hazard. The people I know with poor eyesight and mobility would not do what she did. If a cyclist was fast approaching (though, I don't think Celia was), they would move out of the way to protect themselves. They would be more cautious than me, certainly not go on the attack. The way Grey behaved suggests she was not afraid.

It wasn’t a shared path at the time of the an accident, I’m sure this has been clarified elsewhere but I understand it’s now been classified as a shared.

I’m in two minds to be fair about Auriol
and Celia as I think Celia should’ve got off her bicycle and walked past Auriol.