someone tell me what crime has been committed?

[Weefreetiffany]

Baffled by this story

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11810311/Woman-49-convicted-manslaughter-raising-hand-elderly-cyclist-collision.html

on what grounds are the prosecuting the pedestrian? It seems an absolute stretch to think that her gesticulating and “radiant her hand” at a cyclist for driving towards her on a pavement is wilful manslaughter? I can see how it’s a tragic, very unfortunate accident but how did this make it to court?

The atmosphere is this country is so toxic to middle aged women at the moment- what is going on?!

At first I was on the side of the pedestrian, but after the video, I'm more convinced that based on the video it does suggest the person pushed intentionally

They were asking for das cam footage. I watched the video, and she turns to look back at the cyclist. Its not possible to know what happened after she looked back. We will have to wait and watch.

I do think its naff that the police cannot decide if its a path or a shared path way. If they don't know how are people walking or cycling supposed to know??

Erm for the reasons stated in my post, showing not all shared cycles paths are wide! I did not suggest it happened there. I've watched the cctv and don't see the one where it happened as being wide. Why are you policing what I post?

What a terrible story. Whilst the cyclist shouldn't have been on the pavement, it should have been foreseeable that a serious accident was likely to happen from the pedestrians actions. She should absolutely should be prosecuted.

I view it like this...

On a spectrum of average adult behaviour, it's possible to get frustrated and in a moment of rage, wave/shout at someone who may (or may not) be doing something that worries/annoys you. We're all capable of doing something like that.

Outside the spectrum of average adult behaviour is that when you see your dumb actions have caused a fatal accident, you walk away (presumably in the hope that no one saw) and go and do your shopping.

It the option is cyclist hits you or you push her away from you then that is self defense, if the cyclist had stopped and then she pushed her into the road then yes that would have been a crime.

binary thinking, like daily mail readers=“lobotomised” idiots and non mail reader= Superior in ever way, is worse in my opinion.

It’s important to be able to discuss an issue and see all shades of grey, no matter the source material. Any news source can be reliable or unreliable, we don’t know unless it’s observed and discussed (the democratic function of the press?) hope that you can see my point from way up there on your very intelligent pedestal

It is definitely inaccurate and sensationalist. Most read doesn’t make that any less true.

It certainly would have been self defence if she had had no option but to protect herself. But the video shows her walking towards the cyclist (changing her course) and then at the very last minute, pushing her into the road. You can see it. The jury saw it. She was convicted.

That's the thing, it looks like the cyclist could of and seemed to be on the trajectory of passing by the pedestrian side.

It's bizarre that they were unable to establish this as it is crucial to the case. It certainly looks like an ordinary pavement in the photo. It doesn't look wide enough to be safely shared by cyclists and pedestrians

Some shared paths are very narrow. Look at canal towpaths, for example. But pavements by the sides of roads as well - they have shared use signs, but they are not very wide.

But even if the cyclist was breaking the law, they didn't deserve to die and the pedestrian went too far. That said, it appears that the pedestrian has a disability so I'd be surprised if they got more than a suspended sentence.

I am sure if a MNer parked on the pavement and I deliberately scratched their car as I pushed my buggy past, they would expect me to be prosecuted for criminal damage, even though they had initially broken the law by driving onto the pavement.

But the video shows her walking towards the cyclist (changing her course) and then at the very last minute, pushing her into the road

it sounds like there was room to pass safely but the pedestrian chose not to

And I’ve not read anyone saying she deserved to die @thedancingbear . Just that it’s a tragic accident.

how can you be against the daily mail while using that kind of hyperbole it’s often criticised for?

The pavement looks full of holes and uneven. So some one with partial sight and cp would find it difficult to walk unless in the middle.

Yes. Cyclists should not be on pavements.

This seems like a case ripe for appeal. Seems very harsh.

Just looked at the video , just before the "push" the cyclists wheel was part passed the lady, so it was not riding straight at the pedestrian and could of passed abit, very close.

There's nothing to say the cyclist was going at a high speed that I've seen. Nothing to say she was flying along the path at breakneck speeds leaving a trail of pedestrians in her wake which is the picture some posters are painting.

No I doubt she was hurtling; just going at normal cycling speed which is definitely far faster than walking and can still badly injure a pedestrian if there is a collision.

Then the reports would not be that she swerved to avoid, they would be that the cyclist had stopped and the pedestrian violently pushed her off her bike and into the path of a car. It says she swerved, does not mention pushing. The pedestrian was on the edge of the pavement, if the cyclist intended to drop on the road to circumnavigate the pedestrian then the cyclist should have slowed down and checked that there was no traffic.

Regards of the reports the video is clear, that's your primary source of information

Not really, and I don't consider the Daily Mail to be a 'news source'. It's an inflammatory rag read by simpletons.

@maddening
It looks like the cyclist would of rode past normally but off angle the pedestrian looks like she "pushed " the cyclist causing the serve into the roas

The woman said in her own defence that she deliberately put her arm out. It’s not some sort of spasm, she says she did it deliberately.

NOT TRUE SHE MAY HAVE IS NOT THE SAME AS DELIBATELY.

*road,

So we have a more respectable news outlet, that it could be argued that still have the various constraints on different stories ect different layers of airs of professionalism does not automatically make the news outlet more better somehow.