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?!

Hating and judging people based on what they read. Sounds pretty daily mail to me. I have a phd and speak several languages. But in your opinion, I am a simpleton because I want to see what the most influential paper is saying. Reading isn’t believing. I think that’s what’s wrong with the world today. Everyone is so quick to judge and cast aspersions because something doesn’t suit their opinion or agenda, there’s no critical thinking or deeper thinking. That’s daily mail mindset that’s got you there. Be careful

Did you actually watch the cctv? The cyclist may or may not have been entitled to be on the pavement but the pedestrian’s actions caused the cyclist to become unsteady and fall into the road. If the cyclist had stopped beforehand or the pedestrian had moved over slightly it wouldn’t have happened but that’s not what we’re dealing with. The pedestrian actions had a horrendous consequence and due to her actions she is in part responsible for the collision that killed this cyclist and if it’s true that she left the scene, that’s unforgivable.

Havent read the full thread but its worth noting that the pedestrian ( after witnessing the accident) walked away and went to do her shopping in sainsburys.

So id say her character at best is a pretty shit one.

Hating's a bit strong. Judging's damn right. I've professional experience of the DM and they routinely deal in deliberate untruths. They also stoke hatred against minority and vulnerable groups for profit.

There's nothing 'Daily Mail' about standing up to bigotry.

Not really interested in your PhD. I expect most people posting on this site are educated to tertiary level.

There's no such thing as 'wilful manslaughter', the whole point of manslaughter is that you didn't mean to kill someone.

She was convicted by a jury btw, who saw and heard all the evidence, not the Daily Mail.

Which then gives the perception that she could of actually pushed the cyclist

Agree @Mayonaiseislife

It was a dreadful and callous thing to do.

Most of us would have been frozen with shock that we had caused such a horrible ting to happen , I think, or would have rushed to try to help.

The thing that puzzles me is that it doesn't look as if the cyclist had room to get past the pedestrian even if the pedestrian hadn't been gesticulating. Therefore she should either have stopped or moved onto the road earlier, as the pedestrian would have priority.

The problem is that media sources such as the DM routinely run articles based on half-truths (such as this one) with a view to stoking anger and resentment of certain groups. These include cyclists.

If your sole or main source of information about the world is the DM, unfortunately it becomes easier to de-humanise cyclists (or immigrants, or LGB people, or whoever else), and casually walk away once you've shoved them in front of a car.

But she didn't run her over, obviously whoever hit her would have to stop. I think what's to blame here is signage so crappy that even the police don't know if the woman should legally be cycling on the pavement.

But then surely the issue then would be people should have more of an open mind, and not just believe whole heartly on one news source ?

I’ve just seen the cctv on the BBC report - I just don’t understand how this woman was even charged; you could cite many cases where a pedestrian had been killed and it’s not manslaughter! People have been run over by a car and the driver gets off with it. Completely disproportionate.

"Jurors were told Grey left before emergency services arrived and went to Sainsbury's where she bought groceries"

Its linked in many articles including this one as an example:

www.lbc.co.uk/news/partially-sighted-woman-with-cerebral-palsy-convicted-of-manslaughter/

You’re really undermining yourself by defending this media outlet quote so vehemently. You need to look long and hard at its publishing history, the people to whom it’s given large platforms, the people who fund it, the behaviour of those connected, and reconsider whether it’s worth your defence and whether adding to the click revenue is something you want to put your name to.

Let’s focus on the story, not your choice of reading material.

It doesn't look that way, but right before the "push" the wheel is at the side of the lady's legs, which seems it was tight but would of passed safely

But the BBC report says that the case made was that the pedestrian was wholly, not partly, responsible for this, i.e. that the cyclist had no choice but to swerve into the road. I do question that, because it does seem to me that a cyclist riding at a reasonable speed for a pavement like that would have had time to stop as she saw the pedestrian approaching, because she could see that the space to get past is really quite narrow.

I'm local and know this bit of road. It's busy, fast and a fairly dangerous place to cycle with multiple busy junctions and cars changing lane last minute. I don't like driving on this road for the above reasons.

The pavement is quite wide and people do cycle on it. Cambridgeshire has many shared cycleways in similar locations on busy roads. There are lots of cyclists here. I agree that it isn't clear if it is or isn't a shared path officially but locally it does seem to be used as one.

To me it seems that the pedestrian's actions did cause the lady to fall off her bike. She does seem to move closer to the cyclist rather than further away. Her movement and gesticulating causes the cyclist to fall. She would know this is a busy road, she's walking towards the traffic, she'd have known that her actions could cause the cyclist serious harm.

Tragic for both involved and I hope it leads to road improvements to stop this happening again.

I think the detective has summed things up perfectly.

After the verdict, Det Sgt Dollard said: "This is a difficult and tragic case.
"Everyone will have their own views on cyclists, pavements and cycleways but what is clear is Auriol Grey's response to the presence of Celia on a pedal cycle was totally disproportionate and ultimately found to be unlawful, resulting in Celia's untimely and needless death.

It's a bit shocking the amount of speculation on this thread. You don't know what the signage says about shared paths. You don't know how CP affects the pedestrian. You don't know how fast the bike was going and whether it was 'hurtling". You don't know the movement/positioning of people involved until the last moments. You don't know how wide the path is from the CCTV because it's hard to tell with the angle. We know the pedestrian shouted/swore. We don't know how loud/aggressive this was. We don't know how thorough or not the police work was, certainly can't through out accusations of them being "gormless". You don't know what other evidence, interviews dash cam footage, driver of car etc saw and said. We do know this went to court, full trial and conviction. I don't think this speculation is particularly kind to either party. A woman is dead, another may have her whole life changed be this and the experience was surely traumatic for the driver. Maybe give it a rest.

and also the BBC www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64707898

If its a jury trial, I'm guessing the jury or some of them concluded that the person was pushed into the road,

The charge was manslaughter, it would have to be a jury trial.

Not disputing the bit about her wandering off to do her shopping is true.

The DM article's headline is:

[a] woman pedestrian, 49, swore at 77-year-old cycling on the pavement who then veered into road and was struck and killed by a car - as she faces jail for manslaughter

But she admitted in court that she gave her a light shove, into the road. And you can just about make this out in the video true.

So the DM has taken a story about someone pushing a cyclist into a road, killing her, and run with a headline suggesting all she did was swear at a pavement cyclist.

This is how they work.

And the odds are that the jury would include both people who cycle on the pavement, and people who think cyclists should stay on the road, so it is likely to have been a balanced opinion.

Was there a bend of trees so neither saw each other? Perhaps the bike had a brakes problem