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?!

I know right!

Trying to evade consequence.

The only reason I'm not surprised at the sympathy on display here is because there's a cyclist involved

Think 3 years seems harsh but happy to accept the sentencing judge had access to much more info than we've got.

Although say harsh that's 18 months in reality, which is what I was expecting

This. The pedestrian caused the accident.

She's just been sentenced to three years prison time.

I must admit I am surprised at that. Clearly she was at fault but I was anticipating a shorter or suspended sentence.

There must be more to this story than is being reported.

Maximum I was expecting rather

There seems to be uncertainty about whether it was a pedestrian path or a 'shared cycleway'.

DC secondary school has paths that are supposed to be both cycle and pedestrian no differentiation and only one side is slightly wider (done few years after designation of both) - there are some not well displayed signs saying this that are easy to miss.

Into town there is a over road bridge with multiple access was all say cyclists dismount - regularly go on it and never seen even one do this.

We're near a duel carriage way with an extremely tricky junction - the paths are just paths but many cycle on the paths to avoid that one junction.

Mostly it's managed by people being polite and as considerate as possible to others but there is often confusion from public as there all not far from each other.

I do wonder how council and police are unaware which it was supposed to be.

Where we are there are three primary schools not far from each other - used to see a commuting cyclists drop her child off at one school then pass us on pavements to avoid dule carriage way as I took my kids to schools - she was unbelievable rude and aggressive - she got blocked quite a few times by group going to other school who had pushchairs after she was regularly rude to them - and I thought she bloody deserved it.

My FIL got irrationally upset by biking on pavements but it was after a serious health issue and there are some extremely fast cyclists here - and I think there was an element of genuine fear he wouldn't get out of way in time. The woman here had cerebral palsy and told officers she was partially sighted so I do wonder if she had real fear of being hit.

No matter the illegality of the cyclist being on the pavement, the video shows the woman deliberately staying in the path of the cyclist making wide sweeping motions at her, causing the elderly cyclist to fall into the road as she couldn't stop. She caused the death. Hence manslaughter. It's not difficult to understand.

I suspect the press has chosen to make this an interesting story, by minimising reporting of the prosecution evidence.

So what could the lady have done?

If there a cycle rushing towards her about to knock her over and possibly break her hip?
I've seen so many news stories of people being knocked over by bikes and being severely injured.

I would be annoyed too. And may tell someone to get off the pavement and put my arm up to protect myself.

The video we have isnt clear enough to say whether cyclist was wilfully pushed or not. But personally I think the sentence is harsh.

The pedestrian got what she deserved. Should have been a longer sentence.

You can tell from how the woman falls from the bike that she wasn't going fast at all.

@Fladdermus - pavements don't NEED signs saying "No cycling". It is the default position. The Highway Code states this more emphatically, stating in Rule 64 that “You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement”. It also advises that cyclists “take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room”.

Cyclists should only be on a pavement if there is a sign saying that it is permitted. Where there is ambiguity they should err on the side of caution and KEEP OFFTHE PAVEMENT!

I don't know whether this woman deliberately pushed the cyclist or whether it was an instinctive fear reaction. I think that the cyclist's death was totally unintentional, and a terrible thing to have happened - but I also think she was contributory by cycling on the pavement and not slowing/stopping when she saw someone coming towards her. Anyone might have involuntarily tried to ward off a bike, especially if they'd been struck by one in the past (as I have).

However I can't get over the leaving the scene. That's awful.

Having heard the sentence, I also think it's harsh.

This 👆

Honestly I might be unreasonable but I think bikes belong on the road. Exceptions made for small , wobbly children.

Perhaps the person to blame here is the idiot(s) from the local council who decided that rather than invest in cycling infrastructure they could slap up some signs about shared pathways, which are so vague even the police can not fathom out whether or not they apply.

There was a case close to me recently where a man shot his friend in the back of the head resulting in his death. He was found not guilty of culpable homicide but the person who set up the shoot is in deep shit.

Id say it’s foreseeable that injury, or even death, could result from having cyclists and pedestrians share the same space.

The Mail is a bloody disgrace though isn't it. Multiple close-up shots of the woman arriving for sentencing today. Unequivocally identifiable in numerous pictures.

I think it's possible to allow someone a shred of dignity and privacy in these situations, even when they have been found guilty of committing a serious offence. The Mail has not done this. Shame on them.

Yes I suspect this too

She's committed a crime why shouldn't we see what she looks like? Why should she be anonymous? This way people can avoid her in future.

Agree. Anything involving cyclists is culture-war Big Macs just now isn't it. Guaranteed clicks, shares, comments and froth.

You say deliberately staying in the path.

So pedestrians should move out of the way of the cyclists or cyclist should know how to manoeuvre around a pedestrian?

And remember she had poor eye sight/ cerebral palsy which could explain her arm movements.

what a horrible thing to happen.

this looks like the pedestrian version of road rage where someone does something really dangerous in the heat of the moment because they feel/were wronged.

The cyclist definitely doesn’t look like a competent cyclist.

If the 49 year old didn’t wave her arms around where was the cyclist planning on doing in that situation.

The cyclist should have preempted that there wasn’t enough space on the pavement and breaker/stopped to let the pedestrian pass or looked over her shoulder to see if she could have dropped onto the road. She didn’t do either as she was expecting the pedestrian to move out of her way. The pedestrian had sight issues and you can see on the CCTV has mobility issues too.

Police no idea if path is a shared one or not, and its easy to go to town on a disabled person with partial sight and walking difficulties. Look at the state of the path. Not blaming any one either. I just think compared to murders and attacks its way over the top.

Just at the end of the CCTV it does look like she made contact with the cyclist, or tried to at least.