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?!

More and more traffic measures take into account their vulnerability and are updated to reflect this and to minimise road accidents and fatalities

Where I live entire bus lanes have been turned into cycle lanes. It's nothing to do with vulnerability....it's a war on motorists with cyclists put on a pedestal to fulfill their agenda. Hence cyclists have become emboldened. I was very nearly hit by one who came flying through a red light when I was crossing the road.

There is a weird belief amongst many people who drive particularly that if the other person involved in the accident was doing something wrong, or where they shouldn't be, then you're absolved of blame but this isn't the case. There is still an expectation on you to do your best to avoid an accident. Thus crashing into someone who is illegally stopped in a yellow box junction is probably your fault if you could clearly see them.

This pedestrian had multiple options, all of which were better choices than her course of action. I understand that people think that she shouldn't have been inconvenienced or made to feel threatened, but her actions were not that of someone threatened. She didn't flinch, she didn't cower, she didn't attempt to save herself in anyway. She walked into the path of an incoming cyclist, who happened to be an older lady but given the pedestrians partial eyesight that doesn't require any visual aid could have been, for all she knew, a child.

You can get life imprisonment for drink driving.

The sentence is not disproportionate for being the direct cause of someone's death.

And THAT explains a great deal about the state of this country.

Sorry, I was quoting a PP who said that there is clearly parts of the route that are shared, but it isn't clear at the point the incident takes place. Therefore if the shared use does 'end' it isn't clear where it ends. I'm not sure that actually makes any more sense.

Are you a pedestrian mostly?

It's irrelevant. Pedestrians should take priority over cyclists. Cyclists should take priority over cars. That's the order of vulnerability imo.

Pedestrians
Cyclists
Motorists

That's not your imo that's the legal stance

I think you're missing the point. 'Taking priority' does not translate into 'free pass to force cyclists into the path of oncoming traffic'. That's the crux of the case - it's disproportionate.

This is from street view, its further down the road, on the opposite side there are signs regularly but on that side there is nothing to show it ends or that they should cross to the other side.

If the woman hadn't swiped at the cyclist, the accident wouldn't have happened.

At the end of the day, if the woman who died was your Mum, Daughter, Granny, you would want the pedestrian to be held accountable, wouldn't you? I know I would!

It would be a crime in a vehicle if you were acting like a bit of a dickhead (e.g waving your arms around) and caused a fatal crash as a result though wouldn't it? That's the difference - her behaviour caused a fatality and it's manslaughter not murder because it wasn't intentional.

If a cyclist and a pedestrian are on the same pavement the onus should be on the cyclist to get out of the way not the pedestrian.

Good for you.

What's that got to do with this poor lady being forced into the road and hit by a car?

Agreed.

But best bit to kill anyone all the same

There's been a lot of comments on it being a narrow bit of pavement, but it really isn't. There was space for a cyclist to get past the BBC reporter and her camera/sound crew (still from BBC News). That a cyclist went past the film crew suggests (to me, anyway) that cyclists are a regular occurrence on this bit of the ring road, which looks pretty busy .

The second picture showing two people walking abreast (from Google streetview) again shows it's not narrow. You can also see the drop kerb the cyclist must have just used. The positioning of that dropped kerb would have decided where the cyclist would have been on the pavement. There's maybe only 10-12 feet before she'd have got to the lamppost where it happened. She was on a bike with small wheels so really couldn't have been "hurtling" towards the pedestrian as so many have claimed. She'd have barely mounted that section of pavement to be met with the handwaving and shouting.

I've watched the video on the BBC's article a few times, and honestly? Just at the last second when she's almost out of view, there's a slight pause in her step and her body appears to turn to the left, and then the cyclist lands into the road. She told the police there may have been a "light touch". I think there well might have been a shove.

The pedestrian gave no thought to her action, but the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' (aka man in the street) would say if you lash out aggressively to someone on a bicycle on the edge near the road, it's quite possible that person would lose control, and fall into the path of a moving vehicle. It's why it's manslaughter. Someone died because of your action even though it wasn't your intention.

So to answer your question, yes.

Exactly, If someone was shouting and swearing at you, would you think a) better leave here and get out of their way?
B) I'm going to stop just right by them and dismount from my bike.
With B and the pedestrians already aggressive behaviour, I'd be concerned they'd see this as confrontational.

But to have the mindset that you have posted previously that I’m not moving for a cyclist is ridiculous. If you are on a path walking in the middle, wide enough for a cyclist to pass you comfortably and you can see them steadily approaching, not careering along, you wouldn’t move over despite the fact that you have seen them coming for a while? You would literally have to take one step to the side the same as if it was another pedestrian.

I was very nearly hit by one who came flying through a red light when I was crossing the road.
Did they cause you injury?

You're entirely wrong. It was predictable

Disabled people should be able to walk down a footpath without fear of cyclists mowing them down

But she wasn't mown down. The cyclist was not near her and she was in no danger.

I cycle on pavements locally but no one uses them very often. The roads are crap and full of potholes. If I see a pedestrian I get off and push the bike past them. I know I shouldn't but it's safer for me, as a wobbly cyclist and safe for pedestrians.

And if the cyclist doesn't the Pedestrian is allowed to act in such a matter that the cyclist dies?

No...by luck rather than design. It's a lottery trying to cross a road in London...lots of cyclists will fly through red lights when pedestrians are crossing.

Stick to the relevant point, and not start a diatribe against cyclists. It's been done to death.