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?!

The defendant admitted to contact. I can't imagine a safe level of intentional contact with someone riding a bike, it sometimes doesn't take much if you're going slow and are already unsteady because of that.

Thank you for sharing that, Daschund40.

The judge described it as a shared path in their sentencing. It seems that the signage is unclear, but previous posters have said that it’s clearly a shared path before that stretch, and there is no signage to say that it ends. I think it’s likely the cyclist thought it was a shared path, and she wasn’t alone- in the video on the BBC a cyclist cycles past the reporter during their clip. Whether or not it was a shared path, there is no evidence to show she was cycling too fast, indeed the way she fell off suggests she was going quite slowly. She wasn’t riding at the pedestrian in the video, she’d have passed her safely if the pedestrian hadn’t waved and shouted at her. The pedestrian’s actions caused her to fall off her bike into the path of the car, and die, and the judge and jury thought her actions were not proportionate.

See previous post
No signs saying pavement shared anywhere
But
Council website for cycle routes identifies it as ‘cycling separate from traffic’. Other roads with the same classification have the blue signs. This one doesn’t.

That’s why the police can’t say either way.

There must be signage. Much like speed signs, if there’s no signage the police can’t charge you with speeding.

Well, no, the CCTV shows that the cyclist did have space to get past the pedestrian, albeit she must have been close. As I've said upthread, it puzzles me that the cyclist didn't stop, but it's not a situation where the cyclist was riding right at the pedestrian.

'Contact' isn't the same as 'pushing' though. The bike brushing against the pedestrian's sleeve would be 'contact'. 'Pushing' is a deliberate action - and she'd have probably been charged with murder or at least given a much higher sentence if that was suspected.

I've had to when had kids with me. They just come up behind us and told us to move out the way. Shouted a few obsenities mind. The ride the lights in Blackpool is frustrating. They have the road to ride on with no traffic. But yet they still ride on the pavement and the tram tracks. A teenager got stuck under a tram one year because they were playing chicken.

An awful tragedy but I don't feel she should have been jailed.

i have walked ( historically ) and cycled ( this morning ) down the road. There are NO signs. NO markings…..nothing
There may have been whenever this happened but there aren’t today.

I’ve never noticed any, driving, walking, cycling !

Well obviously the Judge has made a mistake in law because if it’s not a clearly designated cycle path, then it’s just a normal footpath (for pedestrians). There’s no such thing as a shared path. 🤦🏻‍♀️

It’s a Crown Court case so I’d expect an appeal to be lodged and for the Appeal Judges to be more competent in their analysis of the situation.

TerribleInsomniac · Today 15:10

Much like speed signs, if there’s no signage the police can’t charge you with speeding.

I'm sorry, but that's very wrong and I wouldn't advise you to try it!

Hope your hat's tasty ...

It does say in this article the woman is particularly blind.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/swearing-woman-jailed-raising-arm-29353351?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

I know a few people who are particularly blind and they're sight gets worse as they get older. They can only see straight ahead and faint outline. They are completely blind in the dark and have a lot of accidents. There's often role reversal with children looking out for they're parent.

I'm using loads of mayo and mustard on it. Really surprised by that sentence.

Point B is still correct though.

I was once smacked on the bum by a man in a van (passenger) whilst cycling along a road. He didn't hit me hard but I became unbalanced and wobbled along before falling off in front of a car. I could have been killed. It was actually a sexual assault as he had been shouting about what he wanted to do to me just prior to slapping me.

Luckily the guy I fell in front of stopped in time, managed to get the company name of the van and first part of the reg and took me and my bike home. I got the guy sacked - his company took it really seriously.

So even a light touch can cause harm if you're moving. I took me years to cycle again afterwards.

The crime was manslaughter.

@DailyMaui that's awful! I'm so glad you got the horrible man sacked.

The police have apparently said they’ve been unable to determine if it was a shared use path or not. Which is odd, but does appear there was confusion. It obviously can’t have been a marked shared path or the police would be clear that it was. 🤷‍♀️

I suppose the court needs to decide if an average person would deem the defendants actions so dangerous as to be likely to cause the cyclist to swerve into the road and if so would being run over/killed be a foreseeable consequence ? They obviously felt both those points were true.

I’ve had people lunge towards me and try and grab my bike for “being on the path “ when it’s a shared use path. It’s dangerous. I can’t really tell from that video clip how much of the path she was obstructing with her hand waving. It’s an unfortunate chain of events, most cyclists would have braked or ploughed into her hand regardless. But I can see how you could panic and swerve.

Whether the pavement was a shared path or not is irrelevant to the conviction really. Cycling on a pavement is a minor offence. Acting in a manner that causes someone to be crushed to death is a very major offence.

I watched the CCTV. I think it was more the hand gesture rather than shouting. I was out running last weekend and had the misfortune of running past two pissheads (9am Sunday morning), one of them put his arm out towards me in a similar way because I had AirPods in so couldn’t hear a word they were saying (thankfully). I didn’t jump into the road to avoid his arm because I thought about the fact cars were coming behind me so just swerved my body around it but I can see how on a bicycle that may be different when you’re instinctively worrying about being hit by the arm and falling.

I hope she can appeal this sentence. I don’t think 3 years in jail is beneficial for anyone in this situation.

It’s shocking because who knows how any of us would react on a narrow pavement with someone cycling towards you - especially if you have a disability. I’d hope I’d just step out of their way - but catch me on a bad day? I might have something to say, I may gesture - with no intention to hurt them - just please stay out of my way on the pavement! They’d react to the gesture by cycling into the road? Then you’re in jail for 3 years.

It’s sad all round but for whatever reason it does not seem to have been taken in to account that the cyclist should not have been on the pavement. How in earth can the police say they can’t ascertain whether it is a cycle path or not? WTF? Ask the council!! This is important.

Utterly bizarre case.

Okay, potential new spin on the situation, the pedestrian was wrong (but not manslaughter) for acting aggressively, however it looks like it was a shared use path, as the council had not labelled this area as shared used clearly they are responsible for corporate manslaughter as they didn’t go to the appropriate measures to notify ALL path users of shared use

I'm conflicted because the sentence seems harsh, but on the other hand I feel like there'd be much less sympathy if a 50yo bloke had shouted at an old lady and caused her to veer into traffic.

I might have something to say, I may gesture - with no intention to hurt them - just please stay out of my way on the pavement! They’d react to the gesture by cycling into the road? Then you’re in jail for 3 years.

She admitted to making "light contact then she left the scene and went to do her shopping. I doubt that helped her case. Regardless the jury would have been privy to far more information than any of us are. We're only getting a fraction of the evidence via the press.

I really dislike the trend for using victim impact statements in this sort of case - implying that the crime is worse because the person had loved ones who were affected - so, if the person had been without family and completely friendless, that would lessen the crime? No, it wouldn't.

Given the driver's life has also been changed irreparably by this woman's actions I think it's entirely appropriate for the impact on him at the very least to be considered.

As far as I can see nobody's reporting that she was even accused of pushing the cyclist off her bike. I suppose that could just be inaccurate reporting though.

BBC articles from last week reported that she said she 'believed she'd made light contact'.

'Pushing' is a deliberate action - and she'd have probably been charged with murder or at least given a much higher sentence if that was suspected.

Murder requires intent. I think they'd have struggle to prove she intended for the cyclist to die. Not giving a toss/being reckless to the fact that pushing someone into the road might be hurt isn't the same as actively wanting to kill/severely harm them them so I assume manslaughter was considered the appropriate choice in the circumstances in order to secure a conviction.