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?!

@YellowDaffodillie i have shared use paths in my hometown, clearly labelled as such, no idea why you think there’s no such thing?

The fact that the pedestrian's action (i.e. gesturing) was deliberate and that the cyclist lost her life does not automatically make it manslaughter. There has to be the required mens rea.

I assume this was either involuntary or gross negligence manslaughter. For the first, the prosecution has to prove that the accused caused death through recklessness or criminal negligence. Recklessness is defined as a blatant disregard for the dangers of a particular situation - e.g. dropping a brick over a bridge when there is a good chance that someone will be underneath and will be killed. For gross negligence manslaughter, the accused must owe a duty of care at least on the basis that it is foreseeable that gross negligence will kill another person, and must be negligent to such a degree that the law regards it as a crime. An example of that was Mick Philpott, who set his house on fire with his children in it in order to put the blame on someone else, but with no intention to kill.

I still struggle to see how the jury could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this pedestrian (who was cognitively impaired and partially blind) believed or could reasonably have foreseen that gesturing at the cyclist would put the cyclist in that degree of danger, not least because a likely result of her actions would be that the cyclist would stop or massively slow down.

As I've said, I'm on the fence because I realise that we haven't seen and heard all the evidence. but people who claimed upthread that there were reports that the pedestrian admits to shoving the cyclist don't seem to have come back to provide links. If she did, then I fully accept that this is a valid conviction.

Okay, potential new spin on the situation, the pedestrian was wrong (but not manslaughter)

Except it was manslaughter. She committed a crime and but for those actions the cyclist would still be alive.

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

Even if she wasn't supposed to be on the path and had been notified as such, the appropriate action is reporting it, not swearing aggressively and then pushing the cyclist into traffic. Clearly, it is still the pedestrian's fault.

Must admit I'm surprised by it too.

If she pushed someone under a car that she could see approaching then surely that demonstrates intent? That was my point - merely making contact isn't the same as deliberately pushing.

She didn’t push her.
Watch the video.
Such a surprising and awful decision. I can only assume an appeal will be successful.

There certainly is such a thing as a shared use path. A pavement by a dual carriageway near where I live, for instance. And many country paths.

I watched the video and to me it looks like the cyclist was pushed.

There is such a thing as a shared path. Where I am there's a huge shared path network.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64747184

She said she "may have unintentionally put" out her hand to protect herself. Ms Grey believed she had made light contact with Mrs Ward.

We have shared cycle / pedestrian paths near us that have signage at the start and finish and no indication of it being a shared path in between. No markings or anything. The stretch is about a mile long and the lack of markings are fine as it is through an industrial estate with no means of pedestrians joining the path in the middle and not understanding. You don’t need pavement markings for it to be a shared path.

There's no such thing as a shared path?

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/951074/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-1-20.pdf

6.5.1 For the purpose of this document shared use is defined as a route or surface which is available for use by both pedestrians and cyclists. Within the highway, it is normally created by converting the footway using the power in Section 65 of the Highways Act 1980 (see Appendix C). The issues around separating pedestrians and cyclists on off-highway routes are discussed in Chapter 8, section 8.2.

Ah, it looks like I’m wrong about that then. I’ve never heard of, or seen a shared use path. The only paths I’ve seen where cyclists can cycle on them have a solid white line down the middle which determines which side the cyclist is meant to use.

Are you saying that in your town the normal pavements have some signage that allows cyclists to use them and therefore, that pedestrians have to look out for cyclists?

I wonder how they square that with the new law giving pedestrians a ‘right of way’?

@BreastedBoobilyToTheStairs i don’t disagree with you at all.
As a parent of a disabled child I would like to point out that cerebral palsy does not mean you are mentally impaired, as the judge pointed out, the lady has no learning disabilities, she has cerebral palsy (movement disorder causes in the womb or at birth and visually impaired.

I think this thread has highlighted the disdain cyclists are viewed with

I agree 100pc with this

wonder how they square that with the new law giving pedestrians a ‘right of way’?

I don't know. I hate them both as a cyclist and a pedestrian. As a cyclist with some people letting their dogs run free, and blocking the path when people walk side by side. And as a pedestrian when some cyclists bomb up behind me with little warning. I wouldn't push anyone out the way and put them at risk though, as either a cyclist or a pedestrian. I wish they were wider with a barrier in the middle though so the two groups don't actually meet.

There are some people who have no concept of how shared cycle / pedestrian paths work, and having been both a pedestrian and a cyclist on them it’s the pedestrians to blame. If you want to:

walk more than 1 abreast to talk to your mate
wear headphones do you cannot hear a cyclists bell or instructions
walk your dog, letting it piss around all over the place or even worse use an extensible lead

Find somewhere else to walk!!!

My town's infested with shared use paths, to such an extent that cyclists treat every pavement as if it's shared use.

As for the segregated paths with the solid line 'separating' cyclists and pedestrians, it's worth knowing that pedestrians still have priority on the cycle side of the path.

@YellowDaffodillie its about shared respect of the space/ users. I tell my boys that ride everywhere to go steady and move out of peoples way. I think the most dangerous thing I’ve seen so far is dogs on thin extendable leads running right in front of cyclists as the leads can be tricky to see at dusk and families, particularly middle aged men walking straight into my daughters wheelchair and nearly sending us toppling to the side.
anyway I’ve derailed the topic, I still believe the area should have been clearly labelled, I still think there should be better infrastructure for both cyclists and pedestrians and maybe this situation could have been avoided with both things in place?

'Contact' isn't the same as 'pushing' though. The bike brushing against the pedestrian's sleeve would be 'contact'.

Agree with this!

I hope her appeal is successful.

I hope she can get a better lawyer too…

If she pushed someone under a car that she could see approaching then surely that demonstrates intent? That was my point - merely making contact isn't the same as deliberately pushing.

For murder, they'd effectively have had to prove that she was thinking along the lines of "excellent, car coming, let's shove her under it so she get's killed, or at the very least, maimed". The intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm is required for it to be murder. I doubt the evidence was there to do that, and I doubt that's what happened in practice. I don't think she was paying much attention to the road at all. I think she was pissed off a cyclist was on the path and pushed her to get her out of her way, maybe to get her off the pavement and prove a point, not to deliberately throw her under the car to hurt her. Manslaughter is appropriate in that circumstance because she's being reckless to the risks, but I don't think they'd have got a murder conviction from that CCTV footage.

As for pushing vs just contact, shouting 'get off the fucking pavement', waiting until a cyclist was alongside you, then reaching out towards them (she didn't 'raise her hand' in the sense most would understand it, it went out not up, which is a pushing motion towards someone) is certainly enough to suggest to was aiming to push her. It seemed clearly intentional, not accidental.

If you watch the video on a large screen (I didn't see it on my phone as clearly) her bodyweight shifts towards the cyclist when she extends her arm, and she retracts her hand when the cyclist is coming off her bike at pretty much exactly the height it would be to have pushed her shoulder. Watching it on a large screen, it really does look like an intentional push. The comment she "may have made contact" just seems like an attempt to minimise what witnesses may have been saying about her pushing her.

I agree about extender leads and your post@Dachshund40

The pavement was 2.4m wide.

In the video you can see the defendant move to the outer edge of the pavement - presumably stepping into the cyclist's path if you look at her feet on the differently shaded concrete or utilites cover in the video. Then see where those patches are in the google maps image:

i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/03/02/02/68241509-11810311-Footage_showed_Mrs_Ward_lose_her_balance_and_land_into_the_road_-m-59_1677723112025.jpg

You can also see that the victim was literally on the very edge of the pavement at the point where the defendant admits that "she may have made light contact"

i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/03/02/02/68241509-11810311-Footage_showed_Mrs_Ward_lose_her_balance_and_land_into_the_road_-m-59_1677723112025.jpg

We have visual impairment and disability in the family, and I know how frustrating uncaring road users can be especially if you are impaired. But you just don't nudge someone on a fucking bike no matter how pissed off you get.

I'd say the defendant's leaving the scene to go shopping, and also her utter lack of remorse played a big part in her getting a custodial sentence.

The driver that hit the cyclist is also traumatised, and fuck knows what her toddler may have seen. Plus the victim's family. That's a lot of lives fucked up, including her own, just because she wasn't inclined to step 3ft to her right.