Page 29 | someone tell me what crime has been committed?

Weefreetiffany · 2023-03-02T07:15:01+00:00

Baffled by this story https://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?!

ItsaMetalBand · 02/03/2023 16:00

i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/03/02/12/68256481-11811249-image-a-24_1677759221178.jpg

Nivid · 02/03/2023 16:01

My sympathy goes to the cyclist. The first woman is at fault because her actions caused the death of the woman cyclist (even if it was not done with intent of killing). And she not even showed a bit of remorse afterwards because she did not stop to help when the woman was hit by the car and decided to do her shopping as normal. Rude behaviour caused a tragic death.

dawngreen · 02/03/2023 16:03

1/ Not one person as commented on the state of the pavement.
2/ Not every one with sight problems uses a white stick
3/ Just because she has a physical disability, it do's not follow that she has other issues too.

memoriesofamiga · 02/03/2023 16:04

I've watched the CCTV a few times and I still have a lot of questions - to me it looks like the pedestrian was waving the cyclist off the pavement into the road, and the cyclist came off the kerb quickly and at an angle causing her to fall off the bike into the road. I can't see physical contact between them. But I would expect a judge/court to have looked at this in more detail than I have.

However, that pavement is clearly not wide enough for both pedestrian and cyclist, and to my mind the pedestrian was right to indicate the cyclist should be on the road at this point. If the cyclist hadn't moved onto the road, regardless of being waved at or not, she would have either hit the pedestrian, or the pedestrian would have had to jump into the road herself or squeeze herself against the railings to get out of the way. The cyclist should not have right of way here.

To me, this conviction raises more points than it solves, whether the pavement was shared or not, who has right of way on them?

AllDayBreakfast92 · 02/03/2023 16:06

ClaraThePigeon · 02/03/2023 15:31

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.

Tbf, the full incident is shown in the video. There's no mention of them having interacted prior to this.

memoriesofamiga · 02/03/2023 16:08

I see @ItsaMetalBand has said the pavement is 2.4m wide which sounds wide enough and wider than the CCTV makes it appear to be.

FooFighter99 · 02/03/2023 16:08

ItsaMetalBand · 02/03/2023 15:59

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.

This. 1000% this.

Just imagine if that was your mum or grandma.

Whether the cyclist was using the path rightly or wrongly, it does NOT excuse what the pedestrian did.

She caused her death - end of.

NotQuiteHere · 02/03/2023 16:10

Have anyone posting in the previous 28 pages explained why the cyclist did not stop? If she did, nothing would have happened, and this is even more valid than the argument than if the pedestrian did not shout, the cyclist wouldn't swerve because she might have swerved anyway to avoid collision.

Fladdermus · 02/03/2023 16:11

memoriesofamiga · 02/03/2023 16:04

I've watched the CCTV a few times and I still have a lot of questions - to me it looks like the pedestrian was waving the cyclist off the pavement into the road, and the cyclist came off the kerb quickly and at an angle causing her to fall off the bike into the road. I can't see physical contact between them. But I would expect a judge/court to have looked at this in more detail than I have.

However, that pavement is clearly not wide enough for both pedestrian and cyclist, and to my mind the pedestrian was right to indicate the cyclist should be on the road at this point. If the cyclist hadn't moved onto the road, regardless of being waved at or not, she would have either hit the pedestrian, or the pedestrian would have had to jump into the road herself or squeeze herself against the railings to get out of the way. The cyclist should not have right of way here.

To me, this conviction raises more points than it solves, whether the pavement was shared or not, who has right of way on them?

According to the judge that pavement at that point is 2.4 m wide.

NotQuiteHere · 02/03/2023 16:13

This. 1000% this.
Just imagine if that was your mum or grandma.

Just imagine that it was your mum or grandma who was found guilty of shouting at a cyclist and sentenced for 3 years.

PlaitBilledDuckyPuss · 02/03/2023 16:13

BreastedBoobilyToTheStairs · 02/03/2023 15:32

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.

The driver, I accept is a valid impact consideration in this case - the driver was directly involved in the events.

It's the statements from friends and family that I don't think should be allowed in a court setting - how beloved someone was, by how many people, should not determine the seriousness of their manslaughter/murder.

ChilliBandit · 02/03/2023 16:14

I was very confused at to what crime had taken place. The press didn’t not report this story well at all. I have a bit more understanding now but still am shocked it’s been deemed manslaughter honestly. I agree with those who say there would be a lot less sympathy if the cyclist had been a teenage boy.

Many cyclists seem to have some sort of persecution complex (I don’t mean the woman that died! I am taking about attitudes in general and some shown on this thread). They seem to think all motorists are evil and all pedestrians a nuisance. That their safety trumps pedestrians for some reason. I have been hit twice by cyclists on the pavement, many more near misses. Any more hits, I will be reporting as assault I think.

dawngreen · 02/03/2023 16:16

I think the fact that she had issues with her balance meant she walked in the middle of the path to avoid the uneven parts of the path. She thought it was a narrow path, and expected the cyclist to go on the road. But the cyclist didn't and rode over a dodgy bit of path maybe unsure and fell off.

NoBoatsOnSunday · 02/03/2023 16:21

NotQuiteHere · 02/03/2023 16:13

This. 1000% this.
Just imagine if that was your mum or grandma.

Just imagine that it was your mum or grandma who was found guilty of shouting at a cyclist and sentenced for 3 years.

Very ashamed of them.

thedancingbear · 02/03/2023 16:23

NotQuiteHere · 02/03/2023 16:13

This. 1000% this.
Just imagine if that was your mum or grandma.

Just imagine that it was your mum or grandma who was found guilty of shouting at a cyclist and sentenced for 3 years.

Over and over again.

She pushed the cyclist into the road.

dawngreen · 02/03/2023 16:24

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

thedancingbear · 02/03/2023 16:24

ChilliBandit · 02/03/2023 16:14

I was very confused at to what crime had taken place. The press didn’t not report this story well at all. I have a bit more understanding now but still am shocked it’s been deemed manslaughter honestly. I agree with those who say there would be a lot less sympathy if the cyclist had been a teenage boy.

Many cyclists seem to have some sort of persecution complex (I don’t mean the woman that died! I am taking about attitudes in general and some shown on this thread). They seem to think all motorists are evil and all pedestrians a nuisance. That their safety trumps pedestrians for some reason. I have been hit twice by cyclists on the pavement, many more near misses. Any more hits, I will be reporting as assault I think.

It's worth repeating that almost 100 times more people are killed by cars on the pavement than by pedestrians.

Good luck with reporting your 'assault' though 😂

ladymaiasura · 02/03/2023 16:26

PlaitBilledDuckyPuss · 02/03/2023 14:54

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.

The only person whose victim impact statement should be admissible is the direct victim, in cases where the crime is not murder/manslaughter.

Show quote history

I think the emotional impact on the driver is absolutely relevant. It’s safe to assume that most manslaughters result in the grief of friends and family. But they don’t often result in someone else having to live with the guilt of having being involved in a fatal collision through no fault of their own.

BreastedBoobilyToTheStairs · 02/03/2023 16:27

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

She admitted 'contact' because she wasn't going to stand there and say 'yes, your Honour, I pushed her', was she? Everything about the situation, including the CCTV, suggests she pushed her. The contact was clearly not the cyclist brushing past her.

ladymaiasura · 02/03/2023 16:32

NotQuiteHere · 02/03/2023 16:10

Have anyone posting in the previous 28 pages explained why the cyclist did not stop? If she did, nothing would have happened, and this is even more valid than the argument than if the pedestrian did not shout, the cyclist wouldn't swerve because she might have swerved anyway to avoid collision.

I’m guessing she didn’t stop because she was cycling slowly on a 2.4m wide (possibly shared) pavement and there was plenty of space to pass safely had the pedestrian continued to walk normally.

AllDayBreakfast92 · 02/03/2023 16:33

Ah, I, see what people are saying but it's hard to tell from the vid. As she turns in the last second of the video it could be a push but I'm thinking she was probably just turning.

BreastedBoobilyToTheStairs · 02/03/2023 16:34

It's the statements from friends and family that I don't think should be allowed in a court setting - how beloved someone was, by how many people, should not determine the seriousness of their manslaughter/murder.

I'm a bit torn if I'm honest.

Objectively, I agree that killing someone well loved shouldn't be treated as a bigger crime than killing someone without family and friends. That leaves a really sour taste.

However, having been in court participating in the trial of the man that killed a close friend, I know the sense of catharsis that the victim statements gave her family. On the stand, the questions weren't really about feelings, they were about facts. Reading their statements was the only time they were able to make sure that the bastard heard just how much his behaviour had impacted an entire family.

Maybe the answer is for family statements not to be a factor in sentencing, but allowing their use. It's an interesting one.

GG1986 · 02/03/2023 16:40

The fact she walked off and left a dying woman in the road is the worst bit! Yes she didn't push her off, but she also didn't move over a little to let the woman on the bike pass. The poor woman that hit her has to live with that for the rest of her life.

BishopRock · 02/03/2023 16:43

YellowDaffodillie · 02/03/2023 15:43

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’?

Show quote history

We have a lot here, the council went on a shared path crusade a few years ago, widening a lot of pavements to accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists. There's no dividing line, only reminders on lampposts every so often. I don't think there's even painted bikes/people on the gorund either.

They are really for the ordinary cyclist, like the lady in this instance, not the lycra clad lot, although they don't specify this!

GG1986 · 02/03/2023 16:43

I just watched the footage again and see she did push her. So yes she deserves to go to prison!