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'm currently sat in my office which is just 2m wide and I cannot touch the walls on either side. 2.4m would be wide enough for slow moving cyclists to pass me by on both sides at the same time.

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.

I live in the town and it’s definitely a combined cycle path and pavement and clearly marked as such. The cyclist had every right to be on the cycle path, however much the pedestrian might object.

There was PLENTY of room and totally safe space for the pedestrian to have moved over toward the fence.

She actively chose not to do that, but to continue on her path and then at the last minute step toward the cyclist/turn to the cyclist and reach out and make contact with her.

It was not an accident, she absolutely intended to harrass the cyclist, to make contact with her, and I think, to push her.

I don't think she intended to KILL her... no, but thats what the manslaughter offence is for... where we didn't MEAN to kill someone, but our actions caused someones death.

This was avoidable, it was easily within the pedestrians means to avoid this.

I do wonder what else the court saw/heard that we will not - I suspect her being found guilty and her sentence has much to do with that.

There is a big difference between a light tap, then panic and flapping about not knowing what to do and then in shock, wandering off when everyone who CAN help is doing something...

And a hefty shove and then continuing to walk away, ignoring the chaos behind her.

The fact she has shown no real remorse will also be contributory - I think the judge would think there is a reasonable chance that in the same situation again, she would behave the same way.

Why aren’t they for all cyclists? The rules are it’s shared. If no cyclist or pedestrian takes up more than half of the path there is no issue.

Victim blaming right there

Would YOU stop in front of a younger person obviously shouting abuse at you, with limited mobility because you're in your 70s and on a bicycle, particularly when the abusive person has room to move over easily.

I might very well not, I might decide it is best to just get past her as quickly as is reasonably possible and safe, and get away from her.

I would not for a second think that she would step TOWARDS me and push me.. no.

Thank you for clarifying @Blossomtoes. I was torn on whether the path was wide enough and more so legally permissable to cycle through.

It seems to me the pedestrian had a moment of rage which has cost everyone involved dearly.

Yes, I am certainly not against friends and family having a chance to speak, but it shouldn't form part of the court proceedings - it shouldn't be relevant to the guilt or sentencing of the perpetrator.

Why is a cyclist on the pavement (not a shared path) hitting and injuring me, funny to you? Seriously? That’s messed up.

That's it, she acted badly and someone died and you do get in trouble for that

I think the main issue is most people have grown up with the cars and bikes are for roads, and people on pavements. But they keep changing the road layouts without reminding ppl of the new plans. And a lack of signs and markings

Didn't happen though, did it?

Nope, just trying to use logic. Have you ever tried to think logically or you are just used to stick cliches everywhere?

On what planet is that not victim blaming?

Why didn't the dead person just not behave differently?

It kind of ignores the facts of the case as decided by jury.

Have watched the video, and that was a definite shove! She even leans over to give the cyclist a good push. There was effort there.

Then she toddles off and goes shopping as the poor cyclist lies dying in the road. 😮

Precisely, I honestly cannot understand all those defending the behaviour of AG!

You're saying the cyclist should have stopped.

It's irrelevant. She didn't. Doesn't mean she deserved to be scared or possibly even shoved into the path of a car.

It's because the dead person is a cyclist, and it's encouraged to hate cyclists

I'm struggling to understand how people on this thread aren't seeing the shove. Clearly the police saw it too and questioned her about it, hence why she admitted 'light contact' to them.

Or traumatised 🙄

I’m just not seeing in the video what others are convinced of, but @Xol has made the most sense regarding the case as a whole.

This earlier comment by @UthredofBattenberg speaks volumes to me:
”I know the cases aren't exactly aligned, but how can this man kill a teenage girl after shouting "move cause I'm not stopping" hitting her with his bike causing her death, get fined £2200 www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032894/Parents-anguish-killer-cyclist-walks-away-just-fine.html

Yet, this lady gets three years in prison?”

it seems when a car or bike is used and causes death it is minimised away, yet this lady might have lightly touched someone she shouted at, is deemed to have caused manslaughter and gets three years. This is not to minimise the loss of the cyclist and the others involved in the event, but the justice system is unbalanced here.

Many times two or more pedestrians will take up a lot of path, a family for instance. In my experience serious cyclists want to keep up speed and exertion, not diddle about being careful of people on a shared pavement. Round here they more often are found on roads, leaving the shared pavements for slower moving cyclists (again such as families), and pedestrians.

I likely misworded my post, but the reality is that a lot of the time serious cyclists prefer staying on the road.

She deserves to be in prison.

As does the man who killed a teenager.

We need to work towards the latter happening, not minimising what the former did.

It a very difficult case.

On the one hand:

it seems likely that it was a shared path and, if not, it was at least unclear whether the cyclist was allowed to use it or not;

the path was two and a half metres wide, so very easily shared;

Ms. Gray was obviously acting in an aggressive manner and, from where she was located on the path, it seems that she was trying to force the cyclist into the road;

By Ms Gray’s own admission, she made physical contact with the cyclist (so assault and battery);

Ms Gray left the scene, before the emergency services arrived, to go shopping and has not shown an ounce of remorse.

On the other hand, she’s a middle aged white woman and the victim was a pesky cyclist.

This is terrible all round.

The cyclist should not have been on the pavement. A disabled, partially sighted pedestrian with mobility problems must have felt extremely vulnerable. We don't know whether she's dealt with multiple incidences of people not giving her space, or ignoring her disabilities, or making her feel very vulnerable. Anyone who's experienced reduced mobility or vision will know how vulnerable you can feel when others take no care around you.

But it's awful that the cyclist was then hit by a car.

I don't see what gaoling the pedestrian does - the cyclist should not have been on the pavement