Page 31 | 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?!

Delatron · 02/03/2023 17:20

It does seem that the justice system is not being consistent here. She may need to be punished but 3 years in jail? I think we could all find many more serious crimes with intent that get less of a sentence. We normally have a ridiculously lenient justice system. This seems a very harsh sentence.

Blossomtoes · 02/03/2023 17:21

Blossomtoes · 02/03/2023 16:45

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.

the cyclist should not have been on the pavement

She should @BlueHeelers.

VladmirsPoutine · 02/03/2023 17:21

Having rewatched the video the pedestrian appears to push her then reportedly toddles off to do some shopping. Even if it was a moment of madness that was very very callous.

PlaitBilledDuckyPuss · 02/03/2023 17:22

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

The victim was another middle aged white woman.

ClaraThePigeon · 02/03/2023 17:22

Other sentences being seemingly inadequate does not necessarily mean that this was excessive. To me it means that they deserved more time, not that she necessarily deserved less.

BishopRock · 02/03/2023 17:23

Fladdermus · 02/03/2023 17:14

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.

Show quote history

There's a bit of "oomph" from her body as she does it, isn't there, it's very obvious to me. And the way the cyclist falls is how she would after a push.

The poor cyclist, and the driver who sadly killed her.

VladmirsPoutine · 02/03/2023 17:24

The poor cyclist, and the driver who sadly killed her.

That's another thing, the driver wouldn't have been able to stop in time and will no doubt live with this for the rest of their lives.

OneTC · 02/03/2023 17:24

BlueHeelers · 02/03/2023 17:20

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

She didn't really act like someone vulnerable though did she. She attacked a passing elderly cyclist

OneTC · 02/03/2023 17:25

It's perfectly possible to be disabled, partially sighted and simultaneously a total arsehole. Being disabled doesn't mean you can't be a horrible person who does horrible things

LaLoba · 02/03/2023 17:27

Fladdermus · 02/03/2023 17:14

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.

Show quote history

Me too, the cyclist’s fall looks like she was shoved too. I’ve had it happen to me as a pedestrian on a day when I needed a walking stick - it was terrifying, I nearly went headlong down a long flight of steps, and some of the posters on here are trying to justify this kind of behaviour.
As for those wondering why the cyclist didn’t stop, when someone is acting in a threatening manner, most sane people keep moving to get away from them. Stopping would prolong the confrontation and look like you wanted a fight. The determination to justify this aggression to a 77 year old who died as a result is stomach turning.

OneTC · 02/03/2023 17:27

Oh but the poor person who gets to sleep in their own bed in 18 months

PuddlesPityParty · 02/03/2023 17:29

BlueHeelers · 02/03/2023 17:20

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

Its a shared path as has been repeated multiple times, so why shouldn’t the cyclist be on it?

Cornelious2011 · 02/03/2023 17:31

I know that road, and it's a very busy ring road around Huntingdon town centre. I wouldn't cycle on the road so I can imagine why the cyclist was on the pavement and why it is deemed a shared path.

dawngreen · 02/03/2023 17:35

So how far do's a cyclist have to go before joining the road again?

ChilliBandit · 02/03/2023 17:40

thedancingbear · 02/03/2023 16:59

Didn't happen though, did it?

Show quote history

Yeah, it did. Twice. Got a nice scar on my knee to prove one of them. Not sure why it’s so unbelievable to you. You obviously are in the cyclists never do anything wrong ever camp.

SoCrossAboutThis · 02/03/2023 17:41

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.

well hopefully people will think twice before acting like this. Punishments are also meant to be a deterrent for others arent they?

looking at the video again the pedestrian could have moved over to one side, she continues to fling her arm up as she gets to just about out of shot. As she’s in the middle of the pavement it looks like her arm could well have been blocking the part of the path the cyclist was on. So I can see how she instinctively swerved.

BreastedBoobilyToTheStairs · 02/03/2023 17:41

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

Putting someone that pushed a woman into traffic, causing the victim's death, punishes the perpetrator for her crime and sends the message to others that pushing people into traffic is wrong. I'm not sure why that is unclear.

Even if the cyclist was in the wrong place (which she wasn't, as has been pointed out many times now), swearing and then assaulting/battering them into traffic is excessive, and is a crime.

BreastedBoobilyToTheStairs · 02/03/2023 17:46

Obviously that should have been 'putting someone...into prison'.

WhereYouLeftIt · 02/03/2023 17:46

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?

I disagree that "that pavement is clearly not wide enough for both pedestrian and cyclist" because it clearly is wide enough.

someone tell me what crime has been committed?

Delatron · 02/03/2023 17:51

Maybe a rethink on ‘shared pavements’ is needed? Just trying to think of some good that will come of this.

With clear markings you can see which side for bikes and which side for pedestrians. If it’s unclear and a bike is coming towards you you have to decide very quickly which way you move to get out of their way, at the same time they are hopefully trying to avoid you. But what if you both go the same way? That can happen with people just walking - you end up doing a little dance. With people cycling down ‘shared paths’ at speed the onus is really on the pedestrian then to get out of the way. Seems a recipe for disaster as we have sadly seen. And no you shouldn’t push a bike out of the way obviously.

Runningonempty01 · 02/03/2023 17:57

Delatron · 02/03/2023 17:51

Maybe a rethink on ‘shared pavements’ is needed? Just trying to think of some good that will come of this.

With clear markings you can see which side for bikes and which side for pedestrians. If it’s unclear and a bike is coming towards you you have to decide very quickly which way you move to get out of their way, at the same time they are hopefully trying to avoid you. But what if you both go the same way? That can happen with people just walking - you end up doing a little dance. With people cycling down ‘shared paths’ at speed the onus is really on the pedestrian then to get out of the way. Seems a recipe for disaster as we have sadly seen. And no you shouldn’t push a bike out of the way obviously.

A rethink on shared paths would mean space for cyclists having to come from somewhere else. The only other space is the masses of space used by cars, I suspect that won't be popular. Popular with me, I would much rather cycle separately from cars and pedestrians.

ChilliBandit · 02/03/2023 17:58

I agree @Delatron. There are some nice wide shared paths near me with a line down the middle and it works really well. There is grass next to the cycle part which can be used for situations you describe.

The vulnerability of road/pavement users is normally seen as pedestrians then cyclists then motorcyclists then motorists. I believe the onus should be on the less vulnerable to stop/move for the more vulnerable. Cyclists shouldn’t be travelling at speed on shared paths either if they aren’t wide and clearly marked. I am not saying the woman was right to push her into the road though!

ILiveAt64ZooLane · 02/03/2023 17:59

Comedycook · 02/03/2023 14:15

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.

You’re right but when driving on the motorway you could come across another driver that changes lanes when they shouldn’t and we begrudgingly ease off the accelerator and allow them in giving them priority despite it being ours. The only inconvenience the pedestrian would have to face was one step to the right, that’s all, one step and they both would have carried on their way. Should she have to move, technically not, but the consequences of not taking that step and reacting how she did has resulted in a conviction for manslaughter, up to three years in prison and a death. They could see each other and the cyclist knew there was sufficient room for them to pass each other safely but the pedestrian’s sense of right and wrong was so black and white she couldn’t compromise and give priority over. Because of the sequence of events and her decision to lash out that day she’s got a conviction,

caramac04 · 02/03/2023 18:03

I don’t cycle much and hate cycling on the pavement. However, where there’s a shared pathway for cyclists and pedestrians it is right to not use the, possibly busy/narrow, road.
In that situation I always stop for pedestrians so we can safely pass by one another.
In defence of the pedestrian, maybe having cerebral palsy meant her arm movements were less controlled and looked, or indeed were, more aggressive. Being partially sighted as well may have made her feel vulnerable.
However, aggressive language and buggering off did not help and ultimately a person has died.

steff13 · 02/03/2023 18:12

Beaglesonlyplease · 02/03/2023 11:24

the CCTV indicates that the cyclist would have collided which the pedestrian. She should have dismounted at the very least as otherwise she’d have had to step into he’s t moving traffic to avoid the cyclist (travelling at speed).
It’s absurd that the pedestrian was found to be at fault.
Is everyone supposed to guess that a cyclist would turn directly into traffic instead of dismounting?

I'm just reading about this story, are you talking about some sort of evidence form the trial, i.e., and expert said that based on the trajectory the cyclist would have hit, or is that your opinion from a few-second video clip?