Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

someone tell me what crime has been committed?

1000 replies

Weefreetiffany · 02/03/2023 07:15

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?!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
TerribleInsomniac · 02/03/2023 21:30

OneTC · 02/03/2023 21:28

Someone posted pics of the signs in this street earlier in this thread. If you look up guidance on shared use design then you'll see there's actually very little official requirement for how frequent signs have to be, just that there has to be one repeater after the area has commenced, and there's no requirement for markings on the ground

I’ll have a search Thankyou, but I cycled it today.

ladymaiasura · 02/03/2023 21:31

The case of the cyclist killing a pedestrian that people are linking to was 15 years ago. The law has changed since then and there are campaigns ongoing to change it further to allow for tougher sentences in cases where reckless cycling causes death.

Even if it was yesterday it seems really weird to argue that, because he got away with it, this woman should too.

ButterCrackers · 02/03/2023 21:32

How could she just have left the scene?She got on with her shopping. Is there a law saying that people should help others when an accident has happened?

OneTC · 02/03/2023 21:34

In the video when the cyclist fell her wheels were as close to the kerb as possible, almost on the kerb itself. Even if she'd fully stopped she can't get off to the left where the person who's approaching in a threatening manner is (you'd want your bike between you and this person who looks like they're about to attack you) and getting off to the right would be really hard because of the height difference and because you wouldn't want to be jumping into the road for the same reason that being forced into it killed her.

There was a lamppost just there providing a big clear area to just wait 1 second and avoid all of this. Complaining about cyclists where you think they shouldn't be is one thing, even if she'd just said "get off the fucking pavement" that probably would have been fine. Walking into someone's path and threatening them to the extent they fall off is not the same thing at all.

dawngreen · 02/03/2023 21:42

She did not change her route on the path, the cyclist turned on to the slippery manhole cover and lost her balance.

We could all argue about this all day BUT - we are not lawyers, or judges and don't know what the sentencing terms means.

I wait to see what happens next. I feel sorry for the poor ladies family.

Delatron · 02/03/2023 21:43

TerribleInsomniac · 02/03/2023 21:26

It’s not a shared path.
Its on the council website as cycle route but there are no pavement / road markings or street signs. Absolutely nothing, ( not today anyway )
Hence police confusion.
There has to be visible signage

Yes I didn’t think it was either and there was confusion from the police but then many on here insist it is.

That’s my point really- it’s an accident waiting to happen.

Change2banon · 02/03/2023 21:43

TerribleInsomniac · 02/03/2023 21:26

It’s not a shared path.
Its on the council website as cycle route but there are no pavement / road markings or street signs. Absolutely nothing, ( not today anyway )
Hence police confusion.
There has to be visible signage

Yet actually, the Court confirmed it IS a shared path 🤷‍♀️

Hawkins003 · 02/03/2023 21:47

“He [the judge] said that Grey, of Huntingdon, had no mental disorder or learning difficulties and he said the pavement was 2.4 metres wide at the relevant point, describing it as a “shared path on the ring road”.

OneTC · 02/03/2023 21:47

Whether it's a shared path or not attacking someone and causing them to die is pretty bonkers behaviour. What if it had been a kid she'd snapped with?

NoButSeriously · 02/03/2023 21:57

But coming from the perspective of a disabled person who can walk but having to.move sideways or try to get out of the way can leaf to me falling over.

I would be shit scared of a cyclist coming at me as I know I can't just get out the way either.

My mother is like this and she's bumped and knocked and bumped a lot, by kids and adults on bikes and scooters on paths, she was once badly injured by someone on a mobility scooter and I do understand the being hyper vigilant and being anxious about things that could knock you over and I know from the verbal abuse my mother had received that some members if the public do see disabled people as an annoying inconvenience if they have to accommodate them, but being disabled doesn't mean you can put others safety at risk too. My mum doesn't square up to people or get closer to the risk she's scared of, she stops still until it's passed her, she shouldn't have to but the risk of a knock or a bump or worse isn't worth it.

Because my mother knows how unsteady she is on her feet and how easy it is for her to fall, she doesn't choose to walk close to the curb like this pedestrian was, she'd be as far to the inside as possible so that if she does fall, she reduces her chances of landing into the road and remaining on the pavement. She's as wary of falling under traffic as she is of unpredictable movements from passers by including children unsteady on scooters and bikes, or dog walkers who let their dogs jump up etc, this pedestrian managed to move sideways to get closer to the cyclist and put herself at greater risk as well as the cyclist.

People keep saying if the cyclist was a man the responses would be different, if it was an 11 year cycling home from school who either pedestrian caused to go into the road the responses would be different too and there's be very little defending pissing off to finish shopping. I don't think the age of the victim should matter, and I don't think being disabled means it shouldn't be manslaughter.

TerribleInsomniac · 02/03/2023 21:58

Delatron · 02/03/2023 21:43

Yes I didn’t think it was either and there was confusion from the police but then many on here insist it is.

That’s my point really- it’s an accident waiting to happen.

Council should take note of this
They need to follow through with their designations and give pedestrians and cyclists clear markings.
Its worrying and dangerous for both of them

bellabasset · 02/03/2023 22:02

Thank you @Intergalacticcatharsis for your explanation of assault leading to murder/manslaughter.

The length of the sentence makes more sense now. There's also the trauma caused to the motorist who was driving the car that killed the cyclist, she had her two year old daughter in the car. I can't understand how the woman went off shopping as she can't have been unaware of the accident.

I don't see the point of sending this disabled woman to prison though as her disability may be the reason she acted as she did.

TerribleInsomniac · 02/03/2023 22:03

Change2banon · 02/03/2023 21:43

Yet actually, the Court confirmed it IS a shared path 🤷‍♀️

Phew, found it.
Quite far away and on the other side of the road, slightly wider pavement.

I hope the council will step up their game to make everywhere safe for everyone by regular and clear road / pavement markings. Just like car drivers have.

Elvis1956 · 02/03/2023 22:04

Fuck me I am a bit of fat boy....so pushing me into the flow of traffic is ok then.....thank fuck.most of you don't run the country. She is an evil birch end of

TerribleInsomniac · 02/03/2023 22:10

TerribleInsomniac · 02/03/2023 22:03

Phew, found it.
Quite far away and on the other side of the road, slightly wider pavement.

I hope the council will step up their game to make everywhere safe for everyone by regular and clear road / pavement markings. Just like car drivers have.

Ps. The council may have designated it as a shared path on a website but they haven't told anyone.

Same as changing the speed limits, we need to be told with signage.
I work near here, I drive, cycle and walk here. I didn’t know it was shared. There are often rows with people cycling on the pavement.

The council needs to sign this area with pavement markings to make it absolutely clear and cyclists need to give way according to the new law.

Sooooo many! rules changing these days

OneTC · 02/03/2023 22:14

I agree the council needs to mark it better, not necessarily segregate it, but there should be plenty of clear signs to avoid the potential for conflict.

BrigitteBond · 02/03/2023 22:14

TerribleInsomniac · 02/03/2023 22:10

Ps. The council may have designated it as a shared path on a website but they haven't told anyone.

Same as changing the speed limits, we need to be told with signage.
I work near here, I drive, cycle and walk here. I didn’t know it was shared. There are often rows with people cycling on the pavement.

The council needs to sign this area with pavement markings to make it absolutely clear and cyclists need to give way according to the new law.

Sooooo many! rules changing these days

More than that, they have to pass an order to convert it from a footpath. As the council have no record of that happening then it's not been converted.

Mangledrake · 02/03/2023 22:14

bellabasset · 02/03/2023 22:02

Thank you @Intergalacticcatharsis for your explanation of assault leading to murder/manslaughter.

The length of the sentence makes more sense now. There's also the trauma caused to the motorist who was driving the car that killed the cyclist, she had her two year old daughter in the car. I can't understand how the woman went off shopping as she can't have been unaware of the accident.

I don't see the point of sending this disabled woman to prison though as her disability may be the reason she acted as she did.

Did she argue at all that her disability was relevant?

I mean I know she said it made her worried when a bike approached on the pavement, but that was to explain her actions - that she pushed her hand toward the cyclist and "may have made contact"

If she or a lawyer argued anywhere that her depth perception was off, that she couldn't see the cyclist / traffic / that she lacked mental capacity or was prone to spasms and had one here - nobody seems to have reported that?

I think these issues would be claimed, and reported, if relevant.

ladymaiasura · 02/03/2023 22:19

@bellabasset The point of sending her to prison is the same as with any custodial sentence - protection of the public, punishment, rehabilitation and deterrence. Should all disabled people be handed get out of jail free cards? As @Mangledrake points out, if her disability was a mitigating factor I’m sure that would have been argued in court.

SLS500 · 02/03/2023 22:19

errr how about help like a normal person. Her disabilities didn’t stop her swearing, swiping or shopping.

SpookyBlackCat · 02/03/2023 22:21

It's interesting that the judge determined that she had no mental disorder because it's really hard to believe that this woman is NT.

It's utterly devastating for the poor victim's family and the woman who hit her, but I still don't understand how sending an obviously vulnerable woman to prison for three years is the answer here. She will lose her home, her belongings, everything. All because she swore and waved her hand at a cyclist on the pavement.

MrsSkylerWhite · 02/03/2023 22:23

I wouldn’t have any problem at all with a 77 year old cyclist using the pavement in a busy area, I would have a massive problem with someone shouting and swearing at her and then pissing off after the accident - that she caused.

BrigitteBond · 02/03/2023 22:29

SpookyBlackCat · 02/03/2023 22:21

It's interesting that the judge determined that she had no mental disorder because it's really hard to believe that this woman is NT.

It's utterly devastating for the poor victim's family and the woman who hit her, but I still don't understand how sending an obviously vulnerable woman to prison for three years is the answer here. She will lose her home, her belongings, everything. All because she swore and waved her hand at a cyclist on the pavement.

Yes, I wouldn't take much convincing that she was ND, given her behaviour.

It's also worth noting (again) that this was October 2020, when the whole country (particularly the ND portion) was crossing over roads to avoid passing within 2m of each other and shouting at joggers and cyclists that got to close. Every trip to the supermarket was a terrifying ordeal for some people.

Blossomtoes · 02/03/2023 22:37

BrigitteBond · 02/03/2023 22:14

More than that, they have to pass an order to convert it from a footpath. As the council have no record of that happening then it's not been converted.

It was never a footpath. It’s been dual use ever since it and the ring road were built in 1975.

Xol · 02/03/2023 22:42

ladymaiasura · 02/03/2023 22:19

@bellabasset The point of sending her to prison is the same as with any custodial sentence - protection of the public, punishment, rehabilitation and deterrence. Should all disabled people be handed get out of jail free cards? As @Mangledrake points out, if her disability was a mitigating factor I’m sure that would have been argued in court.

It's plain from the judge's remarks that it was pleaded as mitigation, bu for whatever reason the judge decided not to be swayed by it.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.