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?!

Can you link to that please? I've not seen that mentioned in the articles I have read.

As a disabled person who was walking back home yesterday, I looked behind me to check no cars were turning into the junction I had to cross and there was a cyclist coming up behind me, not too fast but at a decent pace as there was a slight decline in the path which they shouldn’t have been on. I took one step to my left and the cyclist passed thanking me. That is what civilised people do. My gait is very similar to Auriol Grey’s and I sometimes freeze which is when I physically can’t move one foot in front of the other but I would never dream of behaving how she did.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64747184

She stops, swivels and her back foot lifts a bit. I think of a shove as a hard push, and it may not have been very hard, but it was clearly hard enough. Doesn't take much to topple a cyclist.

Thank you

Thanks for posting again. I could say the same about it as your take on that video. The pavement still looks narrow to me. In most of the clip, see a woman with an awkward gait walking down the middle with strange wavy arm movements. It is true most pedestrians would move to the side if they saw a cyclist coming the other way but this one doesn’t. So instead of stopping, the cyclist tries to pass right on the kerb and falls into the road. What actually occurs isn’t clear as it is just a couple of seconds and right in the corner of the clip. It is also quite possible that the pedestrian’s CP meant she couldn’t quickly move to the inside to allow the cyclist to pass.

It’s lucky you turned to check for cars, at a different part of the path you wouldn’t have been looking behind you to check for cyclists as you said they shouldn’t have been on that path? What if you hadn’t seen the cyclist coming behind you (as you were facing the same way) and took a step in their path to avoid something else?

I do think cyclists cycling along paths with no clear markings is an accident waiting to happen. This is tragic and I think this country needs to rethink cyclist/pedestrian safety. Many paths aren’t wide enough for both.

When you look at the last few seconds it looks quite clearly to be a pushing move, whether or not she actually pushed its enough to make someone riding their bike to reasonably fear they are going to be pushed over so panic and veer off or fall over. I saw a zoomed in video on twitter and that showed it even clearer, so much that I am 90% sure she actually did push the cyclist.

We’ll never know but presumably they would have called out excuse me or rang a bell which is my usual experience.

@CecilyP The pavement was 2.4m wide. Whether it looks like that to you or not doesn’t change the facts.

I really think it’s extremely likely that there was a push. The cyclist was completely under control and proceeding in a straight line before dramatically losing control at the same second that AC turned her body towards the cyclist and raised her arm toward her. It just looks remarkably like a push.

How can you say the cyclist as proceeding in a straight line? You literally don’t see the cyclist until the point where she is attempting to pass the pedestrian. It’s also impossible to see if there was a push in that second before the cyclist falls into the road.

The pavement isn't too narrow for both. The arm movements are systematic to usher the cyclist to the side. The accused didn't claim any part of her condition gave her involuntary hand movements.

Auriol Grey chose to try to intimidate the cyclist into moving toward the road. She had plenty of alternatives - stop herself, move in etc. She removed the cyclists "just stop" option as a safe move when she shouted, swore, and made pushing gestures at her.

Cyclist falls when Auriol Grey makes "light contact" with her, not because passing.

If AG has any condition that means she lashes out involuntarily, she should herself stay close to the inner side of the path to minimise danger to others. But she hasn't claimed this.

I say it because the bike's frame is straight, until AG stops, turns, and as she admitted, touches the cyclist.

She assaulted the cyclist - we hear her start, we see the moment of impact, and she's admitted at least touching after deliberately yelling and swearing. That's assault and put the cyclist in a dangerous position.

Fair enough, so enough room for 2 considerate people pass safely. However, if, as a cyclist, I saw someone coming towards me right down the middle of what or may not be a shared path (even the police and council don’t know) I would stop my bike rather than try to pass them right on the kerb.

I would not stop if there was room to pass safely (there was) and they were shouting, swearing, and pumping their arms toward me.

This is because I would have good reason to think they might attack me. In fact, legally, AG was already assaulting the cyclist. The cyclist had three bad options - stop and face danger, veer in and risk running AG over, veer out and risk being run over. She had one risky option - pass on the pavement - which should have worked, but AG continued her attack. She had no safe option.

To me it seems people are confusing moral judgement with criminal behaviour.
Yes the pedestrian seems like an all round nasty person. Aggressive, unfeeling and unlikeable. People will want to see people like this hurt, and be punished because they are repelled by them.
The cyclist was vulnerable and sounds like a lovely person. She was committing no crime and certainly did not deserve to come to harm.
However just because tragic circumstances involve an unlikeable bully and a morally better/ more likeable person it doesn’t always mean there is a crime. There is no law about being an arsehole, the law doesn’t even obligate people to help others in need. Not stopping or checking that the driver as called an ambulance is morally reprehensible, but not actually a crime.
The law is that one caused the death of the other. Personally I think that’s too tenuous in this case. Most people upon meeting AG would have reacted differently, stopping or swerving in. For example my mum is a similar age and I know her response would have been to stop and freeze in fear, it’s not forgone that this outcome was likely. If traffic were lighter, the car had swerved it wouldn’t have happened. A few things came together. I dare say driving at only 30min and seeing an elderly cyclist right on the kerb I’d be very very cautious, just like when I see small children by the roadside.
It’s tragic, but I wouldn’t say foreseeable or inevitable, that shouting at a cyclist would lead to them veering into the road. It happens all day every day on British roads, cross words exchanged between road users.
The speculation about pushes etc his just that. Speculation. It’s like speculating the car driver could have avoided the accident if not looking at a phone, or it taking reasonable evasive action. It’s just not clear on what we’ve seen.
This public hate of AG is more about hating her and her actions, than factually looking at the crime. From what I’ve seen on social media I’m guessing the jury were similar in wanting to punishment a morally bad person.

Why would you stop if there's enough room to pass safely? (Unless there's an unpredictable factor like small children or a dog) instead of just slowing down and passing safely. All pavements where I live are shared and cyclists and pedestrians manage just fine without cyclists having to stop all the time.

From what I’ve seen on social media I’m guessing the jury were similar in wanting to punishment a morally bad person.

That's quite a statement to make when your only evidence is social media and the jury members witnessed all the evidence in court, after swearing to give a true verdict in accordance with it.

The path is a shared cycle/foot way further along. It isn’t clear when or if it becomes a pedestrian only route, which is why the police can’t say.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs in this case, this country is awful for cyclists. Bikes are a massive part of reducing car use. Cycling needs to be safe. The debate here should be about why provision for cyclists is so woeful, why the routes are ambiguous, why cycle lanes suddenly stop in the middle of roads or have massive bits of street furniture, and why, despite the fact that reducing car use would have huge benefits for health and the environment, the car is still king. Yep, cyclists shouldn’t be on pavements, but when the roads are so dangerous and so many drivers have so little regard for their safety, I honestly don’t blame them a lot of the time.

I don't hate AG. I'm sorry for her too.

But there is a legal issue here: when you assault somebody, you're responsible for the consequences. It's true the cyclist wouldn't have died if there was no traffic. There's no reason to think AG wanted to kill her. That's why she wasn't charged with murder.

Manslaughter means you are responsible for starting a chain of events ending in someone's death, and your behaviour was culpable. That's AG's crime.

There is no law about being an arsehole, the law doesn’t even obligate people to help others in need. Not stopping or checking that the driver as called an ambulance is morally reprehensible, but not actually a crime.

This is not a passerby walking past an accident that they have no obligation to help with but someone who killed someone else and then left instead of waiting for the police. Probably hoping she'd get away with it.

Nice bit of victim blaming there.

If, as a pedestrian, I saw someone cycling slowly towards me on a path with space to pass each other, I would just carry on walking. I might even smile and say hello. I certainty would not tell them to get off the f**king pavement and force them into a busy road.

Yes the pedestrian seems like an all round nasty person. Aggressive, unfeeling and unlikeable. People will want to see people like this hurt, and be punished because they are repelled by them.
I don't think that's right, the public will want to see AG punished because her actions caused the death of someone, and she is unrepentant.
Cannot believe their are posters (not the one who I've quoted above) who seem to think AG is the victim and should be let off and felt sorry for.

I don’t hate her at all I just think we don’t see the evidence in court so we can only comment without full info and as you put the law has led to sentence

Every one who drives/rides know that you cannot rely on other road users/walkers to make the right move always. So if you ride you are more open to getting injured. So if you see a irate person shouting off the pavement, you stop giving lots of space. I think they both tried to get further along the path instead of stopping to let one or the other pass. Yes the path is is wide but they met where it narrows near a post. And she lost control going over the manhole cover at such a slow speed.