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 did. The video doesn't show why she left the scene. I don't see how a video could tbh?

It's true the cyclist.might not have swerved if the woman hadn't gestured at her. Its also true that the cyclist might not have died if she hadn't been riding on the pavement. Too many cyclists nowadays ride wherever they want with no regard for pedestrians so I'm afraid there is no sympathy from me.

This! If the police couldn’t establish it then how is a random pedestrian supposed to know.

The cyclist shouldn’t have been on the pavement and should have been able to respond safely to things like children or dogs being walked on the pavement. If she couldn’t even handle someone raiding their hand safely then she wasn’t safe to begin with.

Sometimes it's safer to cycle on the pavement but if so l always have in mind that the pedestrian has right of way so l would have been preparing to stop.

You do you, sweetie

And look at the speed of the traffic on the road. It looks like a 40 to me.

i read this yesterday,
bit shocking result
was it a shared cycleway?
she made the cyclist jump who then fell into the road
bad result all around
i have told off cyclists who are on the pavement, but generally under my breath and after they have gone by

Ok thanks. I'm surprised, but clearly there is more to it than the facts we have been given.

But there was nowhere for the cyclist to go.

In the short clip/restricted viewpoint, it should have been clear there was not enough space and she should have stopped and got off. It's disingenuous to keep saying they have nowhere to go.

I imagine there might be more CCTV that cannot be released which clarified some things and lead to the conviction though.

The aim of the pedestrian seemed to just be get the cyclist out the way. Fair enough. But there was nowhere for the cyclist to go. The cyclist was forced into the road and hit.

How is it the responsibility of a partially sighted person to look for hazards and make sure that there was 'somewhere for the cyclist to go'?! If you get on a bike you have responsibility for your actions.

And that hand flapping by the way is very typical presentation of someone with CP and in no way disproportionately angry. Again, if it looks odd it's because that person cannot control their body in a typical way.

She really doesn't.

Your description doesn't match her behaviour in the video. It would have been clear to her what had just happened - and to be honest, I'm not sure why you think the fact that she has cerebral palsy or is partially sighted means she couldn't have phoned an ambulance. Do you always have such low expectations of people with disabilities?

Same here.

I'm blooming sick of adult cyclists on the pavements - I've been knocked down once and narrowly missed being struck by others - one time when I was very heavily pregnant. I've had to jump out of the way before to avoid a cyclist on the pavement (though to be fair they have all been young/ middle-aged blokes - I've never personally encountered a female cyclist)

If you are an adult, and you aren't able to ride on the road, then don't ride a bike.

It was dreadful that the cyclist died, but it could just as easily have been a pedestrian who was forced into the road and struck by a car.

I agree that continuing to do her shopping when she must have been aware that a dreadful accident had happened was callous and uncaring, but being callous and uncaring isn't illegal.

I'm sure that this heartlessness would have affected her sentence, after she was convicted.

When I watched the video on the bbc article it looked as though the pedestrian waved her hand in a sort of flappy way - I wouldn't have called the gesture (alone) aggressive - and then afterwards the cyclist either thinks she's being told to get in the road so it must be clear (in much the same way as when driving, when people are waved out of junctions but don't check there's not someone else coming along the road) or wobbles and swerves as the pedestrian didn't move out of the way. She did shout and swear, which is aggressive. But not out of the scope of normal behaviour, surely, for someone who is startled and scared? Even if the woman hadn't shouted or waved her arm, and had just stayed walking on the same course, how would the outcome have been any different? She's partially sighted with mobility problems - entirely possible she wasn't able to move quickly to the side, she may not have even been able to see that the cyclist was on the pavement rather than the road until they were close so didn't realise she would be risking a collision. Would that have also been manslaughter?

There’s lots of roads around here which direct cyclists to share pavement/subway over roundabouts and never explicitly end the shared pavement. Also the road I’m thinking of is a death trap A road where I’ve had people purposefully drive into me. Therefore I go on the pavement until explicit and slow/get off for oncoming pedestrians.

Yes I think we just have to accept the reporting might not explain it as well as a trial would. Hopefully if the guilty party feels the verdict is wrong they can apply for a retrial.

The pavement was shared use in places (so cyclists were allowed to use it) but the signage was inconsistent and confusing. Once again, this was covered in the case. But I'm sure that won't sway anyone from their opinion that this elderly cyclist deserved to die.

She also walked away and didn't help when the woman was hit. Leaving the scene never helps anyone.

the cyclist should not have been on the pavement in the first place.

That doesn't give us the right to kill her.

I thought that it was illegal to cycle on the pavement? So in that respect surely the cyclist was in the wrong from the get go?

She's been convicted.

I think it’s utterly tragic that the cyclist died, but the woman she was riding towards was a) partially sighted and b) has cerebral palsy. It makes complete sense that she might just have the shits with cyclists twatting down the footpath towards her at speed. She has issues with her vision and who knows how her cerebral palsy affects her, but it generally has an effect on things such as coordination and balance, and sometimes even cognition. I wonder how much this has been taken into consideration.

Yes, I agree.

The court will have a lot more information than the newspapers are privy to.

We get a very slanted version of what has happened.

The cerebral palsy would have been addressed in the trial. And if not then I do hope there is an appeal.

Two wrongs dont make a right