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?!

Since you don't know how her disability effects her, you can't know.
But yes, brain injury from cp can have learning difficulties and autism as a co morbidity. Both of which may produce a reaction that is out of social norms.
So yes, we do have to accept that she may not meet the social expectations of a non disabled person.

Also there's no law to be #bekind. Yet.

Ah, I've seen that the pavement was mixed use in some places, but signage was unclear.

In that case, has anything changed in terms of the signage to make appropriate usage clearer?

The trial will have heard if there was any mitigating issues like this.

@ChaseyLain its absolutely a crime to leave the scene of an accident! You can’t watch someone be run over after an altercation and then just fuck off 🙄.

I think you can assume that the defence will have mentioned it if it’s in any way a mitigation. Pretty fucking patronising to people with CP to think the actions in that video are explained by it.

@Fancylike

how fast is hurtling?

was it pavement or shared path?

That is over-dramatic.

The woman's actions may have cause the cyclist's death, but she didn't kill her - and I'm sure she never intended such a horrible consequence.

Cyclists on the pavement are a danger to pedestrians - the cyclist, unless it was a pavement designated for bikes, ought not to have been on the pavement to begin with.

As a PP has stated - there will be a lot more to this incident than we have been told by the papers.

Of course the cyclist was in the wrong pavements are for pedestrians but the lefty loveies will scream otherwise.

interviewing officer Det Sgt Mark Dollard asked her why she said what she said, to which she responded: "I don't know."

Don't speak to interviewing officers.

As a cyclist I’d like to point out that many cycle routes are poorly sign posted. One minute you’re cycling on a wide, clearly marked pavement the next it can narrow down and seemingly be pedestrian only with very very sparse signage indicating the cycle route .This may lead pedestrians to think its pedestrian only.I can understand why pedestrians may feel annoyance but it’s not the cyclist’s fault if routes are not clearly marked.

That aside, the pedestrian here was found on cctv to be acting aggressively towards the cyclist to the point the cyclist fell into the path of an oncoming car while taking evading action.
There is nothing to suggest the cyclist was in any way aggressive.
Even if this was not a recognised cycling route, it’s not justified to lash out at the cyclist. That’s plain assault and in this case it resulted in death.
I hope this acts as a lesson to other cyclist haters out there.
I’m a driver and a pedestrian also. Treat other road / pavement users with respect.

UthredofBattenberg

if the police can’t say whether it was shared path or pavement, how do you know it was pavement?

Will be interesting to see the actual decision -I assume it's unlawful act manslaughter-based on assault being the unlawful act (making someone fear /apprehend imminent violence)

(I assume not gross negligence manslaughter based on leaving after causing an accident as other people were around to call ambulances -and they weren't in a caring role for the victim)

But sentencing would take into account any culpability on the part of the victim.

You can be guilty and receive no actual penalty.

The pavement the woman was riding on is signposted on Google Street View as being shared use. However, there's also a signpost saying no cycling, which is why the police can not clarify if cycling is allowed or not.

The pedestrians actions caused the women to fall off her bike directly into the path of a vehicle.

The pedestrian never called for help after the incident, just went to the supermarket and carried on as if nothing happened.

A woman has lost her life because some idiot felt they could tell her what to do, regardless of the obvious risks involved.

The prosecution and verdict was absolutely correct in this instance.

@GooseberryCinnamonYogurt what the fuck has it got to do with left or right wing politics?? 🙄

Or do we draw the conclusion that all those twats that drive dangerously and kill cyclists are all right wing? 🙄

Well, whether she was involved in the accident is questionable. She was walking and did not change her path or speed. I fail to see how this could have been prevented by her actions.
The cyclist is the person who could have prevented the accident and thus caused it.

I'm sorry, but this is an appalling example of disability discrimination and I fail to see what possible evidence could show otherwise.

I'm pretty sure you can - but not if you have been actively involved.

English law (as far as I am aware*) doesn't require anyone to so much as call an ambulance or in any other way to help the victim of an accident/ assault/ whatever.

Most of us do help if we possibly can just because it's the right thing to do. Our instinct is to do what we can, but we aren't legally compelled to.

*If I'm wrong, I am happy to be corrected.

An awful accident she caused.

I mean it doesn't take many brain cells to figure out that she shouldn't have left the scene

Auriol Grey was more than able to explain the way that her disabilities affect her and this was covered in the trial. She was also evasive when it came to explaining her actions, though the BBC coverage does say this:

"Ms Grey believed she had made light contact with Mrs Ward."

So even she disagrees with people in this thread who claim she was nowhere near the cyclist.

Here's the relevant part of the Highway Code. Pedestrians have priority over cyclists on both pavements and shared routes. Signage is not the issue here, but lack of knowledge about the law.

www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction#:~:text=Rule%20H2%20%2D%20Rule%20for%20drivers,from%20which%20you%20are%20turning.

The minute you use foul language you lose all credibility.

This!

So even she disagrees with people in this thread who claim she was nowhere near the cyclist.
Irrelevant though as the cyclist rode into her.

@ChaseyLain In the video she waves and shouts at the woman
it’s shown as shared path on google maps

yet here are people ignoring the victim was on a labelled shared path, and declaring it a pavement, yet police can’t state either way

ChaseyLain The cyclist didn’t ride into the pedestrian? Which video are you watching?

Words fail me. Perhaps we should do away with jury trials altogether and let randoms off mumsnet decide criminal cases.

Just to be clear: what you said didn't happen, and that's why the pedestrian was convicted of manslaughter.