To think this woman should not be put in prison?

[Nooyoiknooyoik]

Bizarre and very unfair Link

On the article

AG is 49

Does your mum aggressively approach shouting at cyclist before they have got near her?

The cyclist did slow down.

Does your mum cross the pavement to shout at cyclists, when they are doing nothing wrong? If so your mum is in the wrong.

It’s a pavement both cyclists and pedestrians can go. We can question wether that’s a good idea. But had AG not approached the cyclist there was room for both.

If your mother does do these things and someone dies as a result, the. She can expect to be charged.

I would say that if you are going to shout at cyclists, approach them and ‘make contact’ with them, you can expect them to panic. You can also predict doing this near a busy road is extremely dangerous and likely to end in an awful accident.

The trial heard Grey had cerebral palsy and was partially sighted, but the judge said: "These actions are not explained by disability."
He said that she had given a "dishonest account in interview" and there was "not a word about remorse until today".

Especially as she could see the cyclist coming towards her

I think it would probably have resulted in a longer sentence, but I do take your point. I'm more addressing the people who seem to think that a guilty verdict means that she was pushed.

Why?

She approached the cyclist. There was no need to.

Agree entirely, not defending her in the slightest, just saying lots of conflict / coming together could be avoided by better design and planning...

I also thought the convicted lady, in video, seemed to move closer on pavement to the cyclist. Anyway, jury heard all the evidence and the defense.

She has taken a deliberate, aggressive and reckless action which has caused this poor woman’s death. She didn’t mean for her to be killed I’m sure but she may have reasonably predicted that her behaviour could cause this consequence near such a busy road. It doesn’t matter if the cyclist was meant to be on the pavement or not, that is irrelevant. It is manslaughter.

OP is vile and I'm flad this awful woman will go to prison.

'With the number of cyclists increasing, we need proper separation of pedestrians, cyclists and cars, so that we can all keep each other safe. Government and councils need to review guidance, to ensure safe streets.'

It comes as the local council was unable to confirm today whether or not bicycles are allowed on the pavement where the incident took place - despite the judge declaring it a 'shared footpath' at court.

A Cambridgeshire County Council spokesperson told MailOnline: 'Our thoughts and sympathies are with Mrs Ward's family and friends.
'We cannot categorically say it is a shared use path as we could not find any legal records to evidence this.

We cannot categorically say it is a shared use path as we could not find any legal records to evidence this.

'Historically, we know it is used by cyclists and we will be looking at this location to see if there is any work required to make things clearer. We'd urge all users to take care and be considerate to each other.'
Neil Greig from leading road safety charity IAM Road Smart, told MailOnline that the images 'do not make it clear that it is a shared use pavement as they would normally have signs and clear solid white lines down the middle of the pavement.'
He added: 'If it is a shared use pavement then the markings have been very badly maintained. Under the ''Hierarchy of road users'' established in the new Highway Code last year it is actually the responsibility of the cyclist to look out for pedestrians, particularly vulnerable ones.

'Ultimately the courts are the only ones with all the background information to inform a sentence but it does look as if this very tragic case could have been avoided if the markings were clear and both parties had taken a bit of extra care.'

udge Enright acknowledged the partial blindness, cognitive and mobility issues and cerebral palsy that Grey suffered from. You have not expressed a word about remorse until today in the pre-sentencing notes. I accept the explanation from the counsel and that the difficulty you would face in custody and afterwards are considerable.'
But in the probation officer's report read in court today, it stated that Grey has 'difficulty expressing emotions of any sort overtly, but does write them down'.
Her barrister said: 'That is her way of communicating the distress, remorse and empathy she feels for all the people involved and she showed these notes to the officer.
'She does not express emotions as you or I might, but the probation officer was able to be aware of them and the acknowledgement of the devastating impact her actions have had on all.'

Clip ended too soon. She didn’t appear to make contact, looked to me as if the cyclist went past her, turned back to look and then went in the road.
Should the cyclist have been on the pavement in the first place? Are they allowed in some areas? They’re a bloody menace, no way would I get on one.

The sheer fact that she witnessed a fatal road accident and didn't stop to help is enough, imo, for a consequence. In the country where I live its a criminal offense in itself. Add to the fact that it was caused directly or indirectly by her, yes, she deserves a sentence of some kind.

Actually, changed my mind. She does seem to turn and push the cyclist. She deserves a prison sentence.

She did not shove her into oncoming traffic

I agree with you. Is logical even if it was a shared pathway (which was not even confirmed by police), the pedestrian has right of way, and the cyclist should give way to the pedestrian, in the same way cars have to be mega patient with cyclist slowing traffic down.l, cars sometimes have to come down to a hault..the cyclist should have been confident enough to slow down or brake while on the pavement, give way to the pedestrian and not swerve into oncoming traffic. Btw I am always terrified of this when my kids cycle next to a road, and try to avoid as much as possible as I am really scared of accidents like this..

'Seems to'. Does that mean 'beyond reasonable doubt' then?

Yet everyone who lives here knows it’s a combined cycle path and pavement @dawngreen.

Yes, she is apparently 49 and so you're correct that in this case, her disabilities (partial blindness, cognitive and mobility issues and cerebral palsy) are not age related. My mum's disabilities are age related. Still - disabilities.

To answer your second question, my mum might do so if they appeared to be approaching her at speed. That would scare her. She, like many older people, or those with disabilities, don't trust their balance when they perceive something approaching them in this way.

I think I made it abundantly clear in my post that I think it was an awful event and was explaining giving an opinion on what might result in somebody reacting in this way. Thank you for pointing out that if my mother did these things and someone died as a result, that she could expect to be charged. I think I worked that out. Rubbing my couple of braincells together, you know, thanks for helping me out there :) Still - I think it's ok to not see people entirely as BAD or GOOD and understand why things might have happened, even in horrendous events.

The woman in this case is certainly being punished. Conversely though - most cyclists who result in people falling or being injured, probably do entirely get away with it - even when they've yelled ON YOUR RIGHT in your ear two seconds before zooming by and are oblivious to a fall they've caused.

On the plus side, aggressive behavior on Mumsnet doesn't result into one of us falling into traffic - so, that's something.

They might know it's commonly used as one, that doesn't mean it is one though. It has to be legally converted to a shared use path and properly marked.

twitter.com/Cinister09/status/1631291726538104833?s=20

This is just about the clearest clip.

There was certainly adequate room for both of them to pass each other, even with the pedestrian steadfastly continuing down the middle of the (surprisingly wide) path.

The cyclist’s bike and front wheel were straight as she was passing the pedestrian.

You can then see that, as the back wheel of the bike (and the seat) were parallel with the pedestrian, the pedestrian turns her body towards the cyclist and lift her arm.

We cannot see the extent of contact, although the pedestrian herself says that she made light contact.

At the time contact is made, the bike tips sideways before veering into traffic.

Still - I think it's ok to not see people entirely as BAD or GOOD and understand why things might have happened, even in horrendous events.
I think promptly leaving the scene to go shopping and failing to show any remorse prior to sentencing, seems to further tip the scale towards the pedestrian being violent, unpleasant, lacking in empathy and outright dangerous.

Won’t happen. There’s no money as the numerous potholes testify.