To think this woman should not be put in prison?

[Nooyoiknooyoik]

Bizarre and very unfair Link

Whoever decided the path was suitable for shared use should bear some responsibility. In the BBC footage a cyclist speeds past a reporter talking to camera in the spot it happened and is very near the edge of the pavement. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64824436

Pedestrians have a choice whether to use shared paths or not. If a pedestrian cannot is unwilling to stick to have of the shared path then they should walk somewhere else. If cyclists want to cycle more than one abreast, again a shared path is unsuitable and they need to go somewhere else. It’s basic stuff.

She was sentenced to three years imprisonment. Meanwhile in my town there is a hardened criminal who has undertaken a series of violent offences and death threats over the past year, including assaulting two police officers, possession of an offensive weapon and actual bodily harm. He has been sentenced to two years imprisonment. What the fuck is going on with the legal system?

She may have just thought the cyclist had hit the kerb badly and fallen. Then she got hit with the car. So she assumed it was sadly a accident nothing to do with her. And maybe she was in shock a bit. None of us know.

Pedestrians should always take priority. They can walk where they like! Crazy to think that fit and healthy cyclists should be able to force every other group off shared paths. Often there isn’t another route available.

I'm horrified by some of the reactions on this thread. Some spaces are shared by cyclists and pedestrians.
The result of this woman's actions were easily foreseeable. If you shout and swear and deliberately make physical contact with a cyclist who is close to a busy road, then it is very likely that they will fall into oncoming traffic.
At best, the cyclist would have had to swerve to avoid contact. It was an incredibly foolish and dangerous thing to do to her, and even worse, considering that there was no evidence that cycles weren't even allowed on the path.
I think a custodial sentence is essential tbh, based on this thread alone. No one has the right to endanger someone else like that. They just don't.
I'd hope that some of the posters on this thread take that on board.

I was commenting on the PP writing that the judge had seen the evidence and decided it was a push.

Unless I've missed it it's not been alleged that it was a push.

The cyclist in this case wasn't forcing anyone off the path. The pedestrian forced the cyclist into the road. It was obviously an incredibly dangerous thing to do.

I think the sentence is appropriate. She caused the death of a woman, verbally abusing her beforehand too then fucked off to the shops for a jolly!

Even if she had been startled, who would just leave a person lying on the road to die? That’s cruel and quite sickening. She didn’t even panic and go home to hide, she just carried on with her day as if nothing had happened.

Actions speak louder than words. I would have been more sympathetic towards her if she at least tried to help in some way.

As GiveMushy explained so well, assault (a criminal offence and therefore a basis for manslaughter) doesn't have to involve physical contact with the victim.

Did he kill anyone?

I just about to say that.

It isn't about cyclists pushing other users off the shared path, it's about accepting you can both use it so you don't stand in the middle obstructing it and causing the other person to fall off

This. That pavement is 2.4 metres wide and has been dual use for as long as I can remember.

It’s a combined cycle path and pavement. The cyclist had every right to be on it.

You really think a violent career criminal who has physically assaulted police and members of the public is less of a threat to society than a disabled woman who swore and gestured at a cyclist without touching them?

So you have no idea what happened but thought you’d write nonsense anyway.

I can understand how someone with visual impairment and mobility difficulties might not be totally chill about having cyclists ride past them on the pavement tbh. I'm not thrilled about it and I can, at least in theory, jump out of the way.

Where are the markings? It looks like a normal bit of pavement.

I think her buggering off to do her shopping is dire.

what about deaf or blind people are they supposed to get out the way of a cyclist.

my son (deaf) once had a guy race up behind him, in an electric wheelchair on a pavement and tooting him to move out of the way, shouted at him that he had no manners - and that he was a man with a disability and I said ‘you approached him from behind on a pavement, he’s deaf ‘

I thought cyclists weren’t allowed on pavements -?

this morning on the way to work in moving traffic I had a cyclist approach me and overtake on the right - traffic moving forwards and then weaved between my car and the car in front leaving me with no space - even touched my car and then undertook me on the inside a few minutes later - how the hell is any of it legal?

Me too. She pushed a 77-year-old woman, who was on a little folding bicycle, into oncoming traffic, which hit her and she died.

After the woman was hit (and presumably dying, seeing as she died on scene) the guilty woman walked off to do her shopping in Sainsbury's.

No remorse either.

.

Where does it say that it was a shared path? Even the police don't appear to know.

I don't think that cyclists should be on footpaths full stop. It's a terrible idea.

A pavement near me is shared use. There are no markings on the pavement. If not for the occasional sign at junctions, you wouldn't know it was shared use from looking at it.

She has cerebral palsy and is partially sighted so I expect you'll get your wish.