To think today’s article about Auriol Grey paint a very different picture

[HibiscusBlues]

I was sad to see articles today about the woman jailed for the death of a cyclist. At the time of the offence she was living in a home for the disabled. If this is the case my experience is places like that aren’t easily available.
Shes partially blind, has balance problems and cognitive difficulties after a birth injury to the brain. She’s had related brain surgery.
If this is the case, as her family’s appeal stated, then there does seem a disconnect with the judge saying no difficulties that impacted her actions. Accessing supported living yet being deemed able-bodied and cognitively normal by a court.
Obviously the incident was horrendous for the Ward family, and the cyclist need not deserve to die. It’s a sad case. However the handling of the case is starting to sound uncomfortable. What have others thought of the articles today?

There was an assessment made in court that her disabilities did not impact her ability to understand the potential consequences of her actions. She acted in anger and someone died as a result. She is responsible for that.

I was horrified by the public reaction against this vulnerable pedestrian in the first instance but take no pleasure in being confirmed correct.
Horrible tragedy.
Bikes don't belong on pavements.

We have rapists, organised crime bosses and murders absconding after being given bail, but she was denied. It's interesting because pedophiles have escaped incarceration because they had similar issues and to accommodate them within the prison system would be too difficult. The judge did seem to have it in for her. She'll lose her possessions because she has no-one to store them for her.

The court definitely didn't take in account how vulnerable a partially sited person, with reduced mobility might feel when a cyclist is coming towards them on the pavement.

Wobble your head will you?

Cyclists should not be making pedestrians feel unsafe. Neurotypical or not.

One of the big questions about this case that hasn't been verified is if the pavement is a shared one or not. I've seen reports saying both.

The police felt she was vulnerable enough to need an appropriate adult with her for questioning. The council could not confirm it was a shared pavement. The judge seemed flawed in not picking those things up. Agree with a pp he seemed to have it in for her, completely disproportionate sentence given all the circumstances.

If you watch video she caused the women to fall off her bike into the road when she nearly hit her with waving arms.

Accessing supported living yet being deemed able-bodied and cognitively normal by a court.

I don’t see how this is a contradiction? You can need supported living due to physical disabilities and still be of completely rational mind to know that pushing someone on a bike very near a busy road is likely to result in life threatening injuries at least.

I feel she’s had ‘punishment’ enough now and they should release her.

Did this woman even have a solicitor advocate in court? I'm assuming she had no barrister? It just seems as if no adequate defence was put forward to be considered, just the prosecution's position.

I do admit i struggle to see how she could be guilty. She's disabled in more than one way and she's walking on a narrow pavement when a cyclist comes the other way straight towards her. It didn't appear there was room for both, so the pedestrian would have had priority as the more vulnerable road user. The cyclist was described as a proficient cyclist - so what the fuck was she doing on the pavement? She should have been prepared to stop and let the pedestrian go past safely but looks like they were on a direct collision course, the cyclist should have been traveling at a speed she was able to stop without wobbling into the road. It's not as straightforward as a completely able bodied person knocking someone off their bike.

Her friend noted her lack of sight to her right, and how she’d stay close to the kerb on her left.
Friends talk about linking fingers for balance when walking together.
Shes described as having simple rule based thinking, for example in her new supported flat she reduced contact with family due to a fear of change. And that affected her view of pavement ‘rules’, she was stressed by right and wrong.
For much of her adult life she lives in highly supported care placements.
Her own sibling had died weeks before.

I mean, yes, there are serious criminals out there who’ve had an easier ride with lesser needs.

To be fair the cyclist was hearing impaired, that would probably make her nervous on busy roads- I see why she used a path that she believed to be a shared path. Even the police can’t decide and there’s no records.
Its just a sad case of two vulnerable woman and a tragic outcome. No crimes or wrongs as such. Just horrible outcomes for a sequence of needs and events.

There was comfortably more than enough room for both. The pavement was 2.5 meters which is quite significantly wider than a typical pavement.

I am uncomfortable with the judges comments where he said her disabilities didn’t impact on her in the moment or in her response. I could quite easily see a case for arguing that they did in both respects. I am usually appalled by the light sentence given to those who cause deaths on roads by their dangerous behaviours but feel here that while it was a tragic event it is much less clear what the legal response should be.

A disabled visually impaired women with balance issues reacts badly to a bike being on the pavement. The cyclist seemed to lack control and couldn’t stop safely in response. The disabled woman leaves the scene showing no remorse. It is clear that this woman’s impairments have stopped her from managing independently or having friends so I am not surprised her reminded were off. I was surprised at the judges’ vehemence despite her living arrangements and medical conditions.

If the cyclist had been a child, would you all be saying the same?

The fact is she committed manslaughter.

It was actually a re-trial too. It wasn’t that clear. The first trial was unable to reach a verdict.

A lot of the appeal will probably hinge on the judge stating it was a shared path, when the police and council have said it is unclear.

I cannot understand this ruling at all. Why was the cyclist not expected to give way to the pedestrian as the more vulnerable road user? Surely the fact she ended up in the road means she wasn't planning on stopping and would have hit the pedestrian had she carried on cycling. Why did she not just stop the bike? I cannot understand how the pedestrian is to blame when it seems the cyclist wasn't in control of the bike and was going too fast to stop.

Even if we can't be 100% certain that she did hit the victim, the video footage is super clear that the pedestrian was walking at a good pace, did not show any fear, made no attempt to move out of the way of the victim and actively motioned towards the victim, causing her death.

What ever way you look at this, it is a tragic event. One life has been lost and many others changed beyond recognition.

Instead of looking to blame someone, let's fight for the transport system we all deserve.

If you don't want bikes on pavements (where often they are legally allowed), fight for tighter controls on dangerous driving, fight for safe, useable cycle networks, fight to get the banned, drunk, uninsured drivers off the road. Fight for justice for the 40 pedestrians killed by drivers every year on our pavements.

I think the lack of sympathy from the judge is telling. I remember in the book about Sara Thornton (who was jailed for killing her abusive husband) there was reference made to her being punished for 'not acting as a woman should' Ie, women are not meant to be 'violent', or in this case flail arms about, possibly to ensure more space when she felt extremely vulnerable.

Her response to prison has also been described as inappropriate, and it’s taken time to understand her change in situation, that it’s not supported living etc. It doesn’t sound like she processes situations normally

There’s been a few threads on this. Not sure why it’s resurfacing but I agree with you.

What evidence is there to suggested the cyclist was going too fast though?
If you’re cycling and you get knocked into going fast hasn’t got anything to do with it. If anything you are more wobbly the slower you go.
It’s not clear at all from the video that the cyclist was speeding quickly, if anything it looks quite slow.

The victim probably didn't stop as there was enough room for her to pass the pedestrian safely.