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?

You don't know that.

I would have feared for her safety. That was an accident waiting to happen (being knocked down by the bike).

It has since been proven it was and now has the appropriate signage. So one last time THE JUDGE WAS RIGHT.

She moved from her original position closer to Celia, screamed at her to get off the fucking pavement and pushed her.

If she was in fear for her safety why did she move closer to Celia for a start?

Remember that it's worse than pointless to reason with a sea lion.

You wouldn't walk on a 2.4m wide pavement? How wide do pavements need to be to be safe enough for you??

That is not correct.

I wouldn't walk on it because of the cycling. Have you seen the BBC look east article where a female reporter is standing at the accident spot and is nearly totalled by a cyclist?

The cyclist passes by AG leaving no gap at all. Her front wheel passes at about foot from AG's foot.

Well it seems odd that the police and council can't confirm that.

You mean the one where the cyclist rides past her and no one dies?

Eh? She didn't pass.

No she isn't you liar.

They couldn’t confirm it because they can’t find the paperwork, it’s been confirmed now and appropriate signage has been erected. They fucked up when they built the road basically.

I'm surprised it is 2.4m wide, on the video it looks quite narrow. Maybe it's the angle.

It's a bit daft arguing over the status of the path.
The correct response to illegal cycling isn't to shout "get off the fucking pavement" and try to force the cyclist onto the road with no regard for oncoming vehicles.

It's the angle, when you look at pictures head on you can see how wide it is

So if they can't find the paperwork how have they proved it was always a shared pathway? Or have they now regularised the situation by making it a shared pathway now?

It may all be computerised now but in my day you had a big file with all the changes for your area in the local police station, that would be a copy of what was sent to divisional HQ where it was also filed, I think (it was 30 years ago) there was another copy at police HQ and the council had one. So if there was a challenge you would search for the order and if it wasn't on the sub division you would move up the chain. Rare for them all to be missing. The wrong signs in place seemed to happen more often.

Obviously shared or not people shouldn't be violent but my issue was that it was reported that the Judge said it was a shared pathway when there was no evidence of that.

@ancientgran, there wasn’t an order because it was never designated. The shared pathways - both sides - were constructed at the same time as the road in 1975. The pathway the other side has always had appropriate signage but there’s no paperwork for that either apparently. Someone didn’t do their job properly in the early 70s. Simple as that.

I hope I never end up on a jury with some posters on this thread. Some people seem incapable of changing their minds in the face of overwhelming evidence.

AG moved further across to the side of the pavement the cyclist was on as she approached. The cyclist should have had plenty of space.

Me too - some people also seem to think the death penalty administered by pedestrians is an appropriate response to pavement cycling.

And some people seem to think that you should treat everyone as if they are fully capable and responsible for their actions despite huge evidence of serious cognitive difficulties.

The sign was missing for 50 years and nobody noticed?

Nope. Why would they?

People shout and swear the whole time. You cannot lock people up for doing that. AG has multiple disabilities and was gesturing with her good arm. The cyclist went far too close to her and was responsible for any contact. It is perfectly OK to put your arm out to defend yourself.