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?

Presumably most pedestrians didn't shout "get off the fucking pavement" and try to force cyclists onto the road, so no-one was too worried about signs etc.

AG moved towards the cyclist.

I think several people are using the case more as a vessel for satisfying their superiority complexes, or their desire to be contrarian.

Given the situation, it's in very bad taste. Use something else.

Yes shared or not a woman died due to the actions of another. She was found guilty by the court. The jury had the evidence presented to them and we have not.

If an Appeal changes something then the full justice system will have been used.

AG moved towards Celia.

I'm starting to wonder about you.

There are also some questions about how the shared pathway was implemented.

From what I can tell the minimum recommended requirement is 3m, and 5m is advised where cyclist flows against each other are deemed to be high.

In this particular case I believe the path was stated to be 2.4m wide at the incident, but it is unclear to me whether or not this does or does not include the lamp post/street furniture, which may be a major factor in the choices cyclists make as regards which side to pass pedestrians.

This, coupled with the questions over whether the signage was adequate at the time of the incident plus the fact that the official status of the route appears to be difficult to determine doesn't exactly paint a great picture in terms of shared pathway implementation to me.

AG did a lot more than “gesture”. How is the cyclist responsible for being pushed into the road? Did she force AG to move to the side of the path that she was cycling on? Did she force AG to push her? No. She didn’t cycle too close to AG, AG didn’t “put her arm out to defend herself” she deliberately moved across the pavement towards the cyclist and pushed her in front of a car. She’d have been absolutely fine if she’d stayed on the right hand side of the pathway, the cyclist would have been able to pass without going anywhere near her.

People shout and swear the whole time. You cannot lock people up for doing that.
AG hasn't been locked up for that.

Where I live they "create" cycle paths by painting a white line down the middle of the pavement/path, which can be mad as sometimes it is so narrow that can't work. They also signal the start of each by ridge paving stones, the go horizontally for the footpath and vertically for the cycle part as I assume it is rough for the cyclists to go over the horizontal ones. I don't know if they do anything similar in other areas, it isn't perfect but I suppose at least they are trying.

There is a path behind my house that is nowhere near 3 m wide, people stray onto the wrong side of the white line particularly at school drop off/pick up times as the path leads to the local primary and you get mums pushing a buggy with a child each side of the buggy and they inevitably end up with one of the kids on the cycle bit. It is dangerous as a bit further away is the local secondary and the teenagers ride very fast on the path. I'm amazed no one has been hurt but I think the saving grace is there is a grass area to the side of the path so pedestrians get "pushed" onto the grass. Not pleasant at the moment as it is turning the grass area into a bit of a mud puddle.

So legally it wasn't a shared pathway?

So the signage wasn't actually appropriate if it was indicating it was a shared pathway but legally it wasn't, as I said that seems to be the case more often than the paperwork being missing in my experience.

It’s not a great example of shared pathway implementation, you’re right but it’s of its time. I don’t imagine the 3 metre rule existed in 1975. And someone quite obviously fucked up back then. But it’s safer for everyone than cyclists riding on that road which is insanely busy

This is interesting. Apparently the legislation didn’t even exist in 1975.

https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/dictionary/shared-use

It did exist on a council map of cycle infrastructure for the local area so it's possible/likely that a cyclist would know/believe they're doing no wrong but generally a non cyclist isn't going to go out of their way to find out about infrastructure they're not going to use

@Redebs
”wasn't talking about the legality of whether it was a shared path, I was remarking that allowing cycling on pavements is s bad idea.
We need better public transport as a solution to congestion, not endangering vulnerable people on foot”

AG wasn’t endangered.
Quite the reverse… she killed the cyclist by her aggressive and unnecessary actions.

Agree we need proper public transport though and proper cycle - only routes where cyclists are not endangered by aggressive pedestrians or drivers.

It just makes sense if we’re trying to move away from cars then there have to be safe alternatives.

On two occasions I have been shouted at by a runner and a pedestrian while cycling on a clearly marked pavement route.
Its just not acceptable.

I’m a pedestrian, cyclist and driver by the way, so not biased in any way towards one or the other.

I'm not too up on it, but I think the concept you describe is different to a shared path (almost by definition).

I prefer the concept you describe, because the white line is signage and should be a constant reminder to anyone using it that the path accommodates different types of transport and that they need to be aware of that, even if both types don't necessarily always stick to the correct side of the line. But I think the "shared path" with no dividing line is the new trend (for whatever reason).

I think on the path where the incident took place railings are appropriate between the path and the road, not just because they would stop people falling into a busy road, but the narrowness of the gap they would define would make people stop and/or dismount at choke points (like by the lamp post).

If planning can't widen the road, they can at least take steps to mitigate the impact of the more narrow path. Some action they could do that might actually improve the situation for the future.

There's conflicting ideas about whether visibly segregated is better or not. It tends to increase speed because cyclists believe they'll have a clear way ahead, but then people still walk in it. Having them unmarked is supposed to slow things down and make their use more cooperative.

I prefer not to use shared spaces when riding

Oh yes if it is on maps and some signs it isn't the cyclists fault for believing it. My point is if it wasn't a legal shared path it doesn't matter what the signs say or what any of us think, if it isn't a legal shared path it isn't a legal shared path.

It doesn't matter if it was a legal shared path or not.

Cycling on a shared path or not is not punishable by death.

So cycling on pavements wasn't legal in 1975, so I wonder why they decided to create a shared pavement if there was no legislation to make that possible? They really seem to have screwed up royally.

No one is saying it is, the point is the judge was reported as saying it was a legal shared path and if he did he was wrong as he had no basis for saying that as both the police and council said they could find any evidence of that. If he was making incorrect statements it could have influenced the jury which isn't how our justice system should work.

I don’t think it quite works like that. The legislation sets standards for shared pathways. It probably wasn’t necessary to have legislation to create one.

Anyway it’s been used that way for the best part of 50 years and now has signage so should any pedestrian in the future decide to cause a cyclist to end up in the road there won’t be any uncertainty about the status of the pathway.

The judge sums up all the evidence, when this is posted is it because people know for sure other witnesses did not talk about the pathway in court?

That's interesting. My main concern with "our" path is that it isn't wide enough for it to be safe, my opinion but based on observation. The cyclists are mainly kids going to the comp and teenagers aren't always going to be thinking it could be dangerous for the little ones on the path. Due to it being a quiet area it hasn't really been much of a problem but due to new housing developments it gets busier and busier and it seems like an accident waiting to happen. My kids used to cycle on it but back then there wasn't the same issue as you could get to the comp on the path but no primary so much less of an issue.

Thinking about it a new shopping development about half a mile away has also increased use. I think they probably need to sacrifice a bit of the grass area and widen it but with council budgets as they are I don't suppose it is a priority.

No idea. I only know what I saw reported and the report was that the police and council couldn't produce any evidence to say it was a shared path.

Is it a pavement? As far as I know it was always the default that riding on a pavement was an offence.