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?

I’m bored now @ancientgran. We’re just going round in circles.

I think it’s really crucial wrt the judge speaking out of turn.

If he is summing up other evidence I don’t think it’s fair on them as it’s very important they get the statements right. For reasons you say.

I only know from sitting on a jury and the judge was brilliant at summing up, it’s such a big part of what they do.

Yes and we still don't know if it has legally been designated as a shared path/pavement, the signs don't prove it do they.

Well they kind of do. How else would they get there?

It is very important, makes a mockery of the justice system if it isn't. When I first worked for the police I was preparing reports that would be used for sentencing, as part of my induction I spent days in court with police officers so I could see how they would be used and how important the information was. I did see some shocking things, and lets just say back then prejudice was pretty obvious at times and I'm not talking about from the police.

I'm not saying it didn't happen with the police, my husband isn't white and he had some very difficult times as a young police officer in the 60s but that is another story.

From what I remember it was actually recommended that the thinner the path the less planners should think about segregating it.

Also regarding the possibility of this one being a designated path in the 70s that was when the first experiments in cycle infrastructure really started and quite a few of them were mixed use.

They do, I've known people get off with "offences" when the signs were proven to be wrong. Like you said about what happened when this all started, things get messed up.

Anyway I'd better go and make my poor disabled husband some lunch or he will be struggling, he's diabetic to add to his other woes so not just him being a fusspot.

I think people need to know for sure the judge has misspoken before assuming he did, and the only way to do that for sure is knowing what was said in court.

We’ll see with the Appeal too I guess

You mean she kept walking? Sadly, there was something very wrong with Celia's trajectory if a pedestrian just keeping on walking (definitely what A did - she was already there) was bringing her closer into Celia's path.

Also, fear can manifest as anger, particularly in an individual who struggles to process and express emotions. Don't do what the judge did. Don't evaluate her as if she's just like you.

She is and she isn't even standing at the narrowest point by the lamp post where the accident happened.

She doesn't move towards Celia, she walks straight, but any case Celia is not in the CCTV until the last moment so we don't know where she was or what she was doing.

She kept walking whilst veering to the left which brought her closer to Celia than if she had just carried on walking straight like we see her do initially.

@Freddie1964 why are you persisting in posting misinformation and outright lies?

Grey moved towards the cyclist aggressively then made contact with her (Grey admitted this), pushing her to her death.

It's all there in the details of the case.

I think that she has. There is no other explanation.

What are you on about now?

Failing to negotiate which side of the pavement to pass cannot be a criminal offence. Who is to say which party made the wrong choice? Pedestrians have priority and all traffic is supposed to travel on the left so I really don't see what AG has done wrong.

Christ I give up.

Failing to negotiate which side of the pavement to pass cannot be a criminal offence

Which isn't what happened

What a take. No it’s not what happened

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest CW had previously cycled past loads of pedestrians and not died. The exceptional circumstance here is the shouting and gesturing that led to her going into the road

This thread is insane.

I can't believe I'm reading posts by people that seem to think the conviction is unsound - if it was, then surely AG's legal team would be appealing that. They aren't. They are concerned about the sentence, not the conviction. Which would suggest that her legal team can see what she has done wrong, even if people on the thread are failing to.

I’m going to go out on an even bigger one and point out this incident is the first of its kind since the road was built in 1975!

I am not posting misinformation. Everyone can see the CCTV for themselves. Read the judges sentencing notes. He does not say that AG moved towards CW, or pushed CW or even that there was definitely contact between the two. He is very vague about what she actually did wrong. She seems to be guilty of simply expecting to walk on the pavement without a cyclist forcing her out of the way.

She was because she was a pedestrian. The cyclist was on wheels and is because of this the more dangerous road, or pavement user.

Pedestrians have priority in shared spaces.