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?

It’s not.

I think that she could have lost control without the arm flapping. That is the fundamental point. Arm flapping is not usually a crime either. It is the very close pass chosen by the cyclist that causes the problem.

Okay then.

Bye, bye.

You seem certain that AG is not responsible for her own actions. Based on what?

You got that from me saying literally the opposite?

I said I don't know if this person should be deemed responsible for her actions and their consequences

You even quoted it back in your reply.

Okay, but you then go on to say:

”I do know its possible the wrong decision on that was made in court”

Am I missing the point of you banging on about diminished responsibility?

So, you don’t believe AG is not responsible for her own actions. You just think it might be a possibility? A possibility that her own experienced legal team didn’t consider?

Have I got it right now?

The pedestrian has priority and the cyclist has a duty to give way. This does not happen. This is a clear and obvious error by the cyclist.

No, still wrong, and I'm not willing to waste any more time on people that cannot or will not read.

Even if there was room, which there is not, you still need to coordinate which side to pass. The cyclist was technically on the wrong side.

No worries!

Turning towards the cyclist provides more space for the cyclist to get past. It is an attempt to get out of the way.

Seems to be in this case.

It is not just a question of them doing something wrong when they are headed straight for you. If they are on the pavement on the other side of the road that is different. In any case, the only course of action that AG takes is to continue walking in straight line on the pavement!

AG doesn't walk in a straight line, she very clearly veers towards the kerb. Fair enough to have your own opinions about the rights and wrongs of the judgement but lying about the facts when we can see it clearly on video is just silly and argumentative.

Don't feed them.
Let them talk to themselves.

Blind people don't always walk in very straight lines.

Of course she wouldn't walk a straight line if she's visually impaired. Bad vision affects the balance.

She's also clearly not blind because she saw CW coming as she shouted at her long before they reached each other. Whatever the reason for her veering, she clearly does do that rather than walk in a straight line.

Yeah…there’s clearly a poster who isn’t posting in good faith…

There’s more than one and they seem to be working in relay.

just silly and argumentative.

I think that’s the point.

Incorrect. The cyclist may have been partially at fault but the majority of blame lies with the person correctly convicted of manslaughter. The point of manslaughter is that it doesn't preclude fault by the dead person, only the the death was a result of the actions of someone else, as it was in this case.

There’s more than one and they seem to be working in relay.

I had the same thought.

Sorry everyone who pointed this out, there is a poster who is no longer posting in good faith (if they ever were) and up to this point I had missed that.