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 see no miscarriage of justice. I watched the full video clip and she blatantly moved in to the path of the cyclist and pushed her. Should have been murder.

Auriol Grey was on the pavement first and walks in a straight line. It is the cyclist that moves into her path. Any contact is the cyclist's fault and is a red herring. The cyclist loses control.

the cyclist didn't move into her path though, she was going in a straight line too, she was already passing her when she gets pushed suddenly into the road.

She admits making 'contact' with the cyclist, which she had no reason to do as they would have passed each other without incident.

Would you be saying the same if it was child that was pushed in front of a car?

The judge referred to her disabilities during the sentencing, and her sentence was reduced from the maximum on those grounds. She underwent psychological assessments and was deemed able to understand the consequences of her actions.

Being scared or startled by a cyclist does not mean you are not culpable if you lash out at them in anger, regardless of whether you have cerebral palsy, a visual impairment or autism. Those things are not a free pass to push someone into the path of a moving car. There are thousands of people with autism and/or cognitive impairments in jail for violent crimes - if they are deemed to be sane and to have an understanding of the consequences of their actions, they stand trial and are sentenced accordingly. Auriol Grey is no different.

A 77-year-old woman, cycling at a safe speed on a path that the judge agreed to be a shared pedestrian and cycle way, died as a result of Grey's outburst. The fact that she has some disabilities - for which her sentence was already reduced - does not mean she shouldn't be in prison for that.

Yes, I would be arguing the same, whoever the cyclist was.

You must have watched a different clip to me as the one I watched clearly showed her moving from her right to the left and into the path of the cyclist. The cyclist would have passed her with no issue if she hadn't moved into her path.

So if your child was cycling on the pavement, in a straight line, nowhere near a pedestrian who then moved towards your child and pushed them under a car, you would be OK with that, @roaringmouse?

I watched the video, and in my opinion, the cyclist was cycling in a straight line, near to the kerb, and AG was walking near the wall/fence on the other side of the pavement. If she had carried on walking alongside the wall, she would have been completely safe - there was plenty of space between the two of them for them to pass in safety.

But she didn’t. AG cut across the pavement into the near vicinity of the cyclist, and gestured aggressively, making contact with the cyclist and knocking her under the car. My sympathies are with the family of her victim, and with the traumatised driver. Given AG’s disabilities, I think the verdict and the sentence were correct.

Even if you think cycling on the pavement is a dangerous crime, it doesn’t deserve the death penalty!

What’s worse I think is that she gestures quite emphatically to her left as if she wants the cyclist to pass on that side, then when the cyclist appears on that side she shoves her anyway.

absolutely no need for any of it.

@SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius

No, I wouldn't be okay with it if it were my child, someone else's child or anyone else. My thoughts and feelings about this case are not dependent on who the victim was or wasn't. The outcome for the cyclist was tragic and I have nothing but sympathy for the cyclist's family.

This doesn't change the fact that, in my view, AG should not have received a custodial sentence.

It was quite widely indicated on social media at the time of the sentencing that AG was well known in her local area for behaving antisocially and aggressively towards both pedestrians and cyclists, including children, when she wanted them to get out of her way, and had previously been warned over it by the police. As she had already had a metaphorical slap on the wrist and been made aware that her behaviour was unacceptable, and yet continued to believe that and behave as though she was above the law, a custodial sentence seems appropriate.

Yes, I understand lots of people agree with the sentencing. But AG had disabilities that I don't think had been properly understood and supported, historically. Had they been, this incident might never have played out in the tragic way that it did. Some people with cognitive impairment, or learning disabilities, or dementia, may display behaviours that are quite disturbing to others - such as aggressive outbursts - but we trust that our health and social care support systems will recognise and support these people appropriately, so that any danger to themselves or others is minimised. Unfortunately this often isn't the case. I work in the field and I see many vulnerable people in desperate need of care and support from social services, who throughout the country, regularly fail to follow the legal framework and provide adequate care assessments and care plans in line with the Care Act Guidance. And that's not for want of willing or dedicated social workers. But that the sector is on its knees! For these reasons, and more besides, I don't think AG should have been incarcerated.

Out of interest, what do you think should have happened?

@sandyhappypeople That's an interesting question and I don't know the answer, because I don't know what options there might be and what they would look like. I just know that a general prison doesn't seem the right one. On the other hand, I do wonder (hope) that now AG is in prison, that maybe her needs will be better understood for her future. Also that she might actually have more support and a sense of community than she ever had before.

Perhaps read the judge's sentencing remarks before deciding you know best regarding her culpability and disability.

@SofiaSoFar

Thank you, I have. And at no point did I say I know best about her culpability and disability. It's my view. And I'm entitled to have a different one from you.

AG is actually closer to the road (i.e. further left) at the start of the video than she is at the end of it. So she moves to the right. She doesn't walk in a perfectly straight line but that is explained by her disabilities (and isn't a crime anyway). The cyclist would not even be on the same stretch of pavement at the start of the video. AG does not move into the cyclist's path. The cyclist is on the wrong side and AG has had to move from the correct side to avoid a full collision. The cyclist gives AG zero courtesy and essentially cycles at her.

There is no safe speed for a cyclist to collide with a pedestrian. Both parties are at risk of injury from the collision itself and from being forced into the road. The only thing certain about the pavement is that at the time of the incident there were no signs to indicate that it was a shared cycleway. Its exact status could not be determined which is code for a mistake by the council. By default it is not a shared cycleway unless designated as one (which it was not). The judge cannot change its status two years later.

Give it a break. You are just going round in circles here. You have not seen the full video, and are not in possession of all the facts.

Are you actually ok?

Thanks for your concern. There is only one video. Nobody needs to see the full version after the cyclist goes into the road. The video does not show AG moving into the cyclist's path and there was no evidence given in court to support that either. People should stop saying that she did so.

I think Freddie needs to go to specsavers because Freddie doesn't see the same as everyone else does.

Was thinking about this case actually yesterday when I was reading an article in the local newspaper about whether or not people should cycle on the road and discovered the rule in my country is that if there is a cycle path or shared path then cyclists should use them, not the road, and should only use the road if there is no path. So if it happened here, the cyclist would have been in the wrong if she rode on the road. What's the rule in the UK?

All you seem to have posted on is this thread.

You are posting like this is personal to you, you are not posting a balanced view that is supported by reality and I think that you also have a few sock-puppets on this thread as well.

Who are you and why do you care this much?

You're always allowed to cycle on the road except for motorways (2-3 lanes in each direction, normally with a center divide, you can't walk along these or ride a bike)

Bikes are not allowed on dedicated pavements. There are some pavements that are dual use, such as the one in this case, although it appears it might have been lacking the appropriate signage at the time. It was however listed on a local cycling infrastructure map as being a mixed use cycle path/pavement

Bikes are not required to use cycle lanes even if there's one there.

Funny how its different, I wonder why cycle lanes and shared paths are mandatory here. Only once seen someone riding on the road when there was a path (and it was during my first driving lesson so made for an interesting first lesson as I had to go slowly behind him until he turned off)

This is not personal to me. I have no connection with anyone involved. I can however imagine myself in AG's situation.

I simply think that AG did nothing unlawful. She just didn't get out of the way of a cyclist who was in the wrong place. I try to stick to the facts that's all.