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?

Like it or not the facts are that CW was doing something unlawful right in AG's face, was very inconsiderate and put them both at risk.

I disagree with you there. It seems that CW was not doing anything unlawful if it was a shared path. However, she definitely wasn't riding in AG's face; she was initially nearer the road and AG was in the middle of the path. It was AG who then veered out to the road side while CW tried to take evasive action going too near the road. Inconsiderate would have been cycling straight into AG.

And if she had been less polite and had maintained her speed and slammed into Auriol (who don’t forget deliberately moved into her path), Celia would be alive today.

I can't believe this is still going on. That poor lady is dead and that evil bitch is in jail where she belongs. Stop the victim blaming. It's sickening.

A certain poster will keep it going until the thread runs out.

Which looks like it will be soon at least.

CW's initial position is not shown in the video. It is a very short stretch of pavement between the accident side and the side road. So CW was not even on the pavement initially. You are just guessing what happened.

AG did not move in any direction other than forward.

Not what I saw. She clearly moved towards Celia when I view the video.

She blatantly moves to her left.

I think that you need to go to Specsavers.

It wasn't mentioned at the trial so if it did happen it was considered to be irrelevant.

It wasn't mentioned at the trial so if it did happen then it was considered to be irrelevant.

The status of the pavement or shared path could not be determined. Bizarrely the judge describes it as "the pavement" and then goes on to say that "I think" that it was a shared path. This is frankly ridiculous. Surely it was a pavement for pedestrians only but somehow people started cycling unlawfully on it and the police did nothing about it. It is too narrow to be shared, cluttered with obstacles such as lamposts, has a very uneven surface and has no buffer zones. Nobody seems to know which side of the path to be on. It is inherently unsafe.

It’s a shared path. There are signs there. It’s not in the least unsafe, this is the only incident in over 50 years.

Oh well @Freddie1964 regardless of your clearly delusion spin on things AG is doing porridge where she belongs. She didn't appeal her conviction which should also tell you something...

It only became unsafe when one user of the path decided to become aggressive and violent and physically object to a cyclist legally using it to the extent she forced the cyclist into a busy road, leading to her death.

Basically it’s safe so long as everyone on it acts normally. Auriol decided her belief Celia shouldn’t be on the path was more important than Celia’s life and she is duly being punished for her actions. I think she’s lucky she’s not been charged with murder - how can you not intend at least GBH when you force someone into the path of oncoming cars!

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

You can imagine yourself lashing out and swearing at a slow-moving cyclist who was directly next to a road with traffic on?

For the love of God, why?

Seems to have a hatred of cyclists and a vivid imagination so makes sense Freddie can imagine themselves in that situation

Was it a shared path 50 years ago? Shared paths seem a fairly new thing that have cropped up in the last 20 years or so. If there were signs at the time of te incident, why were neither the police nor the council able to confirm this in court? After all, it’s the council who erect this type of sign.

We've got a pavement by a nearby roundabout that's unofficially turning into a shared space. There's a properly signed and painted cycle path near it and I think cyclists just want to continue on the pavement.

I'm not convinced it's a good thing if issues arise and you need clarity in a legal case.

It’s always been a shared path for as long as I can remember. For some obscure reason there have always been signs on the other side of the road. The council clearly cocked up by not putting them both sides, there are copious signs now.

Looks like that was the situation here. Accident waiting to happen!

It took 50 years 🤷‍♀️

Surely t there are signs the other side of the road, that is the designated shared path. If there are no signs on that stretch, the council did not designate that a shared path. How can people just decide the council cocked up and cycle on it any?

Anyway

there are copious signs now.

Yes, I bet there are!