It's interesting how some people think the justice system works in this country. The police and council could not provide categorical evidence either way about the status of the path and therefore the judge made a judgement based presumably on a test of reasonableness that it was a shared pathway for pedestrians and cyclists. The idea that the judge ignored the evidence from anyone on this is ridiculous.
The video and testimony from the woman establish that she a) distracted the cyclist, b) moved into her path, c) made contact with her and d) offered no help, did not raise the alarm and showed no remorse. Yes, she has disabilities but it was clear that she knew exactly what she was doing. As she obviously did not intend to kill the cyclist it is manslaughter with typical sentences from 2-10 years. So she gets a relatively light sentence and I suspect that a custodial sentence was given because of her behaviour and attitude after the incident.
We've had multiple threads on this here and it seems that some people believe that if they keep asking the same question they will get a different answer. I suspect this is because there are a number of people who think that behaving like a rude, aggressive and careless dickhead is acceptable behaviour and there should be no consequences for this causing the death of an innocent person.