Auriol Grey's manslaughter sentence overturned for killing cyclist. Correct decision?

[Locutus2000]

Reported in multiple outlets - BBC.

Mixed feelings - it was a complex case with no winners on any side.

I personally have no sympathy for AG. Maybe if she was so bothered about cyclists she should’ve moved out of the fucking middle of the pavement. Would a pram, electric wheelchair or a child on a scooter met the same fate?

I struggle to understand how she was charged in the first place. Let alone convicted. It raises huge questions about our justice system. Absolutely the correct the decision. Obviously tragic for both families.

A few people are saying a fear response wouldn’t cause someone to try to push the cyclist away, have you not heard of the fight or flight response? Entirely plausible explanation for someone with cognitive impairments and I don’t think a history of behaving in that way takes away from the explanation. A lot of people on this thread (including myself) are not comfortable with cyclists in such close proximity, but most of us are fortunate to not have many other compounding factors likely to increase the discomfort/anxiety and/or compromise our judgment leading to such reactions

Although no one seems to know whether this was actually a "shared path" or not, I think it shows that there should be no shared paths like this. It isn't good for anyone.

I certainly think that a lot more thought should go into whether a pavement is suitable for "shared use". I don't think any path should be designated "shared use" unless it is plenty wide enough for a cyclist and a pedestrian or person in a wheelchair, or pushing a double buggy, to pass one another with a decent amount of space between them.

@PurplePansy05 · Today 20:14

I watched the video of this incident multiple times and I can't work out from it whether she touched/hit Celia Ward or not, but I agree that this is a possibility.

Grey admitted she DID touch Celia Ward.

@XenoBitch that's absolutely heartbreaking. Poor lady. Makes me despise that AG even more. The terrible damage that evil woman has done is unforgivable.

Correct decision. Amazed it got this far. She is partially sighted. The council is 90% to blame here for making an unsafe route. Yes the cyclist was allowed to be there but so was she and it’s very clear that there isn’t enough room. It should never have been designed this way and someone sadly lost their life.

That's probably it.

Even if so, accidental touching if you move your arm like she has been before Celia was right next to her is not a crime. Nobody can reasonably tell from this video what exactly happened. What did the witnesses say, were there any? Drivers?

Whilst I don't believe a custodial sentence was correct, I do believe we need new laws to deal with violent and aggressive behaviour like this. Being on the autistic spectrum is not an excuse, nor should it be tolerated as one. My thoughts are with Mrs Ward and the driver of the car that hit her. My hopes are that we can bring in laws to restrict unsupervised movement of people like Auriol who are likely to put others in danger through their lack of control.

I don't know why you're 'struggling.' Auriol Grey yelled at, and swore at an elderly woman, shoved her hand/arm out at her, pushed her, and made the woman veer into the path of a moving vehicle, resulting in the elderly woman's death.

Not that hard to understand.

Looking at the video I think she was rightly convicted. However the sentence was far too harsh.

The BBC report today https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68975335 has a video clip of a reporter which I suspect was made when Auriol Grey was initially convicted, as it's done it that solemn tone that reporters use when they are describing the actions of someone they can finally avoid saying "alleged[ly]" about.

It contains this interesting moment where a bloke on a bike whooshes past the reporter on the pavement. This might suggest that this might not have been the first time that AG, who it was reported "suffers from blindness" (I'm not sure exactly what that means) had had to deal with cyclists coming towards her, possibly at some speed.

Sorry, that's a typo. I meant attacked.

I’ve read it and I still feel that way.

The figures aren't huge

You can’t see her hitting or pushing on that video. The court couldn’t even decide whether that happened.

I agree and I think antisocial and aggressive behaviour seems massively more common now than even 5/10 years ago. Everyone seems to have some kind of excuse as to why they can’t be held to account whether it’s trauma, addiction, ND conditions, MH conditions, physical conditions… and given the number of new diagnoses it’s going to make a very complicated justice system in 10 years. Personally I just think if your IQ is adequate you should be held to account.

Its very sad but the cyclist should have either stopped if she couldn’t get past or looked before cycling into the road.

I think it's the right decision. The whole thing is still a bloody tragedy, that has destroyed lives. But, having watched the video multiple times tonight:
Grey did not move towards the cyclist, she was walking (unevenly and haltingly) along the left side of the pavement throughout. And the video does not convincingly show a push. It may have been an unpleasant and aggressive woman shouting and gesticulating. Or it may have been a deeply vulnerable woman, with cerebral palsy, brain damage, epilepsy, multiple previous brain surgeries, partial blindness, and autism who saw a cyclist heading right for her on a footpath, and panicked.

My disabilities are much more minor, but I have been knocked over on a non shared use footpath by a speeding cyclist who came up behind me, and then blamed me for not having been physically capable of leaping out of the way when they pinged their bell, as they could have guessed from the fact that I visibly use a walking aid. So I can certainly relate to the possibility of panic in the situation.

Having seen the video many times (and noting by her own admission that she made some contact with Celia), I think it’s highly likely that she pushed Celia into the road.

I think she’s lucky that there wasn’t a better CCTV angle or a witness standing closer by, but I agree that on the available evidence, you likely couldn’t establish a push “beyond all reasonable doubt”.

No, the problem is people like you who think that cyclists should be allowed to go where they please and who think that an unsafe conviction should be upheld because it furthers that aim. Let's hope that this incident may not be in vain and that more cyclists think twice before using the pavement.

Yes, the pavement is for walkers. Child cyclists are also unpredictable and can’t navigate pavement obstacles, including pedestrians, street furniture and eg pushchairs, without practice. Which is a risk. Not everyone can or should drive.
The entitlement that children come first is part of the problem, as was cycling vs walkers in the same space.

Or save your outrage for the apalling safety records on our roads. I'm not a fan of cyclists on pavements but I just stand aside.