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.

Did she have plenty of time to stop? I’m unsure. It looks like AG was quite close to her when AG moved towards her? Bikes have a stopping distance, it’s not instant. In a split second a reflex probably meant she swerved. Obviously with hindsight if she felt she couldn’t stop she’d have been better off hitting AG.

The way she went so close to her I would imagine if she’d have tried to stop quickly she’d have ended up over the handlebars. I’m sure AG has learned absolutely nothing from her experience and normal aggressive behaviour will resume. Just hope no one else has to die

There is one very similar on our school run route, which we all manage to navigate

But the legal point is that the woman shouted and make a gesture. That action isn't illegal. She was charged with manslaughter caused by an unlawful act but she didn't commit an unlawful act.
I am sure many people have shouted at cyclists in the same way in similar circumstances. Sadly this led to someone's death but the action itself wasn't illegal . It was a tragic accident

but what if they are deaf? I am sick of cyclist ringing their bell or shouting and expecting pedestrians to get out of their way. If a cyclist is on a shared path she should give way to pedestrians. Members of the cyclist organisation i belong to ring their bell and claim they are ‘just letting people know they are behind them’ but really they just want them to move. And it is not always possible to know which way to move.

Disabled people shouldn't need to carry a visible sign of their disability so that other people give them space or whatever.

An accident is something unavoidable, Grey didn't need to shout at a 77 yo on a shopping bicycle travelling very slowly.

Only yobs and the mentally ill going about shouting at cyclists or anyone else for that matter.

I guess you think this type of behaviour is acceptable?

I totally agree OP.

More generally I think that cyclists should be banned from pedestrian footpaths and existing shared paths should be abolished and converted back to pedestrian traffic only.

Cycles belong on the road.

It had been a shared pathway for the best part of 50 years when this incident happened. Everyone local knew it was shared. It would have never occurred to anyone who used it regularly that it was illegal on a technicality.

To keep herself and pedestrians out if danger she should have been going so slowly that she could stop easily when a sudden hazard occurred. She didn't and swerved onto the road without looking behind her for oncoming traffic. It would have been safer for her if she had been riding on the road and established a good position for herself. This path is so very narrow, not appropriate for a shared path and apparently not marked as such.

I am very surprised that it was concluded one couldn't tell she wasn't pushed. If you pause just as are next to each other, you can see AG is leaning to her left with the other foot more than slightly up as it is when you just walk forward.

More conclusive in my view is that the cyclist come off AFTER they have passed. At this point there was no more reason to come off the pavement.

The most compelling reason however is that you can very clearly see that the cyclist is already falling AS her bike is heading toward the road. That is not how you expect a bike to be as you swerve to avoid someone. The bike would first be straight and THEN fall towards one side after coming off the pavement.

The only way you'd already be at a 90 degrees on the side of fall as you come off a pavement is if indeed you are pushed.

I have no doubt that the poor cyclist was pushed. I also believe the push was a result of frustration and anger rather than a genuine will to hurt but there was still a gesture and it's that feature that caused the death of an older lady. This outcome is very unfair.

That's not a shared pathway.

The clue is the massive white line down the middle which divides the path into two separate areas. One for cyclists and one for pedestrians.

@GasPanic the clear lines and signs still don't stop some people from walking along up the cycle lane then tutting and huffing at you, even when you've stopped to let them get by or go around them slowly.

The hatred towards people riding a bicycle is completely insane.

Well that's very unlikely because towns are becoming more cycle friendly not less.

Don't worry though, you can probably get away with shoving a few cyclists in the road and get away with it.

Quite. You’ve said what I’ve said and more succinctly.

Why on earth do people think it’s ok to cycle on a road or pavement with no or little knowledge of the Highway Code nor having taken a Cycling Proficiency Test is beyond me.

Mrs Ward could’ve had an accident on other occasions, not just in an altercation with a pedestrian, but no, her cycling was obviously safe and perfect (which it wasn’t). You have to take a certain amount of responsibility for your actions as a cyclist.

The punishment for cycling on the fucking pavement isn’t death by the hands of a complete lunatic.

Let’s put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose Auriol hadn’t shouted and then raised her hand and Mrs Ward’s bicycle had gone into her, causing presumably injuries. What that be the most acceptable cause of action? Mrs Ward could then have come off her bicycle after going into Auriol.

The fact is, it’s a narrow pathway, Mrs Ward could’ve and should’ve dismounted and walked before getting back on her bicycle. The fact she didn’t do so to me, shows stubbornness and the fact she had priority over a pedestrian.

The fact she didn’t look for oncoming traffic (which was flowing past her) is indicative of the fact she was pushed in my opinion.

No one is gleeful in Celia’s death. What a wicked thing to say.

A lot of people do hate cyclists I agree but the issue here was whether the law was applied correctly at the trial, which the court of appeal have decided it was not. Mistakes happen in trials which is why we have appeal courts.

Completely agree

No winners in this case.

Correct decision reached, finally.

Sorry but as a pedestrian I'm not ok with a cyclist coming up behind me and barking orders like "coming past on your left" or ringing the bell and expecting me to go into a hedge. If you can't pass safely you need to dismount.

Stop being ridiculous as no one is saying that

I've not seen one person "gleeful" over Celias death. Total hyperbole. Yes, there are a mix of opinions, naturally. Even those suggesting Celia may have done a few things incorrectly haven't wished death on her. Quite the opposite.

A few people have implied the cyclist got what she deserved

If you are walking on a shared path you need to not be a raving lunatic.
An indicator that a cyclist is approaching is a courtesy. How flipping entitled are you that you don't think this is the right thing to do.

If normal human interactions are so offensive to you perhaps you'd be better off staying in.