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.

And the vile woman is so abhorrent that she went shopping afterwards. Horrible horrible individual

I think it's the wrong decision. It looked to me that she didn't just gesticulate at the cyclist. I think she lunged at her and made contact, which is what caused the cyclist to lose her balance.

I think it’s technically the right decision (in that there was no actual offence) but morally the wrong decision. Her actions caused someone to lose their life.

That’s outrageous and ridiculous, @onccno. A speed limit should apply to everything that’s moving. Being hit by anything at that speed is going to cause harm.

I remember a cyclist being convicted of “cycling furiously” in a town centre at about that speed, long ago. Maybe that’s no longer an offence.

Anyway, it shows how little value is put on an old woman’s life.

I'm a cyclist, I only ever cycle on the road.

I'm also a pedestrian. Several times a week I walk to town along a narrow pavement (for pedestrians only) and most times I encounter a woman cycling along it. She's nearly hit me more than once, and now swears at me for once daring to suggest she cycles on the road. Neither the council nor the police are willing to do anything about her, and it's a matter of time before someone gets knocked into the road.

Auriol Grey should never have been convicted, the decision today is absolutely the correct one.

Ok so if she shouldn’t have been convicted, then should somebody be convicted for dropping items off a motorway bridge and causing a pile up?

Auriol had literal brain damage from birth. Experts testified at her trial that the additional surgeries probably caused further cognition issues.

Grey was born with her umbilical cord wrapped around her neck and was starved of oxygen, resulting in brain injuries. These led to fits that became so severe she underwent a number of brain operations at John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford. She was left “unable to comprehend difficult or complex situations”, according to Alisdair Luxmoore. Others described her as “childlike”.

From The Times.

I'm not surprised that Auriol Grey was startled and afraid, when she saw a cyclist barrelling towards her.

Bollocks was she. Startled and afraid my arse.

If she was so afeared of a cyclist coming towards her why did she use a shared pathway and why did she repeatedly lurch towards cyclists yelling?

You’re comparing apples and pears. Your pavement is pedestrians only, the one in Huntingdon is shared use.

I'd stay where I was, taking my chances with a bike v stepping into the road if a car was coming.

As a pedestrian, I have shared many pavements and paths with cyclists, I've never once had the urge to push one out of the way, no matter how annoying. I'm also aware I have fitness and youth on my side, but there is no denying some people have no tolerance at all of cyclists any where near them. Tolerance is key.

I am fairly sure people have been convicted in these circumstances?

I would be glad if this incredibly sad incident prompted a review of the safety of shared usage paths. I think they are incredibly dangerous where there is not some sort of physical barrier to separate cyclists and pedestrians. Painted lines on the ground aren’t good enough, especially when cyclists use them at very high speeds. Roads are unfortunately often unsafe for cyclists but I can’t see how pushing that danger towards an even more vulnerable group (pedestrians) is a good idea.

I’m a cyclist - and a motorist and a pedestrian so am wary from several points of view. Shared paths can be a boon as they get you out of the way of motorists but I am super careful when in them as even when they are clearly marked by signs plus painted images on the ground, lots of pedestrians either don’t realise they are shared or are resentful that you are there. If I saw a pedestrian coming at me waving or behaving even slightly erratically my brakes would be coming on and my foot poised to go down.

I’m not victim blaming at all here, I wasn’t there and everything could have happened so fast that the cyclist had no chance to react. It was a terrible end to a life. I’m maybe hypersensitive as I got deliberately shoved on a very wide shared path by a man who gave no sign of disturbance as we passed but thought it was funny to try to push me off my bike from behind. Took me a while to get my courage back up after that and made me realise just how vulnerable one is on two wheels.

I blame whomever designated that bit of pavement alongside a busy road as a shared space for pedestrians and cyclists. It was an accident waiting to happen, one way or another - it's not wide enough! It's just a regular width pavement, not a proper shared space at all.

And also with a 20mph limit and speed cameras in a town centre the car probably would have been able to react in time to a cyclist falling off their bike.

Shared pavements can work if they are really wide. This one wasn't and it must be perturbing to see a cyclist coming towards you when you are partially sighted.

The original conviction was horribly ableist. AG is brain damaged and was told to leave the scene so she did. The cylcist should have remembered that you defer to the more vuberable road user (as i do when i drive) and should have stopped and walked the bike by. From the bbc video it is clear it is a very tight space. Cyclists should not mow people down just because they are "allowed" to be there.

My DC cycle a lot and I am always keeping such a careful eye out for pedestrians as they are more vunerable

Look at the pavement- barely wide enough for two pedestrians to pass. Contrast to a proper shared pavement. Away from cars and safe for all users.

You'd think given the gravity of convicting a 50 year old disabled woman with CP and the high profile nature of the case that they would have actually taken the trouble to ensure this was all done correctly first time.

It makes you wonder how many other people out there suffer as they don't have the public interest or resources to fight an appeal.

I’m a cyclist and always slow right down and move to the side, stopping if necessary, if people approach on a path that is not wide enough for me to pass with enough distance to be able to pass with plenty of space. Pedestrians have priority on ANY footpath even a shared one.

Auriol has impaired sight and cognitive difficulties and I think it’s ludicrous to believe that she intended to commit murder that day. Obviously it wouldn’t have happened if the cyclist had stopped and that is not blaming the poor woman who died.

Her reaction afterwards was off due to her disabilities most likely.

It was the right decision to over turn the conviction.

Several posters have described this as a shared pathway. It is now, but its status at the time was uncertain. At trial, it was not clearly established one way or the other.

Also, I would point out to those saying that Ms Grey pushed the cyclist that the prosecution did not argue this at trial because they could not prove this to the criminal standard. All that was established is that she shouted and gesticulated at the cyclist.

I hadn’t heard of this case before today, but after watching the video she clearly stands in the middle of the path waving her arms and shouts “get off the fucking pavement”. That’s really bloody aggressive. The cyclist doesn’t have enough room to pass, likely there’s SOME kind of contact between them and she topples into the road and then gets brutally killed by a car that didn’t have chance to stop. Then the woman trots off to go shopping. Wow. I’m glad she spent the year in prison to be honest.

I did. There wasn't enough room for the unfortunate pedestrians.