To think Auriol Grey being jailed is not appropriate.

It is narrow, I know the actual section and with a very busy ring road on one side and bars on the other, it doesn't feel very wide, big double decker buses go past routinely here, I walk my kids up that part of the road and make them go single file away from the traffic as it is very easy to get clipped by the traffic two people across. So yes it is narrow, esp riding a bike, not excusing the womans actions, but the cyclist should not be on the pavement at this point

Yes rude/agitated/aggressive. But did she mean to kill her?

No. Which is why she's hasn't gone down for much longer under a murder charge.

She caused the womans death. She deserves to be where she it.

Interesting thank you, I read that thread.

sometimes posters don’t tell the truth.

Sorry meant to quote the cannabis post… oops

I drive down that road regularly. I would expect a cyclist to be on the pavement and not in the road.

If you watch the video she did push her.

You could fit a bike past those 2 people who are walking out from the inside edge.

That's not narrow, 2.4 meters is enough space to drive most cars down

Exactly 'intent' is the difference between Murder and Manslaughter.

Whether the cyclist should be there or not is unclear BUT the pedestrians actions caused the cyclist to fall into the road in front of a car. You can’t go round causing people’s deaths because they are somewhere they (possibly) shouldn’t be

This is an extremely sad case for everyone involved and highlights the huge divide between cyclists and non cyclists from the opinions I’ve read elsewhere. Hopefully it will lead to fairer laws/more cycle paths etc.

I don’t quite understand how they can give her three years when the maximum sentence for a cyclist causing the death of a pedestrian is two years. Not that I think that’s long enough but it isn’t fair. Look at this case, which is similar but reversed, the much younger cyclist with no health problems only got one year. I think she’ll appeal and have her sentence reduced.

govn recommended width is 2.5 with no obstructions.
But this is all new policy (2020) so I dare say its up for review.
More if there are obstructions.

If you are walking along that road, when it is very busy, you would see there are a lot of lamp-posts, signs etc that would make you move further away, people coming out of the doctors surgery and priory centre which is where she was and a bike is coming towards you, one of you would need to slow down and move. That picture is not clear from my personal experience on that road if a bike races around that corner (which they do in Huntingdon) it can be intimidating and cyclists should be going a lot slower on this ring road. My mum is partially sighted and finds it difficult to navigate that path and always goes on the other side of the road which actually has barriers.

Ps. Some councils require 3m.

77 year old racing about yes I'm sure

You can SEE in the video she pushed her. The woman didn't veer out the way. The bike was straight until just after the moment you see auriol grey lift her arm, then you see her whole body jolt and you can see her shoulder retract back, and at that same moment the poor cyclist goes into the road with force. This is AFTER the aggressive gesturing on camera. The angle is bad but imo its pretty clear she pushed her. She deserves longer tbh

Yes this is whataboutery but find it strange you'll see post after post on here about can't let kids into toilets on their own due to paedophiles, or about changing behaviour incase you're attacked by some mystical man, but here we are with a woman who's actions have caused an actual death and people want her off scot-free.

Make it make sense.

It seems so out of sync with other cases. My friends brother was killed by a drunk driver and the guy didn’t even go to prison, let alone face a manslaughter charge, and he was far more culpable. Then there’s men who have strangled women to death but got off because he had his dick inside her at the time. I don’t get it.

Yes in accidental cases. This is different as she caused the death by pushing her into the road. Just like if someone accidentally hit someone with their car, their punishment would be vastly different to if they purposely veered towards them

Yes, and how many killed by cyclists when the bike and the pedestrian were both on pavements? As is the case here, and is the specific stat I mentioned. I found the source - it's a University of Westminster study that found between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles, 6 of which were killed by cyclists.

And even those higher figures of all pedestrian deaths caused by cyclists are dwarfed by the risk of motor vehicles to both pedestrians and cyclists.

In the hierarchy of risk here, a cyclist is at much greater risk from a motor vehicle than a pedestrian is from a cyclist on a pavement.

When you're riding a bike and you hit someone it's seen as you using a vehicle for what it's for and hitting someone with varying degrees of liability.

When you're walking about and you deliberately contact someone, another pedestrian, cyclist, driver, you're just assaulting someone.

If you attacked someone using your bike you'd also be up for (a more serious form of) assault.

I don't think previous bag examples of sentencing it lack thereof is a good reason to compound the issue with another bad sentence

fwiw I think 3 years is harsh and she'll get it reduced on appeal, so if she ends up going to prison at all it will be less than half the reduced time

Everyone will have their own views of cyclists on pavements and cycleways, but what is clear is Grey’s response to the presence of Celia on a pedal cycle was totally disproportionate and ultimately found to be unlawful, resulting in Celia’s untimely and needless death. I hope it is a stark reminder to all road users to take care and be considerate of each other.

^ That's from an article on the subject and what I agree with. At the end of the day she acted aggressively and harshly, I don't see what having a physical disability nor partial sightedness have to do with that and how they would be mitigating factors to her actions. She wasn't too bloody partially sighted to see a bike approaching was she? So what relevance would it have to road traffic.

Her actions directly resulted in the death of another person. That's grounds for manslaughter. The fact that some people can relate and empathise with her means piss all.

Did she push?

Not seen anything to suggest she pushed

MySugarBabyLove "So it could be argued that she had accidentally knocked into the cyclist and he had fallen off his bike. That’s clearly not what happened but there are circumstances in which that could have happened."

His bike? The cyclist was a 77 year old woman, not a man.

I don't think she felt threatened by the cyclist. Have you seen the video? It was clearly the other way around.

Here’s the Government doc july2020.
Think it’s clear Cambs council might need to read this and reconsider their design strategy.
for all those who like a bit of research and stats