To think Auriol Grey being jailed is not appropriate.

"Not only did you knock my confidence but a piece of me was lost. A small piece of the Carla everyone knew went that day.
"I no longer have a happy-go-lucky personality.
"I couldn't face speaking to people. Because of your selfish actions my children suffered, they lost their mum.
"Mummy didn't want to be around them or play with them. I struggled to get out of bed and was snappy.

The above words from the poor car driver. She goes on to say how her marriage has broken down following the impact the incident had on her personality and outlook, and her very young children are having to cope with divorced parents.

Auriol Gray wrecked more than one life. I can only hope she begins to realise the enormity of what she did and feels the guilt she ought to - but I won't hold my breath; I imagine her 'regret' is only about the fact she's banged up in jail.

Right decision. You can see she tried to intimidate and also push her. So clear!

WTF is wrong with some people. So many people hate cyclists.

It's shared use on the other side of the road. The council have said they don't know about the relevant side.

But even if it wasn’t a shared path, what she did was still terrible and it resulted in a woman’s death. No time for anyone defending her.

She’ll be out soon enough.

However the woman that died will still be dead and her family will be affected forever. The poor driver too.

While I think it's right that she has been charged the sentence seems wholly disproportionate given others who have killed with a punch have received shorter suspended sentences. I hope it is reduced on appeal.

I think she didn't get long enough. She pushed an cyclist off a shared path into the road, killing them... and her reaction was to walk off and do her shopping. Even if it had been a regular pavement, pushing someone into the road is out of order (putting it mildly). Her utter lack of remorse or sense of responsibility is terrifying.

That’s weird, even discrimination. Why aren’t they the same.
The laws in this country are ridiculous.

Thanks 007 😁 I was wondering about that.
As there’s no signs on that side and I thought why would they do it on both sides.
So cyclist was on the wrong pavement. As well as the one cycling past a reporter on the news last night. Think they need number plates, think we all need number plates these days.

Right to be there is completely irrelevant. We don't routinely kill people doing minor infractions

The court didn't find that she'd pushed her though.

@AGovernmentOfLawsAndNotOfMen those comments are misleading, because if a cyclist were convicted of manslaughter, then there is the potential for a higher sentence.

It's the actual crime one is convicted for which dictates the sentencing. Making it into a cyclist/pedestrian issue in that comment is confusing the issue

@BrigitteBond and I werent talking about the right to kill.
We were discussing whether its a shared footpath.

@Talia99 Thank you for that information.

I braced myself to look at the CCTV.
It was a push by a strong , solid, looking person..she hit the cyclist on the shoulder, sending her falling into the path of a car.

She admitted under police interview that she made 'light contact'. You can see on the video just as they're going out of shot that she gives her a bit of a shove.

The court doesn't determine a detailed narrative of the exact facts. It just decides guilty or not guilty.

Can't believe people are saying that pushing an elderly woman into the path of oncoming traffic, killing them, doesn't merit jail time. Is it just because she was on a bike?

Which comment, not sure I understand.

But again it's not that simple - the law doesn't work like that 'oh you killed with a single punch - off you pop with 2 years suspended'

Each case will to treated individually - case a - goes into town tanked up and finds someone outside a pub - randomly punches them and they die will be treated way differently from case b - jumped by 5 men, defends self, one is punched, falls and bangs head - dies.

The law acts on evidence and intent not just the end result

You just said "so cyclist was on the wrong pavement" in a thread discussing this particular case, sorry if I misunderstood

I assume the judge/jury heard all the evidence and made a balanced decision.
I assume the judge sentenced within the guidelines
I assume any appeal she makes will also be considered.

So you're saying the judge just didn't bother mentioning a deliberate push but did bother mentioning swearing?

Not very likely is it?

@AGovernmentOfLawsAndNotOfMen

At the end of the Times article on this case, it says 5 pedestrians were killed by cyclists in 2019, & that while there's a maximum sentence of 2 years for a cyclist who kills a pedestrian there's no maximum sentence for a pedestrian who kills a cyclist.
*
That’s weird, even discrimination. Why aren’t they the same.
The laws in this country are ridiculous.*

Sorry, it wasn't clear, I was referring to your comment (in bold) which was replying to someone else!

The Times article is misleading because the point is, a cyclist convicted of manslaughter could have just as long a sentence as a pedestrian convicted of manslaughter. I assume the article is referring to convictions for different crimes, which of course won't necessarily have the same sentencing guidelines.

It's not showing in bold, but I meant the comment between the *

@BrigitteBond commented that the footpath opposite is the one shared. I had previously commented that on Cambs website it shows part of the road /pavement as shared. I commented there’s a sign further up the road on the opposite side. @BrigitteBond commented that the shared path is the opposite side to the one the accident happened. I commented so the cyclist was on the wrong footpath.
Neither of us commented she therefore could rightly be pushed into the road.
We were discussing the confusion of use for the footpath as Cambs council have said on their website they are not going to put any identifying marks in the ground.

I haven’t made any judgement at all on the rights and wrongs of this case as I don’t know all the ins and outs of it. Just disgusted about councils lack of thought in terms of cyclist and pedestrian safety when it comes to shared footpaths .

Phew

As far as I am aware she has no cognitive issues - and I think a jail sentence was appropriate, but not the length of the sentence. I think her callousness in leaving the scene went against her - it was a horrible and uncaring thing to do. She must have known what happened - apparently she looked back and saw it. Did she think that there would be no repercussions?. However cyclists have hurt and even killed pedestrians in the past and haven't received custodial sentences, so I think hers is harsh.

The cyclist was at least 50% responsible for the accident. Both seemed to have had plenty of time to take evasive action/move out of the way/ stop - neither did. Auriol Grey ought not to have waved her hands so aggressively that she accidentally struck the cyclist; the cyclist ought not to have been riding at such a speed towards her.

I firmly believe that pavements are for pedestrians, and that cyclists should dismount and push their bikes if it is necessary for them to use them unless is is a designated shared pavement. Pedestrians are often injured by cyclists, most of whom don't take responsibility, but just ride off.

It was a dreadful thing to happen - but TBH the person I feel most sorry for is the driver of the car involved.

Got it
Thanks