Forum menu
Gary Hart
Not entirely sure you can use that as a valid example. He didn't just "fall asleep" at the wheel - he'd been on a sex chat line all night and been awake for (something like) 40 hours. He failed to brake at all. Which would seem to suggest he didn't just nod off!
He got five years, not ten.
He later blamed "fate" saying all he did was fell asleep, and the matter that it was on a train line and two trains were about to pass must have been a fluke.
Absolute bollocks of a story, just like crazy lady and her "may have made light contact" with the poor cyclist.
I'm not sure if its totally relevant here but in common law there is something called the eggshell skull rule. Meaning, if you punch someone and hope merely to hurt them but it transpires they have a medical condition (like a thin skull) and they die, this does not absolve you of responsibility.
I.e. you're liable as a defendant for uncommon and unforeseeable reactions to an intentional tort (deliberate harm). Hence why its a good idea not to punch someone at all unless you really have no choice.
I'm not sure it applies in a legal sense to the facts here but to my mind it does go some way to explaining why you're going to be charged if your actions have consequences (including that you didn't expect) but not charged if, lucky for you as a perpetrator, they didn't.
In this case, it seems the actions were even more irresponsible to me anyway- it was actually totally foreseeable that lunging at someone on a bike next to a busy road could force them into the road in front of a car.
In summary, you face the actual consequences of your actions and not the expected consequences or the consequences that might have happened the other 99 out of 100 times.
On criminal law it's the "but for" test.
'but for the actions of the defendant, would the result have occurred?' If yes, the result would have occurred in any event, the defendant is not liable.
If the answer is no, the defendant is liable as it can be said that their action was a factual cause of the result.
The Hart case was notable, because the length of barrier protecting the railway bridge was deemed not to have been a contributaory factor. Then quietly, over the following years, the length of all barriers over railways was extended for further protection from a similar event.
Perhaps in this case one might see some more signage to state what is and is not a shared use cycle route. Whilst the actions of the convicted clearly led to the death, the width of the route and hence, design characteristics, must have played some role. How much?
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/auriol-grey-jailed-shouted-cyclist-pavement-b2292880.html
Jail for swearing at a cyclist to ‘get off the f****** pavement’? It’s just not right (and I ride a bike)
The cycling equivalence of "I'm not racist, I've got black friends".
According to the BBC reporting, it may have been OK to push her into the road if it was not a shared use footpath. Maybe just me.
According to the BBC reporting, it may have been OK to push her into the road if it was not a shared use footpath. Maybe just me.
No, even other cyclists (at least I assume they cycle on a cycling forum but maybe I'm reading too much into that...) are implying the same thing.
Edit: it was the Cycling UK forum but it got deleted pretty quickly so the link didn't work. Basically said "I see the cyclist was riding on the pavement in an unlawful manner"
I don't think the BBC reporting of the verdict is terribly helpful here. As TroutWrestler pointed out, she actually admitted touching the cyclist.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64747184
She said she "may have unintentionally put" out her hand to protect herself. Ms Grey believed she had made light contact with Mrs Ward.
What we can be sure of from the footage is that we don't see any contact between the two. But what we do see is everything up to the point the cyclist falls into the road when the 'potential contact point' is just off-camera. Given that there is no suggestion that the 'light contact' occurred after the lady was hit by the car this is absolutely unequivocal proof that the contact caused her to fall off her bike. In other words: She pushed her into the road. That is why she was convicted of manslaughter.
I’ve just been walking on the coast path in Cornwall. If it wasn’t for the amount of steps I might have gone for a cheeky bike ride. I see no difference between what’s happened and Rodney rambler taking umbrage forcing me off the cliff edge.
The area by the red fence doesn't look suitable for shared use to me, too many obstructions.
However, 2 wrongs don't make a right!
All councils really should be using this Sustrans book as their planning bible and routinely checking non-motorised routes .
No, even other cyclists (at least I assume they cycle on a cycling forum but maybe I’m reading too much into that…) are implying the same thing.
Yep weird concept that daring to ride a bike on the pavement is perceived to be so heinous a crime that causing someone’s death by pushing them into the road is less heinous.
All councils really should be using this Sustrans book as their planning bible and routinely checking non-motorised routes .
That's way out of date. Government guidance is here and adhering to that is what defines the funding that is granted. Active Travel England are also providing a much needed oversight role now.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-120
The challenge of course is that some / many councillors are also inherently anti-cyclist and they have to attend community events where the rabid old fools that turn up to these things routinely assure the councillors that the greatest threat to life at the moment is wayward cyclists.
That is a much better document. Probably best to get every councillor on an hours ride around their community to see what it's like!
Given that there is no suggestion that the ‘light contact’ occurred after the lady was hit by the car this is absolutely unequivocal proof that the contact caused her to fall off her bike.
This. There was contact. The only time the contact could have occured coincided with the moment the cyclist veered/fell sharply into the road.
To imagine that the contact and the 'veer/fall' were coincidental is ludicrous.
So regardless of the intent, the defendant pushed the cyclist into the road.
I think she would of got off far more leniently if following her actions she’d shown an ounce of concern. Instead she left a woman dead in the road, a woman she was directly responsible for killing, and went off to buy her groceries
For that alone she deserves every day she spends in jail..
Another thought – Auriol Grey does not look like one of life’s winners. I know it’s just jumping to conclusions from appearance, and the cctv audio but I’m not anticipating her defence council will have been all that. Would a smart, all together middle aged bloke with an expensive lawyer team be starting a 3 year imprisonment tonight? I’m not convinced.
I think you are doing the KC a disservice. She's been a Barrister since 1983 and a QC (now KC) for 20 years. Her job was to represent the defendant's case and put forward her mitigation no matter how shit it was. The Judge's job is to apply the correct weight to that. The KC doesn't get the luxury to say "I told Ms Grey that the case against her was pretty strong and she might want to consider the benefits of a guilty plea and strong public statements of remorse" nor does she have the option to come on here and say "my client was a pretty spiteful character and I'm not losing any sleep over her conviction". She will likely have dealt with others convicted of manslaughter who she perceived were a greater risk that Ms Grey and so I can understand why she would suggest appealing the sentence.
To be honest I've no idea why a couple of people here feel its necessary to comment on the defendant's physical appearance. Even if she didn't have disabilities it would be undermining any argument you wanted to pose.
I don't think the media and spokespeople can win with you lot - if they mention the question shared use you jump on it as "what does it matter" if they call it a pavement you get irate (FWIW I think a message that even if its a pavement you will get convicted for attacking cyclists is a good one!) and when the cop says (paraphrasing) "I know you will all go mental in the comments but..." you criticise him too.
If anyone thinks this is the natural actions of a person acting out of fear then I can only assume you have never accidentally startled a pedestrian when on your bike? Because in my experience they leap away from you, make a lot of noise, then once out your way and have a chance to think make their smart comments, suggestions about buying a bell or hurl abuse at you. The reflex is to move away from a perceived hazard not towards it. The judge will have seen enough CCTV in his life to know this too.
Terrible that the cyclist was killed in the incident, but I also have empathy for the disabled woman, who appears to be spending life in social isolation and this event and her sentence will also have a profound affect upon her.
As previously said, there are no winners in this only sadness for everyone concerned
^^ Got to agree there.
I see The Maul have let The Express do the heavy lifting on this one.
Amazing how they can use such few words and a couple of inverted commas to such malignant effect. God forbid what they have written inside the rag itself. I despair.
It comes back to the need for much better cycling infrastructure in this country. Why do we hand over so much free public space for people who want to use a car?
The reflex is to move away from a perceived hazard not towards it.
not entirely true, hence why we have the fight or flight reflex. Some people will react to perceived threat, danger or being scared with aggression. It’s a crap situation all round and I have sympathy for all three parties. Primarily with the lady who lost her life and the driver of the vehicle that hit her.
Walking away and showing no remorse for what she did are the key damming outcomes in my opinion. Other than being in shock the former is indefensible and cowardly. To simply go on and do your weekly shop is the icing on the cake. All in my opinion of course.
My final word is that for a pensioner attempting to stay healthy and independent, the pavement is likely the safest choice. Our car is king culture has gone beyond a joke.
My final word is that for a pensioner attempting to stay healthy and independent, the pavement is likely the safest choice. Our car is king culture has gone beyond a joke.
+1 this. I've seen that DC 40mph ring road in Huntingdon and I'd never touch it with a push bike, and I'm a super confident road rider.
The Daily Mail have done a sob story piece on the murderer, too. I won't link it. The comments are predictably full of vitriol toward bicycle users.
That Independent article is terrible. "Jail for shouting at a cyclist on the pavement"?? WTF! Did he not even attempt to read the judges comments?
A Spectator article about this popped up on my feed.
What an utterly vile and inflammatory regurgitation of bile.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/cyclists-have-been-given-a-licence-to-ride-on-the-pavement/
That ^ is a vile article
However we ought reflect on a comment she made
Anyone who lives in urban areas where motorists, cyclists and pedestrians have to coexist will see encounters such as these practically every day. They will also be aware that the recommended Dutch etiquette, where the least powerful take precedence over the more powerful – so cars cede to cyclists, who cede to pedestrians – is rarely in evidence. Now, cyclists will doubtless be even more convinced that the law is on their side.
As responsible cyclists (STW) we really should be making every (every) effort to be absolutely courteous to pedestrians. That means slowing down to walking space - 3mph - to pass peds. Or just outright stopping. Slowing from 20mph progress to 10mph is not courteous. That's akin to a driver giving us 1m space instead of 1.5. It's not enough. Small example, but you get the point.
That ^ is a vile article
Shoving a cyclist under a car could get me sent to jail! Bloody cyclists!!
FFS.
As responsible cyclists (STW) we really should be making every (every) effort to be absolutely courteous to pedestrians. That means slowing down to walking space – 3mph – to pass peds. Or just outright stopping. Slowing from 20mph progress to 10mph is not courteous. That’s akin to a driver giving us 1m space instead of 1.5. It’s not enough. Small example, but you get the point.
I agree 100%, but I doubt in this particular instance that a 77-year old woman on a folding bike was going for the local Strava record.
There was plenty of space on that pavement for both people to pass without conflict.
That Spectator article is being jumped on by cyclists on Twitter unsurprisingly.
https://mobile.twitter.com/spectator/status/1632657808175841280
As responsible cyclists (STW) we really should be making every (every) effort to be absolutely courteous to pedestrians. That means slowing down to walking space – 3mph – to pass peds. Or just outright stopping. Slowing from 20mph progress to 10mph is not courteous. That’s akin to a driver giving us 1m space instead of 1.5. It’s not enough. Small example, but you get the point.
No.
That's the bloody awful "collective responsibility" shit which gets pedalled out routinely and the idea that just because someone once saw one cyclist on a pavement or jumping a red light or without lights that somehow all cyclists are equally culpable.
I mean, the standard "don't be a dick" argument is fine; the idea that just because another cyclist somewhere else was a dick that I am equally deserving of a close pass, some abuse, a shove into traffic is absolutely not.
You can walk down the street without shoving a pensioner on a mobility scooter into traffic; you can therefore walk down the street without shoving a cyclist, an e-scooterist or a bunch of annoying kids hanging around outside a shop, no matter how irritating they may be.
As responsible cyclists (STW) we really should be making every (every) effort to be absolutely courteous to pedestrians. That means slowing down to walking space – 3mph – to pass peds. Or just outright stopping. Slowing from 20mph progress to 10mph is not courteous. That’s akin to a driver giving us 1m space instead of 1.5. It’s not enough. Small example, but you get the point.
Absolutely agree with this, although I appreciate that others don't.
The version of the footage I watched was a report on the BBC News site. At around 30 seconds some bloke shoots past the reporter on his bike rather too fast and too close (presumably similarly close to the camera team); not a great example.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64824436
As responsible cyclists (STW) we really should be making every (every) effort to be absolutely courteous to pedestrians. That means slowing down to walking space – 3mph – to pass peds. Or just outright stopping. Slowing from 20mph progress to 10mph is not courteous. That’s akin to a driver giving us 1m space instead of 1.5. It’s not enough. Small example, but you get the point.
I personally do so - and agree with the direction of your argument. Smiles, waves and politeness helps the world spin more happily - whether on foot, bike or vehicle.
However, like wearing helmets, this is something I have no influence over and no responsibility over for other individuals.
I would also say that the evidence is clear - that more drivers of vehicles are more likely to break the law and highway code, and that they have a much greater impact when collisions occur. Today's example of such behaviour:
https://road.cc/content/news/lawless-motorists-cycle-lane-see-bollards-return-299747
you don’t think someone who kills someone else should be punished?
That's outcome based sentencing - what she did or didn't do is the same regardless of chance.
If you look from the other side someone does a close pass and a cyclist comes off.. by some remarkable chance and unknown to either party someone fly tipped a mattress and a load of mulch the day/week before and they are miraculously unhurt... or someone fly tipped a 8' long sharpened stake that goes through their head
In this we now have 2x manslaughter if they dumped the sharpened stake...
You can view the same with razor wire and stakes on trails... just because someone didn't die doesn't change what they did...
As responsible cyclists (STW) we really should be making every (every) effort to be absolutely courteous to pedestrians.
Cycling home a couple of weeks ago I was cut up by a driver and had to hit the brakes to avoid a collision. Just a little further up the road a lady with toddler and pushchair were waiting to cross at the zebra crossing.
As I had already slowed down, I stopped to allow them to cross when a car drove into my back wheel forcing me forwards narrowly missing the pushchair. Fortunately, no injuries or damage to the bike.
How the driver missed my Trace R on daybright setting is now in the hands of the Police. My guess is that he was on the phone.
As responsible cyclists (STW) we really should be making every (every) effort to be absolutely courteous to pedestrians.
Doesn't take me any effort at all.
"a little further up the road a lady with toddler and pushchair were waiting to cross at the zebra crossing.
As I had already slowed down, I stopped to allow them to cross "
erm.......because otherwise you would have just cycled into them? Surely you would have stopped whatever speed you were doing? I know you only have to give way by law if they are actually on the crossing but as they were waiting.....
…….because otherwise you would have just cycled into them?
If I’m being honest, due to just having a near miss with the car that cut me up my mind wasn’t as focused as maybe it should have been and stopping to let the pedestrians cross gave me a few seconds to calm down.
The lady joked afterwards that it would have been better for everyone if I’d just carried on.
Before making judgement, you really need all of the facts or witnessed the event to understand. To claim that I would have cycled into a mother and toddler is way off the mark.
"Before making judgement, you really need all of the facts or witnessed the event to understand"
You provided all of the facts first time around, or clearly enough for me to relate to anyway (probably because I've had similar happen to myself...)
Good point about being in shock after a near miss, always good to stop for a minute or two to collect your thoughts.
You provided all of the facts first time around
Come now. It was an anecdote, not a witness statement in preparation for cross-examination by The Prosecution.
erm…….because otherwise you would have just cycled into them? Surely you would have stopped whatever speed you were doing? I know you only have to give way by law if they are actually on the crossing but as they were waiting…..
...the OP had no obligation to stop. What's your point?
Either the highway code applies or it doesn't, which is it?
The highway code isn't law. But, from the govt website:
Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. Drivers and riders should give way to pedestrians waiting to cross and MUST give way to pedestrians on a zebra crossing
So yes the OP had an obligation to stop but would not of broken the law if he hadn't. The highway code applies as does the law.
My point such as it was, was only that assuming the OP hadn't been cut up by a car he would not of stopped.
As responsible cyclists (STW) we really should be making every (every) effort to be absolutely courteous to pedestrians.
I was making the point that by being courteous led to a situation which could have had a completely different outcome. Fortunately I didn’t receive any injuries from being struck by a car and my front wheel narrowly missing the pushchair carrying a baby.
Thankfully, not like the tragic outcome of the incident in the OP.
The highway code isn’t law.
The bits in capitals are.
would not of
"have"
If the highway code rule says MUST or MUST NOT it's law.
The relevant law is quoted underneath.
e.g.
Rule 69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD schedule 3 part 3, schedule 7 part 4, schedule 9 parts 4 and 6, schedule 13 part 6, schedule 14 part 2
Jeebus H Christ are you lot quibbling over the HWC and stopping for Peds at a crossing? Did you not read the first page?
Anyway back on the actual topic, I'm honestly surprised a custodial sentence was handed down and TBH glad. The tabloid froth will subside the untimely death of someone's Wife/Mum/etc isn't in anyway made up for, but at least a wrong has been recognised.
Hopefully it sends a message to those wandering about fuelled by DM rage, to wait a moment before barging their righteous way into a manslaughter charge...
She'll be out with most of her 50s ahead of her and a story to tell. Hopefully she gets access to anger management councillors inside.
Hopefully it sends a message to those wandering about fuelled by DM rage, to wait a moment before barging their righteous way into a manslaughter charge…
Totally agree with this and I do think this applies to public life in general, not just disputes that happen to involve a bike. I haven't seen the judges reasoning (though I'm sure its available somewhere) but I do wonder if he or she passed the sentence they did because they're tired of seeing this sort of thing happening due to turbo charged media/internet hate campaigns infecting all of our lives.
Just seen this, the judge's summing up remarks.
"You have been convicted of manslaughter after a re-trial. You gave no evidence at trial one or two. In broad terms, the issue at trial was whether what took place might have been an accident, self-defence or unlawful violence. You were convicted unanimously by the jury.
"Most of what took place was captured on camera footage. You were walking on the pavement. You resented the presence of an oncoming cyclist. The footage shows you shouting aggressively and waving your left arm. You do not stop, slow down or move to one side. You are territorial about the pavement and not worried for your own safety. After careful thought, I concluded these actions are not explained by your disabilities.
"The court heard evidence from a number of witnesses, and I found William Walker to be reliable and thoughtful. He is a cyclist and driver. He said that you and Mrs Ward appeared to have come to a halt in front of each other and you made a lateral sweeping movement with your left arm which was directed at Mrs Ward. He said “it either made contact or she recoiled and fell”. She fell into the busy ring road where she was killed by a passing car driven by Carla Money.
"This was, I think, a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians that allowed them to go around the busy ring road. The vital point is this: I am sure you knew cyclists used that path and you were not taken by surprise or in fear for your safety. The path at the point of collision 2.4 metres wide.
"I have considered the evidence about eyesight and the CCTV footage and visual impairment was not a factor in this incident.
"You and Mrs Ward both welcomed the safety of the pavement. She because she was an elderly cyclist and you because of your disabilities. Consideration for other road users is the lesson of this tragic case. We are all road users, whether as motorists, cyclists or on foot.
"I have been referred to the guidelines on unlawful act manslaughter issued by the Sentencing Council and have heard submissions from both parties.
"In terms of the guidance, looking at these matters in the round, culpability C is made out, but towards the lower end of the scale.
"A starting point of four years seems just, based on my finding that the sweep of your arm was an intentional act but being reckless as to whether harm would be caused.
"I reject the submission that this is best framed in terms of category D for reasons I have indicated."
Aggravating factors
"The vulnerability of Mrs Ward who was on a bike.
"The effect on Mrs Carla Money (in so far as her first statement extends). Her enduring distress is entirely foreseeable."
Matters reducing seriousness and personal mitigation
"You offered assistance at the scene, but you were turned away by others. But, on the other hand, you then left before police arrived and went off to do shopping. You were evasive when police traced you and told lies in interview.
"You have no convictions or cautions or reprimands. You are 49 years old. This stands to your credit.
"Your medical history and significant disabilities would have crushed many but you have endured all that in a commendable way. Until now have demonstrated a positive lifestyle and I have no doubt that over the years you have endured all kinds of difficulties when going around the town centre which may have made you angry on this occasion. In any event, your prior good character stands to your credit.
"Is there a mental disorder bearing on these issues? I do not think so.
"As to learning difficulties, there are none. Much was made in cross examination of what witnesses referred to as a “childlike face”. In fact you went to a mainstream school and denied in interview having any impairment of intellect. That is not decisive, in my view and I put it to one side. Both experts suggested that the childhood surgery resulted in “a degree of cognitive impairment”. (In my view, these difficulties do not bear on your understanding of what is right and wrong and what is appropriate or not). I should say that I saw the video your police interviews, I read the character statements detailing your lifestyle. I have also read the pre-sentence report and medical evidence and have learned as much about you as I can.
"Remorse. There has not been a word about remorse from you until the pre-sentence report was prepared, and here there is a reference to remorse which has never been passed on to the Ward family. In this regard I accept your counsel’s explanation that this may be a function of your disabilities and do not hold it against you.
"There has been a delay in getting this case to trial. This is a mitigating factor I must take into account in your favour.
"I also take into account the particular difficulties, occasioned by your disabilities, that you will face in prison and when you emerge.
"Balancing all these considerations, the proper sentence is three years imprisonment."