Forum menu
Must admit. I'm not sure about this one. Given the standard of dangerous behaviour of a lot of car drivers towrds cyclists & the lack of prosecution thereof, it's a bit surprising that this ended up with a conviction.
I've got Tea & Kittens filtering out the Fail & Sexpress ( https://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/), so I'm assuming it's this story: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64512139
The court was told police could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway.
That's the key I guess, along with rule #1.
You can't prosecute a pedestrian with dangerous walking though, whereas the driving offenses sit in parallel with the manslaughter ones to allow a driving ban as part of the punishment.
Seems the ped tried to attack someone and they died, so manslaughter is fairly proovable
I'm assuming that's not a shared use path, it's way too narrow and has little markings around the lamppost (I'm also aware that some shared use paths are in awful condition so it might be)
That, and the video showing it happen.
Looking at the video again, it looks like she may have pushed her, but that is not completely clear.
Grey left prior to emergency services arriving and carried on to Sainsbury's.
This bit carries the most weight.
I like how she described the 77yr old on the shopper as "travelling fast"
i wonder what she would have had to say in a consultation about putting a proper cycle lane along that road? full support, im sure.
you don’t think someone who kills someone else should be punished? 🤔😳Must admit. I’m not sure about this one.
you don’t think someone who kills someone else should be punished
From the description of the case, she is only said to have gestured in a hostile and aggressive manner.
Watching the video again it's pretty clear that something shifts the cyclists weight sharply to the right just as she passes the pedestrian. The cyclist steers quicky right but still falls into the road. I can't imagine anything other than a shove would do that
Looking at the viseo again, it looks like she may have pushed her, but that is not completely clear.
That was my thought too - hard to say either way for certain.
Grey left prior to emergency services arriving and carried on to Sainsbury’s.
And that's just arsehole behaviour.
You'd hope that the reasons for a 77 year old lady to be riding on the pavement (shared or not) and not on the road, where they have every right to be, are indeed looked at.
In terms of riding on the pavement, how likely is it that an elderly lady is hooning it along, popping a wheelie? It's always great to see anyone out on a bike, for all the reasons, but this appears to be a case of someone causing another persons death by being unreasonable at best, and downright nasty at worst. And then going shopping while they died.
unless you were in the court & heard all the evidence, I don’t think you can really comment tbh. Whatever was said was obviously enough for the jury to find her guilty!From the description of the case, she is only said to have gestured in a hostile and aggressive manner
Whatever was said was obviously enough for the jury to find her guilty!
Sentencing tomorrow though so I await the standard slap on the wrist, comment about it not being appropriate to send a person such as her to jail.... ☹️
The cyclist is straight as she is parallel with the nutter, and then turns sharply as she goes past. I think its pretty safe to say some sort of shove / grab or physical contact was made by the nutter. As it looks like the jury agree.
And to cause such a thing and then go shopping shows a staggering level of nastiness.
She should've got in her car before killing the cyclist.. would've got away with it then
So, manslaughter for a pedestrian and yet a car driver has not been charged with anything following this:
https://twitter.com/AlanMyles8/status/1629990008064036865?s=20
Doesn't she walk badly for 49 - good grief. Knackers yard for her. Shocking behavior
Usual excuse of not being able to accurately view the driver's face, I'm assuming, compared to a fairly clear video in the pedestrian's case. If only cars had number plates and all that guff. Shocking driving, obviously.
Doesn’t she walk badly for 49 – good grief.
Try reading the article before spouting stuff like that...
In police interview, Grey, who has cerebral palsy, told officers she was partially sighted
...confirmation that no action is being taken against this driver
Exactly.
At a guess: "Oh oops sorry! I didn't know I hit him." "Oh ok, off you go."
Jesus, that Merc one is utterly pissboiling.
Yep. As a cyclist who supports hunt sabs, my facebook feed is now filled with links to videos of either drivers or fox hunters acting like violent, vile psychopaths. Its not doing my mental health any good whatsoever.
Back to the Cambridgeshire incident, note the language from the Detective "everyone will have their own views on cyclists, pavements and cycleways but..." A little hint that you might be excused for some sympathy for the perpetrator.
The fact she left the scene before the emergency services arrives marks her out as someone who deserve zero sympathy from me.
Shocking behaviour by convicted 49 year old woman, the shove and then carrying on their merry way to Sainsbury's before emergency services arrived to treat the 77 year woman cyclist. May she be given a harsh sentence tomorrow (2nd March) and rot behind bars.
That car/cyle video with no further police action, what the flipperty flip!?!?!?!
That car/cyle video with no further police action, what the flipperty flip!?!?!?!
Friend/relative of a police officer...?
There's this current one as well:
https://road.cc/content/news/driver-who-rammed-teenage-cyclist-bike-avoids-jail-299641
Basically a driver gets angry about a cyclist clipping her wing mirror, pursues him and his friend, then rams his friend off his bike. She then drives off but later returns to the scene.
Suspended sentence.
Imagine that the other way around - if a driver clipped a cyclist, the cyclist pursued her, and hit her in the face with their D-lock... They'd be in jail in seconds.
Yeah, if there's contact (and there probably was) it's just out of the CCTV's frame and therefore cannot be definitively said to have taken place hence there's a lack of evidence on that point and they've counted on sympathy to get her off.
However the aggressive gesturing and effing at a stranger certainly can be seen, and demonstrates malicious intent and aggression that "directly contributed" to a death... The mitigations they cite when they let her off tomorrow will be interesting.
For me this was telling:
The court was told police could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway.
You'd think such things would be pretty clear cut, either it is a shared use pavement or it's not. Not that either would excuse shoving strangers into traffic, but such vagueness from the plod suggests they weren't so keen on bothering with this one (shocka)...
Having lived in Huntingdon briefly in the distant past, the locals treated many of the roads like a bit of a racetrack, I certainly planned my routes to avoid the worst spots and used pavements/semi-pedestrianised bits frequently, it wasn't a cycling friendly town (20 odd years ago), I doubt that's changed much.
You’d think such things would be pretty clear cut, either it is a shared use pavement or it’s not. Not that either would excuse shoving strangers into traffic, but such vagueness from the plod suggests they weren’t so keen on bothering with this one (shocka)…
Alternative view:
"They were on a bike" isn't mitigation for killing someone, and the police and court know that, and it's just the defense barrister trying to justify vigilante capital punishment against people cycling on pavements.
We'd be even less content with the justice system if the police had come to court saying "it's not a cycle path", because (unless the signage is very well hidden) it's not. But as it's a one way system clockwise round the town the alternative for cyclists going that way (north on the east side of the town center) is either to ride the whole way round, find a back street, or ride up the pavement.
Having lived in Huntingdon briefly in the distant past, the locals treated many of the roads like a bit of a racetrack, I certainly planned my routes to avoid the worst spots and used pavements/semi-pedestrianised bits frequently, it wasn’t a cycling friendly town (20 odd years ago), I doubt that’s changed much.
To be fair on the town, it's pretty good. The western side of the ringroad has a cycle path that links Brampton to Godmanchester, and on the eastern side there's several off road routes going radially from the town, and further routes linking the west of the town to the hospital / Brampton around the Northern edge where Aldi, Halfords etc are. But it just falls short on that section where this occurred that there isn't a way to get from Hartford up to Sainsburys without a bit of a detour (upto the bridge then turn right into the semi-pedestrianized / LTN bit, but a 77yr old isn't going to ride up a hill and down again for the sake of it).
My thoughts are for the poor driver who was absolutely blameless but still collided and killed an old lady on a bike. My guess is 200 hours community service, probably suspended on account of age and disability. And yes it does look as if she pushed her, but that would be hard to establish unless the car driver saw it (and who'd really be looking). Not pleading guilty and convicted of manslaughter (i.e., unlawful killing) won't have helped her case either.
I mean, 77 years old and on a bike. Not just any bike, but a small 20" folder. Hardly moving rapidly. The dual carriage way next to the pavement is no place for such a rider. RIP Celia.
EDIT: In the last example, she received a suspended custodial sentence and the maximum community service after pleading guilty, with 40 hours additional make-me-a-nice-person coaching. Lucky not to be incarcerated, but it is the maximum sentence in lieu of custodial. And if she fails to complete it in 12mo, she will go to prison. My hit and run driver received the same.
Shouting "get off the f*cking pavement" and waving your arm a bit isn't grounds for manslaughter tbh. It's normal interaction between humans.
This is just the po-po getting a conviction because they can. It's not great either way. I suspect (and hope) the sentence will be lenient.
The more worrying thing has been posted above - the police not prosecuting dangerous drivers in hit-and-runs.
waving your arm a bit isn’t grounds for manslaughter tbh
No, but pushing someone into traffic might be.
No, but pushing someone into traffic might be.
And nowhere in the video can you see that.
And furthermore, if YOU can see that, and I can't, then that's grounds for reasonable doubt.
And nowhere in the video can you see that.
And furthermore, if YOU can see that, and I can’t, then that’s grounds for reasonable doubt.
Firstly : No it's not. The standard of proof isn't "there must be perfect CCTV".
Secondly : Presumably there were witnesses.
Although even in the absence of a witness I'd say that CCTV is well beyond "reasonable doubt" that she was pushed.
She was convicted of unlawful killing without "malice aforethought". At a level of guilt "beyond reasonable doubt". In a Crown Court. That is not just the police making up the prosecution numbers and "on the balance of probabilities". I am sure more evidence was presented in court.
I like how she described the 77yr old on the shopper as “travelling fast”
From thee vid it didnt look like it, and i doubt a 77 yr old was bombing along at breakneck speed. More like at or slightly above walking pace.
I like how she described the 77yr old on the shopper as “travelling fast”
I like how she described herself as partially sighted as well.
Shouting “get off the f*cking pavement” and waving your arm a bit isn’t grounds for manslaughter tbh. It’s normal interaction between humans.
It shouldn't be be a normal interaction. That's what causes this kind of bollocks to get normalised and drivers think they own the road
looks like it happened here
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Newtown+Centre,+Nursery+Rd,+Huntingdon+PE29+3RJ/ @52.3318311,-0.1798557,3a,75y,126.29h,83.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sP7suqAnP9IbPAk_hiAISlg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x4877dd3af90e6207:0x6c5afc5c6cd0bca4!8m2!3d52.331676!4d-0.1790037!16s%2Fg%2F1tjhx52s?hl=en
which is on a fairly busy bit of one-way system. I can understand why the cyclist was on the pavement, but it is very much a pavement and not a cycle path - not sure why the police made the "uncertain" statement they did.
but it is very much a pavement and not a cycle path – not sure why the police made the “uncertain” statement they did.
As @thisisnotaspoon says above, to dissuade the general public from such similar antics.
Is/is not a cycle path is irrelevant. There are countless examples of a shared foot/cycle paths that just end, sometimes with something pointless like a "cyclists dismount" sign, sometimes just assuming the cyclist will teleport to the next bit of shite "infrastructure" that has been provided [s]for their benefit[/s] to keep them out of the way of the important car drivers.
General rule within the law is to turn a blind eye to pavement riding unless it is outright insane like pulling wheelies through a crowded shopping centre. An elderly cyclist on a shopper doing 8-10mph along a pavement, let them be.
The other side of the road looks like it is a shared use path though (even though it's way too narrow for a shared path!)
https://goo.gl/maps/y5ZdrrUWLtQ3nAKf9
(spin the camera around here to see the red fence)
I think it's just incredibly poorly signpostsed, seems to just end with no signs or warning or anythihng.
can understand why the cyclist was on the pavement, but it is very much a pavement and not a cycle path
The pavement on the other side of the road IS a sparsely signposted shared use pavement. Perhaps there are signs further up that just gave up? Perhaps the original plans stated shared use path along the road (not which side)?
EDIT HH beat me to it with his google route touring.
General rule within the law is to turn a blind eye to pavement riding unless it is outright insane like pulling wheelies through a crowded shopping centre. An elderly cyclist on a shopper doing 8-10mph along a pavement, let them be.
Yep
National Police Chiefs’ Council guidance on cycling on pavements.
"The guidance states: 'The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users.
Shouting “get off the f*cking pavement” and waving your arm a bit isn’t grounds for manslaughter tbh. It’s normal interaction between humans.
This is just the po-po getting a conviction because they can. It’s not great either way. I suspect (and hope) the sentence will be lenient.
My god you're a horrible bastard.
Anyway the legality of the cycling is irrelevant,causing a death by either pushing or forcing the change of direction deliberately into a busy road is unacceptable.