Manslaughter of a cyclist

I looked on the streetview and further up the road (same side of the road) there is a shared use sign, and i cant see any signs saying the route has finished by the point the incident occurs. That said there is nothing to say it is shared use at that point either.

”Miranda Moore KC, who said in mitigation for Grey that “she does not pose a risk or danger to the public”, stated she would be making an appeal against the sentence.”
Are cyclists not members of the public??!

Completely foreseeable that lunging at someone on a bike next to a busy road may have catastrophic consequences so punishment seems just to me. For once, actions have consequences.

I think this just speaks to a wider problem though, more than just cycling and really is just what seems like a total lack of respect in this country towards anyone doing anything in public that isn’t basically driving to your local tesco. I am sure without the constant drip of culture war vitriol in the media against cyclists this lady would not have felt like she had licence to act like she did.

One thing everybody is taking as ‘read’ is the car driver not being able to stop, The line of sight looks very good coming up to the scene from the BBC report – personally I’d have been looking ahead at any potential hazards and wobbly bike riders on narrow pavements always throw up red flags for me!

I don’t disagree with any of that and the publicly available CCTV is quite rightly cut off before the moment of impact but look at the orange car that passes before. It’s pretty close to the pavement and pretty fast – 30mph maybe. If there’s another car very close behind it (just “the flow of traffic”), it’s likely that the poor cyclist was simply thrown/pushed directly into it. The whole thing happens in a couple of seconds.

I’m genuinely not sure any driver would have seen a cyclist, and a pedestrian, anticipated any movement into the road by either of them and thought “I’ll reduce my speed at this point”. It all happens too quickly.

I really don’t like the tone of some of the messaging around this case though.

“police could not “categorically” state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway”
It doesn’t matter if the pavement is shared use or not, she shouldn’t have pushed the cyclist.

“Everyone will have their own views of cyclists on pavements and cycleways”
It doesn’t matter if people have views of cyclists on pavements or not, she shouldn’t have pushed the cyclist. This has more than a hint of victim blaming.

“The judge said that she had given a “dishonest account in interview” and there was “not a word about remorse until today”.”
That is the bit that really sticks for me. I’m glad she has been locked up.

I still can’t get my head around the fact that the guilty party is only 49 years old. I know she lists some medical issues but still, she looks about 65.

“Everyone will have their own views of cyclists on pavements and cycleways”

Yeah I thought the same as you franksinatra, especially this quote from the Detective^.

I have my own view of the local police. If you know what I mean.

Regarding the driver. I think the “cyclist approaching pedestrian on pavement” scenario might make the spider senses of some drivers tingle and lead to some extra caution slowing/moving over but this woman shouldn’t be penalised for not being some kind of super driver.

I have driven & cycled along that bit of road. It’s bloody horrible whether in a car or on a bike, to be honest.
There are numerous sets of lights, and each one seems to turn into a mini drag-race. Many people get in the wrong lane in the hope of getting slightly ahead, or getting the jump at the lights to ‘beat the queue’ and then if they are unable to, they barge across.

The ideal place to cycle assuming you are just trying to get ‘across’ Huntingdon would be through the high street but you are not allowed to cycle along the pedestrianised bit – so you either go all the way round, or risk getting into trouble through the pedestrian bit.

There is not really a suitable alternative route, such as ‘sticking to the back roads’ because there are no back roads that take you round.

Poor woman. RIP.

It doesn’t matter if the pavement is shared use or not, she shouldn’t have pushed the cyclist.

Quite.

Whether it’s shared use or not surely isn’t a defence against (allegedly) knocking a pensioner into traffic.

(allegedly) knocking a pensioner into traffic

I do think this is a rather important point. Unless I’m missing something this is not what she’s been convicted of, or even charged with. Yes – you could look at the video and make a damned good case for that’s what happened – but (again, unless I’ve missed something) her 3 year sentence is for being intimidating and arm wavy. Because that’s what’s she’s been convicted of.

To me that’s a very noteworthy and quite low bar. It’ll be very very interesting to if that correlates well into other incidents in the future – like for example a driver not actually hitting a cyclist but being aggressive enough with their horn and vehicle positioning to make a cyclist panic and come to harm.

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.

And finally finally – I’ve made this point before……if Auriol Grey’s actions had been identical but the consequences had been different by the sheer luck of a gap in traffic – i.e. not of her doing; what would you feel the punishment should have been? Not from a legal standpoint, but a moral one. I’m very much in the judge/punish the actions rather than the consequences camp – I’m still trying to work out if that means I think Grey should have got 3 years regardless of if a gap in the traffic saved the poor cyclist’s life or if the sentence in this case should have been more lenient. My thoughts for this go back to Gary Hart who you may remember fell asleep at the wheel of his Landrover and ended up in a ditch. A ditch full of inbound Intercity 125 and tragically 10 people died. He got ten years imprisonment. A freedom of information request discovered that a good number of other people (I forget the number, but it was in double figures) fell asleep at the wheel in the same month on UK roads and they fell off the road; only their ditch didn’t have a railway line in it and on one died. None of them were even prosecuted.

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 .
https://www.essexdesignguide.co.uk/media/1790/sustrans_handbook_for_cycle-friendly_design_11_04_14.pdf

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