“Hostile and aggressive” pedestrian found guilty of killing 77-year-old cyclist in pavement cycling dispute

The Association of Chief Police Officers - now NPCC.  Issued the same statement.

As a elderly lady - I'm sure she would have recieved the same discretion, even without the utter ambiguity of the path markings.  That HMann put up.

https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/support-for-police-discretion-when-...

If only the road was a bit wider...

And I was once driven at aggressively and shouted at by a motorist for not using a shared path (well, in fact, it wasn't even a shared path, but he thought it was because it was further back up the road).  Sometimes you really are damned whatever you do.

cmedred wrote:

Is there some reason pedestrians are held to a higher standard than motorists?

Yes. Because most police, magistrates, judges and juries drive cars and are thinking "I'm a safe competent driver and I often speed, have lapses of concentration and don't see pedestrians, cyclists and red lights myself so that could have been me".

Bizarre. Are you so conditioned to car use that pedestrians and cyclists must fight each over scraps of pavement?  What about punishing the people that created conditions of conflict in the first place? Or heaven forbid the council taking some action in memory of the lady who died.

Shes done herself no favours but manslaughter seems a pretty extreme charge compared to what drivers get away with every single day.

I don't think anyone wins from a severe sentence.  She's ill and likely prison will exacerbate her conditions.  I'm also personally unconvinced there isn't mental illness either.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Shes done herself no favours but manslaughter seems a pretty extreme charge compared to what drivers get away with every single day.

Really? What charge would you have gone with then?

It's an extraordinary charge. Would love to see the CPS logic/process behind it. I'm guessing it's because it's so rare that a pedestrian kills anyone and it was the only available charge. Would be great to see the same approach taken with drivers who kill in aggravated circumstances, e.g. road rage, punishment passes, etc.

How can the council be not sure? Shows really poor process management.

There will probably be maps showing as a shared route and maps showing as not.

Reading likes putting NO CYCLING signs on their mapped cycle routes.

There is a map (here - and below). It's not very clear, but it does seem the pavement was not shared use at that point. However, there is a shared use sign further up the road and no indication on the ground that the cycle path has finished. There are no 'cyclists dismount' or other signage. So it's entirely possible that you would think this was a shared use cycle path.

But arguing the toss about this is pointless, as the shared use cycle path on the other side of the road is exactly the same - it is no wider, nor does it have any other discerning features. This is why I find it disappointing that the police chose to begin their statement with some vague sentence about everyone having their own views about cyclists, pavements and cycleways.

There's an argument for better infrastructure, or roads that cyclists feel safe to ride on, but we are stuck with what we have in this case. I would not begrudge a child or an elderly cyclist or a cyclist of any age, the option to ride carefully on the pavement if they are afraid to ride on the road. Especially when that pavement is *exactly* the same as council sanctioned 'cycling infrastructure'.

Terrible. In my humble opinion why blame the infrastructure. From the video it was clearly the person on the bike making a decision to turn into incoming traffic regardless of what occurred on shared path. It looks like a person on a bicycle with poor control. It was a failed move that resulted in disaster. Don't blame the foul-mouthed pedestrian in this case, even though the person's behavior was not exactly deserving of praise.

Wow, are you for real ?

The more I watch it, the clearer I get the impression that the pedestrain actually pushes the cyclist at the end of the video. There is no other explanation why she would suddely turn and in such a manner.

Blackthorne83 wrote:

Terrible. In my humble opinion why blame the infrastructure. From the video it was clearly the person on the bike making a decision to turn into incoming traffic regardless of what occurred on shared path. It looks like a person on a bicycle with poor control. It was a failed move that resulted in disaster. Don't blame the foul-mouthed pedestrian in this case, even though the person's behavior was not exactly deserving of praise.

Good heavens. Even by the victim-blaming standards of some of our resident bridge dwellers that's extraordinary. Even in this abbreviated video it can clearly be seen that the poor woman is beginning to fall off her bike into the road, whether impelled by a push from the defendant or not only she will know. Do you think that if there was a scintilla of evidence that she was voluntarily turning off the pavement the defence wouldn't have raised it as mitigation? If that's how you interpret evidence I hope to goodness you're never called to sit on a jury.

What a stupid, nasty, inappropriate comment.

Blackthorne83 wrote:

it was clearly the person on the bike making a decision to turn into incoming traffic regardless

There is no evidence in that video to support your extraordinary claim.

Blackthorne83 wrote:

Terrible. In my humble opinion why blame the infrastructure. From the video it was clearly the person on the bike making a decision to turn into incoming traffic regardless of what occurred on shared path. It looks like a person on a bicycle with poor control. It was a failed move that resulted in disaster. Don't blame the foul-mouthed pedestrian in this case, even though the person's behavior was not exactly deserving of praise.

Ban this sick filth.  (No I'm not joking). What a tosser.

I made some bad word choices that sounded like victim blaming. I regret it, and it was not intended. Like I said, terrible tragedy. My initial assumption was if no physical contact occurred, it appears the cyclist abruptly turned her handebars and entered the street. Having watched it again it seems more plausible to extrapolate that she was in fact pushed as the mad woman goes out of frame, which would explain the sudden loss of agency, both legs still on the pedals.

You're forgetting also, the court could see the entire video. It's rightfully been cut for us here. They had more evidence to base their verdict on.

Have you read the story? She was found guilty.

No doubt there will be a sob story, but if she was capable enough to be out unacompanied, then she's capable enough to take responsibility for the consequences of her actions...