“Shared-use path” signs to be put up after pedestrian’s “resentment” towards cyclist using pavement led to manslaughter

Irrational Pi wrote:

Sigh! This is still unhelpful and sloppy reporting. A shared use sign wouldn't have helped as unfortunately the lady who passed would have still been required to stop.

It was noted in court that at the point at which the incident occurred the pavement is 2.4 m wide. That is more than enough space to pass a pedestrian safely. Grey chose to stand in the middle of the pavement, shouting at the cyclist. Even then there was sufficient space to pass until Grey stepped towards Mrs Ward and pushed her.

I'm certainly not competent (and I'd say nobody who hasn't actually got professional expertise and has assessed Grey is) to pronounce on the extent to which Grey's disabilities influenced her actions. I don't recall her lawyers either at the trial or at the appeal putting forward that line of defence.

I would say it's absolute nonsense and totally unfair to blame the driver in this situation; she was proceeding along in a perfectly legal manner when someone was pushed off the kerb right in front of her, what exactly should she have done? Should all of us, drivers and cyclists, slow down if we see more than one pedestrian on the pavement and not overtake them until we can move fully into the opposite lane just in case one decides to push the other in front of us?

As a disabled person I don't associate that with being willing to endanger another human being by forcing them into a hazardous place. That behaviour is associated with being a sociopath, without concern for the wellbeing of people generally. If a person is such a public hazard surely it's not reasonable for the judge to allow them access to any public space..

The pavement may be 2.4m wide but what about the lamposts and signposts?  The usable width at the incident point is much less that 2.4m!

Screenshot below shows the exact signpost by which the incident occurred. It's taking up maybe 30 cm of lateral space, so there was still over two metres available. Given that the average person is less than 50 cm wide, the pedestrian and cyclist could have passed each other left shoulder to left shoulder with more than a metre of clear space in between. Whatever other mitigations can be raised, it can't seriously be claimed that there wasn't enough space for the two to pass safely.

I disagree.  Neither a pedestrian or a cyclist could simply pass through a 0.5m gap.  Each requires 1.0m each. So that leaves zero gap between them.  The signpost is a particular hazard and requires 0.5m of space to be passed safely particularly by a cyclist.  Why is the cyclist on the wrong side on the pavement?  I suggest that it is because of the signpost.  So that leaves a deficit of 0.5m.  Even then there is no margin for error by the party next to the road.  Further, all of that assumes that the two parties have a clear understanding of which side they are going to pass on.  They may both choose the same side.  I agree that many times people could pass each other without incident but that is not to say that they are being considerate to each other or that there is no risk at all. 

carefulrider wrote:

Neither a pedestrian or a cyclist could simply pass through a 0.5m gap.  Each requires 1.0m each. So that leaves zero gap between them.   

No, that leaves zero gap between the wide dynamic envelopes you have given each of them.  

Yes.  Zero gap between the absolute bare minimum reasonable envelopes (that have hard edges on both sides).  Then on to the question of agreeing to use those envelopes.  Is it really a crime to not to use those envelopes?  Shouldn't they pass on the left?  Shouldn't the party closer to the road be facing the oncoming traffic?

The cyclist is on the wrong side whatever way you look at it.  She should not force the pedestrian to move over.

The cyclist is reluctant to slow down or stop or cycle anywhere near the signpost.  She is determined to stay on the line that she considers that she is entitled to use regardless of whether that is the right side or if someone else is already on that line.

carefulrider wrote:

The cyclist is on the wrong side whatever way you look at it.  She should not force the pedestrian to move over.

The cyclist is reluctant to slow down or stop or cycle anywhere near the signpost.  She is determined to stay on the line that she considers that she is entitled to use regardless of whether that is the right side or if someone else is already on that line.

I have no problem with the concept that cyclists should be considerate of pedestrians if they are cycling on the pavement. But I don't know where you're getting your picture of this incident from. The only footage I am aware of doesn't give nearly enough information for you to make that judgement, as the cyclist only appears in it momentarily. There is also no 'right' (correct) side to use.   

Edited to add that the BBC video at 31 seconds gives a good impression of how much space there is: 

I agree that there is limited footage available to make a judgement.  However, that did not stop the court from making one!  Their judgement had just as many guesses and assumptions as mine.  However, it is irrefutable that Auriol Grey was on the pavement first so had an established line.  Yes I saw that BBC video.  I think that the cyclist is reckless in that video.  I would not cycle like that.  He could easily have totalled the news reporter or she could have nudged him into the road.  However, I would also say that any micro contact between Auriol Grey and Celia Ward probably would not have bothered this cyclist too much.  He is quite stable.  Mrs Ward looked very unstable to me, she lost control very easily.

The video does not show Grey moving towards Ward and does not show Grey pushing Ward into the road.  What it does show is Ward cycling far too close to Grey in an inconsiderate and reckless way.  She has poor control of her bicycle and is unstable.  She has a bag over one shoulder!  Who cycles like that?  Ward ignores Grey's warnings.  Is she looking where she is going?  Grey simply stands her ground and maintains her line.  If there is any contact then it is a result of bad cycling.  It is the unfortunate truth. 

carefulrider wrote:

Mrs Ward looked very unstable to me, she lost control very easily.

Ah, onto the victim blaming now, it's Mrs Ward's fault that she fell into the road when pushed because she, a very small 77-year-old woman, wasn't (according to you) as stable as a burly young male cyclist. Amazing how you insist the video is limited and relies on guesswork as to Grey's guilt and yet from the half a second (that we can see) that shows Mrs Ward you can apparently judge that she was riding on the wrong line, failed to stop and only fell into the road on contact because she was unstable. You perhaps need to look at the interviewing Detective Sergeant's comment about the video again:

"In all honesty it's horrific and not appropriate for wider release to the public, but, if it were, then I think a lot of the arguments in relation to appropriate responses would be null and void."

carefulrider wrote:

I agree that there is limited footage available to make a judgement.  However, that did not stop the court from making one! 

The court had more footage to make a judgement. 

Meanwhile, I've seen enough material to form a judgement that you're not to be taken seriously. 

I don't think that the court had any more footage from before the near collison, only after it.   Everyone can only make an assumption about where the cyclist was or what she was doing.

 The only video released of this incident shows Mrs Ward for a split second before Grey indubitably moves towards her and pushes her into the road. So I'm not sure how you managed to deduce that she wasn't slowing down and was deliberately holding a line already owned by the pedestrian. One thing that is perfectly clear on the video is that there was plenty of room for Mrs Ward to pass Grey on the kerbside if Grey had not moved towards her and pushed her.

The full video was shown to the jury and police even released a statement about it.

"Det Sgt Dollard, who interviewed Grey, told BBC Radio Cambridgeshire: "I'll always remember the morning after it occurred obtaining the CCTV and watching it in its entirety.

"In all honesty it's horrific and not appropriate for wider release to the public, but, if it were, then I think a lot of the arguments in relation to appropriate responses would be null and void." "

Hirsute wrote:

The full video was shown to the jury and police even released a statement about it. "Det Sgt Dollard, who interviewed Grey, told BBC Radio Cambridgeshire: "I'll always remember the morning after it occurred obtaining the CCTV and watching it in its entirety. "In all honesty it's horrific and not appropriate for wider release to the public, but, if it were, then I think a lot of the arguments in relation to appropriate responses would be null and void." "

Link to that quote:
Routed from the BBC article above

But I'm finding it difficult to know who to believe here, the police, CPS, Crown Court jury and judge and the judges of the Court of Appeal, all of whom have seen the full video and weighed all the evidence, or a spiteful little attention-seeking cyclist-hating troll who's been banned from this site at least five times. It's a headscratcher alright.

Point of order to be scrupulously fair - I don't think the Court of Appeal would necessarily have seen the evidence, as they were only concerned with permission to appeal the sentence. Not that that diminishes your overall point.    

Fair point, although they would have read the full transcript of the trial, I think?

Not sure. It was only a permission to appeal hearing, not a full appeal, and the appeal only related to the sentence, so it's possible not even that. Happy to be corrected if there are any Court of Appeal judges among the commenters...    

Sadly those seeking "argument" gonna do the usual.  I recall these articles, including the one about the appeal though, worth a quote:

bbc wrote:

In March, Grey, of Bradbury Place, was jailed for three years after being convicted of manslaughter.

Court of Appeal judges dismissed her application for leave to appeal.

The two women passed each other in opposite directions on the pavement of the Cambridgeshire town's ring road, during the afternoon of 20 October.

In CCTV footage, Grey could be heard shouting at Mrs Ward, a retired midwife, to "get off the [expletive] pavement".

Appeal judges said Mrs Ward then "collided" with Grey and fell into the road, where she was hit by a car.

They also looked at the length of the sentence and found that consideration had been given to her condition.

bbc wrote:

Mr Justice Griffiths said: "A blameless woman had been killed by the unlawful act of [Grey] [...]

The sentencing judge Sean Enright had "placed very strong emphasis" on Grey's disabilities, he said.

He added: "We do not consider that the recent psychology report calls for a greater reduction than was already given in this respect by the judge."

That doesn't mean that prisons are a good place for people with serious conditions.  Nor that the legal world has a great understanding of the impact of disabilities or mental health - but I suspect that judges sadly see more of this than many of us however.

If Ward collided with Grey then Ward is at fault.

carefulrider wrote:

If Ward collided with Grey then Ward is at fault.

If you're walking down the pavement towards me and I step into your path, you will collide with me. Will that then be your fault?

carefulrider wrote:

If Ward collided with Grey then Ward is at fault.

That's not what happened according to witnesses

Judge wrote:

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”.

Wait a minute, I think quiff has it ... "[the court's] judgement had just as many guesses and assumptions as mine.  ... an established line ... the cyclist is reckless ... Mrs Ward looked very unstable to me, she lost control very easily ... [the victim] cycling far too close to Grey in an inconsiderate and reckless way..."

Even a child knows this?

Yes, 'established' triggered my spidey senses. As did the faint whiff of fat shaming in "he is quite stable".  

I was commenting on the sentence "Appeal judges said Mrs Ward then "collided" with Grey".   William Walker's evidence is inconsistent with the video, the two parties do not come to a halt.

The cyclist wasn't pushed; she was startled and being quite old at 77, lost control of her bike and fell into the roadway.