Prison for shouting at cyclist.

boogieman

ICBM said:

digitalscream said:

I don't know if you guys saw the whole video, but in the final second (just as she goes out of shot) she clearly pauses, puts her arm out and turns her whole upper body towards the cyclist as she's passing, and leans towards her while lifting her back leg for balance.

That's not shouting and waving. The only reason I can imagine where you'd need to do that is if you were pushing against something, and the only other "thing" there was the cyclist.

I've watched it over and over trying to think of ways I can be wrong about that. I still could be, but I couldn't think of any.

The video in the BBC report has been cropped slightly for some reason. If you see slightly more of it (in this version there are four top hoops of the fence visible to the right of the fence post, vs three and a half in the BBC link) then it does look like she was actually pushed.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=P4eIjOFTB6k

That certainly looks like a shove to me. Did she mean it to deliberately harm the cyclist though? Hard to say from the clip, although the jury will definitely have been given a lot more background information and evidence to form their opinions. The judge will have also issued guidance to the jury on the degree of intention needed to come up with a guilty verdict, so based on that they must’ve thought she did it vindictively and deliberately.

I can’t comprehend how anyone would casually walk off from the scene though. The woman obviously has some real issues.  

digitalscream

Interesting comment on that Independent video:



Obviously, just a YouTube comment. If true, though, it would definitely support the "incarceration to protect the public" angle.

RaymondLin

boogieman said:

ICBM said:

digitalscream said:

I don't know if you guys saw the whole video, but in the final second (just as she goes out of shot) she clearly pauses, puts her arm out and turns her whole upper body towards the cyclist as she's passing, and leans towards her while lifting her back leg for balance.

That's not shouting and waving. The only reason I can imagine where you'd need to do that is if you were pushing against something, and the only other "thing" there was the cyclist.

I've watched it over and over trying to think of ways I can be wrong about that. I still could be, but I couldn't think of any.

The video in the BBC report has been cropped slightly for some reason. If you see slightly more of it (in this version there are four top hoops of the fence visible to the right of the fence post, vs three and a half in the BBC link) then it does look like she was actually pushed.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=P4eIjOFTB6k

That certainly looks like a shove to me. Did she mean it to deliberately harm the cyclist though? Hard to say from the clip, although the jury will definitely have been given a lot more background information and evidence to form their opinions. The judge will have also issued guidance to the jury on the degree of intention needed to come up with a guilty verdict, so based on that they must’ve thought she did it vindictively and deliberately.

I can’t comprehend how anyone would casually walk off from the scene though. The woman obviously has some real issues.  

Thin Skull Rule.  Meaning you shouldn't going around hitting people on the head, just because how light you might hit them with a rolled up magazine (for example), in case someone has a thin skull and subsequently cause injury or death.

So "not being deliberate" to harm is not a defence that could get her off, the fact she did push or force her off the road, which caused a car to hit her, and that she could certainly see a car coming her way....

Offset

If shouting at cyclists from behind the wheel of a car was a crime, I'd be serving a looooong stretch :-)

A custodial sentence seems entirely appropriate in this case, and the judge will obviously have taken this woman's various issues into account when considering her time in clink.  Given her complete lack of remorse and seeming indifference to the appalling death she caused, you have to wonder what will happen to her when she's released.  There's nothing to suggest she'd modify her behaviour.

DefaultM

I don't see why the pavement's purpose matters. I see people doing annoying rule breaking shit all the time, but I just slag them off later. It happens so often that I think my friends are bored of me for always bitching, but it doesn't mean I get to start correcting the rule breaking myself.

RaymondLin

DefaultM said:

I don't see why the pavement's purpose matters. I see people doing annoying rule breaking shit all the time, but I just slag them off later. It happens so often that I think my friends are bored of me for always bitching, but it doesn't mean I get to start correcting the rule breaking myself.

The pavement shouldn't make a difference.  Like because I can't go ram someone off the road if I see them driving without a seatbelt, or if i know they don't have car tax.  (yes I know it is call VED before someone correct me)

ICBM

Brio said:

We have to have bells, so a fair trade off. :-)

Not any more. The law was scrapped in 1999 to "reduce unnecessary laws" - which is ridiculous in my opinion. If you're a pedestrian on a shared-use pathway, a simple 'ping' from behind is by far the best way of letting you know a cyclist is coming - it tells you immediately *what* the potential hazard is as well as that there is one.

crunchman said:

Pretty much the first thing I do when I get a new bike is take the bell off.

Why?

I am both a pedestrian and a cyclist - less often, but still enough to find a bell useful sometimes.

axisus

chillidoggy said:

Brio said:

This is tragic news; cyclists across the nation will be emboldened by it, and us poor old pedestrians will have to have rear-view mirrors fitted to our specs to detect stealth attacks from behind.

We have to have bells, so a fair trade off. :-)

So do cows.

In all fairness they work. I've never seen a news story of a cow on a bike running into someone.

Kittyfrisk

chillidoggy said:

Brio said:

This is tragic news; cyclists across the nation will be emboldened by it, and us poor old pedestrians will have to have rear-view mirrors fitted to our specs to detect stealth attacks from behind.

We have to have bells, so a fair trade off. :-)

So do cows.

You don't get into the countryside much do you.  Or maybe you live in Switzerland?

Greatape

Am a little surprised to see someone going down in connection with the death of a cyclist. I guess it's because she was a pedestrian, not a driver. 

PearlsPreserve

ICBM said:

Brio said:

We have to have bells, so a fair trade off. :-)

Not any more. The law was scrapped in 1999 to "reduce unnecessary laws" - which is ridiculous in my opinion. If you're a pedestrian on a shared-use pathway, a simple 'ping' from behind is by far the best way of letting you know a cyclist is coming - it tells you immediately *what* the potential hazard is as well as that there is one.

crunchman said:

Pretty much the first thing I do when I get a new bike is take the bell off.

Why?

I am both a pedestrian and a cyclist - less often, but still enough to find a bell useful sometimes.

Funnily, when I have ridden on shared use paths and used a bell to alert pedestrians I have, on many ocassions, had the pedestrian(s) cuss at me for scaring them/using the bell/using the path.  From Offset's comment above, I think the issue is that this country has an issue with cyclists.

Brio

Not any more. The law was scrapped in 1999 to "reduce unnecessary laws" - which is ridiculous in my opinion. If you're a pedestrian on a shared-use pathway, a simple 'ping' from behind is by far the best way of letting you know a cyclist is coming - it tells you immediately *what* the potential hazard is as well as that there is one.

I ride in a fairly congested part of the world (Surrey). I avoid the roads (and shared pathways) as far as possible but local trails and towpaths are also full of dog walkers and ramblers out getting their share of exercise and fresh air. 
I don't want to ruin their day so I have a Timberbell that tinkles cheerfully every time the bike goes over a little bump. It quietly rings as you come up behind folks and sounds less aggressive than ringing specifically AT them. Like belling a cat. And I can turn it off to save my last vestige of sanity.

drofluf

ICBM said:

crunchman said:

Pretty much the first thing I do when I get a new bike is take the bell off.

Why?

I am both a pedestrian and a cyclist - less often, but still enough to find a bell useful sometimes.

I find my voice both politer and more effective than a bell - although you can't do much against the headphone wearing pedestrians... Additionally on a road bike where you can safely be riding with your hands in different positions there's no one place to put a bell where it can always be reached. And if a pedestrian steps out in front of me I don't want to decide between reading for the bell or the brakes

rlw

I guess that this will go to appeal and I hope that the sentence is quashed.

There is some confusion as to whether or not the pavement, at the scene of the accident was still shared.

There is a post of some description narrowing the pavement at the scene.

The woman can be seen shouting and waving but, nowhere, is an actual push mentioned.  Her actions look like those of someone fending off a collision in the last part of the video.

Shared or not, the cyclist was not giving way to the pedestrian and, at that spot, there wasn't room for both of them.

The woman has a history of health issues and, perhaps, acted oddly but, maybe, normally in the context of those issues.

My feeling is that the jury approached this from a very heart led viewpoint, rather than using their heads.

In conclusion, if I shout at a cyclist who is riding towards me on the pavement without showing any sign of stopping or giving way, if he then falls off because I didn't feel the need to give way to him, it's my fault.  Great.

Try telling that to the cyclist who just had the same experience with a car.

Brio

There is some confusion as to whether or not the pavement, at the scene of the accident was still shared.

Nor according to the judge. What evidence were you shown that confuses the issue for you?

tony99

Brio said:

There is some confusion as to whether or not the pavement, at the scene of the accident was still shared.

Nor according to the judge. What evidence were you shown that confuses the issue for you?

"The trial was told that police could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway." but in sentencing remarks the judge said it was.

But: A Cambridgeshire County Council spokesperson said: "We cannot categorically say it is a shared use path as we could not find any legal records to evidence this"

That's what's been reported from the BBC. I think that confuses the issue. Suppose it's up to the judge like.

RaymondLin

tony99 said:

Brio said:

There is some confusion as to whether or not the pavement, at the scene of the accident was still shared.

Nor according to the judge. What evidence were you shown that confuses the issue for you?

"The trial was told that police could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway."

That's what's been reported from the BBC :

As I said, what difference would that make? Let's say she shouldn't have been riding on the pavement.

Let's say you shouldn't be driving a car without MOT.

Can I ram your car near the edge of a cliff?

No you can't.  Because we are not Judge Dredd who gives out potential death sentences on the spot.

tony99

RaymondLin said:

tony99 said:

Brio said:

There is some confusion as to whether or not the pavement, at the scene of the accident was still shared.

Nor according to the judge. What evidence were you shown that confuses the issue for you?

"The trial was told that police could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway."

That's what's been reported from the BBC :

As I said, what difference would that make? Let's say she shouldn't have been riding on the pavement.

Let's say you shouldn't be driving a car without MOT.

Can I ram your car near the edge of a cliff?

No you can't.  Because we are not Judge Dredd who gives out potential death sentences on the spot.

Sorry Raymond but someone asked specifically what confused the shared pathway issue. I thought the quote I posted showed the confusing bit.

RaymondLin

tony99 said:

RaymondLin said:

tony99 said:

Brio said:

There is some confusion as to whether or not the pavement, at the scene of the accident was still shared.

Nor according to the judge. What evidence were you shown that confuses the issue for you?

"The trial was told that police could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway."

That's what's been reported from the BBC :

As I said, what difference would that make? Let's say she shouldn't have been riding on the pavement.

Let's say you shouldn't be driving a car without MOT.

Can I ram your car near the edge of a cliff?

No you can't.  Because we are not Judge Dredd who gives out potential death sentences on the spot.

Sorry Raymond but someone asked specifically what confused the shared pathway issue. I thought the quote I posted showed the confusing bit.

I am merely pointing out that, even if it's 100% in the pedestrian's favour in terms of the right to ride a bike on there...it still doesn't give the right for the pedestrian to push someone off their bike.  (but yes, the police couldn't say which way it is, but not that it matters)

So people using that as a reason isn't a reason at all.

ICBM

rlw said:

The woman can be seen shouting and waving but, nowhere, is an actual push mentioned.  Her actions look like those of someone fending off a collision in the last part of the video.

I don't agree at all - if you watch the uncropped video it's clear that at best she lunged at the cyclist, and at worst she actually pushed her into the road. She's lucky not to have been charged with murder rather than manslaughter.