Prison for shouting at cyclist.

RaymondLin

tony99 said:

Sporky said:

tony99 said:

He's talking about cars getting rammed off cliffs. My point stands.
 

It is unseemly to make assertions about someone else's emotional state (which, in any case, you cannot know) in order to try to dismiss their argument. 

No I'd say it's very fair to opine whether someone is being emotive or descriptive around an issue based on the words they use. I'm also not trying to dismiss his argument, given I'm not sure what his argument actually is.

My points are

1- the pedestrian has no right to act in a way purposely which to cause a cyclist off balance or physically push.  Especially when the pedestrian can see oncoming traffic (danger) coming their way.

2 - Regardless of whether the pavement is a shared cycle lane or not.

The point about "the cyclist shouldn't have ridden on the pavement", is not an argument, that is for the police to deal with, perhaps a fine etc, not a job for a pedestrian.

tony99

Sporky said:

tony99 said:

No I'd say it's very fair to opine whether someone is being emotive or descriptive around an issue based on the words they use. I'm also not trying to dismiss his argument, given I'm not sure what his argument actually is.

You're clearly getting desperate now. You don't - by your own admission - even understand the debate in which you're participating, so you're lashing out hysterically, trying to score points. If it's all beyond you - as you say in the bit I've quoted - maybe you should step away, calm down, and stop getting agitated about words on the Internet.

For clarity, that first paragraph is just a demonstration - I don't mean any of it. I'm just showing how going for the person - as you did - is harmful to grown-up discussion.

Well ok, thanks for the clarification.  But again, I simply pointed out how the designated shared pathway was a bit of a grey / confusing area given what was reported.  And I haven't seen it reported anywhere that there was a physical push; now I'm not saying she didn't push her, I just haven't seen it reported.

I'm not trying to wind Raymond up though, he's a good egg and I like him.

Sporky

All good.

Apologies if the first paragraph was a bit over the top. 

tony99

Sporky said:

All good.

Apologies if the first paragraph was a bit over the top. 

was a bit emotive to be fair

crunchman

drofluf said:

chillidoggy said:

A question for cyclists - If you don’t have a bell to alert pedestrians to your presence, what form of word(s) do you use?

The polite ones or the other ones?

Usually just "stop" or "look out" though.

Normally "look out" if it looks like a pedestrian is about to step out in front of me.

On a shared use path where I want to get past, normally something polite like "Excuse me".  There are times when I have cycled along at walking pace for 50m if necessary until there is space to overtake.  If you are on a shared use path, it is primarily a pavement for pedestrians as far as I'm concerned.

Edit: there was one occasion in central London where the third pedestrian who stepped out in front of me in the space of two minutes did get a bit of an earful.

GuyBoden

Having recently been knocked off my bicycle and then the bicycle being driven over by a car driver, who narrowly missed crushing my legs, I sympathise with the dead cyclist. It's taken three months recovery time for me to walk without pain, but at least I'm not dead.

I'm not interested in insurance compensation money, I want my health back and justice.  

Devil#20

I wonder how many Fretboarders will be leaving their strop gland to science when they shuffle off this mortal coil to join the choir invisible?

fretmeister

I love this thread.

It's becoming more hypothetical by the minute.

Just imagine if we just waited to see what the grounds for appeal are if / when permission is sought! We could spend all that time between now and then practising guitar, or reading a book, or something else worthwhile.

Sporky

fretmeister said:

I love this thread.

It's becoming more hypothetical by the minute.

What if it became less hypothetical at some point? Do you think you would still love it? 

fretmeister

fretmeister said:

DrCornelius said:

She will get off on appeal , mark my words . I’ve just read the full article and she has cerebral palsy and is partially sighted . I’m pretty sure cerebral palsy can also cause depth perception issues and cognitive impairment too - all traits that a good lawyer will argue contributed to her being unaware of the danger she was putting the cyclist in.

At the present time her lawyer has said they intend to appeal the sentence - not the actual conviction. That might change of course - she has 28 days to seek permission to appeal.

Anyway - if there was medical evidence that suggested she had depth perception problems and cognitive impairment then that would have been used at this trial. It would be very unusual to not use evidence like that if it exists

And - due to the brevity of the news reporting - we have no idea that this wasn't presented to the jury.

But if it wasn't we have to remember - an appeal is about what happened at the trial. Not what could have happened at the trial. An appeal is not a re-hearing of the first instance matter, and an appeal is not usually the place to consider new evidence in itself - but it can be the place to consider the existence of pertinent evidence so the Court of Appeal could decide that the conviction is unsafe and order a re-trial though and that would allow a completely different approach by her defence team. It will also allow a different approach by the prosecution.


The fact that she left the scene is particularly troubling if there is no cognitive impairment.

Further to my earlier post and in regard to the "appeal will get her off" etc...

The sentencing remarks have been mentioned in some of the press including

Judge Sean Enright, sentencing Grey to three years in prison, said “these actions are not explained by disability”.



and the police have now confirmed that the disabilities were fully considered including putting expert reports to the jury (and mentions the full video that has NOT been released to the public):

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."

He added that there were "considerations in relation to Auriol Grey's vulnerability" in their investigation.

"A lot of medical records... professional expert evidence was sought and presented to a jury, it's important to note, and with all that, in fact, she was found guilty of an unlawful act and that is why she was convicted," he said.

Offset

^^ End of the debate :-)

GuyBoden

fretmeister said:

I love this thread.

It's becoming more hypothetical by the minute.

My injuries are not "Hypothetical", they are not  based on a suggested idea or theory, they are very painful.  

fretmeister

GuyBoden said:

fretmeister said:

I love this thread.

It's becoming more hypothetical by the minute.

My injuries are not "Hypothetical", they are not  based on a suggested idea or theory, they are very painful.  

I don't doubt it.

But my comment was not aimed at you - and could not have been as your injuries are real.

hollywoodrox

Looking at the video  she is guilty   But she’s clearly not right in the head . I’d definitely say she is of diminished responsibility , should probably be in some sort of secure home or hospital but not prison . There are so many people like this wandering the streets  most of the time they’re ok but ones I know ,who when they don’t take their pills can get really tricky , especially the bigger ones with a bit of weight behind them . Some now get an injection once a month instead of a daily pill but then they still have to show up for it . 

BillDL

I have just had the chance to watch the video embedded in the BBC news page:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64824436

Take a look at the width of the pavement / footpath on which the reporter is standing at time marker 00:30 and the speed that the cyclist passes her.  If that was my elderly mother with her 3-wheeled walker I would not be comfortable with her walking on that path which, supposedly, is deemed to be a shared pedestrian / cyclist path.  She has already been struck and almost knocked over by a cyclist on a path similar to that.

The video in the BBC page doesn't show enough detail of what the pedestrian did with her body and arm that caused the cyclist to slow down quickly, lose her balance and veer to the roadway, and fall off, but it does look as though she is extending her left arm towards the cyclist as she reached her.

It is interesting to note that in law you do not actually have to strike somebody, or employ some implement to actually make physical contact (eg. trip wire) to have committed assault.  A threatening lunge or a threatening "pretend" punch that falls short or the person dodges, is enough for the victim to have reasonably "apprehended / perceived physical violence".  Obviously there are degrees of severity, hence "actual bodily harm" and "serious bodily harm" aggravations.  Going back to my earlier comment explaining that for an act of "manslaughter" to be complete, there must have been an unlawful act that directly or indirectly caused somebody's death, the pedestrian in this case appears to extend her arm out quite quickly and aggressively at or towards the cyclist.  Even if her arm or hand did not strike the cyclist, the unlawful act was an assault and therefore a conviction for manslaughter / culpable homicide is entirely appropriate.

fretmeister

BillDL said:

I have just had the chance to watch the video embedded in the BBC news page:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64824436

More footage is on youtube.

But as plod said - even that is edited to not show everything - and that the full footage is "horrific".

digitalscream

hollywoodrox said:

Looking at the video  she is guilty   But she’s clearly not right in the head . I’d definitely say she is of diminished responsibility , should probably be in some sort of secure home or hospital but not prison . There are so many people like this wandering the streets  most of the time they’re ok but ones I know ,who when they don’t take their pills can get really tricky , especially the bigger ones with a bit of weight behind them . Some now get an injection once a month instead of a daily pill but then they still have to show up for it . 

That argument was examined at length in court, from the comments of the folk involved, and her mental capacity was found to be unrelated to her actions.

digitalscream

Oh, and regarding the reports that the police couldn't confirm that it's a shared pathway - that refers to the comments by officers while at the scene. Google Maps shows this (and several others) nearby:



That pretty much categorically shows that it's a shared cycle and pedestrian pathway, and that's why the judge referred to it as such.

vanlooy1

Perhaps if we had a decent network of cycle paths this sort of shit wouldn’t happen…

Jaycee

drofluf said:

chillidoggy said:

A question for cyclists - If you don’t have a bell to alert pedestrians to your presence, what form of word(s) do you use?

The polite ones or the other ones?

Usually just "stop" or "look out" though.

Generally if it is on the road there are very few occaisions when that happens, and if it did happen calling out to them is far quicker and effective that ringing a bell.

 If I am on a shared path  my pace is just above "joggers speed" or slower if it is busy, and I will make myself known by a squeeze of the brake or freewheeling which causes the hub to make a noise or tell them which side I am passing on, giving them enough time to register what I have said before passing them.  More often than not I get eye contact before passing and thank them.