My take is that she may have come to a halt briefly then moved forward again, possibly in sudden panic-induced evasive action. This wasn't seen on the portion of CCTV released to the media. On a bike from a standstill it's impossible to move quickly off the line apart from pedalling forward with some steering input. It would be very easy to fluff this and fall off especially when frightened of some large aggressive person coming towards you.
Woman convicted of manslaughter after swearing and gesturing at 77 year old cyclist.
- Thread starter Cycleops
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
DaveReading
Don't suffer fools gladly (must try harder!)
- Location
- Reading, obvs
Coming to a halt before reaching Ms Grey, then starting to move again before they had passed each other, sounds highly unlikely to me.
markemark
Über Member
Not sure what difference this all makes. The jury would have seen an awful lot more evidence than us. I trust they made the right decision. If not there’s an appeals process which I also trust.
Deciding guilt on a small proportion of the evidence and without hearing testimony is pointless.
Deciding guilt on a small proportion of the evidence and without hearing testimony is pointless.
DaveReading
Don't suffer fools gladly (must try harder!)
- Location
- Reading, obvs
Worth noting that there are apparently no plans to appeal against the guilty verdict.
But Is appealling the sentence
https://road.cc/content/news/auriol-grey-seeks-leave-appeal-vs-manslaughter-sentence-299825.
Hopefully the result will be it is extended.
The oddest thing about the whole incident is that neither the police or the council could state in court with any certainty whether the pathway in question was a shared one or not. Surely that would have been a very pertinent point in question for the evidence either way. 
The oddest thing about the whole incident is that neither the police or the council could state in court with any certainty whether the pathway in question was a shared one or not. Surely that would have been a very pertinent point in question for the evidence either way.
We've hopefully moved on from victim blaming I really don't care if it is or not. The actions of a woman has resulted in the death of another. Who action's have now been found to be unlawful by a jury who had all relevant facts presented. Together with (now published) balanced and fair direction from the judge.
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
The oddest thing about the whole incident is that neither the police or the council could state in court with any certainty whether the pathway in question was a shared one or not. Surely that would have been a very pertinent point in question for the evidence either way.
How would it make any difference? Please explain.
(Besides, in his sentencing remarks, the judge said that it *was* a shared use space.)
Hopefully the confusion on the status will spark off review of signage nationally. I was walking east yesterday on a shared pavement on the south side of the A59 which I have only ever cycled on in the westbound direction and consequently well aware of where it starts. Eastbound however there is no end of cycleway sign, the only potential clue thereafter being only the rumble strip thereafter being across the pavement whereas the cycleway side of the shared pavement the rumble strips are in laid at ninety degrees allowing for bike wheels ( and defeated at one point by a set of traffic lights in the middle).
DaveReading
Don't suffer fools gladly (must try harder!)
- Location
- Reading, obvs
No, he said he thought it was.
ebikeerwidnes
Guru
- Location
- Z’ha’dum
Actual wording
"This was, I think, a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians that allowed them to go around the busy ring road. The vital point is this: I am sure you knew cyclists used that path and you were not taken by surprise or in fear for your safety."
I have to say that there are several shared paths round here that I THINK are shared but I could be wrong - and anyone could be forgiven for thinking they are not
Debate that needs to occur is how counsels sign shared paths and what the minimum standards are and how well they need to be maintained
Something like needing to have a 'shared use' sign (of some kind' every x yards - the same way as you have repeater signs for speed limits.
Of course that requires money - but lets not get all NACA
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
Thanks for clarifying.
Whilst that is true, the Judge's point was that it didn't matter. It was reasonable to assume that cyclists used that route and it was not a surprise to the defendant.
ebikeerwidnes
Guru
- Location
- Z’ha’dum
I agree - sorry I was making a slightly different point which did risk taking the conversation off in a different direction when this one still have some discussion to go!
Similar threads
