Woman convicted of manslaughter after swearing and gesturing at 77 year old cyclist.

[newts]

A person lost their life due to the stupid aggressive actions of another. The pedantry of whether it was a shared path or not, are meaningless.

 

[Kingfisher101]

She will mostly be placed on the VP wing due to her health needs

Yes she will be.

 

[cyberknight]

showed no remorse till sentenced, although classed as disabled i think her symptoms are physical so not useable as an excuse for the actions ?

 

[KnittyNorah]

I see this from both PsOV - as a VI person and as an elderly cyclist.

However, the first thing I have to say is that anyone who can walk away to do their shopping immediately after causing someone else to lie dead in the road under a car is not a 'poor woman' but is rather a liar with an anger problem and a distinct lack of responsibility towards society in general. This is less than nothing to do with any disabilities she may well have.

I have been a severely visually-impaired person; if the accused (and now convicted)'s eyesight was as bad as was - at least initially - claimed, I can understand an over-the-top reaction to actually being passed at speed and/or very closely. However, CCTV shows that she was not being passed at all, still less closely or at speed. She was merely being approached, quite slowly, by an old lady on a bicycle, on a 2.4m wide shared pavement, and who she saw from some distance away. At that point it appears that she deliberately moved into an obstructive, confrontational and aggressive mode.
The reason I was made anxious by pavement cyclists when I was VI was because I could not see them until they were upon me, not because I could see them as they approached me, as this person obviously could and did.

I am myself a woman in her mid 70s who rides a small-wheeled bike, and often use shared paths beside a busy roads. If a person steps into the middle of the path starting to shout and gesticulate at me as I approach, clearly spoiling for a confrontation, that's a difficult one. If she was a locally-known-to-be-odd person I'd judge the situation by what I knew of her reputation. If not, I think that - prior to seeing this! - I'd just have ridden slowly and carefully on, ignoring any confrontation or shouting as best I could and giving her as wide a berth as possible. From what I can see on CCTV, that is just what the cyclist did.

There's no escape route other than the road from this path, due to the railings. From the direction the two women were each moving, Grey - unlike her victim - would have been able to see the traffic coming up behind her victim and been aware of the dangers of going into the road at that point.

Now I'm more inclined to think 'She who turns and goes away, lives to ride another day'.

 

[Mike_P]

Watching the video reminded me of an incident I had on the Nidderdale Greenway. A mother and son were walking towards me when the son started waving his arms around straight it front of me and a physical collision was only avoided by his mother pulling him quickly to the side; the alternative to the collision otherwise being a drop down a steep embankment. Never quite understood why it's never had railings although now trees are beginning to block any likelihood of a lengthy trip down the embankmen.

 

[HMS_Dave]

Shocking really and the usual tabloids comments are full of predictable comments. Someone lost their life and the fact that it has been turned into more anti-cycling propaganda further sours faith in society. Obviously, if the cyclist was riding on the footpath that wasn't shared, she is wrong, but certainly doesn't deserve the sentence of death. This has been inconclusive in the case however and there could have been confusion. At the end of the day, whatever the case if the convict had just got on with their day and minded their own business, the victim would still be alive, the convicted wouldn't be in prison and the motorist wouldn't have been mentally scarred for life...

3 lives ruined completely needlessly...

 

[notmyrealnamebutclose]

Playing devils advocate here. If it were a man who had carried out the verbal assualt would the sentence be more severe ?
She could be let out early if she admits her mistake and convinces the probation board she's a changed person. Unfortunate
all round.

 

[Chap sur le velo]

However, the first thing I have to say is that anyone who can walk away to do their shopping immediately after causing someone else to lie dead in the road under a car is not a 'poor woman' but is rather a liar with an anger problem and a distinct lack of responsibility towards society in general.
EDIT....Now I'm more inclined to think 'She who turns and goes away, lives to ride another day'.

As someone who was recently physically assaulted by a cyclist when, As a pedestrian, I asked them to move off the narrow pavement into the clearly marked cycle lane, I second both your comments above.

There's a lot of people with problems out there and keeping ourselves safe is more important than believing in what's right should prevail. As cyclists (and pedestrians) this case should also remind us how vulnerable we are at all times.

 

[SuffolkBlue]

Playing devils advocate here. If it were a man who had carried out the verbal assualt would the sentence be more severe ?
She could be let out early if she admits her mistake and convinces the probation board she's a changed person. Unfortunate
all round.

Interesting thought - I also wonder what the response and tone of conversation on here and in the media would have been if the cyclist had been a child ??

 

[Dolorous Edd]

Hmmmm.

In police interview, Grey said she believed she had made light contact with Mrs Ward.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64835197

Just watched the released footage again. Right at the end, in slow motion....

 

[DaveReading]

on a 2.4m wide shared pavement

Not withstanding the judge's widely-quoted comment, GE shows that the pavement was only about 1.6 m wide.

It's ludicrous that it should have been designated a shared path (the cyclist had passed a sign showing it as such, 2 minutes before she was killed).

 

[Mike_P]

Not withstanding the judge's widely-quoted comment, GE shows that the pavement was only about 1.6 m wide.

It's ludicrous that it should have been designated a shared path (the cyclist had passed a sign showing it as such, 2 minutes before she was killed).

Thats huge in width compared to the shared path alongside the York northern bypass on the river and railway bridge.

There use to be signs telling cyclists to walk but that was completely stupid as a cyclist wheeling a bike took up the full width. Now they tell cyclists to take care passing pedestrians, maybe need to also tell pedestrians to act sensibly to approaching cyclists.

 

[Cycleops]

More comments about the life of Grey:
https://nybreaking.com/inside-the-lonely-life-of-disabled-pavement-killer-auriol-grey/

 

[wafter]

As others have uggested, a sorry situation for all involved; and full of so many potentially immensely significant unknowns.

The "killer" clearly has a miserable life beset with all manner of health issues. While it's widely stated that she has no leaning / mental health issues; I'd question whether this is actually the case from her behaviour.. and whether there isn't something undiagnosed going on.

On top of that there's the question of whether the path was legitimately intended for shared use - personally I have no time for cyclists who ride on the path (admittedly vulnerable users such as small kids and the clearly elderly / infirm usually excepted) and have voiced my disgust toward those riding on pavements alongside roads as it's potentially dangerous and contributes to our collective poor image in the eyes of the public.

There's also the matter of whether there was contact / intentional pushing of the victim.

Given the unknowns involved suggest two potentially very different situations if the extremes are viewed:

1. Pavement is for pedestrians only. Physically and mentally vulnerable Grey sees cyclist coming towards her and legitimately, if exaggeratedly protests out of fear for her safety and legitimate umbridge at the cyclist being on the path, no contact occurs, cyclist falls off.

2. Pavement is shared. Angry and belligerent Grey ignores the need to accommodate others on the route and arrogantly attacks the cyclist who has every right to be there; shoving her off the bike into the path of the car.

While the reality is probably somewhere between these extremes, tbh I'm somewhat shocked by the weight of the sentence imposed given all the unknowns invoved; however it seems that Grey's conduct / lack of remorse hasn't done her any favours.. however if this is the result of a lack of mental capacity / ability to fully understand the repercussions of her actions, is this fair? I think at least she deserved assessment for developmental conditions / mental health during the trial; which apparently didn't take place.

I guess you could arge that the three year sentence handed down could be considered somewhere between what would have been appropriate for either of the two extremes postulated above.

Ultimately an enormously hard one to call, undermined by a chronic lack of information and a sad, sad state of affairs for all concerned

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Playing devils advocate here. If it were a man …

That’s not playing devil’s advocate, that’s pointless whataboutery.