You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Must admit. I'm not sure about this one. Given the standard of dangerous behaviour of a lot of car drivers towrds cyclists & the lack of prosecution thereof, it's a bit surprising that this ended up with a conviction.
I've got Tea & Kittens filtering out the Fail & Sexpress ( https://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/), so I'm assuming it's this story: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64512139
The court was told police could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway.
That's the key I guess, along with rule #1.
You can't prosecute a pedestrian with dangerous walking though, whereas the driving offenses sit in parallel with the manslaughter ones to allow a driving ban as part of the punishment.
Seems the ped tried to attack someone and they died, so manslaughter is fairly proovable
I'm assuming that's not a shared use path, it's way too narrow and has little markings around the lamppost (I'm also aware that some shared use paths are in awful condition so it might be)
That, and the video showing it happen.
Looking at the video again, it looks like she may have pushed her, but that is not completely clear.
Grey left prior to emergency services arriving and carried on to Sainsbury's.
This bit carries the most weight.
I like how she described the 77yr old on the shopper as "travelling fast"
i wonder what she would have had to say in a consultation about putting a proper cycle lane along that road? full support, im sure.
you don’t think someone who kills someone else should be punished? 🤔😳Must admit. I’m not sure about this one.
you don’t think someone who kills someone else should be punished
From the description of the case, she is only said to have gestured in a hostile and aggressive manner.
Watching the video again it's pretty clear that something shifts the cyclists weight sharply to the right just as she passes the pedestrian. The cyclist steers quicky right but still falls into the road. I can't imagine anything other than a shove would do that
Looking at the viseo again, it looks like she may have pushed her, but that is not completely clear.
That was my thought too - hard to say either way for certain.
Grey left prior to emergency services arriving and carried on to Sainsbury’s.
And that's just arsehole behaviour.
You'd hope that the reasons for a 77 year old lady to be riding on the pavement (shared or not) and not on the road, where they have every right to be, are indeed looked at.
In terms of riding on the pavement, how likely is it that an elderly lady is hooning it along, popping a wheelie? It's always great to see anyone out on a bike, for all the reasons, but this appears to be a case of someone causing another persons death by being unreasonable at best, and downright nasty at worst. And then going shopping while they died.
unless you were in the court & heard all the evidence, I don’t think you can really comment tbh. Whatever was said was obviously enough for the jury to find her guilty!From the description of the case, she is only said to have gestured in a hostile and aggressive manner
Whatever was said was obviously enough for the jury to find her guilty!
Sentencing tomorrow though so I await the standard slap on the wrist, comment about it not being appropriate to send a person such as her to jail.... ☹️
The cyclist is straight as she is parallel with the nutter, and then turns sharply as she goes past. I think its pretty safe to say some sort of shove / grab or physical contact was made by the nutter. As it looks like the jury agree.
And to cause such a thing and then go shopping shows a staggering level of nastiness.
She should've got in her car before killing the cyclist.. would've got away with it then
So, manslaughter for a pedestrian and yet a car driver has not been charged with anything following this:
https://twitter.com/AlanMyles8/status/1629990008064036865?s=20
Doesn't she walk badly for 49 - good grief. Knackers yard for her. Shocking behavior
Usual excuse of not being able to accurately view the driver's face, I'm assuming, compared to a fairly clear video in the pedestrian's case. If only cars had number plates and all that guff. Shocking driving, obviously.
Doesn’t she walk badly for 49 – good grief.
Try reading the article before spouting stuff like that...
In police interview, Grey, who has cerebral palsy, told officers she was partially sighted
...confirmation that no action is being taken against this driver
Exactly.
At a guess: "Oh oops sorry! I didn't know I hit him." "Oh ok, off you go."
Jesus, that Merc one is utterly pissboiling.
Yep. As a cyclist who supports hunt sabs, my facebook feed is now filled with links to videos of either drivers or fox hunters acting like violent, vile psychopaths. Its not doing my mental health any good whatsoever.
Back to the Cambridgeshire incident, note the language from the Detective "everyone will have their own views on cyclists, pavements and cycleways but..." A little hint that you might be excused for some sympathy for the perpetrator.
The fact she left the scene before the emergency services arrives marks her out as someone who deserve zero sympathy from me.
Shocking behaviour by convicted 49 year old woman, the shove and then carrying on their merry way to Sainsbury's before emergency services arrived to treat the 77 year woman cyclist. May she be given a harsh sentence tomorrow (2nd March) and rot behind bars.
That car/cyle video with no further police action, what the flipperty flip!?!?!?!
That car/cyle video with no further police action, what the flipperty flip!?!?!?!
Friend/relative of a police officer...?
There's this current one as well:
https://road.cc/content/news/driver-who-rammed-teenage-cyclist-bike-avoids-jail-299641
Basically a driver gets angry about a cyclist clipping her wing mirror, pursues him and his friend, then rams his friend off his bike. She then drives off but later returns to the scene.
Suspended sentence.
Imagine that the other way around - if a driver clipped a cyclist, the cyclist pursued her, and hit her in the face with their D-lock... They'd be in jail in seconds.
Yeah, if there's contact (and there probably was) it's just out of the CCTV's frame and therefore cannot be definitively said to have taken place hence there's a lack of evidence on that point and they've counted on sympathy to get her off.
However the aggressive gesturing and effing at a stranger certainly can be seen, and demonstrates malicious intent and aggression that "directly contributed" to a death... The mitigations they cite when they let her off tomorrow will be interesting.
For me this was telling:
The court was told police could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway.
You'd think such things would be pretty clear cut, either it is a shared use pavement or it's not. Not that either would excuse shoving strangers into traffic, but such vagueness from the plod suggests they weren't so keen on bothering with this one (shocka)...
Having lived in Huntingdon briefly in the distant past, the locals treated many of the roads like a bit of a racetrack, I certainly planned my routes to avoid the worst spots and used pavements/semi-pedestrianised bits frequently, it wasn't a cycling friendly town (20 odd years ago), I doubt that's changed much.
You’d think such things would be pretty clear cut, either it is a shared use pavement or it’s not. Not that either would excuse shoving strangers into traffic, but such vagueness from the plod suggests they weren’t so keen on bothering with this one (shocka)…
Alternative view:
"They were on a bike" isn't mitigation for killing someone, and the police and court know that, and it's just the defense barrister trying to justify vigilante capital punishment against people cycling on pavements.
We'd be even less content with the justice system if the police had come to court saying "it's not a cycle path", because (unless the signage is very well hidden) it's not. But as it's a one way system clockwise round the town the alternative for cyclists going that way (north on the east side of the town center) is either to ride the whole way round, find a back street, or ride up the pavement.
Having lived in Huntingdon briefly in the distant past, the locals treated many of the roads like a bit of a racetrack, I certainly planned my routes to avoid the worst spots and used pavements/semi-pedestrianised bits frequently, it wasn’t a cycling friendly town (20 odd years ago), I doubt that’s changed much.
To be fair on the town, it's pretty good. The western side of the ringroad has a cycle path that links Brampton to Godmanchester, and on the eastern side there's several off road routes going radially from the town, and further routes linking the west of the town to the hospital / Brampton around the Northern edge where Aldi, Halfords etc are. But it just falls short on that section where this occurred that there isn't a way to get from Hartford up to Sainsburys without a bit of a detour (upto the bridge then turn right into the semi-pedestrianized / LTN bit, but a 77yr old isn't going to ride up a hill and down again for the sake of it).
My thoughts are for the poor driver who was absolutely blameless but still collided and killed an old lady on a bike. My guess is 200 hours community service, probably suspended on account of age and disability. And yes it does look as if she pushed her, but that would be hard to establish unless the car driver saw it (and who'd really be looking). Not pleading guilty and convicted of manslaughter (i.e., unlawful killing) won't have helped her case either.
I mean, 77 years old and on a bike. Not just any bike, but a small 20" folder. Hardly moving rapidly. The dual carriage way next to the pavement is no place for such a rider. RIP Celia.
EDIT: In the last example, she received a suspended custodial sentence and the maximum community service after pleading guilty, with 40 hours additional make-me-a-nice-person coaching. Lucky not to be incarcerated, but it is the maximum sentence in lieu of custodial. And if she fails to complete it in 12mo, she will go to prison. My hit and run driver received the same.
Shouting "get off the f*cking pavement" and waving your arm a bit isn't grounds for manslaughter tbh. It's normal interaction between humans.
This is just the po-po getting a conviction because they can. It's not great either way. I suspect (and hope) the sentence will be lenient.
The more worrying thing has been posted above - the police not prosecuting dangerous drivers in hit-and-runs.
waving your arm a bit isn’t grounds for manslaughter tbh
No, but pushing someone into traffic might be.
No, but pushing someone into traffic might be.
And nowhere in the video can you see that.
And furthermore, if YOU can see that, and I can't, then that's grounds for reasonable doubt.
And nowhere in the video can you see that.
And furthermore, if YOU can see that, and I can’t, then that’s grounds for reasonable doubt.
Firstly : No it's not. The standard of proof isn't "there must be perfect CCTV".
Secondly : Presumably there were witnesses.
Although even in the absence of a witness I'd say that CCTV is well beyond "reasonable doubt" that she was pushed.
She was convicted of unlawful killing without "malice aforethought". At a level of guilt "beyond reasonable doubt". In a Crown Court. That is not just the police making up the prosecution numbers and "on the balance of probabilities". I am sure more evidence was presented in court.
I like how she described the 77yr old on the shopper as “travelling fast”
From thee vid it didnt look like it, and i doubt a 77 yr old was bombing along at breakneck speed. More like at or slightly above walking pace.
I like how she described the 77yr old on the shopper as “travelling fast”
I like how she described herself as partially sighted as well.
Shouting “get off the f*cking pavement” and waving your arm a bit isn’t grounds for manslaughter tbh. It’s normal interaction between humans.
It shouldn't be be a normal interaction. That's what causes this kind of bollocks to get normalised and drivers think they own the road
looks like it happened here
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Newtown+Centre,+Nursery+Rd,+Huntingdon+PE29+3RJ/ @52.3318311,-0.1798557,3a,75y,126.29h,83.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sP7suqAnP9IbPAk_hiAISlg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x4877dd3af90e6207:0x6c5afc5c6cd0bca4!8m2!3d52.331676!4d-0.1790037!16s%2Fg%2F1tjhx52s?hl=en
which is on a fairly busy bit of one-way system. I can understand why the cyclist was on the pavement, but it is very much a pavement and not a cycle path - not sure why the police made the "uncertain" statement they did.
but it is very much a pavement and not a cycle path – not sure why the police made the “uncertain” statement they did.
As @thisisnotaspoon says above, to dissuade the general public from such similar antics.
Is/is not a cycle path is irrelevant. There are countless examples of a shared foot/cycle paths that just end, sometimes with something pointless like a "cyclists dismount" sign, sometimes just assuming the cyclist will teleport to the next bit of shite "infrastructure" that has been provided [s]for their benefit[/s] to keep them out of the way of the important car drivers.
General rule within the law is to turn a blind eye to pavement riding unless it is outright insane like pulling wheelies through a crowded shopping centre. An elderly cyclist on a shopper doing 8-10mph along a pavement, let them be.
The other side of the road looks like it is a shared use path though (even though it's way too narrow for a shared path!)
https://goo.gl/maps/y5ZdrrUWLtQ3nAKf9
(spin the camera around here to see the red fence)
I think it's just incredibly poorly signpostsed, seems to just end with no signs or warning or anythihng.
can understand why the cyclist was on the pavement, but it is very much a pavement and not a cycle path
The pavement on the other side of the road IS a sparsely signposted shared use pavement. Perhaps there are signs further up that just gave up? Perhaps the original plans stated shared use path along the road (not which side)?
EDIT HH beat me to it with his google route touring.
General rule within the law is to turn a blind eye to pavement riding unless it is outright insane like pulling wheelies through a crowded shopping centre. An elderly cyclist on a shopper doing 8-10mph along a pavement, let them be.
Yep
National Police Chiefs’ Council guidance on cycling on pavements.
"The guidance states: 'The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users.
Shouting “get off the f*cking pavement” and waving your arm a bit isn’t grounds for manslaughter tbh. It’s normal interaction between humans.
This is just the po-po getting a conviction because they can. It’s not great either way. I suspect (and hope) the sentence will be lenient.
My god you're a horrible bastard.
Anyway the legality of the cycling is irrelevant,causing a death by either pushing or forcing the change of direction deliberately into a busy road is unacceptable.
She should’ve got in her car before killing the cyclist.. would’ve got away with it then
She honestly wouldn't, someone dies and it is very throughly investigated. Motorists are prosecuted as a result of collisions with pedestrians and cyclists all the time. When they aren't or are acquitted its because of the evidence that can be brought before the court.
There's no prizes being given for what will happen when the case gets seen by more, if the pedestrian gets a lenient penalty tomorrow...
Coming to a road near you, teenage groups "having a laugh," pushing cyclists on pavements into the road.
I had a look at maps earlier - there was a shared use sign on that side a while earlier up the one way system. A cycle route (new and properly marked) is visible up a side street just after the sign (presumably where the shared route was meant to lead).
However there was nothing to say the shared route had ended on the main road or had to cross to the shared route on the other side. Presumably that is why the police say the designation was unclear.
I don't think urban one way systems help - just turns car traffic into an unthinking flow that ceases to expect pedestrians doing odd things. Would be much safer as a single lane and wider ped facilities and a general calming of interactions. But none of that excuses the behaviour.
You can’t prosecute a pedestrian with dangerous walking though, whereas the driving offenses sit in parallel with the manslaughter ones to allow a driving ban as part of the punishment.
Judge can disqualify for manslaughter. The Death by Driving offences were created because it was proving too hard to get convictions for manslaughter from driving offences. Its widely assumed because enough people on a jury could see themselves making the same sort of mistake. Presumably, this case means that most of the jury believed they would not have acted this way to this cyclist themselves. I'm glad that there are enough of them to outnumber the chevychases.
MOAB - the case you linked above is eyebrow raising but putting it here is whataboutery. if you happen to know Alan Myles then he might want to know for his discussions with the PF that, as far as I recall s3 and s170 of the RTA do not have a timebar in Scotland, and if they do then the timebar is from when the prosecutor first becomes aware not when the incident happened. Just because you work for COPFS doesn't mean you never make legal mistakes! There is a right to ask the Lord Advocate to review a decision not to prosecute.
There’s no prizes being given for what will happen when the case gets seen by more, if the pedestrian gets a lenient penalty tomorrow…
define lenient - there's no sentence for manslaughter I'd want on my record.
My guess is 200 hours community service, probably suspended on account of age and disability.
Can you suspend Community Service? Perhaps you meant a suspended prison sentence. That wouldn't surprise me because of the factors you highlight - assuming she's a first offender etc. BUT I also wouldn't be surprised if its not suspended - the Judge will have heard all that the Jury heard and have a pretty good impression of how she views what happened and would normally have background reports (but 1 day later would be phenomenally quick for that) which will also give a social worker's view on the impacts of custody as well as the attitude to offending. Any attempt to justify (cyclist shouldn't have been there etc) it and I'd expect she's not going home tomorrow.
Coming to a road near you, teenage groups “having a laugh,” pushing cyclists on pavements into the road.
fortunately the majority of teenagers are smart enough not to think "oh they got away with it so I will too". Some might even be smart enough to be able to distinguish the characteristics which differentiate different offenders, eg. a 49 yr old with cerebal palsy acting in an angry impulse v's a teenager having a laugh.
Shouting “get off the f*cking pavement” and waving your arm a bit isn’t grounds for manslaughter tbh. It’s normal interaction between humans.
It's really not a "normal interaction" her actions caused a collision that wouldn't have happened otherwise.
From an earlier linked piece:
She said she "may have unintentionally put" out her hand to protect herself. Ms Grey believed she had made light contact with Mrs Ward.
"Light contact" we all know she shoved her, it wouldn't be a debatable point if that camera had been angled a couple of degrees further to the right.
This is just the po-po getting a conviction because they can. It’s not great either way. I suspect (and hope) the sentence will be lenient.
I'm not totally sure it is, pissing off to do her shopping after shoving an old lady into traffic means she more than failed the "attitude test" had she stayed there feigning distress at witnessing an RTA they may not have looked tha the CCTV that shows her behaving like an arsehole.
The more worrying thing has been posted above – the police not prosecuting dangerous drivers in hit-and-runs.
It's all worrying, I'm not keen on trying to define a hierarchy of road traffic death injustices, none of it is positive...
I'm not going to comment on the severity of sentence deserved for the ped. My mother is 77 this year though and exactly the sort of cyclist who still keeps on riding but would pop onto a pavement like at. I can't imagine how I'd feel if her story ended in that manner.
However...and please don't read this as excusing the guilty.....town planners need to take some significant responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Roads and pavements are occupied by actual real life people. People are predictable - and whilst they are sometimes dicks, they are predictable dicks. Conflict and confusion can be engineered out. In this case it sounds like the legitimacy of the cyclist being where they were was not obvious. That's avoidable.
Conflict and confusion can be engineered out. In this case it sounds like the legitimacy of the cyclist being where they were was not obvious. That’s avoidable.
Yes but that costs money and takes time and political will and councils have none of those things. Also, we don't like simple solutions like that in the UK.
It's not "difficult" to engineer out conflict, the Dutch and Danish have been doing it for decades but even they are still improving and you sometimes find that in engineering out bike/car conflict, you inadvertently get more bike/pedestrian conflict and then need to resolve that.
There are elements here of the recent Dan Walker crash where he was hit from behind on a roundabout and immediately everyone was saying "he should have been on the bike path, there's an underpass there for bikes".
And then it was pointed out that the underpass is dangerous and shit and covered in glass, half flooded, unlit etc.
Provide shit infra and cyclists won't use it and they'll create their own infrastructure - like in this instance where the cyclist was, rather harmlessly, using the pavement.
My god you’re a horrible bastard.
Because I think it's reasonable a partially sighted woman with cerebral palsy could be scared when she (sort of) sees a bike coming at her on a pavement?
Did she act like a tit? Yes. Lots of scared people do. (And lots of people walk away from the scene of an accident out of fear too). Does she know the vaguaries on whether bikes are allowed on pavements. (I mean even the police didn't).
It's tragic all round tbh. "Justice" hasn't been served - and can't be really.
Because I think it’s reasonable a partially sighted woman with cerebral palsy could be scared when she (sort of) sees a bike coming at her on a pavement?
Did she look scared to you in that video?
Do you suppose that it's unreasonable for a 77-year old woman to fall off her bike out of fear or panic when faced with trying to avoid a physically intimidating, angry woman swearing at her and waving her arms about?
For my 2p,
I had some sympathy for the antagonist in a "there but for the grace of god" sort of way, right up until I read the absolute horseshit presented in defence.
To add context I think this is the location:
IIRC the dual carriageway next to it is a 30(?) But as DC in little town like Huntington it gets some enthusiastic driving, when I lived there (not far from that location actually) I definitely favoured riding on that pavement at busier times of day the combination of people making for the shops and people trying to get through town made it a more hectic environment than it needed to be, a DC inner ring road is a recipe for speeding and ****tery (I now live in Reading where they've really managed to push the same concept to a new level) from google maps/street view I can see no obvious cycling infrastructure upgrades compared to living there 20 years ago.
I think it’s reasonable a partially sighted woman with cerebral palsy could be scared when she (sort of) sees a bike coming at her on a pavement?
That's not a 'flight response' to a "perceived danger". Watch the video again, from her first gesture/initial shouting to the definitely not a shove (definitely a shove) she takes five steps forwards no pausing, side-stepping or avoiding action, she was looking for conflict and achieved it... Then she just ****ed off to the shops.
Send her down (we know they won't), her medical conditions are not a mitigating factor. Genuinely fearful people seek escape or refuge they don't try to attack or challenge those perceived threats then callously carry on about their business like they aren't involved...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64824436
Three years jail. Genuinely far more than I expected.
I'm not surprised; it's not just punishment for her actions on the day causing death, but immediately after and subsequently. Showing remorse is sometimes taken into account. Sometimes.
So I guess this is now an example of a pedestrian killing a cyclist, resulting in jail time.
Crazy how three years almost feels like a "mini victory for cyclists," when sentences for injuring or killing cyclists often seem to be so feable.
It's quite an unusual case so I doubt there's any broader implications from it regarding road user groups.
I’m not going to comment on the severity of sentence deserved for the ped. My mother is 77 this year though and exactly the sort of cyclist who still keeps on riding but would pop onto a pavement like at. I can’t imagine how I’d feel if her story ended in that manner.
Yeah, same - my mum's 83, still rides a bike around and would probably use a pavement occasionally. Doesn't bear thinking about.
Cambridgeshire County Council subsequently reiterated that and said it would review the location, but in his sentencing remarks Judge Sean Enright said it was a shared cycleway.
The judge ruled it was a shared use cycleway. This will have been dealt with in minutae in the trial.
The driver of the car that hit Mrs Ward said there was "always a piece of me that feels guilty" and that her whole life had "turned upside down" following the incident.
And I'm sure most would feel the same. She was probably a significant witness too, given she didn't have time to react.
Jail? Good.
Yeah, it's a life sentence for the driver in that sense.
Miranda Moore KC, who said in mitigation for Grey that "she does not pose a risk or danger to the public", stated she would be making an appeal against the sentence.
This is troubling; so the deceased lady wasn't a member of the public? I mean, we know as cyclists we're sub-human.
A. Let her off and she mau well do it again.
B. If the camera wasn't there, or the incident happened 10mtr earlier we would not have the cctv, so it becomes a he said, she said, and we end with a dead cyclist and it becomes just a horrible accident.
Well, she's at least a year in the clink to think about her actions and subsequent lies. Still too short.
A horribly tragic case all round.
Because I think it’s reasonable a partially sighted woman with cerebral palsy could be scared when she (sort of) sees a bike coming at her on a pavement?
In your mind you have turned the aggressor into the victim.
Waving your arms and shouting invective before making deliberate contact is an assault, moving into battery.
I would take from your stance that you would act in a similar manner as it's so reasonable and understandable. That's not a great indicator of the amount of humanity that you have available to deploy
I’m usually pretty keen on people who endanger cyclists getting severely punished, but I’m not sure what the value is of sending that women to jail. The verdict is correct, there must be a more humane way to deal with her.
Cambridgeshire County Council subsequently reiterated that and said it would review the location, but in his sentencing remarks Judge Sean Enright said it was a shared cycleway.
And yet every news article I've seen on this (not many, admittedly) refer to the incident as happening on a pavement. That's piss-poor reporting as usual when it comes to people-on-bikes. Opening line of the BBC article:
A "territorial" pedestrian whose actions killed a 77-year-old cyclist when she was angered by her being on the pavement has been jailed.
I’m usually pretty keen on people who endanger cyclists getting severely punished, but I’m not sure what the value is of sending that women to jail. The verdict is correct, there must be a more humane way to deal with her.
What more humane way would you suggest? I would hazard a guess that she wouldn't have been so agressive towards a younger more able bodied cyclist, just coz she has cerebral palsy it doesn't stop her from being a bully.
but I’m not sure what the value is of sending that women to jail.
Because she is directly responsible for the death of an old lady. We put a lot of people in jail for a lot less every day.
Clearly a popular place to cycle - on the link in the second post on this thread the BBC reporter has a bike whizz by her as she is reporting from the crime scene (ironically almost at the same time as she gestures with her arm towards the road - now that could have been awkward!)
The convicted lady is walking to her local shop so she probably walks that path frequently and so both expects cyclists and is annoyed by them.
On this occasion everybody was unlucky and clearly a crime was committed - even if the woman hadn't been killed, I would have expected some kind of prosecution for pushing her off her bike and into the road. Unfortunately for her, and probably mainly due to leaving the scene she has been made an example of. It sounds harsh but the judge probably had very little choice - and had she been in a car and left the scene nobody would be expecting a lower sentence.
One thing everybody is taking as 'read' is the car driver not being able to stop, The line of sight looks very good coming up to the scene from the BBC report - personally I'd have been looking ahead at any potential hazards and wobbly bike riders on narrow pavements always throw up red flags for me! I'm sure the police did an accident report but as long as the driver wasn't pissed or speeding then they are in the clear - but how about driving BELOW the speed limit in these situations and expecting someone to fall off? Surely the hazard perception test is all about this?
I'm sure there would still have been a collision but maybe with less dire consequencies. Maybe it wouldn't have changed anything but everyday I see drivers 'within the law' but still driving too fast for the circumstances past running toddlers, scooting children, prams, cyclists etc. If one tiny thing goes wrong a tradegy occurs - there is no room for error.
Surely the hazard perception test is all about this?
I guess that depends on how long the lady was in the road before the impact - if the car hit her almost immediately I think it would be highly unfair to lay any blame on them. And from what I recall of doing a sample hazard test (small by with a football scenario), if you click on it when you see the boy with the football, it's a fail. It's only when the football enters the road that it becomes an emerging hazard.
hazard perception
20 mph is 9 m/second, so hazard perception allows you about 10 metres to react and avoid. Alternatively, since we are speculating, the driver's dash cam showed clearly that the convicted pushed the cyclist off the pavement. Even at 20 mph, hitting and driving over a 77 year old who is on the road, not above the bonnet, is never going to end well.
“she does not pose a risk or danger to the public”,
The evidence would show otherwise!!!
One thing everybody is taking as ‘read’ is the car driver not being able to stop, The line of sight looks very good coming up to the scene from the BBC report – personally I’d have been looking ahead at any potential hazards and wobbly bike riders on narrow pavements always throw up red flags for me! I’m sure the police did an accident report but as long as the driver wasn’t pissed or speeding then they are in the clear – but how about driving BELOW the speed limit in these situations and expecting someone to fall off? Surely the hazard perception test is all about this?
I can't recall from memory if it's a 30 or 40mph limit IIRC, but the road in question is indeed completely straight, but with junctions left and right, and traffic lights and pedestrian crossings probably every 100m or so and a speed camera just back up the road a bit. It would be difficult to do an inappropriate speed during the day unless you really were driving like an idiot as both lanes are slowed by traffic turning off to side roads, and getting through that half mile or so without stopping at least twice for traffic lights is unlikely.
It's the congestion / reluctance of normal people on bikes to take the whole lane that makes it horrible to ride down rather than speed.
So the judge said yep, it was a shared cycleway....
"The trial was told that police could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway.
Cambridgeshire County Council subsequently reiterated that and said it would review the location, but in his sentencing remarks Judge Sean Enright said it was a shared cycleway.
... But then this?
Det Sgt Mark Dollard, of Cambridgeshire Police, described it as a "difficult and tragic case".
"Everyone will have their own views of cyclists on pavements and cycleways, but what is clear is Grey's response to the presence of Celia on a pedal cycle was totally disproportionate... "
So even on a shared cyclepath, there's an ecpected level of antagonism that even little old lady cyclists will just have to put up with? Or am I being overly sensitive?