Similarly, little consideration has been given to the driver of the car which collided with Mrs Ward, Carla Money, who was with her two-year-old daughter at the time.
Much sympathy for the killer, none for the victims.
4 Likes
Omah … without relevant quotes I don’t know whay you’re on about there.
Incorrect. Throughout this thread there has been much sympathy for all three victims. Possibly you have chosen to focus on other elements of the debate. I could, if pressed go back and find all of them … but take it that won’t be needed.
The thread is titled … Angry Pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist …
So in line with forum etiquette it has rather dealt specifically with the convicted and with forum member’s opinion of her, her anger, her behaviour and views on her sentencing.
If you’d called it … Three Woman … Two Victims and One Angry Pedestrian … I would agree with you.
Lots of people have sad lonely lives. Lots of people have physical disabilities and possibly undiagnosed personality disorders. But they don’t think it gives them an entitlement to act aggressively and cause someone’s death
The defence doubtless played the disability card, the judge looked at the information and concluded her disabilities didn’t cause or justify her actions and that she knew the difference between right and wrong. Her aggressive behaviour caused this poor woman’s death, therefore she is guilty of manslaughter
I don’t get why anyone would try to exonerate her from blame in this case?
Lots of people who come to trial have had hard lives and varying degrees of mental incapacity and the response is usually that it’s no excuse
Why is this one different?
I think the judge should have given her the full four years available as doubtless she won’t serve most of it
3 Likes
Well exactly, to lose someone you love like that is horrific, yet all the sympathy and interest is with the woman who caused her death
I wonder if it’s the family who’ve appealed the sentence as too lenient? If so, I hope it’s successful
If it was a member of my family I’d be hurt and furious if her life was only valued at three years and wanting to take further action
I do wonder if dislike of cyclists is part of some people’s reaction
3 Likes
No perception, interpretation or any observation needed … you said she was pushed. Fact. That is objective observation and is not open to interpretation.
As an aside, this debate could be so more much interesting if it was opened up to compare how other accidents between pedestrians and cyclists have been dealt with.
It might, with comparison, even make it appear she did receive a lighter sentence than is customary.
There appears to be a lot of angry emotive ranting and injured indignation pouring forth now on behalf of the famiy of the deceased … not adult discussion on the original topic. It does, if anything, rather close the discussion down … which may be the intention.
I don’t think the issue of whether this was a shared pathway or if the council should have marked it better has any bearing on this case whatsoever and it’s muddying the water a bit
Of course lessons should be learned about making signage clear
But as far as the manslaughter issue is concerned it makes no difference whatsoever
Even if the cyclist shouldn’t have been On the pathway ( and there’s no evidence to say she shouldn’t have ) ……
And even if the council fail to make it clear and didn’t mark it properly…
……those things don’t give someone carte blanche to act aggressively, swear and cause someone to fall under traffic
We are all responsible to behave like a decent civilised human beings mindful of each other’s safety, whatever the situation, council failings or provocation
And Auriol Grey didn’t
3 Likes
On the contrary, you should create a thread with its own title, tags and intent concerning accidents between pedestrians and cyclists rather than go off-topic on this one.
10 Mar 17:34
11 Mar 20:57
No, there isn’t.
1 Like
It’s in the public interest to show that such behaviour isn’t acceptable and if you cause the death of someone because of your aggression that you will be punished, disability doesn’t give an automatic get out
It’s in the public interest because she deserves to be punished for what she did and therefore reinforces faith in our justice system
It’s in the public interest to feel that if we were personally victim of similar aggression that the culprit would be punished
It’s in the public interest for the victim’s family to feel that their loved one’s life had value under the law and that the person who was responsible for cutting that life short was punished for doing so
3 Likes
I disagree … that is the whole point of the argument.
Had the pavement been 4.5 metres wide, (it was 2.4 metres) there should have been more than adequate room for both ladies to pass each other with room inbetween, with no altercation.
How wide a space does the average cyclist need to be comfortable? I mean safe enough to stay on their bike and continue pedalling and not have to stop.
One metre? Two perhaps? I’d say a good 5 or 6 foot (2 metres) which would leave a good metre or over for the pedestrian, okay a pedestrian with weight problems, so say 2 metres .
The question is not over the signage, it’s the width of the pavement … which is worse if it is signed as ‘shared’.
The pavement was inadequate for users who need more space and, sadly, ended up on a collision course.
Once again I largely disagree …
She does indeed sound a bit of an upleasant woman. I wouldn’t be too thrilled at having someone coming down the pavement toward me, swearing at me. Actually I’d swear back. Especially if I believed I was in the right.
There is no evidence she pushed her. Waved her arms. Yes. Push no. Swearing at someone is more a public disorder offence but as a woman was killed clearly the repercussions were far more serious. so yes, it certainly had to be investigated properly
Notice I’m leaving out any mention of any disability here as it seems you’d have to walk around headless on this forum for anyone to consider you impaired.
So can anyone on here claim, honestly, that if they ever have a row with anyone in any situation … and then that person, steps off a pavement or in some way has any kind of accident because they are flustered, distracted or angry … you yourself would be guilty of GBH or manslaughter.
No. Ten, Twenty, Thirty years ago this would have been called a tragic accident.
But of course, all those years ago there was not nearly so much traffic on pavements.
1 Like
This was a tragic accident for all three women. People around the country swear at others walking or cycling on a pavement every day but it doesn’t make them jump in front of a car. It wasn’t the swearing that caused the death of the cyclist. It was Auriol’s physique and jerky movements (as a result of the palsy) as well as her anxiety and inability to control her emotions after years of abuse by the public. Had I been walking down that road swearing nobody would have jumped out of my way into the road I can assure you. I’m far too petite and soft spoken to physically intimidate anyone. I haven’t had to live a lifetime of bullying by strangers either.
So yes a tragic accident but I hope that the retrial looks at this with a shred of humanity for all three women not just two of them.
4 Likes
Annie that is your perception only .
This was an elderly lady on a bike not hurtling along .and not hurting anyone One witness said she had stopped in front of Grey before wobbling off into the road .
The charge of bullying is one that is thrown around too easily today a sort of get out of jail free card for bad behaviour .
2 Likes
I was reading that 
1 Like
But it wasn’t her physique and jerky movements though, it was her aggressive and intimidating attitude that caused the cyclist to back up, tumble and end up under a car
And anybody, large, small, tiny, or whatever could be intimidating enough to make you back up if they are aggressive and spiteful enough, swearing at you and swinging their arms at you, maybe, according to the witness, making physical contact
Her size and type of movement aren’t an excuse for what she did. Are large people to be let off if they use their size to bully and threaten because they can’t help being large?
If she’d been tiny would she have been as confident to be that aggressive anyway?
or did she know her size would make her scary and use that to be confident to indulge in her stomps, arm swinging scary performance in confidence the cyclist wouldn’t retaliate?
I think the verdict was fair, if a little lenient. She was the direct cause of someone losing their life and motorist being scarred for life because of her nasty behaviour
If it comes to appeal I hope the sentence is confirmed or increased and the judge doesn’t give in to her playing the disability card
there is a pecking order which is set out clearly in the highway code. Pedestrians are considered the most vulnerable road users and should always be given priority. That seems to be overlooked in this discussion. But it’s where my comments are coming from. I’m a pedestrian but I’m also a driver and I’ve also been a cyclist. But when I am a pedestrian I expect all other road users to respect that I am the most vulnerable in that role as a pedestrian. That is the law. What happened here is a tragic accident where all three came together. I’ve had situations as a pedestrian, where cyclists simply do not think they should have to stop at all. They do not understand the law when it comes to pedestrians. They think I should be jumping out of the way. Well that may be convenient to a cyclist but it’s not the law.
3 Likes
I do 30000+ paces a day so I guess that qualifies me as a pedestrian, I also cycle, I know which makes me feel more uncomfortable, there are a lot of crazed pedestrians out there.
had the cyclist suddenly encountered a crowd of school children who were boisterous, waving their arms perhaps swearing too, and she swerved into the road would that constitute manslaughter by a crowd of kiddies?
2 Likes
Don’t think the 70 something old lady cyclist was lycra clad, you have been tainted.