wot on anyones pavement?
Not if you are dead .
1 Like
ever cycled with angels - they tell me its real fun - no pavements needed?
Happiness is an empty pavement, no discussion to be had 
1 Like
My Univega will be interred with me for eternity… not exactly Sutton Hoo admittedly.
When I was a lot younger the ruling I understood was if the bicycle wheel size was more that an 18" wheel it was not allowed to be ridden on the pavement. Of course that may have change now I don’t know
1 Like
at a hearing on Tuesday, three judges at the Court of Appeal gave Grey the go-ahead to challenge her conviction.
The court in London heard Grey was charged with unlawful act manslaughter, which requires that an unlawful action takes place to cause death.
However, her lawyers told appeal judges that no such action was considered by the jury at Grey’s trial.
Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Mrs Justice Yip and Mr Justice Calver, said Grey’s appeal could be heard.appeal could be heard.
“We are satisfied that the ground of appeal now advanced is arguable,” Dame Victoria said.
The full appeal is expected to be heard in May, with Grey also able to make a bid to be released on bail.
So many things wrong with this case i don’t know where to start. I cannot understand why this partially sighted lady with cerebral palsy could be found guilty of manslaughter, when the cyclist who sadly lost her life, was clearly wobbling along a very narrow pavement towards a pedestrian who was limping and obviously disabled!
The cyclist should have dismounted at that point, and had she used some common sense, would be alive today.
To me it was a tragic accident, and one that could have been avoided.
This is truly a difficult case. The cyclist was wrong to use the pavement - but many unconfident people do in order to be away from some bad and dangerous drivers. And as this cyclist was “wobbling” then she was not going fast. One might say considerately slow.
The pedestrian must have been very much angered by the cyclist. Or rather, not this particular cyclist, but no doubt by many previous experiences with bikes on the pavement. Perhaps even some causing her distress. Her reaction reflected that anger towards those bad cyclists.
But this was a slow moving, seemingly considerate cyclist who did not deserve the action by the pedestrian. The pedestrian massively over (and inappropriately) acted and aggressively pushed the cyclist over. This is bad enough if the pavement was not narrow - and in being narrow the pedestrian was risking the live of the cyclist. By bad fortune, a vehicle passed just at that time and the risk became reality. Because of the over-reaction and aggression of the pedestrian.
For me, guilty.
3 Likes
Lincolnshire the pedestrian didn’t push the cyclist over. She was waving her arms and swearing, but as a disabled person i think was feeling vulnerable and angry at the situation the cyclist put her in.
Definitely in my mind the fault of the cyclist, and i hope this disabled lady wins her appeal.
How differently would we feel if instead of a disabled person, it had been a young mum with a pram and toddler trying to negotiate the same stretch of pavement, with exactly the same outcome?
I agree that the video evidence confirmed she didn’t touch the cyclist. We had a fiery debate about this when this thread was posted. I stand by my views that this tragic accident was the local authority’s fault for not making it clear that this was not a shared path. Shared paths don’t work anyway. It’s lazy planning. It should have been classified by the courts as an accident. I see cyclists cutting across via pavements all the time. I’ve even snared one in the dog leash. They are super dangerous.
I agree, the appeal should fail. The poor cyclist hasn’t got the luxury of an appeal.
Guilty as charged your honour!
Everybody has a responsibility to consider the safety of other people, even if they disagree with the use of cycles on pavements.
1 Like
Thanks for clarifying that. I also agree that the pedestrian was clearly distressed. But mostly she appeared angry. It was that anger that drove her actions.
I re-watched the video and you are correct that the pedestrian did not push the cyclist. She did, however, raise her arm aggressively at the cyclist, as if to hit the cyclist. It was this threatening arm movement that caused the cyclist to waver onto the road and into the traffic.
It was inappropriate, unnecessary and reckless action by the pedestrian - who did not take into account any vulnerability in the cyclist. Nor did the pedestrian consider any possibility of doubt on whether that section of pavement was designated dual use, or not. The pedestrian assumed she was right and the cyclist was wrong. The pedestrian also assumed that she could threaten (vocally and physically) the cyclist with no consequence - other than to discourage cycling on the pavement. Both assumptions were wrong. The pedestrian caused the accident and should accept responsibility for it. That is the case regardless of who the pedestrian was.
There is a second subsequent question on the appropriateness of the sentence, which to me seemed excessive.
1 Like
Thanks for your detailed and reasoned reply, however i can not agree that Auriol Grey caused the cyclists death because she lost her temper, which in my opinion was totally justified in the circumstances, and likely exacerbated by her disability. Auriol suffers from Cerebral Palsy and also limited vision.
The actions of the cyclist have to be questioned - sadly she is no longer alive, but this does not mean that she was not responsible for what happened that day.
A narrow pavement with no clear sign that it is for the use of both pedestrians and cyclist, should be assumed that it is not, and so the cyclist should not use it.
A pavement is for pedestrians unless stated otherwise. Auriol had the right to use it.
The cyclist did not.
Aw well that’s alright then Anise, anybody who Auriol Grey doesn’t like using her pavement, kids on bicycles, mothers with prams and pushchairs, and people out walking their dogs, can be intimidated and enticed into the path of oncoming vehicles, and she can pull out the disability card to make it legal.
If it had been my Mam on the bike, it would have been me in court…
1 Like
OldGrey pavements are for pedestrians - that means anyone who is on foot, including mums with pushchairs, dog walkers, the able-bodied, and the disabled.
Sometimes if the pavement is wide enough, they are made dual purpose, with a circular blue sign clearly displayed.
If there is no sign, then it is not intended for dual purpose.
Cyclists would, or should, be aware of that.
1 Like
Celia Ward was herself an old biddy riding her bike on a path to avoid the very thing that killed her Anise. She was not exactly a racing cyclist with total disregard of pedestrians or the law. I do quite a bit of cycling and never cycle on the pavements, but I would rather some old biddy or child be on the pavement than risking their lives on the madhouse we now have for roads. According to previous posts and official reports, it is possible that the pavement was indeed used for dual use, so Celia Ward was probably well within her rights to cycle on that pavement…
But despite whether riding on the pavement is legal or not, the fact is that Celia Ward lost her life, and it was caused by the unreasonable act of Grey to intimidate her…Manslaughter is the only reasonable conclusion that the court could arrive at, and were Grey to be released, what other unsuspecting traveler on her path might end up suffering the same fate. Perhaps a wheelchair user or a child on a bike?
Can I cycle on footways?
It is illegal to cycle on footways. The roots of the law date back to the Highways Act of 1835 and the definition of a bicycle as a “carriage” in 1888. In 1999 the government gave police the power to issue on-the-spot Fixed Penalty Notice fines to pavement cyclists. Theoretically the fine could be up to £500, though £50 seems to be the standard. Also, the number of fines seems to have dropped dramatically. Around 10,000 were issued in 2010, but only around 500 in 2019. When the FPNs were introduced in 1999, the then cycling minister Paul Boateng confirmed the firms were only intended for cases when the cyclist was riding inconsiderately, NOT for cases when the cyclist felt the road was too dangerous. This advice was re-iterated in 2014 by the minister of that time, Robert Goodwill. This latter issuing of advice seems to have caused the police to reduce the number of fines issued.
Auriol didn’t challenge a wheelchair user, neither did she challenge a child on a bike, she challenged an adult cyclist, who shouldn’t have been on that pavement unless there were clear signs to say it was ok for her to be there.
The cyclist was riding 'inconsiderately OldGrey, given the lack of space on the pavement, and the fact she shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
Sounds like the cyclist broke the law that day, whereas Auriol did not.
Whether or not roads are too dangerous for cyclists, is not the issue in this case, and does not give a cyclist priority to use a pavement, or to intimidate, small children, mums with prams, or disabled people on foot.
Forget for a moment the rights or wrongs of a cyclist on a footpath, does anyone remember after witnessing the fate of the lady on the bicycle colliding with the car, the woman proceeded to carry on with her shopping trip, not sure what that says?
4 Likes
That maybe the lady does not process things in her mind in the same way as someone who doesn’t have Cerebral Palsy.
The symptoms online include both physical and mental disorders.