If the dual use did not apply on that stretch of pavement then the cyclist was preferring her own safety & convenience over the inconvenience of pedestrians. If the dual use ended before that stretch of pavement then the cyclist was making a very minor infraction - unless she was cycling fast and dangerously. She was not, she was slowly wobbling down the pavement. So in no way was the cyclist deserving of anything other than being clearly told to dismount and walk with her bike.
But the pedestrian took into her own hands to mete out more severe punishment - verbal abuse and threatening actions. Of course the pedestrian did not intend to do more than that. However the pedestrian decided not to consider the risks, the age and confidence of the cyclist or any other factor. She preferred demonstrating her anger over the safety of the cyclist. That was a serious mistake, not a minor infraction. I do not see how any disability excuses people to take such actions whenever they like.
The cyclist was only responsible for the wrong of being on the pavement while on her bike. Nothing else and this is not a serious crime - especially not if the cyclist is being as careful as possible. Its at most an inconvenience. Nothing worthy of verbal and physical abuse. And no responsibility for what happened to her.
(Look, you’ve got me agreeing with OldGreyFox and that is a bit unsettling!)
Then if she was wobbling down the pavement she should have dismounted for safety to others.
Had Auriol been in a wheelchair, what would the cyclist have done? If she had also swerved into the road, whose fault would it be? If a cat or dog had run in front of her path and she had swerved in the road would you blame the animal? This was an unfortunate accident because the council in that area does not want to put effort into making safe cycle lanes and footpaths.
Look how tight this footpath is. This news reporter is very slim and she has to pull her arm in as the cyclist goes past her at speed
seconds earlier :
I wonder if Mrs Grey should have been out on her own in view of her condition and the possibility of the sudden physical anger she is capable of showing towards others who might cause annoyance.
The width of that path is just not suitable for bikes and people.I would never consider riding a bike there.Paths are primarily for pedestrians and if you haven’t got the confidence to go on the road you shouldn’t be on a bike anyway.
That’s Academic Annie, Auriol wasn’t in a wheelchair and if she had been the situation that followed would have had a completely different outcome.
Obviously judging by the news report, the footpath is regularly used by cyclists, Auriol probably knew this and deliberately went out to harass cyclists. Any decent person would have stood aside and let a cyclist pass. I don;t mind how many cyclists pass me on the footpath as long as they give me warning of their approach. Obviously Auriol was already facing Celia Ward and ready for confrontation.
Not at all, some disabilities are less visible. She had likely had near misses because of inconsiderate cyclists on the same path. The one that sped past the reporter looked completely oblivious. I’ve had some near accidents crossing the street when they go through red lights as though these don’t apply to a cyclist. I don’t see riding towards a pedestrian on a pavement as any different. It should be illegal not to stop particularly when you shouldn’t be on the pavement in the first place as it’s not a shared path. Pedestrians are top of the vulnerable list in the highway code so cyclists should assess the risk from some distance and always slow down and stop if approaching a pedestrian. Instead of this many speed up as if there is nobody on the road or pavement but them. As if it’s impossible for them to stop. Yes there are very considerate cyclists but there are so many who are inconsiderate and downright aggressive. As I said previously I caught one in the dog lead one night. He didn’t stop until he realised he was caught up and unable to go further. There was a clear road right next to him to ride on. He said he didn’t see the dog. He had probably been smoking something. According to this verdict I am supposed to be understanding about his need to go on the pavement and scare me and my poor lovely dog. Because if I had reacted in an angry way I might end up in court like Auriol. Absolutely ridiculous.
This shared path looks obviously unsuitable and probably the result of a box ticking exercise by the council(Yes,we’ve got the required number of paths now)
However it’s users should use some common sense,just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
Auriol doesn’t appear to have a history of aggression or ‘physical’ anger towards anyone else.
She lost her temper on this occasion , used a naughty swear word and gesticulated true, but this doesn’t mean she should be accompanied by a minder every time she leaves her home, which incidentally is provided by a charity for people with special needs.
"The police, in their evidence, said they could not categorically state that the route in question was a shared cycleway and the county council could find no legal records showing that it was.
And according to Department for Transport guidance on cycle infrastructure design — issued to councils in July 2020 — shared routes should be at least three metres wide on roads used by up to 300 cyclists per hour and 4.5 metres wide on roads used by more than 300 cyclists per hour.
The stretch of pavement where Celia Ward fell off her bike into the path of an oncoming Volkswagen Passat was just 2.4 metres wide and there wasn’t a sign indicating a ‘shared path’.
The pavement was certainly used by cyclists but unlawfully, it seems".
The reason this should never have resulted in a guilty verdict is because this is not a shared path at all and the council have been conveniently ignoring that for a long time. There are shared paths further up on stretches of this road where the pavements are wider. The council’s lazy planning should have made them liable. But of course they were not on trial. Easier to blame a disabled middle aged woman who isn’t articulate or resourceful enough to defend herself.
Quite possible and wrong of me to judge. I don’t know Mrs Grey. None of us do. It could just have been a moment of anger. Maybe she is generally anti-cyclist because of previous experiences. Nobody can know why she got so cross that she became involved in the death of a cyclist. Doesn’t seem natural to carry on and do some shopping having been part of that incident though.
I can only say how I think I’d have behaved because I don’t live/cycle around there to know for certain. I’m a confident cyclist on the road, which is probably where I would have been at that location, even if riding on the roads can get unnerving sometimes. If I had been on the footpath, I would have dismounted for an oncoming pedestrian, especially if they appeared impaired.
Although the footpath may not have been a shared one at that point, I think there does appear to be room for a pedestrian to move closer to the fence to allow safe passage for both. Shout the words from there if feeling strongly, rather than drive a cyclist into the road and the oncoming traffic.
I agree. The cyclist was both wrong and inconsiderate. However that wrong was merely an inconvenience and an irritant. As such it deserves a small reprimand and not violent words and actions.
Hypotheticals can be useful in testing a judgement is valid. In this case the conscience act by the pedestrian is different from an non-conscience act by an animal. The pedestrian made a decision to attack the cyclist. That shifts the responsibility significantly, does it not?
I do not think that people can be absolved of guilt just because of the lack of signage or poor planning. We can’t go round claiming some action we made is not our fault just because there was some lack of clarity on the designation. People are responsible for their own decisions and actions with or without signage.
Absolutely. Put better than I ever could… 
Whoever loses their temper are in the wrong, no if’s or buts.
They lose the ability for rational thought or actions and in this case it has resulted in the unfortunate death of Celia Grey. As Lincs has pointed out, the life of another human far outweighs the petty arguing of whether Celia should have been cycling on the path or not.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but to expect a visually and physically impaired person like Auriol, try to make her self smaller, or almost invisible by squeezing herself into a small space, in order to give priority to a cyclist clearly breaking the law here is quite ridiculous.
But it would be easier for an able-bodied person to do, than someone who walks unsteadily with a leg in a splint, and is partially sighted.
That version of what the pedestrian should have done is, I agree, quite ridiculous. Perhaps if it were described as “a visually and physically impaired person might have simply stepped to one side due the irritating inconvenience of a thoughtless cyclist” then it makes it sound like a quite reasonable choice. I can’t see how partially impaired vision and partially impaired mobility makes this option difficult or anything other than sensible. The not-sensible choice for a partially sighted and poor mobility person would be to pick a fight.
Auriol didn’t pick a fight, i doubt was her intention when she left home that day in order to collect medication for her many ailments.
But, instead,In the spur of the moment, lost her temper, shouted, and stood her ground, which she had every right to do considering she had priority on that narrow stretch of pavement.
Clearly the cyclist was not in control of her bicycle, and tragically lost her life as a result.
Ironically, not so long ago, a cyclist, with no working brakes on his bike, knocked down a pedestrian who later died of her injuries.
He was sentenced to 18 months.
The law is very strange indeed.
As I noted in a previous post the sentencing here was wrong and excessive. Your reminder about the sentence given to a cyclist whose actions killed someone is well made. In that case the reckless action of the cyclist is worse than the actions of the pedestrian Auriol. The sentence given to each should have reflected that.
However, Auriol did more than simply stand her ground. Her aggressive shouting and flailing arms were very much picking a fight (not necessarily physical) with the cyclist. Spur of the moment indeed, but it was the waving of her arm at the cyclist that made the cyclist topple. Not Auriol simply standing in one place, that implies a passiveness that was not evident.
The cyclist toppled because she had no control over her bike on a narrow stretch of pavement completely unsuitable for anything other than pedestrian use.
I think you need to watch the video of the incident again. The cyclist only toppled into the traffic because of the action of the pedestrian. The cyclist did not topple prior to the pedestrian raising her arm at her. Your description implies the cyclist could have wobbled on to the road at any moment and even implies the cyclist was solely at fault. These claims are plainly not correct and the court judgement confirms that…