Mrs Grey has returned home (or is understood to have), unlike Mrs Ward who never will…
Huntingdon cyclist killer released from jail pending appeal - BBC News
1 Like
Pleased to hear it.
Not a clear cut case at all, too many grey areas (no pun intended) and not everyone believes that Auriol’s actions that day caused the cyclist to lose control of her bike.
There will always be people who are never coming home, but there wont always be someone to blame for that. (My opinion only).
I travelled by bike. It was the same road by car. Pedestrians were else adjacent.
1 Like
Looking at the recording this seems a fair decision as she seems to have been pushed by the pedestrian into the road. Cyclists have always got to think for other people who are sometimes maniacs as in this case. Her mistake as a cyclist was to get into a position of nowhere to go.
1 Like
Absolutely disgusting and an insult to the cyclists family
I hope she’s under some sort of supervision, I wouldn’t want to live next door to her
1 Like
Excellent post…
there’s no similarity between Auriol and a psychotic knife-stabbing maniac who rampaged through Nottingham University. People have altercations in the street every day which are far worse than this one but because they don’t result in a death they are not recorded or deemed important. The appeal case is focused on the fact that Auriol did not premeditate this death and wasn’t intending to kill the cyclist.
It is also now noted in press reports that as well as having cerebral palsy and being partially sighted and Auriol is autistic. This would mean that she may have been having an autistic meltdown as a result of sensory overload. It would also explain why she went shopping afterwards as autistic people don’t react to situations in a normal way.
Had this been a normal healthy & fit young person getting annoyed I might have a different opinion on the situation. But I would still see it as an accident where the cyclist had put herself at risk by going on a pavement which was not a shared path. This is the fault of the council and they should be taken to court.
2 Likes
So it’s manslaughter then Annie…
2 Likes
Not sure i agree that the council is to blame for this although i do agree with the rest of your post Annie.
In my own mind i’m certain Auriol is not to blame in any way.
We all have a responsibility for own own safety in any situation, and also a right to call someone out if they are putting our safety at risk (which Auriol did in her own way and given her serious disability was understandable in the circumstances)
On the other hand the cyclist was clearly flouting safety rules that day, gave no thought to pedestrians on that treacherous stretch of pavement, and as i understand, was not wearing a safety helmet?
It also begs the question as to why that cyclist was so unsteady on her bike.
Hopefully she hadn’t had a few ‘tipples’ that day before getting on her cycle.
We’ll never know.
It’s up to the council to provide safe, clear cycle routes. The problem with the road in question is that some parts are shared paths and some aren’t but there appears to be confusion all round as to when they stop and end. I am totally against shared paths. If they cannot create a safe cycling route then paths should be clearly marked “no Cycles”, or “cyclists dismount” just as some roads are marked “no entry for cars”. Pavements are safe havens for pedestrians, particularly vulnerable, disabled, partially sighted or blind pedestrians and this is not made sufficiently clear in the changes to the highway code. There is nothing to stop a cyclist putting brakes on dismounting until a pedestrian has passed.
Cycling right into the path of any pedestrian is a deliberate act of aggression.
1 Like
Exactly !
1 Like
I’m not against shared or dual purpose pavements as long as they’re wide enough and well maintained.
We have them here, with clear signage mounted on posts at intervals along the pavements.
On the whole they work okay, until you get a complete idiot on a bike who thinks they actually have priority over pedestrians on that pavement, which of course they don’t as both have equal right of passage.
I have every sympathy with the disabled amongst us, and I’ll probably be one of them one day, however, as a boy I can’t remember there being any disabled facilities in shops or out in the street and since those days, there have been massive drives to accommodate the disabled but it takes time Annie. Most of our towns and villages were build and designed many years ago, and were not faced with the problems we have today, hence narrow streets and footpaths. And with the ever increasing traffic the roads in places, are not safe to cycle along especially for an older person, so we must be sensible and allow the safe passage of children and the elderly despite the dubious use of the footpaths.
If Auriol Grey had a problem with cyclists on her footpath she should have contacted her local council for clarification of the rules surrounding the use of the footpath. She should also have engaged the press and police, and not taken the law into her own hands, she is not a policewoman!
And finally, I don’t believe that she has not displayed these outbursts of anger before this unfortunate incident. She was a loose cannon and should not have been allowed out by herself. If anything, Auriol Greys medical condition should be working in Celia Wards favour and ensure that Auriol is not in a position to throw a temper tantrum in public again, or else if she is released, who will take responsiblity for the next accident she causes.
She was trying to go off the kerb into the road at an angle and riding a bike with small wheels. She may have been panicked into doing this by the woman waving her arms. If she had just stopped and let the woman go past she’d still be alive today, in my opinion.
1 Like
That is a terrible thing to say with no foundation or evidence that there’s anything to suggest it
The poor lady is dead, her family grieving and you’re suggesting, without any evidence whatsoever, that it might have been her own fault for being drunk? Shame on you
2 Likes
Pedestrians can be in the wrong sometimes where there is a shared footpath/cyclepath. If it’s a path with a dividing line, the division is often not respected and cyclists have to go into the pedestrian lane to pass by someone walking in the cycle lane. Perhaps I should start shouting and waving my arm rather than just go around them without incident or anger.
1 Like
The cyclist would be alive today if she had been more responsible - she wasn’t a child.
Added to which she may have been riding her bike illegally if she had been drunk, which is a possibility.
‘If’, ‘could have’, ‘would have’, blah. blah,blah etc., and so it rumbles on.
But clearly the cyclist broke so many safety rules here - absolutely disgusting.
The pedestrian is at the top of the hierarchy in the highway code, therefore every vehicle including cars, cycles, scooters, mopeds should give way to a pedestrian. Particularly if the pedestrian appears distressed. The highway code revision should have been more strongly worded in favour of pedestrian safety, in particular the safety of those who are blind or vulnerable. But really all pedestrians should be given utmost consideration by wheeled vehicles (and that includes electric wheelchairs)
1 Like
Yes of course you can, waving your arms and shouting isn’t a crime, however i’m assuming you don’t have cerebral palsy, or partially sighted, or walk with a limp due to a leg splint, all of which would slow down your reactions, and remove your ability to be agile, which would make you pretty vulnerable and angry in the circumstances.
I’m sure they would have checked this at the autopsy. There is no evidence she had been drinking.
1 Like