Pedestrian jailed for telling off cyclist

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64824436

Really surprised she has been jailed. 

She was telling off a cyclist who shouldn't have been riding on the pavement. Okay she approached it in rude way but didn't push the cyclist and hardly can be responsible for the cyclist deciding to career into the road without looking. She is disabled and probably be not very mobile and rightly worried a cyclist might hit her if she couldn't get out of the way .....the cyclist should have stopped rather to than just riding into the road

Can't help thinking this could happen to anyone ....I'm the sort of person who would tell people off for this sort of stuff.

E.g. If I tell someone off for swearing in a bus queue next to my kids (which I have) and they then fling themselves into the road am I responsible? Is it my fault? 

Are we supposed to just not challenge unlawful/poor behaviour ?

Edited March 2, 2023 by Bedfordshire Bronco

[gingerjon]

The cyclist was legally using a shared path.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

19 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The cyclist was legally using a shared path.

The police and Cambridgeshire Council would seem to disagree that it was definitely a shared path 

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.

[costa]

I don't think the key takeaway from this tragic case is that members of the public should not challenge wrongdoing where they see it.

As gingerjon calls out, the cyclist was using a shared cycleway used by both pedestrians and cyclists. The victim therefore was not committing any wrongdoing, they were simply going about their business. 

This is an unusual case because the territorial nature of the defendant is more typically found amongst motorists. I commute a 50 mile round trip three days a week on the bike, and I'm sorry to say that there is a significant minority of motorists who believe I have no right at all to be on a road with them. To pre-empt any of the usual tropes - I have insurance, I stop at every red light, and I never cycle on the pavement. I'm not perfect (who is?) but I try my best to follow the Highway Code to the letter. The point I'm making is that at least once a week I will cop a volley of abuse - or worse (deliberate dangerous driving) - simply for existing on the road. 

This is the same attitude that caused this man's death. 

Edited March 2, 2023 by costa

[DI Keith Fowler]

I think her not stopping after the accident had happened and going to the shops, followed by giving false statements and expressing no remorse didn't help. 

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

The police and Cambridgeshire Council would seem to disagree that it was definitely a shared path 

It appears, having been aware of this for a while, that it had been assumed to be a shared path even by those who are happy to act in such a way that what they do causes them to cause someone's death.

Before they themselves go to the shops and then lie to the police.

Anyone but a disabled woman and anyone but a cyclist and this would be about the simplist case in the world. As far as I can see, it is almost a textbook example of manslaughter.

[DI Keith Fowler]

21 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It appears, having been aware of this for a while, that it had been assumed to be a shared path even by those who are happy to act in such a way that what they do causes them to cause someone's death.

Before they themselves go to the shops and then lie to the police.

Anyone but a disabled woman and anyone but a cyclist and this would be about the simplist case in the world. As far as I can see, it is almost a textbook example of manslaughter.

I think there was probably a defence here that could have minimised jail time. "This is massively out of character, I'm a woman with mobility issues and I felt threatened by the speed the cyclist was moving but regardless I shouldn't have acted in the way I did, I wish I could go back undo it and I will live with that forever. That I went to shops shows that I was in a state of shock at what had happened". Seemingly she didn't go down this route and instead denied wrongdoing and waited until the day of the sentencing to express remorse. 

[The Hallucinating Goose]

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

The two individuals involved were travelling in opposite directions so they could easily move out of the way of each other. There was absolutely no reason to shout at the cyclist, the cyclist was doing nothing to warrant a verbal attack, which in law amounts to statutory assault it should be pointed out, which scared the elderly cyclist causing her to swerve into the road and be hit by the car. 

The verbal attack was the incident that led to the death and so it is a clear cut case of manslaughter. At the very least it is an assault charge for the verbal attack so I'm not surprised she has been convicted. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

23 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

The two individuals involved were travelling in opposite directions so they could easily move out of the way of each other. There was absolutely no reason to shout at the cyclist, the cyclist was doing nothing to warrant a verbal attack, which in law amounts to statutory assault it should be pointed out, which scared the elderly cyclist causing her to swerve into the road and be hit by the car. 

The verbal attack was the incident that led to the death and so it is a clear cut case of manslaughter. At the very least it is an assault charge for the verbal attack so I'm not surprised she has been convicted. 

If it isn't a shared pathway then is it that clear cut? 

Someone is committing an offence by cycling on it which presents a danger.

Members of the public can object if they see such things. Now she was aggressive but frankly if I pull people up for things in public  (and I have for things like litter dropping) then I am far from polite - why should I be if they are doing something unlawful 

Am I then at risk of manslaughter if they then do something stupid and walk straight into a road without looking as a result of being a bit upset I've told them off?

I'll concede if it is indeed a shared pathway that is different but it seems unclear. 

........people's opinions on this are genuinely worrying me and my attitude to stepping in....I am thinking if other occasions I have stepped in- I am particularly thinking of one occasion last year where I got out of my car at 9pm to stop a man scuffling and arguing with two teenagers after they tapped his car.........I was really surprised at my friends saying I shouldn't of done it (you could have got stabbed etc)......

Listening to people here maybe my friends were right.....I'm going to avoid any civic duty on these lines whatsoever from now on.....I'm putting myself at too much risk ........I'll leave people to carry on as they like!!

Edited March 2, 2023 by Bedfordshire Bronco

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Am I then at risk of manslaughter if they then do something stupid and walk straight into a road without looking as a result of being a bit upset I've told them off?

Have you actually read anything about this beyond the headline?

But, to assume you have bothered, if, when deciding to yell at children in a spirit of being a good citizen, you (to give an example you used earlier), take a step forward and this causes the child you're bawling at to take a step back ... only it's into the road and then they are hit by a car and killed, then, yup, you'll be off to jail.

[The Hallucinating Goose]

11 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

If it isn't a shared pathway then is it that clear cut? 

Someone is committing an offence by cycling on it which presents a danger.

Members of the public can object if they see such things. Now she was aggressive but frankly if I pull people up for things in public  (and I have for things like litter dropping) then I am far from polite - why should I be if they are doing something unlawful 

Am I then at risk of manslaughter if they then do something stupid and walk straight into a road without looking as a result of being a bit upset I've told them off?

I'll concede if it is indeed a shared pathway that is different but it seems unclear. 

........people's opinions on this are genuinely worrying me and my attitude to stepping in....I am thinking if other occasions I have stepped in- I am particularly thinking of one occasion last year where I got out of my car at 9pm to stop a man scuffling and arguing with two teenagers after they tapped his car.........I was really surprised at my friends saying I shouldn't of done it (you could have got stabbed etc)......

Listening to people here maybe my friends were right.....I'm going to avoid any civic duty on these lines whatsoever from now on.....I'm putting myself at too much risk ........I'll leave people to carry on as they like!!

Legally you have no right to shout at people in the street for them doing something. If you see something you do not agree with you are supposed to report it, hence why we have a police force and other local authorities. If you have a go at someone in the street and they feel scared or threatened by your behaviour, in British statutory law, you are assaulting them. 

The crime the pedestrian in this story committed (the assault) led to the cyclist being killed. This is manslaughter. Its the same as if, for example, a mugger threatens someone with a knife and that person has a dodgy heart and has a heart attack and drops dead. It's not just a mugging, it's manslaughter because the mugging led to the death. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

8 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Legally you have no right to shout at people in the street for them doing something. If you see something you do not agree with you are supposed to report it, hence why we have a police force and other local authorities. If you have a go at someone in the street and they feel scared or threatened by your behaviour, in British statutory law, you are assaulting them. 

 

Yep I have learned that today for sure 

Genuinely I will no longer be challenging anyone for littering, swearing, fighting, vandalizing or anything else....and I genuinely am someone to do that regularly 

You live and learn 

[The Hallucinating Goose]

7 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Yep I have learned that today for sure 

Genuinely I will no longer be challenging anyone for littering, swearing, fighting, vandalizing or anything else....and I genuinely am someone to do that regularly 

You live and learn 

I've never challenged people on things like that for fear of getting my head kicked in. If it's got nothing to do with me I just stay out of it and keep walking.

Just last night a couple of my neighbours were having a massive row in the street and banging doors and slamming around for a couple of hours. Someone went out to tell them to shut up and ended up being screamed at and threatened and told they would burn their house down. I don't want to put myself in that situation. Someone called the police in the end and it calmed down. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

16 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

I've never challenged people on things like that for fear of getting my head kicked in. If it's got nothing to do with me I just stay out of it and keep walking.

Just last night a couple of my neighbours were having a massive row in the street and banging doors and slamming around for a couple of hours. Someone went out to tell them to shut up and ended up being screamed at and threatened and told they would burn their house down. I don't want to put myself in that situation. Someone called the police in the end and it calmed down. 

I'm a very large guy so I'm not too worried about the violence side (and also my profession means I'm used to dealing with confrontations )

I am however very worried about what the law states.....I'll just have to learn to live with myself after walking away!

 

[The Hallucinating Goose]

43 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I'm a very large guy so I'm not too worried about the violence side (and also my profession means I'm used to dealing with confrontations )

I am however very worried about what the law states.....I'll just have to learn to live with myself after walking away!

 

What is your profession, if you don't mind me asking?

I work for a sanitation company. Not the most pleasant of work at times but it doesn't really lead to confrontations and violence too much either hence my preference to run away than get involved in a to do. 

I did study law in college but never really did anything with it, although it has led to a lifelong fascination with law. 

[The Hallucinating Goose]

There's some CCTV of this incident been released and it actually seems to show the pedestrian not only swearing at the cyclist but also swinging her arm as they passed each other which looks like she has struck or pushed the cyclist. 

Edited March 2, 2023 by The Hallucinating Goose

[gingerjon]

44 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

There's some CCTV of this incident been released and it actually seems to show the pedestrian not only swearing at the cyclist but also swinging her arm as they passed each other which looks like she has struck or pushed the cyclist. 

Yes.

Nobody has been jailed for telling off a cyclist.

[hw88]

Apparently the woman pedestrian was partially sighted which may explain her actions.

Looking at the footpath it doesn't look like a 'shared space' but then again looking at the road width and the traffic I can understand why she was on it.

The way the woman fell off the bike made me think she had no right to be on a bicycle in the first place.

Either way a lose/lose situation all round.

[The Hallucinating Goose]

23 minutes ago, hw88 said:

Apparently the woman pedestrian was partially sighted which may explain her actions.

Looking at the footpath it doesn't look like a 'shared space' but then again looking at the road width and the traffic I can understand why she was on it.

The way the woman fell off the bike made me think she had no right to be on a bicycle in the first place.

Either way a lose/lose situation all round.

Being partially sighted does not give you a pass to verbally abuse people or attempt to hit them. 

A lot of footpaths are not obviously shared paths. A lot just have small, blue signs placed ever 20 metres or so along them and no other markings. 

'she had no right to be on a bicycle'. That doesn't even mean anything. Anyone can ride a bike if they want. 

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Being partially sighted does not give you a pass to verbally abuse people or attempt to hit them. 

A lot of footpaths are not obviously shared paths. A lot just have small, blue signs placed ever 20 metres or so along them and no other markings. 

'she had no right to be on a bicycle'. That doesn't even mean anything. Anyone can ride a bike if they want. 

No point replying to a troll, mate.

[hw88]

13 hours ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Being partially sighted does not give you a pass to verbally abuse people or attempt to hit them. 

A lot of footpaths are not obviously shared paths. A lot just have small, blue signs placed ever 20 metres or so along them and no other markings. 

'she had no right to be on a bicycle'. That doesn't even mean anything. Anyone can ride a bike if they want. 

Quite right but if you are vision impaired having someone hurtling towards you on a bike can be quite disconcerting.

Of course anyone can ride a bike. The way she fell off though after minimal contact made her look rather unsteady on it.

As I said, I can see both points of view and it's a lose/lose situation for everybody.

[hw88]

13 hours ago, gingerjon said:

No point replying to a troll, mate.

For 'troll' read someone who disagrees with me and whose arguments I am unable to refute.

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, hw88 said:

For 'troll' read someone who disagrees with me and whose arguments I am unable to refute.

Not really, I was just giving you some credit that you didn't actually believe that a retired midwife deserved to die because she looked a bit unsteady on a bike whilst undergoing an assault that led to her death.

Turns out you do believe that.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

18 hours ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

What is your profession, if you don't mind me asking?

I work for a sanitation company. Not the most pleasant of work at times but it doesn't really lead to confrontations and violence too much either hence my preference to run away than get involved in a to do. 

I did study law in college but never really did anything with it, although it has led to a lifelong fascination with law. 

Sent a message to you Goose rather than to all. 

I find law troubling sometimes. This case is an example 

[LEEDSLADGONE SOUTH]

21 hours ago, costa said:

I don't think the key takeaway from this tragic case is that members of the public should not challenge wrongdoing where they see it.

As gingerjon calls out, the cyclist was using a shared cycleway used by both pedestrians and cyclists. The victim therefore was not committing any wrongdoing, they were simply going about their business. 

This is an unusual case because the territorial nature of the defendant is more typically found amongst motorists. I commute a 50 mile round trip three days a week on the bike, and I'm sorry to say that there is a significant minority of motorists who believe I have no right at all to be on a road with them. To pre-empt any of the usual tropes - I have insurance, I stop at every red light, and I never cycle on the pavement. I'm not perfect (who is?) but I try my best to follow the Highway Code to the letter. The point I'm making is that at least once a week I will cop a volley of abuse - or worse (deliberate dangerous driving) - simply for existing on the road. 

This is the same attitude that caused this man's death. 

In all fairness if the pedestrian had been driving a car they’d have received a few points on their license and a small fine. Rarely do motorists revive such long jail terms for killing other road users