Auriol Grey cycling manslaughter conviction overturned

[Woodface]

There are so many cycle lanes were I live, roads narrowed and yet not on cyclist in sight. For me it is all a waste of money. The uk does not have the weather for cycling, people can jump in their cars and keep warm on their way to work. A better way to go would be public transport.

Another daft comment.

We have perfectly good weather for cycling or walking. It's only those who drive everywhere to the detriment of wider society that hold such views.

Active travel should be encouraged & public transport should be invested in. The later may lead to bus lanes though, this could cause a few drivers to clutch their pearls.

I live in the UK & cycle around 8000 miles a year.

 

[Woodface]

Exactly the same thing happens on pavements in London. Cyclists who do this seem blissfully unaware that frail old people and kids can and do make unpredictable moves. They have no excuse to be on pavements. Here's just one example of a pedestrian killed on a pavement by a cyclist. The cyclist got just one year in jail. He just rode away. What a bastard.

"Elizabeth Stone was walking along the pavement in Monmouth when she was hit. Stewart McGinn, 29, rode his bike on the pavement and around a corner at speed, running into Mrs Stone head on. The force of the impact knocked the 79-year-old to the ground and caused a serious head injury. McGinn did not stop and rode away. Mrs Stone was taken to hospital. However the injuries she had sustained proved to be fatal.

https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2022-07-14/cyclist-who-rode-on-pavement-jailed-for-fatal-collision-with-pedestrian

Six pedestrians killed and 100 injured by cyclists. One cyclist just got a £2,000 fine, another was jailed for just 27 weeks after running over a four-year-old.

These six people all died after being hit by cyclists

As bike riding becomes ever more popular — nearly three million people in Britain cycle at least once a week — more and more pedestrians are being hurt by those who ride dangerously.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This is a terrible case & thankfully the offender was jailed, not for long enough in my view.

When you get a spare few hours or days you may wish to peruse all the incidents with cars, for some reason these don't appear to get the same coverage. By way of contrast the driver of the LR from last year who ploughed into a school has not been charged with anything & the grieving parents are left hanging.

Take a good look at the stats, the problem isn't cycling, quite the opposite.

 

[les24preludes]

Take a good look at the stats, the problem isn't cycling, quite the opposite.

Don't blind yourself to the danger of cycling on pavements. Cyclists do this and it IS a problem. It's not an insignificant problem either - 6 deaths and 100 injuries in the article I posted is not insignificant.

Part of the problem IS cyclists on pavements. OK, there are much greater dangers in the bigger picture, that's obvious, but here we are discussing cyclists on pavements or shared paths. I know many responsible cyclists and I'm a big fan of cycling, but as with anything you have to legislate against the small number of psychopaths and people who just don't care.

 

[Bananahead]

I do love these trial-by-internet threads

 

[gez]

If by cleared "due to a technicality" means that you think she was guilty, then, yes, you are misinterpreting the judgement which seems clearly summarised in the link above.

edit - judgement here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/20240508-R-v-Auriol-Gray.pdf

Where did I say that in any part of my post? I clearly stated I thought the result was a good thing.

"Hmmm.. Clearly a good result," It's right there, first 5 words.

 

[Bob McC]

Imagine if the cyclist - a 77 year old woman ffs - was walking along the pavement and not on a bike, and the person doing the shouting was a 6’3 guy with face tattoos - let’s make him Albanian, high on drugs and here illegally ( for extra tabloid juice). He shouts and waves his arms at her and she’s so alarmed she loses her balance and falls in front of a passing car and is killed. I find doubtful that posters on this thread would be celebrating the overturning of his conviction, had he been jailed.

The only material difference in the above scenario is that she’s not on a bike. If you believe he should be punished then logically you ought to believe that the shouting woman should also be punished.

Even if you didn’t think he should be jailed,I suspect everyone would be very quick to demonstrate sympathy and sadness over the tragic death of an elderly person.

She was riding a bike on a pavement that may have been shared use. She may have been told it was shared use by someone she trusted. Even the council weren’t sure.

I am an experienced cyclist and that looks like a scary road to cycle along. If I believed the path was shared use I’d probably use it too.

The woman who was shouting didn’t stay at the scene, she left and went off to buy her groceries. how could you do that? Surely you’d be on your knees desperately trying to help a fellow human in dire need.

I have no idea whether she should have been jailed, I’m sure it is very hard to work out exactly where aggression transforms into assault. But the tone of righteousness in some of the posts here Is altogether unpleasant. It’s mystifying to me why cycling seems to upset some people so greatly that they lose their empathy.

Gold star for whatiffery…

 

[gez]

Is reading the judgement really so difficult that we get a thread full of people who clearly haven’t done so pronouncing definitively on what took place in defiance of the facts, the video and the court? Bravo.

There was no “technicality“ here. The court very clearly found the original decision to lack even the basics of having identified the correct law and an applicable base offence. It was a terrible decision where, because the base offence wasn’t identified, the court inevitably compounded that by failing to identify relevant evidence; failing to draw relevant findings of facts from said evidence and then didn’t apply the law correctly to those misguided facts. In law it’s harder to go further astray and, whilst it would not be judicial language to describe the original hearing as incompetent, that’s essentially the gist of the new decision.

Those of you busy pronouncing otherwise clearly don’t know the first thing about the law.

Why would normal average people "know the first thing about the law"? Rather than write a scathing attack on people you clearly consider below you, how about just writing a post clearly stating how and why this appeal was upheld, in a friendly helpful way?

Ignorance isn't a crime, neither is stupidity. It's clear that some people need to realise that and treat people with respect when they "don't know what they're talking about". I'm fairly confident that there isn't anybody on here that is an expert in all things, and they should remember that and consider how they would like to be treated by a knowlegeable person, should they in good faith make an incorrect statement in a field they themselves aren't experts in.

 

[Mike Hughes]

Why would normal average people "know the first thing about the law"? Rather than write a scathing attack on people you clearly consider below you, how about just writing a post clearly stating how and why this appeal was upheld, in a friendly helpful way?

Ignorance isn't a crime, neither is stupidity. It's clear that some people need to realise that and treat people with respect when they "don't know what they're talking about". I'm fairly confident that there isn't anybody on here that is an expert in all things, and they should remember that and consider how they would like to be treated by a knowlegeable person, should they in good faith make an incorrect statement in a field they themselves aren't experts in.

You don’t need to know anything about the law at all. The legal process is simple enough. Hear evidence; find facts and apply the relevant law. Been going for a few hundred years that so if you ain’t got the basics yet it’s probably best to not display that publicly on a forum.

In this instance they started from failing to find the relevant base law and thus heard evidence which was irrelevant to the actual law and found facts which could only be equally irrelevant. Why did I not explain that in a “friendly, helpful way“? Hmm, possibly because that’s exactly what the decision itself does in full and possibly because people who feel happy enough to comment having not read the decision or having read it and not understood it aren’t going to listen to anyone else‘s version of that either before commenting further.

Whilst ignorance nor stupidity are not crimes they have been demonstrated here by people who are both super confident in their perspective and interpretation despite clearly having neither read nor understood the decision and to be brutally honest I feel really, really comfortable in calling that out as ignorant, stupid and arrogant and a lecture from my Dad, with no irony at all talking down to me, ain’t changing that any time soon.

 

[gez]

You don’t need to know anything about the law at all. The legal process is simple enough. Hear evidence; find facts and apply the relevant law. Been going for a few hundred years that so if you ain’t got the basics yet it’s probably best to not display that publicly on a forum.

In this instance they started from failing to find the relevant base law and thus heard evidence which was irrelevant to the actual law and found facts which could only be equally irrelevant. Why did I not explain that in a “friendly, helpful way“? Hmm, possibly because that’s exactly what the decision itself does in full and possibly because people who feel happy enough to comment having not read the decision or having read it and not understood it aren’t going to listen to anyone else‘s version of that either before commenting further.

Whilst ignorance nor stupidity are not crimes they have been demonstrated here by people who are both super confident in their perspective and interpretation despite clearly having neither read n9r understood the decision and to be brutally honest I feel really, really comfortable in calling that out as ignorant, stupid and arrogant and a lecture from my Dad, with no irony at all talking down to me, ain’t changing that any time soon.

Understood.

 

[Mike Hughes]

A cycle lane isn't for motorists, and cycle lanes are often poorly maintained as the funding doesn't include that.

I agree but that misses the point. Not all cycle lines prevent motorists from entering them. Putting aside the obvious dangers for cyclists the reality then is that that road is for motorists.

Round the corner from me there is a horrendous one way road with two narrow lanes. It’s in poor repair but there is no money to do that work. There was however ring-fenced money to paint in a cycle lane and maintain that. Perverse but how it works in reality. It’s hideously inappropriate to have a cycle lane there and vehicles often park across it outside the local scout hut just to make it that extra bit dangerous. However, by painting the lane there my local authority can now maintain a 3 feet wide part of the road which they otherwise could not.

 

[Ginger]

Bollox to that, it was a shared path

Moronic comment. As a member of the weekend (& during the week) 'lycra brigade' I go nowhere near cycle lanes or shared paths. I tend to cycle in the Peak District & have to take my chances with boy racers, inattentive drivers & the occasional errant walker on the road who hasn't looked. All part of it unfortunately.

Tax & insurance argument is ridiculous, why should I pay VED when a Tesla doesn't. I have insurance, many of us do.

I also walk 20 miles a week & drive.

‘Errant walker on the road’ . Doesn’t the latest Highway Code adequately describe the hierarchy of road users? That walker might be blind/deaf/drunk/diabetic/careless, but they still have right of way.

 

[Woodface]

Don't blind yourself to the danger of cycling on pavements. Cyclists do this and it IS a problem. It's not an insignificant problem either - 6 deaths and 100 injuries in the article I posted is not insignificant.

Part of the problem IS cyclists on pavements. OK, there are much greater dangers in the bigger picture, that's obvious, but here we are discussing cyclists on pavements or shared paths. I know many responsible cyclists and I'm a big fan of cycling, but as with anything you have to legislate against the small number of psychopaths and people who just don't care.

Oh dear.

So these are psychopaths? It's just accidents when cars are involved. 6 deaths in how long? Apologies I didn't click on the article as it looked liked typical DM clickbait & I don't do that.

Laws come about due to need, its why we have speed limits, driving licenses etc. Cycling is safe & is good for society. I see it as a massive overreaction but, to be honest, I'm not really that bothered as there will be hardly any actionable cases, a bit of a waste of parliament time. Where do we end, 'death by furious walking'?

The actual problem is better infrastructure, I am not a huge fan of shared paths as they require a degree of give & take which seems beyond us as a species. For example, I rarely use the Trans Pennine Trail as its a bizarre mix of dog walkers, horses & hikers. As we are so dominated by cars we tend to bunch all the 'vulnerable' groups together which feeds a perception of risk which is out of proportion.

Anyway, nobody ever changes their mind so I don't know why I bother.

 

[laughingboy]

The uk does not have the weather for cycling.

That is as nonsensical as saying 'the UK does not have the weather for walking'. Anyway, a visit to Amsterdam or Copenhagen would prove you categorically wrong.

 

[Cav]

Where did I say that in any part of my post? I clearly stated I thought the result was a good thing.

"Hmmm.. Clearly a good result," It's right there, first 5 words.

Followed by "but the worrying part is that it appears (unless I'm misinterpreting) that she was cleared due to a technicality, rather than an absolute statement of lack of guilt. This is the bit that concerns me:"

A good result you found worrying and concerning? What did you mean to suggest by what you posted about a technicality and absolute lack of guilt (which the judgement actually implies)?

 

[laughingboy]

Cyclists need insurance and taxing...

This is an ill-reasoned idea.

Firstly, it fails on a practical level: where do you put the numberplate on a bicycle so that it can be recognised at a distance? Who is going to pay to retrofit existing bicycles? How do you enforce the insurance/taxing requirement? Do we want our police doing this rather than other things?

But mostly, if we did this, we would make it extremely unattractive for anyone to cycle in the UK. Hardly any children would ever learn to cycle. They would all ride electric scooters on the pavement. Active lifestyles are to be encouraged, not discouraged. Casual cycling is correlated with multiple, beneficial outcomes in mental and physical health and life expectancy.

What cyclists need is not insurance but infrastructure.

 

[les24preludes]

Oh dear. So these are psychopaths?

Anyway, nobody ever changes their mind so I don't know why I bother.

An example of a psychopath on a bike - a cyclist going fast (cyclists can go at up to 20mph) calling out to the pedestrian "get out of the way - I'm not going to stop......".

So there are much greater dangers facing cyclists than pedestrians - we all know this. But pedestrians on pavements need protection too.

It doesn't seem like you have the capacity to change your mind either, or even read about pedestrian deaths from cyclists.

 

[Woodface]

An example of a psychopath on a bike - a cyclist going fast (cyclists can go at up to 20mph) calling out to the pedestrian "get out of the way - I'm not going to stop......".

So there are much greater dangers facing cyclists than pedestrians - we all know this. But pedestrians on pavements need protection too.

It doesn't seem like you have the capacity to change your mind either, or even read about pedestrian deaths from cyclists.

This is one of those cases where I look at actual statistics rather than just media headlines. If we gave the same coverage to motoring offences that we did to these much rarer occurrences then we would never hear about other news. It is already illegal, in most cases, to cycle on the pavement. There never seems to be any outrage about road deaths by car, we seem to have just accepted it. Look at the multi page thread on the 20mph speed limit for example.

As I outlined earlier, I am a walker, a cyclist & a driver. I have a balanced view of risk/reward regarding differing transport options. I don't need you to explain how fast a cyclist can go, I have first hand experience of this. I actually encounter a women on e-bike most days, she cycles on the path, I wish she was 'brave' enough to use the road. She is very courteous, I've never felt threatened or felt the need to swear at her either. How about that for balance?

I'd also like it to be made illegal for cars to park on pavements, this is a far bigger danger but this doesn't get anywhere near enough attention. It always seems to be idiot Tory MPs who campaign for additional powers over cyclists, says it all really.

 

[Woodface]

This is an ill-reasoned idea.

Firstly, it fails on a practical level: where do you put the numberplate on a bicycle so that it can be recognised at a distance? Who is going to pay to retrofit existing bicycles? How do you enforce the insurance/taxing requirement? Do we want our police doing this rather than other things?

But mostly, if we did this, we would make it extremely unattractive for anyone to cycle in the UK. Hardly any children would ever learn to cycle. They would all ride electric scooters on the pavement. Active lifestyles are to be encouraged, not discouraged. Casual cycling is correlated with multiple, beneficial outcomes in mental and physical health and life expectancy.

What cyclists need is not insurance but infrastructure.

Well said. Given the large number of uninsured drivers on the roads, under the already rather fallible system, it would be unenforceable also.

 

[gez]

Followed by "but the worrying part is that it appears (unless I'm misinterpreting) that she was cleared due to a technicality, rather than an absolute statement of lack of guilt. This is the bit that concerns me:"

A good result you found worrying and concerning? What did you mean to suggest by what you posted about a technicality and absolute lack of guilt (which the judgement actually implies)?

What I was trying to say, clearly not well enough. Was that I was worried by the fact that the good result appeared to come from intricacies of law rather than fundamentally her being found not guilty simply because there was no case to answer. It read, to me at least, that if the CPS had put their case together differently then the (in my opinion) wrong original conviction would have stood. That troubles me because if that's the case, it would mean this overturn doesn't mean that other people in similar situations can be guaranteed of not being convicted. I hope that makes sense?

 

[AndyU]

Is this the same delicate flower you told the cyclist to 'Get off the f88cking pavement'. This whole case is tragic, particularly for the cyclist who is the real victim here & is being blamed for being so. It's a bit of stretch to suggest that the cyclist is at fault. What an utterly horrible society we live in.

You have no idea whether the cyclist was capable of controlling the bike, sometimes people get startled or surprised.

Read the judgement of the appeal court. It was unanimous. The case should never have gone to a jury, because there was no base offence or unlawful action to justify the charge of manslaughter. Telling someone to F off, or trying to wave a cyclist away who is coming towards you frighteningly is not a crime. If the cyclist hadn’t cycled into he road, what would the crime have been? Being a pedestrian? The pedestrian had multiple physical and cognitive disabilities, but in any case she should have been given way to.

Auriol Grey has cyclist manslaughter conviction overturned

Auriol Grey's family say they are relieved her ordeal is now over following the Appeal Court ruling.

www.bbc.com