Auriol Grey cycling manslaughter conviction overturned

[gez]

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.

So what you're saying is: cyclists shouldn't be as easily held to account as other road users because:

a) it's a bit of a pain to implement and
b) it would discourage something we want to encourage.


Sorry, to me at least, both of those are weak arguments. b) in particular implies that people are attracted to cycling partly at least because it's free from accountablity. Well if that's the case, I don't want such cyclists on our streets.

Taxing I don't see much value in, and given it's currently based on pollution, then it doesn't make much sense. Unless we decide that a cyclist is producing more CO2 than they would if they were walking (which is very probably true) and that that level of CO2 should be taxed in some way.

Insurance absolutely. Cyclists have the capablity to do harm on the road, as well as do damage to other vehicles. Why should any other road user not have recourse to financial redress from a cyclists harmful actions?

Very few things that are the right thing to do are simple and cost free to do. Of course it would be trivially easy to put a number plate on the back of a bicycle. Would it be unsightly? Very probably but a lot of motorcyclists and car drivers find number plates unsightly too, that's no argument for them not being licenced. It would also be trivially easy to mandate that cyclists wore special vests with the number plate on the back, so negating any argument against practicality of attaching them to the bike itself. (after all it's the person not the object thats meant to be held accountable).

It's very simple in my eyes. All road users need to be easliy identifiable and accoutable, because all road users are potentially able to behave in a way to cause injury and death to other road users (either directly or indirecly it makes no difference how). There needs to be a way to punish all road users and ban them from being on the road if required. I fail to see how anybody can argue against such a position and putting up barriers to do so is only putting peoples safety at risk. On top of that there is just the principle of fairness, that all road users should be treated equally with respect to rules of the road.

 

[Stuart Frazer]

I haven't read the judgement, but my understanding was that the CPS wanted a re-trial, which was refused. Perhaps that is covered in the full judgement. However, it should be noted that common assault does not have to involve physical acts:

Common assault is when a person inflicts violence on someone else or makes them think they are going to be attacked. It does not have to involve physical violence. Threatening words or a raised fist is enough for the crime to have been committed provided the victim thinks that they are about to be attacked. Spitting at someone is another example.

 

[Stuart Frazer]

All road users need to be easliy identifiable and accoutable, because all road users are potentially able to behave in a way to cause injury and death to other road users (either directly or indirecly it makes no difference how). There needs to be a way to punish all road users and ban them from being on the road if required. I fail to see how anybody can argue against such a position and putting up barriers to do so is only putting peoples safety at risk. On top of that there is just the principle of fairness, that all road users should be treated equally with respect to rules of the road.

Hmmm, all road users identifiable?

Like this?

 

[gez]

I haven't read the judgement, but my understanding was that the CPS wanted a re-trial, which was refused. Perhaps that is covered in the full judgement. However, it should be noted that common assault does not have to involve physical acts:

Common assault is when a person inflicts violence on someone else or makes them think they are going to be attacked. It does not have to involve physical violence. Threatening words or a raised fist is enough for the crime to have been committed provided the victim thinks that they are about to be attacked. Spitting at someone is another example.

Right. Which matches what the jury I was in was told by the judge in an assault case I was on. Unsurprisingly.

 

[stevec67]

It's very simple in my eyes. All road users need to be easliy identifiable and accoutable, because all road users are potentially able to behave in a way to cause injury and death to other road users

Step this way horse riders, wheelbarrow operators and pram pushers. Let's not forget mobility scooters, kids on bikes, tricycles and scooters, pedestrians and shopping trolleys. Oh, dogs. Them too.

 

[mercalia]

77yrs old, moving at walking pace.

She had every damn right to use that pavement, shared or otherwise.

One way or the other, intimidated so much that she fell into the road under a car and was killed?

And the pedestrian is somehow going to get away with it?

What a travesty this is.

Sickening. What must her family think right now?

It is common practice for a cyclist in such a sutuation to stop and let the pedestrian walk by. The cyclist was responsible for her own demise. She lacked judgment or sense.

 

[cobbers]

It would also be trivially easy to mandate that cyclists wore special vests

Which are high viz so they can be easily seen against the background

 

[vince rocker]

So what you're saying is: cyclists shouldn't be as easily held to account as other road users because:

a) it's a bit of a pain to implement and
b) it would discourage something we want to encourage.


Sorry, to me at least, both of those are weak arguments. b) in particular implies that people are attracted to cycling partly at least because it's free from accountablity. Well if that's the case, I don't want such cyclists on our streets.

Taxing I don't see much value in, and given it's currently based on pollution, then it doesn't make much sense. Unless we decide that a cyclist is producing more CO2 than they would if they were walking (which is very probably true) and that that level of CO2 should be taxed in some way.

Insurance absolutely. Cyclists have the capablity to do harm on the road, as well as do damage to other vehicles. Why should any other road user not have recourse to financial redress from a cyclists harmful actions?

Very few things that are the right thing to do are simple and cost free to do. Of course it would be trivially easy to put a number plate on the back of a bicycle. Would it be unsightly? Very probably but a lot of motorcyclists and car drivers find number plates unsightly too, that's no argument for them not being licenced. It would also be trivially easy to mandate that cyclists wore special vests with the number plate on the back, so negating any argument against practicality of attaching them to the bike itself. (after all it's the person not the object thats meant to be held accountable).

It's very simple in my eyes. All road users need to be easliy identifiable and accoutable, because all road users are potentially able to behave in a way to cause injury and death to other road users (either directly or indirecly it makes no difference how). There needs to be a way to punish all road users and ban them from being on the road if required. I fail to see how anybody can argue against such a position and putting up barriers to do so is only putting peoples safety at risk. On top of that there is just the principle of fairness, that all road users should be treated equally with respect to rules of the road.

The usual anti cyclist rant but in longer paragraphs. Still nonsense. We need fewer barriers to cycling, not more.

 

[Somafunk]

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.

Cycling on pavements is wrong full stop. Councils are to blame for ridiculous cycle lanes swapping from road to path, not clearly marked trying to satisfy the weekend Lycra brigade. It’s a mess and made worse with electric scooters screaming past to add to the jeopardy of going to the shops. Cyclists need insurance and taxing and maybe more of them would ride with care and courtesy.

Not a cyclist in sight........no weather for cycling..........jump in your car and keep warm.......use public transport.......blah.....blah....blahhh....bulshit daily mail bingo headlines from ignorant *****.

I used to cycle on pavements all the time as I walked my dog around kirkcudbright, never once had a problem, I have been knocked of a fair number of times when on the road, as has my mother, my best mate, other mates.

Ban cars I say.......look at the needless deaths they cause.

 

[Salamander]

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.

You'll be telling me next there's more cyclists when it's p-----g it down or there's 2" of snow on the ground. What they do in Amsterdam or Copenhagen is of no consequence to me, I was talking about Britain.

 

[vince rocker]

You'll be telling me next there's more cyclists when it's p-----g it down or there's 2" of snow on the ground. What they do in Amsterdam or Copenhagen is of no consequence to me, I was talking about Britain.

LOL

 

[Somafunk]

What they do in Amsterdam or Copenhagen is of no consequence to me, I was talking about Britain.

Britain first!....Britain first!....wave the flags....Brexit means Brexit!!!!!!

 

[Salamander]

Britain first!....Britain first!....wave the flags....Brexit means Brexit!!!!!!

I'm certainly no flag waver these days, used to be 20+ years ago.
In fact I will add, I've often been embarrassed by the British when abroad, no idea where this British first comes from, please explain.

 

[Somafunk]

Bloody elite cyclists, coming over here from Iran to claim asylum and block our pleasant and green lanes, send them to the Bibby Stockholm barge without their bike.

 

[vince rocker]

Bloody elite cyclists, coming over here from Iran to claim asylum and block our pleasant and green lanes, send them to the Bibby Stockholm barge without their bike.

"We’re still hoping the Home Office will change their mind on this, but if they don’t, it would be a very cruel outcome for poor Mohammad.”
The cruelty is the point.

 

[Salamander]

I used to cycle on pavements all the time

Talking of ignorant #####, you shouldn't be cycling on pavements, they are for pedestrians.

 

[Woodface]

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

Well she was given way to, that's what killed her!

I don't believe there was any evidence that the cyclist was in any way intimidating or moving at speed. Its a tragic case.

 

[Somafunk]

Talking of ignorant #####, you shouldn't be cycling on pavements, they are for pedestrians.

Given the fact I could no longer walk nor manage to pedal at the time due to undiagnosed spms I had every right to operate my converted throttle equipped Ebike on the pavement, converted from my old race bike, suck it up sweet cheeks

 

[Bob McC]

Step this way horse riders, wheelbarrow operators and pram pushers. Let's not forget mobility scooters, kids on bikes, tricycles and scooters, pedestrians and shopping trolleys. Oh, dogs. Them too.

Facile.
Not like you.

 

[Bob McC]

Given the fact I could no longer walk nor manage to pedal at the time due to undiagnosed spms I had every right to operate my converted throttle equipped Ebike on the pavement, converted from my old race bike, suck it up sweet cheeks

No you didn’t.
If you weren’t well enough to ride on the road you shouldnt have been out.
Idiot.