Donate SIGN UP

Tricky Court Decision

Avatar Image
barry1010 | 15:18 Thu 02nd Mar 2023 | News
30 Answers
This is a very sad incident but I can't decide if the court's verdict was the right one, apparently at a previous trial the jury could not reach agreement
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11811249/Woman-49-swore-cyclist-77-fatally-struck-car-arrives-sentencing.html

The police said they couldn't determine whether it was a pavement or a designated shared pavement/cycle path. Without any form of signage I'd say it was a pavement
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 30rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by barry1010. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Should have been given a medal if you ask me.
It's not shared no white line down the middle, what's wrong with the old bill these days?
Question Author
There isn't always a white line down the middle, TTT. Sometimes there is a round sign on a pole, like this one
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-shared-cycle-pedestrian-route-sign-london-england-uk-24580463.html?imageid=0ECE8F4A-CD4E-44DD-8EF7-79C8F00EBE06&p=22347&;pn=1&searchId=dd1bd1be4ec1adb9c669063c41e3d1ac&searchtype=0
On that sort of pavement, cyclists and pedestrians can use both sides
well ok but in my opinion they are not proper cycle lanes anyway. Cyclists should be on the road or proper cycle lanes, end of.

But even if the cyclist was legal, the pedestrian did not touch them. Seems very harsh to jail her.
TORATORATORA, "It's not shared no white line down the middle,"

From the Highway Code,

"62 Cycle Tracks. 

These are routes for cyclists that are physically protected or located away from motor traffic, other than where they cross side roads (see Rule 206). Cycle tracks may run alongside footpaths or pavements and be separated by a feature such as a change of material, a verge, a kerb or a white line. You MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath.
***Some cycle tracks shared with pedestrians will not be separated by such a feature.*** On such shared use routes, you should always take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary (see Rule H2)." (emphasis added)
Question Author
I agree, TTT, especially in view of her partial sightedness and other disabilities, moving objects can appear to loom in front very suddenly when you can't see properly.
Since the last update the HC can't be trusted as given sane advice. It now seems to deliberately try to cause accidents. If no cycle path is indicated then it is utterly unreasonable to claim the cycle path exists and everyone should know that it has deliberately been made invisible.
Why on Earth couldn’t the police, council or someone who’s in charge of these things determine whether it was a shared pavement?

The sentence is far too harsh
Question Author
If it's not on record somewhere it is not a shared pavement

10.1 Legal status
10.1.1 Where the need for cyclists to use existing footways or footpaths has been identified at a specific
location, their right to be there must be established by changing the legal status of the footway or footpath
to that of a cycle track.
She gestured for the cyclist to get off the pavement .

The cyclist was then hit by a vehicle .

So what crime has she commited ?
I have had a look at the video on YouTube at 1/4 speed, in landscape and zoomed in.

As she nears the cyclist, she appears to change her stride and as her left arm comes up, her hand opens, her body turns to her left toward the cyclist and her left elbow can just be seen as the cyclist is level with her.

It appears to me that she had turnt her body toward the cyclist as they passed, her left hand went toward the cyclist who then fell onto the road as if pushed.
Even if the cyclist been on a pavement and not a shared pathway, would causing the cyclist to end up in the path of moving traffic have been reasonable in those circumstances?
It's clearly just a pavement.

They were both wrong. One for cycling on the pavement, the other for pushing the cyclist into traffic.
Tomus it is not clearly just a pavement. On one side of the road there are the blue pedestrian/cycle markers. I do not know about the other side. This is a busy dual carriageway with narrow lanes. I know the road well and have never seen a cyclist on that bit of road.
A perfect storm, and a tragedy.
Question Author
Tony's, she didn't push the cyclist, she didn't touch her at all
In my opinion, she turnt toward the cyclist, moved her open hand toward her and appeared to push her.
Question Author
Corby, the experts would have studied this footage using technology we don't have, possibly other footage from dash cams and other CCTV. If there was evidence she was pushed it would have formed a major part of the charges
I don't think she purposely pushed her, but she threw her arm out and caught her, causing the cyclist to lose her balance and tumble.
The cyclist didn't do it of her own accord.

1 to 20 of 30rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Tricky Court Decision

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.