|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 2, 2023 17:56:18 GMT
I'm not sure about this 'shared path' idea. OK there are signs on the other side of the road indicating that the path on that side is shared but there is nothing on the side of the road where the accident happened.
I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to know the status of a path with adequate signage.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 2, 2023 18:01:19 GMT
If there's no signage to the contrary then it's a footpath.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 2, 2023 18:27:13 GMT
I disagree that our legal system is a disgrace, however I do think that the elderly lady should have not been cycling on the pavement unless their is a cycle lane marked out on the pavement, it is not allowed The elderly partially sighted pedestrian was probably worried and feared for her safety shouted at the cyclist who lost control and sadly was hit by a vehicle , however I am surprised given the circumstances that the CPS chose to charge her at all let alone with Manslaughter a sledge hammer to crack a walnut IMHO The sentence is far to harsh, you get less than that for carrying a knife, The legal system is not consistent. We have eco zealots not being prosecuted for blocking our highways and byeways and people being prosecuted on the most flimsiest of wims. Each case is judged on its merit each case is different even for the same type of offence, Judges do have sentencing guidelines to try bring consistencies when passing sentence, like in anything else |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 2, 2023 18:29:53 GMT
If there's no signage to the contrary then it's a footpath. I agree no cycle lane marked on the footpath , the cyclist should not have been on the footpath, just read the article again this was a retrial , it does not state anything about the first trial , her defence team are going to mount an appeal, the Judge refused her bail whilst the appeal was being made |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 2, 2023 18:50:26 GMT
I’m sorry of course the old lady has died but there were as others have said absolutely no signs that stated it was a shared path on that path.
There are some sections of society that give cyclists a higher status than other mortals,I ride a bike occasionally and obey the rules of the road, the Highway Code is clear.
The Highway Code has a lot of information about where you can legally ride your bicycle. As you can imagine, it talks about following the specific crossings and bike boxes painted on the road itself, before going into specifics on cycle lanes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Mar 2, 2023 18:58:13 GMT
For either scenario to be deemed manslaughter is absurd: Manslaughter requires Gross negligence or Unlawful act. Where are either of those in this scenario? I'd guess the unlawful act could be assault or perhaps a public order offence. However, if the pathway was not designated as a cycle path, I would have thought the woman would be deemed to have acted reasonably to prevent an offence being committed, and therefore have a complete defence. All very odd. We'll have to see what the appeal brings. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Mar 2, 2023 19:19:29 GMT
We’ve actually had a road closure round here because of an unsafe building. The pavement on one side was closed. The other pedestrian thoroughfare was opened with bright red notices at both ends saying NO CYCLING.
I’d guess less than one third of cyclists obeyed the instruction.
There’s was nobody to enforce the instruction, so anyone vulnerable or with kids was quite likely to remonstrate. I don’t wish harm to either party, but if there’s a choice, I’d reckon any harmed cyclists brought about their own misfortune…
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 2, 2023 19:36:27 GMT
I’m sorry of course the old lady has died but there were as others have said absolutely no signs that stated it was a shared path on that path. There are some sections of society that give cyclists a higher status than other mortals,I ride a bike occasionally and obey the rules of the road, the Highway Code is clear. The Highway Code has a lot of information about where you can legally ride your bicycle. As you can imagine, it talks about following the specific crossings and bike boxes painted on the road itself, before going into specifics on cycle lanes. I found this about bicycles Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835 prohibits carriages “of any description” riding on “any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers”. In 1888, bicycles were classified as carriages, meaning that they were then stopped from being ridden on footpaths or roads designed for pedestrians.  The act can’t refer to pavements as this term was coined too recently. This could leave cyclists in a legal grey area. However, the legal interpretation is generally that pavements are considered pedestrian footpaths, meaning that cyclists should not ride on the pavement. Similarly, e-scooters are not allowed to be ridden on pavements in the UK. The Highway Code states this more emphatically, stating in Rule 64 that “You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement”. It also advises that cyclists “take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room”. Responsible cyclists In 1999, the government made cycling on the pavement a fixed penalty offence. At the time, the government said: “The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users. “Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road. Sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.” |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 2, 2023 19:48:17 GMT
I'd guess the unlawful act could be assault or perhaps a public order offence. However, if the pathway was not designated as a cycle path, I would have thought the woman would be deemed to have acted reasonably to prevent an offence being committed, and therefore have a complete defence. All very odd. We'll have to see what the appeal brings. Well quite. The problem that I see with assault is that it requires the victim to anticipate a threat of "immediate, unlawful violence" and "Fuck off the pavement" or whatever from a middle aged lady doesn't necessarily convey a threat (assuming that the victim was even alive to tell us their perception of it). Likewise, it would be a rather thin public order offence. And, in either case, if the pavement doesn't contain a cycle lane (which it appears not to) then "Fuck off the pavement" would appear to be a fair warning - especially if the defendent believed that they were about to be hit by a cyclist. An odd case for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Mar 2, 2023 19:57:41 GMT
The legal system is not consistent. We have eco zealots not being prosecuted for blocking our highways and byeways and people being prosecuted on the most flimsiest of wims. even for the same type of offence, Judges do have sentencing guidelines to try bring consistencies when passing sentence, like in anything else But there is no consistancy...It seems as tho its down to whether the jugde got his or her leg over the night before sentencing. FFS where are the guidelines? |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Mar 2, 2023 20:10:23 GMT
I'd guess the unlawful act could be assault or perhaps a public order offence. However, if the pathway was not designated as a cycle path, I would have thought the woman would be deemed to have acted reasonably to prevent an offence being committed, and therefore have a complete defence. All very odd. We'll have to see what the appeal brings. Well quite. The problem that I see with assault is that it requires the victim to anticipate a threat of "immediate, unlawful violence" and "Fuck off the pavement" or whatever from a middle aged lady doesn't necessarily convey a threat (assuming that the victim was even alive to tell us their perception of it). Likewise, it would be a rather thin public order offence. And, in either case, if the pavement doesn't contain a cycle lane (which it appears not to) then "Fuck off the pavement" would appear to be a fair warning - especially if the defendent believed that they were about to be hit by a cyclist. An odd case for sure. I guessed at assault because the article made something of the woman's arm movement. It now occurs to me that if the woman thought the cyclist was committing an offence (cycle lane or not), she'd have the same defence. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 2, 2023 20:25:18 GMT
Each case is judged on its merit each case is different even for the same type of offence, Judges do have sentencing guidelines to try bring consistencies when passing sentence, like in anything else But there is no consistancy...It seems as tho its down to whether the jugde got his or her leg over the night before sentencing. FFS where are the guidelines? Each defendant is different, each case is different, each jury is different, each witness is different, each Judge is different , people are different , the sentencing guidelines are on line, we only know a little about what happened in Court, the Jury thought she was guilty, As I stated earlier a very harsh sentence to say the least, but the dead woman's family may not agree, I hope her appeal is successful |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Mar 2, 2023 22:07:17 GMT
But there is no consistancy...It seems as tho its down to whether the jugde got his or her leg over the night before sentencing. FFS where are the guidelines? Each defendant is different, each case is different, each jury is different, each witness is different, each Judge is different , people are different , the sentencing guidelines are on line, we only know a little about what happened in Court, the Jury thought she was guilty, As I stated earlier a very harsh sentence to say the least, but the dead woman's family may not agree, I hope her appeal is successful That all depends mostly of the time on the summing up....Many of these so called lawyers are only there for the money and nothing more. |
|
|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on Mar 3, 2023 6:26:20 GMT
The cyclist attempted to go past the pedestrian when there was not enough space for her to safely conduct the maneuver. If the cyclist had tried to pass the pedestrian on the other side the pedestrian could have stumbled into the road trying to avoid her. If this had happened would the cyclist have ended up in prison? The cyclist appears to have had time to stop ... she caused her own death by "dangerous" (to herself in this case) cycling on the pavement.
Police are not allowed to call out to, or try to stop, fast moving pavement cyclist because doing so might cause an accident. Where I live the High Street is a pedestrianised steep hill with no cycle path ... the signs means 'No Cycling' ... but it doesn't say so in words. The street is also one way going down hill ... so cyclist are speeding down a one way street. I suggested that a large sign should be painted on the road ... 'No Cycling' ... but the roads people said: "There is sufficient signage". Cyclists here weave around pedestrians (including young children) ... and often pass close to shop doors.
When cyclists pass me at speed from behind I've been calling out: "If I had stepped sideways you could have run into me, fallen off and broken your neck ... be careful". Now I supposed I must keep my mouth shut?
Recently someone here got off a bus at a stop where the pavement is narrow ... and got run into by a cyclist. There is also a bus stop with a shelter ... with the cycle path in front of it ... so that people have to cross the path to get on the bus.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Mar 3, 2023 7:18:15 GMT
Disabled woman, 49, who gestured for a cyclist to move off the pavement and onto road seconds before she was hit and killed by a car is jailed for three years for MANSLAUGHTER I know the law is a bit of a prick at times, and funeral costs are outrageous but reading that i have to say jailing the dead, bloody hell thats a new one. |
|
