Careless driving or even drink driving/ driving without insurance/ licenses and causing accidents seem often lightly penalised. I think the difference is this was a direct decision to push the cyclist rather than the pedestrian being drunk/ accidentally colliding with them.
A tragic case or a deserved sentence?
- Thread starter Corco65
- Start date
1finny
Well-known member
Yeah
Yeah, its tricky but, any 'death by careless driving' carries a lower maximum sentence
locomansimon
Well-known member
Both, tragic and deserved
Laughing
Well-known member
As I said earlier I will be amazed if this sentence isn't overturned on appeal. She may even appeal the conviction, should any new evidence come to light or it was a point of fact that that she should never have been accussed of manslaughter in the first place.
I don't know if alternative options were given to the jury.
I don't think it matters whether she is an awful woman or not, in law.
The real issue here, if it's true, is that that pavement was designated joint use. The law requires that a pavement be at least 3 metres for joint use and if it has high traffic, it should be a minimum of 5 metres. I wouldn't be surprised if that point of fact wouldn't be enough to overturn the conviction.
I don't know if alternative options were given to the jury.
I don't think it matters whether she is an awful woman or not, in law.
The real issue here, if it's true, is that that pavement was designated joint use. The law requires that a pavement be at least 3 metres for joint use and if it has high traffic, it should be a minimum of 5 metres. I wouldn't be surprised if that point of fact wouldn't be enough to overturn the conviction.
festa5
Well-known member
Tragic case. My initial reaction was it was a harsh sentence but as I've read through the thread and reflected on it I think I agree with it now.
She knew it was a busy road, she was partially sighted, not blind and deaf. She acts in an intimidating manner and whether she made contact or not is a moot point IMO because she certainly makes a move towards the victim as she's about to pass, that was probably intended to make her swerve out of the way, but even if not was always highly likely to have that effect anyway and force them off the pavement.
She knew it was a busy road, she was partially sighted, not blind and deaf. She acts in an intimidating manner and whether she made contact or not is a moot point IMO because she certainly makes a move towards the victim as she's about to pass, that was probably intended to make her swerve out of the way, but even if not was always highly likely to have that effect anyway and force them off the pavement.
sherlock
Well-known member
She actually pushes her into the road for god's sake. 3 years is too little.
newusername
Well-known member
Lol!!!
Laughing
Well-known member
Not read the court transcripts, have you,or are you assuming from this grainy pictures?
Laughing
Well-known member
Why is that funny? You have lost me
newusername
Well-known member
What law says a shared use path has to be 3m wide?
Laughing
Well-known member
It's in the Highway code I believe.
Millbrook
Well-known member
I take that back, the sky footage appears to show a push.
Millbrook
Well-known member
Check out the actual link to the sky video footage, it looks like a push to me.
newusername
Well-known member
Nearly but no.
Local Transport Note 1/20 covers Cycle Infrastructure Design and does include a statement on Shared Use paths:
However, at the very start of this guidance, the first sentence of the first paragraph it states:
Therefore Local Authorities are free to ignore it.
Even when designing new schemes, they just have to show they gave due consideration to designing a suitable scheme rather than actually doing so.
So the fact that the footway is 2m+ rather than 3m wide isn't a get out of jail free card for this killer.
Source:
sherlock
Well-known member
Laughing
Well-known member
Wasnt aware it was guidance. The article I looked at words it a kettle differently. It does, howeverr say guidelines at the top of the article.
Published: Monday, 26 August 2019
THE Department of Transport (DoT) have issued a guideline for the design of paths for cyclists and pedestrians as part of road construction projects, writes Paul Robinson.
They represent good practice to provide adequate safety for both pedestrians and cyclists, and so are equally applicable to such paths on towpaths.
The guideline is called 'The Geometric Design of Pedestrian, Cycle and Equestrian Routes—TA 90/05'. It can be found on the internet by searching TA 90/05, and is quite easy to understand. We are most interested in the width required.
Minimum cycle/pedestrian width 3 metres
The minimum required width for a shared cycle/pedestrian path is 3 metres. However if flows are high (so that cyclists travelling in opposite directions frequently have to pass each other) then the minimum width should be 5 metres.For towpaths I would assume 3 metres might be acceptable for rural paths used mainly for recreational use (not including time trials!), but on paths where there is commuter cycling 5 metres should be provided. In both cases there should be some form of segregation, such as a white line, between cyclists and pedestrians.
Mr_Fridge
Well-known member
Police warn against “ill-informed views”
www.bbc.co.uk
Police warn over ill-informed cyclist death views - BBC News
Auriol Grey has been jailed after gesturing and swearing at a woman who fell into the path of a car.
www.bbc.co.uk
Laughing
Well-known member
I don't think it shows it clearly at all. I think it suggests it, but you don't see any contact in that clip. Certainly not to the standard required for a guilty verdict.I’m taking it from the video I posted that shows it clearly
This is why I asked if you read the court transcript. I have no idea if there was corroborating evidence from an eyewitness or not.