A pedestrian who shouted at and gestured towards a cyclist in a “hostile and aggressive way”, causing the rider to fall from her bike and into the path of a passing motorist, has been convicted of manslaughter..

Yesterday at Peterborough Crown Court, Auriol Grey, 49, was found guilty of causing the death of 77-year-old Celia Ward, in a dispute over the cyclist riding on the pavement, and will be sentenced on 2 March, the BBC reports (link is external).

Mrs Ward, described by her husband as an “experienced and competent” cyclist, was riding her bike on the pavement next to a ring road in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, on 20 October 2020, when she encountered Ms Grey, who was travelling in the opposite direction.

Ms Grey – who the court heard this week has cerebral palsy and significant eyesight issues, but does not consider herself to have a mental disability – was “angered by the presence of a cyclist on a footpath”, prosecutor Simon Spence KC said.

CCTV footage of the incident (below), shared by Cambridgeshire Constabulary, shows Ms Grey telling the 77-year-old cyclist to “get off the [expletive] pavement”, before gesturing towards her in a “hostile and aggressive way”.

While Mr Spence admitted in court that it was unclear from the footage whether there was any physical contact, he said the gesture had caused Mrs Ward to fall off her bike and into the road, where a driver, who had “no chance to stop or take avoiding action”, collided with her, causing her death.

The court also heard that Ms Grey left the scene before the emergency services arrived and continued on to Sainsbury’s to buy groceries.

She was arrested a day later and told police that she was partially sighted and described the cyclist as travelling “at high speed” in the centre of the pavement.

Ms Grey then stated that she was “anxious I was going to get hit by it”, and that she “flinched out with her left arm to protect herself”.

But after being shown the CCTV footage and asked by police why she shouted at Mrs Ward as she approached, the pedestrian replied: “I don’t know”.

The court also heard this week that Cambridgeshire Police could not “categorically” state whether the section of the pavement where the tragic incident took place was a shared-use path, despite signs permitting cyclists to use the path existing on other parts of the road.

Following the verdict, Det Sgt Mark Dollard said: “This is a difficult and tragic case.

“Everyone will have their own views on cyclists, pavements, and cycleways but what is clear is Auriol Grey’s response to the presence of Celia on a pedal cycle was totally disproportionate and ultimately found to be unlawful, resulting in Celia’s untimely and needless death.

“I am pleased with the verdict and hope it is a stark reminder to all road users to take care and be considerate to each other. I want to take the time to acknowledge Celia’s family and thank them for their patience and dignity throughout the entirety of the investigation and trial.”

https://road.cc/content/news/pedestrian-found-guilty-killing-77-year-old-cyclist-299563

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> A pedestrian who shouted at and gestured towards a cyclist in a “hostile
> and aggressive way”, causing the rider to fall from her bike and into the
> path of a passing motorist, has been convicted of manslaughter.
>
> Yesterday at Peterborough Crown Court, Auriol Grey, 49, was found guilty
> of causing the death of 77-year-old Celia Ward, in a dispute over the
> cyclist riding on the pavement, and will be sentenced on 2 March, the BBC
> reports (link is external).
>
> Mrs Ward, described by her husband as an “experienced and competent”
> cyclist, was riding her bike on the pavement next to a ring road in
> Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, on 20 October 2020, when she encountered Ms
> Grey, who was travelling in the opposite direction.
>
> Ms Grey – who the court heard this week has cerebral palsy and
> significant eyesight issues, but does not consider herself to have a
> mental disability – was “angered by the presence of a cyclist on a
> footpath”, prosecutor Simon Spence KC said.
>
> CCTV footage of the incident (below), shared by Cambridgeshire
> Constabulary, shows Ms Grey telling the 77-year-old cyclist to “get off
> the [expletive] pavement”, before gesturing towards her in a “hostile and aggressive way”.
>
> While Mr Spence admitted in court that it was unclear from the footage
> whether there was any physical contact, he said the gesture had caused
> Mrs Ward to fall off her bike and into the road, where a driver, who had
> “no chance to stop or take avoiding action”, collided with her, causing her death.
>
> The court also heard that Ms Grey left the scene before the emergency
> services arrived and continued on to Sainsbury’s to buy groceries.
>
> She was arrested a day later and told police that she was partially
> sighted and described the cyclist as travelling “at high speed” in the
> centre of the pavement.
>
> Ms Grey then stated that she was “anxious I was going to get hit by it”,
> and that she “flinched out with her left arm to protect herself”.
>
> But after being shown the CCTV footage and asked by police why she
> shouted at Mrs Ward as she approached, the pedestrian replied: “I don’t know”.
>
> The court also heard this week that Cambridgeshire Police could not
> “categorically” state whether the section of the pavement where the
> tragic incident took place was a shared-use path, despite signs
> permitting cyclists to use the path existing on other parts of the road.
>
> Following the verdict, Det Sgt Mark Dollard said: “This is a difficult and tragic case.
>
> “Everyone will have their own views on cyclists, pavements, and cycleways
> but what is clear is Auriol Grey’s response to the presence of Celia on a
> pedal cycle was totally disproportionate and ultimately found to be
> unlawful, resulting in Celia’s untimely and needless death.
>
> “I am pleased with the verdict and hope it is a stark reminder to all
> road users to take care and be considerate to each other. I want to take
> the time to acknowledge Celia’s family and thank them for their patience
> and dignity throughout the entirety of the investigation and trial.”
>
> https://road.cc/content/news/pedestrian-found-guilty-killing-77-year-old-cyclist-299563
>

Did the Court look at the video?

If it did, then a trip to Specsavers is in order.

The cyclist was entirely at fault.

It's insane this focus on the perceived danger from cyclists. There were 548 pedestrians killed on pavements in the UK between 2005 and 2018. Only 6 of those were killed by cyclists. https://www.roadpeace.org/pedestrian-pavement-deaths-2/ (link is external)
Pavements are supposed to be a safe refuge for pedestrians, including children, the disabled and the visually impaired, but they generally aren't, because, despite it being illegal it's become accepted that it's OK to drive onto the pavement to park, even when pedestrians are already there, or take a shortcut to avoid a road blocked by traffic congestion, or to make deliveries. So drivers, despite being far more dangerous to pedestrians, are allowed excuses for driving onto the pavements, but cyclists must at all times stay on the road, even if they feel their life is at risk. And one of your bizarre solutions is for those cyclists to drive themselves, thereby adding to the danger for others!

Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A pedestrian who shouted at and gestured towards a cyclist in a “hostile
>> and aggressive way”, causing the rider to fall from her bike and into the
>> path of a passing motorist, has been convicted of manslaughter.
>>
>> Yesterday at Peterborough Crown Court, Auriol Grey, 49, was found guilty
>> of causing the death of 77-year-old Celia Ward, in a dispute over the
>> cyclist riding on the pavement, and will be sentenced on 2 March, the BBC
>> reports (link is external).
>>
>> Mrs Ward, described by her husband as an “experienced and competent”
>> cyclist, was riding her bike on the pavement next to a ring road in
>> Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, on 20 October 2020, when she encountered Ms
>> Grey, who was travelling in the opposite direction.
>>
>> Ms Grey – who the court heard this week has cerebral palsy and
>> significant eyesight issues, but does not consider herself to have a
>> mental disability – was “angered by the presence of a cyclist on a
>> footpath”, prosecutor Simon Spence KC said.
>>
>> CCTV footage of the incident (below), shared by Cambridgeshire
>> Constabulary, shows Ms Grey telling the 77-year-old cyclist to “get off
>> the [expletive] pavement”, before gesturing towards her in a “hostile and aggressive way”.
>>
>> While Mr Spence admitted in court that it was unclear from the footage
>> whether there was any physical contact, he said the gesture had caused
>> Mrs Ward to fall off her bike and into the road, where a driver, who had
>> “no chance to stop or take avoiding action”, collided with her, causing her death.
>>
>> The court also heard that Ms Grey left the scene before the emergency
>> services arrived and continued on to Sainsbury’s to buy groceries.
>>
>> She was arrested a day later and told police that she was partially
>> sighted and described the cyclist as travelling “at high speed” in the
>> centre of the pavement.
>>
>> Ms Grey then stated that she was “anxious I was going to get hit by it”,
>> and that she “flinched out with her left arm to protect herself”.
>>
>> But after being shown the CCTV footage and asked by police why she
>> shouted at Mrs Ward as she approached, the pedestrian replied: “I don’t know”.
>>
>> The court also heard this week that Cambridgeshire Police could not
>> “categorically” state whether the section of the pavement where the
>> tragic incident took place was a shared-use path, despite signs
>> permitting cyclists to use the path existing on other parts of the road.
>>
>> Following the verdict, Det Sgt Mark Dollard said: “This is a difficult and tragic case.
>>
>> “Everyone will have their own views on cyclists, pavements, and cycleways
>> but what is clear is Auriol Grey’s response to the presence of Celia on a
>> pedal cycle was totally disproportionate and ultimately found to be
>> unlawful, resulting in Celia’s untimely and needless death.
>>
>> “I am pleased with the verdict and hope it is a stark reminder to all
>> road users to take care and be considerate to each other. I want to take
>> the time to acknowledge Celia’s family and thank them for their patience
>> and dignity throughout the entirety of the investigation and trial.”
>>
>> https://road.cc/content/news/pedestrian-found-guilty-killing-77-year-old-cyclist-299563
>>
>
> Did the Court look at the video?
>
> If it did, then a trip to Specsavers is in order.
>
> The cyclist was entirely at fault.

I really hope this is appealed; despite two relevant medical conditions for
the lady concerned, it seems that no reports were called for.

And no-one seems to have asked the Local Authority to confirm that the
footpath involved was not ‘shared’. Perhaps a case of not wanting to know
the answer, because it makes the cyclist look bad, so we won’t ask the
question.

--
Spike

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's insane this focus on the perceived danger from cyclists. There were
> 548 pedestrians killed on pavements in the UK between 2005 and 2018. Only
> 6 of those were killed by cyclists.
> https://www.roadpeace.org/pedestrian-pavement-deaths-2/ (link is external)

Someone hasn’t done their research (again) - a commonplace occurrence when
the cyclist media quote data.

QUOTE Between 2013 and 2020, fewer than four (3.8) pedestrians were killed
in collisions with a cyclist each year on average, Department for Transport
(DfT) figures on road traffic accidents in Great Britain show.

An annual average of 137 pedestrians were seriously injured during the same
period. In total, there were 30 deaths and 1,093 serious injuries across
the eight years. ENDQUOTE

--
Spike

> QUOTE:
> “I am pleased with the verdict and hope it is a stark reminder to all road users to take care and be considerate to each other. I want to take the time to acknowledge Celia’s family and thank them for their patience and dignity throughout the entirety of the investigation and trial..” ENDS

Note the complete contrast with the potty-mouthed chav who was found guilty of manslaughter.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> QUOTE:
>> “I am pleased with the verdict and hope it is a stark reminder to all
>> road users to take care and be considerate to each other. I want to take
>> the time to acknowledge Celia’s family and thank them for their patience
>> and dignity throughout the entirety of the investigation and trial.” ENDS
>
> Note the complete contrast with the potty-mouthed chav who was found
> guilty of manslaughter.

She’ll get off on appeal.

--
Spike

I was once shouted at quite aggressively by a lady walking her dog who was exceedingly convinced that pedal cyclists were not allowed on the (clearly signed) bridle path. But this doesn't mean I think that all dog walkers are bad people intent on causing trouble. However, in a reality of limited resources for policing public behaviour, cyclists in general are way down the list of targeting priority.

QUOTE: The court also heard this week that Cambridgeshire Police could not “categorically” state whether the section of the pavement where the tragic incident took place was a shared-use path, despite signs permitting cyclists to use the path existing on other parts of the road. ENDS

Cambridgeshire Police should have consulted the convicted killer as to the status of the "shared-use path" - she was 100% certain.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE: The court also heard this week that Cambridgeshire Police could
> not “categorically” state whether the section of the pavement where the
> tragic incident took place was a shared-use path, despite signs
> permitting cyclists to use the path existing on other parts of the road. ENDS

> Cambridgeshire Police should have consulted the convicted killer as to
> the status of the "shared-use path" - she was 100% certain.

Designating shared paths us not a police function.

--
Spike

Let's hope that justice is served in the sentencing. A strong message needs to be sent out that pedestrians should tolerate cyclists on shared use paths AND pavements. It's a shame the police statement didn't make reference to the NPCC guidelines, which effectively decriminalise careful cycling on the pavement:

https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/support-for-police-discretion-when-responding-to-people-cycling-on-the-pavement

QUOTE: There is a shared use sign (link is external) further up the road and no indication on the ground that the cycle path has finished. There are no 'cyclists dismount' or other signage. So it's entirely possible that you would think this was a shared use cycle path. ENDS

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> Let's hope that justice is served in the sentencing.

A strong message needs to be sent out that pedestrians should tolerate
cyclists on shared use paths AND pavements. It's a shame the police
statement didn't make reference to the NPCC guidelines, which effectively
decriminalise careful cycling on the pavement:

> https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/support-for-police-discretion-when-responding-to-people-cycling-on-the-pavement

To quote from that document, a passage that will surely be advanced at the
appeal, and one that all cyclists should be aware of but can be expected to
ignore:

“The re-issued guidance is -

“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.”

A pious hope, likely stillborn.

--
Spike

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE: There is a shared use sign (link is external) further up the road
> and no indication on the ground that the cycle path has finished. There
> are no 'cyclists dismount' or other signage. So it's entirely possible
> that you would think this was a shared use cycle path. ENDS

So what is to happen when a cyclist and a pedestrian, on such a narrow
sheared path, come up against each other? Cyclists can’t be expected to
follow the Highway Code and defer to the pedestrian, as bitter experience
has shown on too many occasions.

--
Spike

Motorists also get the benefit of police discretion. You are very unlikely to get prosecuted for doing 31mph in a 30 limit - even though it is technically illegal.

However, you couldn't say it's acceptable to do 31 mph - yet pavements are deemed acceptable to cycle on, simply by the erecting of a blue roundel sign to denote it shared use.

I agree with you that this issue needs to be 'put to bed'. There seems to be a bit of hysteria surrounding cyclists on pavements. I've experienced abuse for cycling on shared use paths - even had a farmer threaten to shoot me for cycling on a bridleway!

Perhaps the next version of the highway code could include a caveat, that cycling on a pavement with care and consideration is acceptable.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with you that this issue needs to be 'put to bed'. There seems to
> be a bit of hysteria surrounding cyclists on pavements. I've experienced
> abuse for cycling on shared use paths - even had a farmer threaten to
> shoot me for cycling on a bridleway!

> Perhaps the next version of the highway code could include a caveat, that
> cycling on a pavement with care and consideration is acceptable.

That’s not what the guidance says. If you can’t read a simple sentence and
get its meaning right, why should you expect others to do so?

“The re-issued guidance is -

“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.”

A pious hope, likely stillborn, as we can see.

--
Spike

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was once shouted at quite aggressively by a lady walking her dog who
> was exceedingly convinced that pedal cyclists were not allowed on the
> (clearly signed) bridle path. But this doesn't mean I think that all dog
> walkers are bad people intent on causing trouble. However, in a reality
> of limited resources for policing public behaviour, cyclists in general
> are way down the list of targeting priority.
>

Cyclists must give way to others on bridleways.

Try doing so in future.

Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> QUOTE:
>>> “I am pleased with the verdict and hope it is a stark reminder to all
>>> road users to take care and be considerate to each other. I want to take
>>> the time to acknowledge Celia’s family and thank them for their patience
>>> and dignity throughout the entirety of the investigation and trial.” ENDS
>>
>> Note the complete contrast with the potty-mouthed chav who was found
>> guilty of manslaughter.
>
> She’ll get off on appeal.
>

Hopefully.

The cyclist couldn’t control her bike, she was a danger to the public. He
own incompetence caused her death.

I was Googling when the ministerial guidance for permitting cycling on a pavement was last updated, and I haven't come across any suggestion that the guidance from 25 years ago has been withdrawn, but I did come across this:

https://road.cc/content/news/108119-transport-minister-responsible-cycli...

Perhaps Simon can risk checking if this is still the case?

Those quoting the law should be aware that in court, such ministerial pronouncements have weight and are taken into consideration.

The police are always supposed to exercise discretion, that is why it is highly unlikely that you would be prosecuted for doing 72mph on the motorway!

Some police services also exercise discretion and don't give people criminal records for the possession of small quantities of cannabis or party drugs. Let's face it, there would be no Glastonbury otherwise.

But nevertheless, exceeding the speed limit, even by a tiny bit, possession of Class B drugs are both illegal and if the police did decide to take a hard line, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

I agree, and I don't think anyone here disputes that - all people are saying is that the police have been advised not to enforce it unless someone is really being dangerous.

And in this particular case, it reads as if every pavement around there is shared use anyway with the possible exception of the particular stretch on which Ms Grey committed manslaughter.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was Googling when the ministerial guidance for permitting cycling on a
> pavement was last updated, and I haven't come across any suggestion that
> the guidance from 25 years ago has been withdrawn, but I did come across this:
>
> https://road.cc/content/news/108119-transport-minister-responsible-cycli...
>
> Perhaps Simon can risk checking if this is still the case?

> Those quoting the law should be aware that in court, such ministerial
> pronouncements have weight and are taken into consideration.

The later (2014) guidance was posted earlier, so there was no need to
repeat out of date information.

--
Spike

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's insane this focus on the perceived danger from cyclists. There were
> 548 pedestrians killed on pavements in the UK between 2005 and 2018. Only
> 6 of those were killed by cyclists.

When ONE SINGLE CYCLIST is killed while negotiating a roundabout well known
for being dangerous, the cycling world goes into a frenzy of grief,
shrines, vigils, protests, condemnations, calls for harsher punishments,
and the rest.

Six pedestrian deaths are brushed aside as ‘only 6’.

F*****G HYPOCRITES.

--
Spike

tootsie323 | 25 posts | 1 hour ago
0 likes
Perhaps new charges, such as causing death by dangerous walking, should be introduced. Failing that, remove the driving equivalent(s) and charge drivers with manslaughter for similar offences.