Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Did she push her? Not clear from the video.

There's no push.

She's said an expletive, and slightly waved her hand around a little bit. Her biggest crime is simply not moving out of the way of the cyclist.

Offender has shown no remorse & video shows she is clearly culpable.

The over 70's shouldnt be allowed to operate vehicles of any kind.

TRUMP Plumbing wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 12:13 pm There's no push.

She's said an expletive, and slightly waved her hand around a little bit. Her biggest crime is simply not moving out of the way of the cyclist.

From the judges summing up her biggest crime is being dishonest in her account and failing to show any remorse.

Friend or faux wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 12:14 pm Offender has shown no remorse & video shows she is clearly culpable.

Of what? Failing to get out of the way of an illegal cyclist?

In my opinion ( which I am allowed ); if I were the cyclist, I would fear being pushed off my bicycle in to the traffic. This obviously caused the accident. This is what the court clearly felt. Swearing & flailing an arm about in your direction, is clearly a threat to your person. Maybe in the circles in which you move, this is acceptable behaviour. I fear it is not in normal social circles.

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 12:16 pm The over 70's shouldnt be allowed to operate vehicles of any kind.

You used to be good mate, take some time out

Putting aside the conduct of the pedestrian and whether the cyclist should have been on the pavement, looking at that video again it appears that the cyclist was approaching a narrow point of pavement with a pedestrian ahead of them. My understanding of the latest Highway Code is that pedestrians have priority over a cyclist. Therefore, shouldn't the cyclist have stopped beforehand anyway?

I've now watched that video several times and, in my humble opinion, that is a harsh ruling and sentence.

I guess the cyclist being wrong doesn’t make the pedestrian’s reactions proportionate or legitimate?

It’s clear from the video that the pedestrian directly causes the specific incident, while the cyclist may be increasing the risk of an incident happening.

In the pedestrian’s position, my instinct would be to get out of the way and then maybe say “f***ing idiot” at a volume inversely proportionate to how much bigger than me the cyclist is

Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 3:12 pm Putting aside the conduct of the pedestrian and whether the cyclist should have been on the pavement, looking at that video again it appears that the cyclist was approaching a narrow point of pavement with a pedestrian ahead of them. My understanding of the latest Highway Code is that pedestrians have priority over a cyclist. Therefore, shouldn't the cyclist have stopped beforehand anyway?

I've now watched that video several times and, in my humble opinion, that is a harsh ruling and sentence.

Exactly this.

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 3:18 pm
It’s clear from the video that the pedestrian directly causes the specific incident, while the cyclist may be increasing the risk of an incident happening.

Look at the space the cyclist has to get through - there isn't any. The only thing the pedestrian can do is to step behind the lamp post and let the cyclist pass. Which they are under no legal obligation to do.

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 3:18 pm I guess the cyclist being wrong doesn’t make the pedestrian’s reactions proportionate or legitimate?

I think the pedestrian's reactions are not the real issue here (although clearly the Judge disagrees). Regardless of her conduct, personality and vocabulary, she had right of way and I think her frustration and annoyance is understandable and legitimate.

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 3:18 pm It’s clear from the video that the pedestrian directly causes the specific incident, while the cyclist may be increasing the risk of an incident happening.

Strong disagree. The cyclist chose to enter the narrow space between lamppost and kerb that was occupied by the pedestrian. That space was never big enough for both to pass through safely. That the cyclist was so spooked by the pedestrian's gestures and choice of words is further indication that they were not safely controlling the bicycle, and were riding without due care and attention. And in contradiction to the highway code.

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 3:18 pm In the pedestrian’s position, my instinct would be to get out of the way and then maybe say “f***ing idiot” at a volume inversely proportionate to how much bigger than me the cyclist is

Same.

She knocks her off balance into oncoming traffic, silly old fanny. Glad she got found guilty.

Does she actually knock her? I may have missed that, but hadn't seen or read anything to suggest that there was any contact with her. If she has then I would agree that she would be more culpable.

I have looked carefully at the evidence presented by various Boarders who don't seem to care one little bit that a woman died because another person's actions caused her death and I dismiss those appeals out of hand. Sentence to be increased to 6 years.

The pedestrian saw the outcome of her forcing the cyclist onto the road. Instead of waiting about or seeing if anything could be done she left the scene and went off to Sainsbury’s. To me this displays a level of callousness combined with having no sense of responsibility for what was ultimately a tragic accident - but which had been triggered by her own indignant reaction to encountering a cyclist on the pavement.

Pedestrian does have Cerebral Palsy and gets confused. You'd think that might be taken into consideration.

Seems pretty cut and dried. They both broke the law here, cyclist get's fined for riding on the pavement, pedestrian gets done for manslaughter for forcing cyclist into an on coming car.

Adz wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 10:24 pm Seems pretty cut and dried. They both broke the law here, cyclist get's fined for riding on the pavement, pedestrian gets done for manslaughter for forcing cyclist into an on coming car.

Can you get posthumously fined?

Adz wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 10:24 pm Seems pretty cut and dried. They both broke the law here, cyclist get's fined for riding on the pavement, pedestrian gets done for manslaughter for forcing cyclist into an on coming car.

Forcing?

The most shocking thing in this whole sorry saga is that the pedestrian is claiming to be 49 years of age.

I hope I don't look that bad in 10 years time.

Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 4:17 pm ...

I think the pedestrian's reactions are not the real issue here (although clearly the Judge disagrees). Regardless of her conduct, personality and vocabulary, she had right of way and I think her frustration and annoyance is understandable and legitimate.

....

her frustration may be understandable, but it is not legitimate to cause the death of someone because they have frustrated you

spen666 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 11:09 am

Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 4:17 pm ...

I think the pedestrian's reactions are not the real issue here (although clearly the Judge disagrees). Regardless of her conduct, personality and vocabulary, she had right of way and I think her frustration and annoyance is understandable and legitimate.

....

her frustration may be understandable, but it is not legitimate to cause the death of someone because they have frustrated you

I agree, and could have worded that better. I guess I’m struggling to appreciate how so much responsibility of the cyclist’s death can be apportioned to the pedestrian. Given the circumstance s and her own disabilities, a custodial sentence does seem harsh.

Orient Punxx wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 7:34 am

Adz wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 10:24 pm Seems pretty cut and dried. They both broke the law here, cyclist get's fined for riding on the pavement, pedestrian gets done for manslaughter for forcing cyclist into an on coming car.

Can you get posthumously fined?

Don't give them ideas