UKH

I see that this case has been overturned in the court of appeal. 

In the original case, this woman shouted, swore and waved her arms at a cyclist on the pavement, the cyclist veered into traffic and died. She was found guilty of manslaughter. 

I thought it was a very odd case at the time; imprisonment for the very unfortunate consequences of trying to tell someone off, and make them do what they are supposed to do by law. I'm glad she's been released. 

I'm interested in it, because I believe the social pressure to do the right thing is good for society, we should express it when others illegal actions affect us.

Do you agree? Or do you think we should just let people get on with it, and leave it to the police, who are too busy to take interest in minor crimes.

https://news.sky.com/story/auriol-grey-woman-who-caused-cyclist-to-fall-int...

I'm not really sure what doing "the right thing" possibly is in this case. It's sad that this case was two elderly women, who were both in ways vulnerable when out on the streets. I'm not completely clear that riding on the pavement is actually illegal - the law seems a bit of a mess around the issue https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/whats-legal-and-whats-not-your-bike 

As far as I can see reading the Sky story, it is not relevant to the case whether riding a bike on the pavement is illegal or not.

To me it seems that cycling on a pavement is clearly illegal unless there's a cycle lane allowing you to do so.

"It’s an offence to drive a carriage on “any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers”

When I used to commute by bike, there was a section that I would always use the foot path however.

Here: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3255334,-0.2103888,3a,75y,181.71h,85.1t/dat...

No way I'm cycling on that road, and I never saw anyone walking on that pavement so stuff what the law states, in this particular scenario it's wrong.

I don't know how it would work, but I feel there needs to be a review, and somehow following a risk assessment, where the risk to pedestrians is sufficiently low, and risk to cyclists sufficiently high, pavements should be marked (somehow?) as dual purpose where pedestrians have priority.

1) there is no argument the woman caused the cyclists death

2) the cas was overturned on the basis the prosecution had not established that a criminal act had been committed by the defendant.

imho shouting, swearing and waving your arms at a vulnerable person is criminal so I disagree with this judgement. However the defendant was shown to also be vulnerable and mentally deficient so imho this should have been taken into account when sentencing but not in reaching the verdict unless it was recognised she was unfit to plead.

A very sad case with no winners at all. 

Perhaps the best thing would be to make the roads less intimidating for cyclists. I taught my children to cycle on the road from an early age. I would be less confident doing the same with my grandchildren.

Regarding the case itself it is very similar to cases where a burglar gets shot, typically by an old farmer with a shotgun

I'm with you apart from the implied judgement on the poor cyclist. By the letter of the law, she shouldn't have been on the pavement, but given the standard of driving in this country (especially with regard to cyclists), and the shortage of appropriate segregated routes for bikes, I think it's reasonable for some cyclists to carefully use pavements. The 77-year-old in this case definitely seems like someone I would think was justified in doing so quite liberally. Less vulnerable cyclists should spend more time on the road, in my view, but might still be justified in occasionally using a pavement instead of a particularly dangerous section of road.

None of which is to say that I support the original prosecution. If the person shouting at the cyclist had been a fit young person with no reason to fear the cyclist, I'd think they were being a dick by shouting at them, but still not guilty of manslaughter. Given the vulnerability of the person actually prosecuted in this case, I wouldn't even judge them as a dick, let alone worthy of prosecution for any kind of crime.

There are lots of pavements already marked like that. On my commute, if this link works https://www.google.com/maps/@53.2970759,-1.4576453,3a,75y,104.06h,94.77t/da... you can see the dual usage sign on the pavement/cyclepath on the left. I tend to ride in the road along this stretch because I'll generally be doing about 25 to 50 kmph, the dual use pavement narrows down, crosses people's driveways, crosses sideroads etc. etc. You don't want to be going that speed passing groups of kids walking to school or people walking their dogs.

It's all a bit weird because about a km down the road you get https://www.google.com/maps/@53.2889733,-1.4401786,3a,15y,134.63h,92.68t/da... and for no apparent reason the shared use pavement goes back to being pedestrians only. 

The judge in the original trial said that the pavement was a shared path so the cyclist was not breaking the law although from other reports it doesn't sound clear. Anyway, please be mindful of what you say about a 77 year old woman who tragically died in the incident.

Normally the pedestrian is considered the vulnerable user when the other user is on a bike. Bikes give way to pedestrians.

What particular crime do you think has been committed? The media reports suggest that common assault is what might have been suggested but the prosecution never proved this. Watching the video of the incident, it doesn’t look much like common assault to me.

Outside my house is a normal width pavement with some dual use signage. It's a disaster for everyone who uses it but no doubt it lets the council say they met some sustainable transport target.

I'm glad to see it's been implemented somewhere. Just needs rolling out far and wide now.

Is it not less of a disaster than cyclists on a dual carriageway. I wouldn't have the nerve for it.

I don't live on a dual carriageway?

I think the fact that the cyclist reacted defensively in veering into the traffic shows that an assault might have been experienced.  Not battery though.

However, the mental state of the defendant may have been such that she was incapable of forming a criminal intent and just thought she was giving a telling off rather than intending to make the cyclist feel an assault, physical or otherwise.

The judge at the Court of Appeal didn’t see it that way: “Had Mrs Ward not died we regard it as inconceivable that the appellant would have been charged with assault.”

If the original prosecution had attempted to establish assault then maybe a jury could have decided this.

There must be many occurrences of bad behaviour which might be found criminal by a magistrates court but which never reach the courts because no further consequences followed that were sufficient to involve the police.  It doesn't mean that the conduct was not criminal, just that it never triggered a prosecution.

Sorry, missread the dual sign as dual carriageway

I'd suggest make shared cyclist/pedestrian use the norm.  Mixing cars and bikes is always going to be far riskier.

How is it a disaster?  They seem to work well in general IME.

They work ok if it's a wide pavement with a clear demarcation between the two halves.  The one outside my house is just wide enough for two people to walk side by side with no demarcation and limited signage. 

Is saying that the cyclist would not have veered in to the road if the woman had not gesticulated at her equivalent to saying the woman caused her death? I'm not sure it is. I would have thought it would at least require the woman to have not left enough room for the cyclist to pass on the pavement or stop in time.

So you think you know the law better than the appeal court judges?

"Minister for Cycling Robert Goodwill has reiterated that the official line from the Department for Transport (DfT) is that cyclists may ride on the footway – more commonly referred to as pavements – provided they do so considerately, and that police officers need to exercise discretion."

The law and official position may differ, or the official position is that the police (& cyclists) should exercise discretion.

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

I take it you don't ride a bike very often if you weren't aware of the widely-used concept of 'dual use' routes. The roll out is pretty wide. The quality of the implementation is very variable...

Something needs to be done about cyclists, ebikes (unregulated) and motorbikes on pavements; it seems to have become endemic since lockdown. Deliveroo and their ilk being the worst offenders.

I ride a bike. I don't drive. So this is not an anti-cyclist rant.

Oh, and I'd rather cyclists not be forced off the road 'by stealth'. We have a right to be on the road; we are not merely there under Iicence.

Don't agree there, sorry, not round here at least.

The shared use footways are just not suitable. Often partly blocked by parked cars forcing cyclists or pedestrians into the wrong "lane". Alongside driveways with hedges gives cyclists little chance of avoiding cars puling straight out. And often when coming to a junction or roundabout the cycle section of the footway just ends leaving at best an inconvenient or even dangerous manoeuvre to continue the journey.

There will always be some roads difficult for a timid cyclist but I think more urban roads should be more cyclist - and pedestrian - friendly.

Proper cycle infrastructure is the thing that needs to be done.

Interesting point in the early BBC coverage of this story that neither the council nor the police were able to confirm if the pavement  was shared use or not. Strange.

If you mean 'safe roads', then I'll agree. If you mean a tiny subset of limited cycleways, separate from the roads, and cyclists excluded from roads, then I'll disagree.

On Saturday, I took photos of the signage at either end of the pedestrianised main street in Reading.

At one end 'no vehicles', 'cyclists dismount'.

At the other end 'no entry except cycles', 'buses and cycles'.

There are no lanes: it's entirely pedestrianised.

I'd like to see both safer roads and more traffic free cycle routes.

Having lived and cycled many thousands of kilometres around a city with shared use paths that "I'd suggest mak[ing] shared cyclist/pedestrian use the norm" is a really bad idea. These are from a long time ago but from visits in recent summers nothing has changed besides the scourge of rental e scooters everywhere. 

https://lightfromthenorth.blogspot.com/2009/05/dumb-helsinki-cycle-paths-1....

https://lightfromthenorth.blogspot.com/2009/05/dumb-helsinki-cycle-paths-2....

It only works if cyclists move at pedestrians speed which they don't - if they did, what would be the point of riding? 

You either allow vulnerable riders to use the pavements and the rest of us stick to the road, or you have proper segregated cycle paths. Mixed use isn't good for anyone besides maybe drivers who hate people on bikes.

Good grief. What an incredible decision to prosecute. How could the authorities possibly have supposed that spending the sort of public money wasted on this exercise and a three year prison sentence was remotely justified? It’s no wonder our courts are rammed and our prisons contain the highest proportion of our population in Western Europe.

Hell, with that kind of money the government could have determined a couple of asylum claims and saved themselves half a million pounds or so.

jcm

On the other hand, they are keeping the jails less crowded by handing our trivial sentences for killing cyclists by car...

I don't like to come over all woke or something - actually, I don't mind at all if I do - but you really, really need to expunge the phrase 'mentally deficient' from your vocabulary.

Just a handy tip to ease you into the 21st century.

I agree full segregation is much the best but if mixing is to happen, much better it's cyclists and people than cyclists and cars. The "share with care" signs round here seems to reflect the right approach 

The problem there seems to be the infrastructure not the concepts. There are plenty of places it works fine 

Explain why the decision was so incredible please.

Do you have a special insight?

If you were building somewhere completely from scratch then it might but only might work/

However even the half decent shared paths have an advised speed limit of between 10-15 so you still end up with any cyclists wanting to get anywhere reasonably quickly on the road.

Person with downs syndrome shouts at person on bike. Person with downs goes to prison. 

I couldn't agree with you more.

Well, as a non car driver that's a licence that you don't pay for. 

I do agree that you have a right to be on the road, of course, only a right wing fool would say otherwise. But, you are using a road that is paid for by other tax payers. Not sure what my point is here but you get the drift....

As a wobbly occasional cyclist I'd be very happy with a 10mph limit on shares spaces and it would remove one of the barriers I feel to cycling. 

If you were starting from scratch, you would segregate all three. However it does work fine - I've just been 15 miles.in shared paths - no issues.

I would ban that  (as The Netherlands do) where there is adequate provision. And 10-15mph is plenty in towns..

Where did you get the Down's diagnosis?

Person swears and gesticulates at 77 year old cyclist doing nothing wrong. 77 year old cyclist veers into path of car and is killed. Person doesn't offer any assistance, just goes home. 

Cyclist dead (family devastated). Driver devastated (I know I would be).

Person who caused all this devastation, free pass.

Not sure what the point is. The roads are paid for out of general taxation so anyone who's paying tax is paying for the road, even if they don't drive a car. 

10mph is not adequate for a bike commute at all.

What sort exactly? The sustrans path near me are okay (on a quiet evening but not so much during a weekend) but not the shared paths and, if you look just above, you will see some cyclists arent so keen on mixing with faster riders.

For the cars as well, right? Or do you want someone driving to work to be able to drive faster whilst someone wanting to commute in a sustainable manner to not be able to?

Various -park, wide pavement, wide canal path.

Yes - traffic speeds in town are are about this anyway.

I think you have said it all.

'Road Tax', sequestered for upkeep of the roads, was abolished in 1936. Roads are funded from general taxation, national and local. I pay both. You might also see how much 'road tax' is paid by zero emission vehicles. Though VED charges continue to be a political punchbag; electric-only vehicles will attract non-zero VED from next year...

If you cycle faster, you'll be less wobbly...

The government has just ordered a mass early release of people convicted of domestic abuse because our prisons are overcrowded.

And you want to know why incarcerating a 77 year old woman with cerebral palsy for what was essentially a tragic accident isn’t a good idea?

jcm

The 77 yo woman was the victim. I am not sure how you could class it as an "accident". Her actions led directly to it.

Ok, so why put the cyclists with the pedestrians if the cars are being restricted in speed? Seems an odd approach.

So she was; I had the impression somehow they were the same age. Doesn’t really change the point. Apart from the absurd exercise of prosecutorial discretion, if the Court of Appeal thought the prosecution case was too weak to have been properly left to the jury, then just from a technical point of view it probably wasn’t a good decision to bring the case.

jcm

I think you need to read the report again:

"Grey, who has cerebral palsy and was described by her lawyer as "partially blind", was given a three-year jail sentence in March 2023 after being convicted of manslaughter."

I do? Why exactly?

Okay; I need to read the report more clearly, and interpret posts better...

John conflated the 77-yr old and cerebral palsy.

You corrected him about the 77-yr old bit.

I thought you were disputing the cerebral palsy bit, and had thought both women were 77. As, it seems, jcm did, too...

I'm very happy with my current pace, as it's still faster than public transport. If I wasn't so scared of cars I'd cycle more and therefore be fitter, able to cycle faster and with greater confidence, making me less of an inconvenience to motorised road users.

Don't see any reason not to allow bikes to use either (many already do), but wth a maximum speed limit on footpaths. Maybe some exceptions, but many pavements are not well used.

You're scared of cars.  Many pedestrians are scared of bikes - and not without good reason in some cases (there are stories I could tell...but I won't).  The key phrase in the Home Office guidance (which doesn't change the actual law) quoted above by elsewhere is: "cyclists may ride on the footway – more commonly referred to as pavements – provided they do so considerately".

"Considerately:" includes things like: riding at a speed which is sensible for the specific circumstances - so no slamoming at speed between peds on a busy pavement (certain delivery riders, I'm looking at you) - and giving reasonable warning of their approach to pedestrians proceeding in the same direction i.e. with their backs to them, or otherwise unable to be aware of their approach e.g. blind/partially sighted.

That latter requirement can be a tricky one to get right.  Leaving it until you're no more than a couple of yards behind the ped before giving an audible warning isn't really good enough - and is actually quite likely to startle a dreamy ped into changing direction suddenly, which is the last thing you want.  On the other hand some peds might have headphones on (or worse, earbuds, which are much more difficult to see), or just be so dozy/dreamy that they don't register a bell or a friendly "excuse me" or "hello" from a comfortable distance, in which case the considerate thing to do IMO is to slow down and try again when you're a bit closer, but not right on top of them.  Worst case, if they still don't clock your presence, you need to slow down until you can pass them at only marginally faster than their walking pace - as if you were, in fact, another pedestrian just walking a bit faster than them - to minimise the risk of startling them, and giving yourself more space & time to take avoiding action if they do react badly.

Another complicating factor is that some people seem to object to cyclists using a bell to warn of their approach, seeing it as rude or aggressive.  The way the bell is used - and even the sound it makes - can make a difference; I have a cheerful-sounding Dutch 'ding-dong' bell on my bike, which some people have actually told me that they like as I pass them.  On the other side of the coin there are the ones who choose to object to a verbal warning, responding to a polite "excuse me" or "hello" with "haven't you got a bell?"  Basically, for some peds as a cyclist on the footway you will always be in the wrong, no matter how considerate you are.  However unreasonable they might choose to be, though, I would suggest that it is inadvisable to try to assert that you have a right to be on the footway (unless it is a designated shared pavement) since, despite the Home Office guidance, the actual letter of the law says otherwise (which actually puts cyclists in an unnecessarily awkward position IMO, and should really be sorted out).

You've pretty much described how I ride, obviously works best on relatively wide or low use pavements. For me the delays of considerately navigating pedestrians are more than worthwhile and TBH given my cycling fitness don't actually add much to my journey times, just make me more likely to ride.

As a driver I don't mind sharing with cyclists, but those (like myself) with limited skill/speed are a pita as you catch-up with them at every junction but they are going so slow that you really have to overtake, so end up playing a game of increasingly frustrating (for both parties) leapfrog.

​​​​​

Why should cars get to go 20 or 30 mph but bikes have a much lower limit? There is no justification for banning bikes from the roads

The victim was cycling slowly on a path that is indicated as a shared use path. Auriol Gray's unprovoked aggression resulted in her death. She deserved the time she spent in prison

They don't - typically about 10-15mph in built up areas, which is what we are discussing.

There is.  It's a lot safer.  Mixing cars and bike will always result cyclists getting killed by traffic.  Mixing cars and pedestrians will result in fewer accidents.  3-way segregation is ideal but not always possible due to limited space.

For comparison no one seriously suggests pedestrians should walk down the road when there is a pavement.

Cycling at even 10 mph on the majority of pavements is dangerous due to cars pulling out of driveways without good visibility of the pavement.

I can hold 20mph on the flat, that is barely holding up traffic but would be lethal if I tried that on a pavement. Your journey isn't more important than mine and if you don't trust yourself to avoid cyclists then you should probably quit driving 

Cobblers - see posts above.  Im talking about shared paths designed as such.

WTF are you talking about?

She also had cerebral palsy and quite likely had learning difficulties. It's probably also very likely she was heavily bullied as a child so it wouldn't surprise me if she has a won't take crap from anyone attitude. 

Her actions didn't come across as violent though, just a waving of hands and a telling off.

I remember an elderly lady yelling and waving her hands at me when I was a kid, on a high street with my bike, except I was walking it. That one confused me.  She didn't do anything wrong. As i was walking I was in full control so no issue.

Unfortunately the lady on the bike struggled with balance or control and fell off immediately after they passed each other.

Nobody is at fault here, it's just an unfortunate set of circumstances.

The unfortunate lesson here is if you don't have enough control of a bike, riding on the pavement doesn't remove your personal risk.

How the hell is cycling any more damagers than running on pavements? Similar speeds and assuming they are alert to giving way to pedestrians probably for more reactive to cars pulling out. If you don't have sufficient visibility to safely reverse off your driveway don't, try reversing on instead.

Hence the suggestion that cyclists should be should restricted on pavements to around 10mph, with those wanting to go faster having the option to go on the road and observe the car speed limits. Gives cyclists choice and avoids huge discrepancies in speed between the users of both surfaces, which hopefully would reduce injuries whilst also encouraging cycling.

I only quoted a small amount of your text, but it all resonated with me. My ~7 mile each way commute is mostly on shared use path (not a shared use pavement). It's a Sustrans route, but also popular with the local dog walkers. I also use the same path as a regular running route, so I've been on both sides of this.

As a cyclist, I try to be as considerate as possible. I have a nice cheery bell, and I use it when I can to give warning, I slow down to walking speed around dogs and pedestrians, and I thank people who take the time to step aside or call their dog back. I've experienced "haven't you got a bell" when I've tried to say excuse me - I've also experienced "that's so rude" when I've used the bell. I've been verbally abused by someone who didn't hear my bell because their headphones were on so loud I could hear them 50m away, I've had people set their dogs on me, I've had people actively block my way - more incidents than I can count (and actually, more than I've experienced riding on roads).

However, I also see other cyclists who are incredibly inconsiderate on the same path (Deliveroo again), and I can't always blame pedestrians who've had a run in with an inconsiderate cyclist for being wary around other cyclists, especially if they are more vulnerable.

In any case, I don't think shared pedestrian/cyclist spaces are the way forward in their current form. I don't really know what the answer is though, except for a wholesale change in culture...

I didn't follow the case, but prison sounds somewhat excessive based solely on what you've written here. Sounds like an incredibly tragic accident for which her actions were a significant contributing factor, but no intention to cause death and highly unlikely for her to repeat the behaviour, so no public benefit from a custodial sentence.

Would you be making a similar comment if this had been a cyclist gesticulating at a car driver they felt threatened by? 

I think headphones out in public have a net negative contribution to society. I don't own any, when out I want to hear what's going on around me. I've had a few interactions revolving around people wearing headphones. Wish it wasn't the norm.

Similar speeds!?

I'm probably biased but I think cycling on a pavement is riskier than running. Running I can stop or change direction very quickly. And I'm very unlikely to fall over doing so.

If a car pulls out on me at the last second, I can use my arms to protect me. On a bike if there isn't time to stop/swerve then you're going to be knocked off and have little control on what happens after that.

Looking at Parkrun times for 5km, yes a lot of runners seem perfectly capable of running at the sort of speed I'm happy cycling at.

If a car won't see me on the pavement I'm not sure how much safer I'll be a few feet further out on the road. As for jumping out of the way, yes more mobile on foot if you're paying attention and notice the hazard.

Yes, but that is changing the frame of the whole argument to the speeds that you would be happy cycling at, versus the speed that the average commuter cyclist would hold. I don't mean that in any demeaning way at all, it isn't a race, it's just I never do speeds that a runner would catch up with, so the "similar speeds" comment felt odd to me.

If I'm sprinting and a car pulls out, in most cases I would be fine. If I'm doing my average cycling speed and a car pulls out several metres ahead of me, I'm going to fly over the car and break my neck. If a pedestrian were to collide with me neither of us would come out of it at all unscathed, so I never ever ride on the pavement.

Which is why separating traffic and bicycles (and people) is a good idea.

But probably not as injured as if it was a car.  Also this isn't about cycling on pavements but cycling on shared use paths - i.e reasonable width and expectations from all that they are mixed use. Or, better, on dedicated paths for bikes.  This may mean some cyclists have to go a little slower at times in busy areas for the benefit of all.

You mean within the speed limit ??

I've never argued on here for cyclists like yourself being on pavements, you are clearly more than capable (and fast enough) to hold your own on the roads. My argument is for those who are happy to ride at slower speeds (and give way to pedestrians) to be allowed to choose to use pavements.

Speed limits apply only to motor vehicles, not bicycles, or horses or horse-drawn vehicles.

There is no requirement for bicycles (or the equine examples given above) to be fitted with or to carry a speedometer, so it's hardly practical to impose a limit on something the user is not required to be able to measure.

That's also why a speed limit for bicycles on pavements would be impractical.  The guidance to ride with consideration is open to interpretation but since any pedestrian/cyclist collision is quite as likely to injure the cyclist as the pedestrian, there is a large degree of self-interest involved on the part of a cyclist assessing whether speed falls within the definition of "considerate" when sharing space with pedestrians.

That is much less the case for most motor vehicles, which is one good reason for the requirement for drivers to have the means to monitor the speed at which their motor vehicle is travelling, which in turn allows enforcement of statutory limits imposed for the welfare of road users and the population in general.

If they had caused the driver to crash and either be killed or kill someone else then yes. However it seems a unlikely scenario at least without the cyclist being the one getting killed.

Do you have some examples?

To take the shared paths round here.

The old railway tracks are fine but any using part of the pavement alongside a road generally have a million and one road junctions and driveways crossing them.

I will use them when heading out on my mountain bike to ride in the woods since I am happy to dawdle along slowly warming up/cooling down but on the road bike they arent suitable

Speaking as someone who used to do a considerable amount of running on the pavements, and also use pavements (dual use) when necessary (to stay alive from being mown down by blind car drivers), I would say that a cyclist is far more likely to get hurt in a collision with a pedestrian than a runner is.

In fact I can refer to personal experience in this regard.

When running, if some idiot/blind bat or even a tosser "having a go" stepped in front of me all I had to do was twist my body so that my shoulder was used as a soft landing, first on the idiot, then (if necessary) on the ground - my fall being relatively short, and speed being reduced. I liken the action to that of a shoulder charge in football.

When cycling the centre of gravity is so much higher, and a change of direction is dangerous - or fatal in the case of the 77-year old (true) victim. The likelihood is that any contact with the ground would be head first for a cyclist.

Perhaps of little relevance to the thread but I saw some stats from British cycling (which annoyingly I can't find now) saying in fatal collisions between cyclist's and pedestrians its 50/50 who dies.  As such incidents are fortunately very rare I guess the robustness of the stats can be questioned, but the take home is its not a good idea to crash your bike.

Excellent post, Martin, as is your follow-up. Sums up my experience and approach perfectly.

Not sure how much experience of 'designed' dual-use paths you have.

Very little of it is 'designed'; more 'implemented', and often implemented inappropriately and badly, fit neither for cyclists nor pedestrians, and only done to meet arbitrary funding quotas.

The Warrington Cycle Campaign documented the most egregious examples for many years, but, sadly, have given up.

Any cyclist has ever come off a bike ought to know that hitting a pedestrian, even a glancing blow, is not a good idea.

It makes me wonder about the experience or mentality of the delivery riders who zoom past me with inches to spare.. Injury and loss of livelihood might not be good for them. Although I suppose their fitness to pedal is immaterial on an illegal, unregulated ebike...

I've just been out (by car) and almost took a picture of a couple of shared paths, I will next time. Good width, good surface, being used by pedestrians, cyclists children etc . All working well. 

Crap infrastructure is crap whatever the intended use 

This sort of tedious pedantry always comes up.  Numerical speed limits don't apply but other rules do. You can't just bat along ignoring everyone else's safety without breaking laws on a bike (or horse).

Cars kill shit loads of pedestrians and bikes every year (roughly one pedestrian a day and two cyclists a week).

Cyclists very, very, occasionally kill a pedestrian

Pedestrians kill cyclists at a rate that is almost unmeasurably low

We should be devoting words and effort trying to fathom the first line before we get hung up about the others - I'm not say they don't matter, just that we've grown numb to cars killing hundreds of times more people and find it really easy to be distracted by these highly unusual cases.

The archive is still out there though.

You have to click on the individual months

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/March2019.htm

I know! As a cyclist who is lit up like a Christmas tree and is bloody careful but has still been hit by cars twice and had a million near misses I don't understand how diliveroo people don't die in their hundreds. Perhaps there's some strange thing that motorists don't hit you if your doing 30mph on an illegal e bike with no lights.

While I don't disagree in principle, in practice two-tier rules without very clear objective criteria for who should be in which tier don't work very well...

Sadly, a very high proportion of cycle infrastructure, dedicated or dual use, is crap. A far, far higher proportion than crap motor vehicle infrastructure.

Indeed. Plenty of drivers killing cyclists through far more direct action have received lesser sentences than in this case.

Roads are heavily subsidised by taxation from non-motoring taxes. Most people pay income tax, council tax and VAT. People who don't drive are subsidising people who do.

Oh, I didn't know that, so they are an exception to all other road users. Does this exception carry over to stopping at trafic lights ? And overtaking on the inside - even more dangerous than speeding ?

Street view link would probably do the trick. That way we can see the entire path and how good or not it is.

Here

And further on.

It's motor vehicle users who are the exception. They are the only ones who have speed limits, no one else does.

Is there more footage than the clip on the BBC?

Because the clip looks awfully like the biker got pushed over.  To be leaning at that angle immediately after would be hard to do with just the handlebars.

If she wasn't, and steered off the pavement of her own accord, that's rather a different context.

Are both sides shared use?

I assume the court would have looked at all available evidence and concluded she wasn't pushed.

The prosecution’s case was that there was either brief contact from the arm waving or evasive action and that the cyclists path had been obstructed. It doesn’t seem that they tried to make any suggestion that she was pushed. The appeal court documents say that it is possible that the cyclist had slowed to pass, lost momentum and wobbled and fallen.

The court documents also say that there was only evidence of gesticulation and swearing, and no evidence that shows any physical contact so presumably there is no better video that shows any contact. 

Yes.

Had a look on street view along the road.

Main thing which springs to mind is how badly signed it is, I am not sure you are right about it being mixed used both sides. Looks like there is only signs on one side and then it has it crossing at a traffic lights but its hard to tell. Generally I would expect a lot more "repeater" signs along the way.

Looks borderline for recommended width and when it gets to roundabouts it seems to just fade away. Lack of segregration makes it problematic.

Overall it looks like one of those where someone has gone "ohhh there is a wide pavement" and so turned it into a shared path.

It does do ok on the lack of junctions but that is just down to the road type and soon as you drop off that it vanishes.

Too late to edit my last post to add it but here’s the appeal court judgement for anyone interested: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/20240508-R-v-Auriol-Gre...

It's unbelievable that she was found guilty of manslaughter without the jury being asked if she was guilty of a crime. It was just assumed she was.

The video was the sole evidence and her state of mind was never considered.

Mickey mouse court procedures.

It's quite clearly both sides when you are there, and on maps showing bike lanes

https://www.hitrans.org.uk/userfiles/file/HI-Travel-active-travel-map.pdf

You are clearly going to object to absolutely any cycle provision.  I use it regularly on car and bike and it works well.    If you look at the map, there are plenty of other joint paths and I'm not aware of any major problems.

Incorrect. There was her own interview and also several eyewitnesses, including I think the poor sod of a driver,who gave evidence.

Odd considering I have already said there is some good stuff but a lot, including what I see of that, is half arsed and at risk of causing conflict between cyclists and pedestrians.

I love the idea of cycle lanes and shared space (where consideration is shown to all users). However the way our council impliements it drives me nuts. We have cycle lanes that appear and disappear on a whim, weave in and out of parking bays and usually stop right at the point where a cyle lane would be useful. However my biggest grip is for the lack of maintenance such lanes recieve. Our local council put in a dedicated lanes a couple of years ago and it is quite good, aside from no way to turn right once on it. Last winter I was cycling down it when I came off, whoosh! Yup the road was gritted but not the cycle lane. In other areas we have to contend with broken glass and other debris and tree roots that act as speed bumps. Generally I cycle on the road a lot more than the lanes in some areas.

Sole was the wrong word. Primary evidence used ignoring state of mind. Quotes from the document.

"The mental element of common assault was simply not addressed at all"

"The prosecution and the judge invited the jury to focus particularly on the CCTV evidence as the best evidence of what happened. That evidence plainly could not establish what was in the mind of either woman as they encountered each other."

State of mind is really important to almost all crimes and the CCTV doesn't address this at all. 

You can probably add to the list of things you didn't know that more cars than bicycles go through red lights, that 'overtaking on the inside' is not prohibited and that speeding is very dangerous.

I believe the offence is (or at least was) "furious cycling". An old-fashioned phrase, but it does rather sum it up.

Only ever heard of one person being done for it. The Sergeant on duty stepped in front of the cyclist (at a suitable distance) and put his arm up to indicate the cyclist to stop. The cyclist didn't, and proceeded to stop by parking his front wheel right where the Sergeant most definitely didn't want it. (Ouch !)

Not proportionally.

It's pretty rare that a car completely runs a red light. It's common for them to push their luck with crossing the line as it's changing etc, but otherwise cars generally don't jump red lights.

Plenty of bikes cross mid way through the red light.

Which for the record, I'm not completely against. If you're on a bike and you can see there's nothing coming from any direction, then that red light is a bit pointless.

I like the American system where you can turn the equivalent on right at a red and treat it as a give may. Makes much more sense.

Currently, the maximum speed an electric bike can go by law in the UK is 15.5mph. Any faster and it ceases to be classified as a bike. Normal bicycles are not legally obliged to follow speed restrictions. 
 

Generally I find the 'half arsed' mixing of pedestrians and cyclists to be infinitely better then the 'outright dangerous' cycle lanes on many roads.

That's speaking as both a pedestrian, driver and occasional cyclist. 

For example one local road the car lane isn't wide enough for a car, so I either straddle the bike lane, or cross the central white line - bad enough in a normal car, but it's also a bus route. 

Yeah, although car drivers obviously have less opportunities to jump the lights as they're so damn cumbersome and excessively wide that they can't filter to the front of every traffic light queue.
*Motorcycles can, but they don't have so much to gain by running the red as they can typically make up lost time more easily due to higher acceleration, capacity to filter etc.

I don't agree with this. I've commuted for years on a motorbike, and 3 minutes sat a red on a motorbike is just as much a delay a being in a car. Makes no difference. Although the opportunity as you say is higher on a motorbike.

The reason motorbikes don't just red lights on mass is because they have number plates and they don't want points on their license and for their insurance to sky rocket.

Cyclists don't have this fear so can adopt a different mindset.

Every light sequence around here. Amber means 'go very fast'. Red means 'go through before the other stream starts'.

It's not rare, I see it all the time. One car will go through as the light changes, and then another two will follow, well after it's gone red. It's pretty much default behaviour at some busy junctions. I've even seen the car in front of me run the red, I've stopped, and the car behind has hooted, passed me and gone through!

True most "cycle lanes" on roads are absolutely useless and just a paint job in order to tick the x miles of cycle lane.

However it does depend on your riding speed. Anything above about 10mph it becomes dangerous for all involved. At which point quite a few cyclists will be questioning why use it.

Not round here it isnt.  Pretty routine for redlight jumpers to the point there are a couple of light controlled roundabouts I am wary as hell on the green light due to it.

There is a reason red light cameras get installed.

I would also point out that "as it's changing"  almost certainly means they are breaking the law. They should be stopping on the amber.

Yes shared pedestrian/bike spaces only work when bikes are going slow. But that's doesn't mean they are a bad idea, most cyclists on this thread seem to be more than able to make a conscious decision about which space best suits them.

I often drive (occasionally cycle) down a 30mph dual carriageway that is pretty much gridlocked with traffic in the mornings. Even at around 10mph it's faster for me riding on the (shared) pavement than playing leapfrog with stop/start traffic.

A handful of cyclists choose to stick to the road, but as a driver these aren't a nuisance as they are generally fast enough to move with the flow of cars rather than obstructing it.

So basically both wheeled forms off transport get a better experience, with minimal inconvenience/risk to pedestrians.

Might I suggest, its the bike that's not suitable, not the path. 

Many "road" bikes available today are "racing" bikes suitable for racing on nice smooth surfaces only. The quest for lighter weight faster speeds has made bikes too fragile for anything but the smoothest of roads. 

But you see no conflict between cars and cyclists on the road!?  

There is far less conflict on the road between cars and cyclists than there would be between cyclists and pedestrians if cyclists were forced to cycle on the pavement (although many cyclists would simply quit and just drive rather than put up with hassle and danger, to themselves and others, of pavements, I certainly would)

My point earlier about there my about your journey not being more important than mine was because no one who argues for cyclists to be restricted to the pavements cares about cyclist, or pedestrian, safety, they care about being able to drive their car as fast as possible everywhere.

The roads are not reserved for motor vehicles but pavements are reserved for pedestrians. They are often narrow, have poor visibility around corners, don't have set directions, lose the right of way at every side turning, don't even exist everywhere that you could want to go and are not necssarily visible from driveways. They work for people travelling at about 3mph but any faster and conflict becomes inevitable (runners with their lack of handlebars, generally moderate speeds, and higher manourveability cope ok, especially as they can go into the road and instantly rejoin without the curb causing issues)

The majority of cyclist fatalities are caused by by selfish drivers not giving cyclists enough room or not looking properly. The onus is on drivers to improve, or just be slightly more patient, and it sounds as though you are unwilling to do so.

You're not serious. I drive faster than that on my driveway.

You could suggest it. You would be wrong.  My road bike is a borderline gravel bike (ughhh I hate that term) so more than capable of taking a hit or two.

Have you seen the state of the roads? Some of the ones round here I am faster on my full sus than the road bike they are that trashed. Whilst pavements are a mess generally they have a few less potholes so that would be an argument for riding on the pavement with those bikes.

The problem is they arent generally designed for anything other than slowish leisure cycling.

Whilst there is no official speed limit the general guidance seems to be somewhere between 12-18mph for a segregrated path and the lower end for shared.

Yeah.  The Dutch are famously uninterested in cycling and cycle safety.

Here's the numbers for London

https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-ma...

Rather than the usual cycle-nut hectoring, you could try engaging with the discussion.  The fundamental point is that mixing traffic and bicycles is inherently dangerous.  No matter how much you tell drivers to take more care etc, accidents will happen and they will be serious.

A key concept in any risk reduction strategy, is to first attempt to remove the risk.  In this case that means separating  cyclists and traffic.  The easy way to do this is to provide adequate provision for cyclists on dedicated cycle routes.  Where this isn't feasible, mixed cycle and pedestrian provision is a lot less risky than mixed car and cycle provision, so it makes sense to do this.

As I have shown upthead this is entirely possible and you objections are wrong-headed.

The Dutch actually provide proper cycle paths everywhere that don't lose the right of way at side turnings, that aren't shared with pedestrians, and that follow proper guidelines and are basically built to the same standards with regards to visbility as roads. Nothing in this country compares

a pretty disingenuous a reply

You haven't shown anything anywhere

Err yes. Exactly what I am suggesting.

I gave two examples. At least read the thread before responding.

The fundamental point is that driving cars is inherently dangerous.

But we have laws to mitigate those dangers. Which generally work when people comply with those laws.

And people have looked at your examples and don't think they are that great, having the regular flaws with 'opportunist infrastructure' (i.e. only putting it in where there might be existing room, but not making room for it where it is really needed (junctions, etc)).

Those two examples are absolutely nothing like the Dutch dedicated paths with primacy at junctions etc.

Correct. And?

It goes around (actually under) the junctions. 

What people have actually done is decide a priori that they can't stand the concept and will object to any provision of any kind.

The Dutch approach to cycling does not exist in the UK, and, sadly, I cannot see it ever existing in the UK. And that includes the approach to implementing cycling infrastructure.

It's all very well saying 'ah, but the Dutch do it right', when we in the UK don't follow their example at all. It's completely irrelevant.

Well I disagree. Parts of London are similar (and yes, I know most aren't), and there is an increaingly extensive off road cycle network here in the Highlands. There is no reason why we can't. It does require by-in though and if the starting point is insisting nothing can work and that anything less than perfection is wprthless, then it indeed won't .

That's what you think.

I use a dedicated, mixed use path every day I cycle to work. It's not bad, apart from the dog walkers who don't control their dogs. But it runs alongside a brook, on the Kennet flood plane, and has an underpass under the large road it runs alongside (even though I have been riding on A roads since I was 11, I wouldn't want to ride on this road; it has three lanes of traffic in places, and, even though the speed limit is notionally 40, it's more like a motorway). Guess what has happened in the recent months? Yes, it's been two feet under water, for some considerable time. I don't object to the concept. I object to the risible implementations, and the attempt to force cycles off the road.

Well I agree with you there.

Less certain, depending what "force" means.  As an example, if say a road is made 50% narrower in order to put in dedicated, well-design cycle lanes, I think it's reasonable to then say that bicycles shouldn't be on the road.  Otherwise you end up with a situation where there are narrow lanes and faster moving cars trying to overtake slower cyclists after a good proportion of the available space has already been allocated to them.

It's not reasonable to say cycles shouldn't be on the road in that situation. Cyclists have a right to be on the road, end of. If the cycle lane is good then they won't be on the road, because they'll be using the cycle lane. If they are using the road instead of the cycle lane then it's because the cycle lane isn't fit for purpose, so you can't say to cyclists "we made you a lane, I don't care if it's crap, get off our road"

Incorrect. Back in the pre covid days I used to commute routinely on a sustrans shared path to work.

It was great since it was one of the disused trainlines, well surfaced and with only a couple of road crossings in 5 miles. At commute time it was quiet as well so could hold a reasonable speed. Could be dicy in winter though due to the lack of gritting.

What people object to is the standard halfarsed implementations such as the ones you show. Where the cyclist is a second class citizen both to the pedestrian and at every road junction.

Why do you say that?  If other provision is made it makes no more sense than insisting cycling down the railway is a right "end of".

I guess you missed this bit: "...dedicated, well-designed cycle lanes..."

In most established roads, in urban environments, there simply isn't room to put such cycle lanes in place. So you would be banning bikes from a large fraction of the road network. Why not ban cars from those roads instead...?

One other aspect of 'cycle provision planning' is that many planners fail to understand cycling as a means of transport, thinking it is merely a leisure activity, so they provide cycle lanes that go from nowhere to nowhere, thinking cyclists simply want somewhere to cycle, rather than that cyclists want to cycle to somewhere in particular.

If you object to what I show, you will object to anything.  It's well designed and built and effective.

Again as I have said, that's not correct, there are routes under most of the junctions and traffic lights for bikes at others

Pedestrianization?  Yep, all for it, with appropriate provision for deliveries, disabled access etc.

Again, no argument there.

Not sure where you get that from either.

Because you suggested if there wasn't room to make a good cycle lane on a road, cycles should be banned from those roads:

I'm saying that for most urban roads, there isn't room to build a cycle lane, so you would be banning cycles from those roads.

No I didn't, certainly not intentionally.

I've edited my post to include a quote to you saying cycles shouldn't be on those roads; I took that to mean 'banned'. I'm not sure what else you might have meant by it.

I am not following but that's not what I am saying. Just that *if* 50% (as an example) of the available space if given over to a decent cycle lane, it's reasonable to keep bikes off the remaining space given over to cars, as we do with pavements/pedestrians*

*I know its probably not strictly illegal to walk down the road, before the pedants arrive.

Okay, if you can put in a cycle lane on an existing road (and keep cars (moving & parked) out of it, and keep it maintained, free of debris & broken bottles), then I'm sure cyclists would be happy to keep to their bit of the road. I haven't seen anyone demanding otherwise, so maybe you're putting up a bit of a strawman.

I'd prefer to just see more consideration for cyclists: save all the expense of providing dedicated facilities.

Well just above we had "Cyclists have a right to be on the road, end of. " and other similar comments higher.

Some people on bikes may do this, many other people don't. I ride 3000 kms a year mainly commuting and don't go through red lights, for instance. Where I am I don't see many other people doing it either. I have seen people doing it a lot on my infrequent visits to London, but it gets really tedious when debates around cycling basically comes down to what does and doesn't happen in the city where only about 15% of UK citizens actually live.

I'd completely disagree.

It's regularly one car goes through on amber, then two more on red. I've often seen cars that were stationary - waiting because the car front blocked them until they themselves set off - move off AFTER the lights turned red.

As a motorcyclist commuter I never jump a red - because of 2 reasons;

1) I can make up the time filtering at the next junction/set of lights.

2) It's bl00dy dangerous and I want to live !

And yet I just pointed out that I routinely used one for commuting. Just not a pavement which hadnt even been marked out.

Thought I would look up some stats.  Now obviously cyclists could account for more minor injuries but in terms of risk.

From 2012-20, one of the 32 pedestrians who were killed by someone who jumped a red light was hit by a cycle (in 2020).
 
Seventeen out the 385 serious pedestrian casualties hit by someone jumping a red light were hit by a cycle rider (4%). The rest were hit by other vehicles.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/cycling-and-pedestrians

I vaguely recall although cant find the details there were similar information for cyclist serious injury or death. It was far more likely for for a cyclist to be killed by someone jumping a red light vs the cyclist jumping the red light and then being hit.

Right, this is what I mean pushing your luck as they are changing. It's one of those, oh no, I couldn't possibly stop in time, foot on the accelerator. See.

I've seen a cyclists rock up to a red light. Every other vehicle is stationary, and have been waiting for 60 seconds or whatever. Cyclist, after looking (to be fair), rides on through the red light.

I have never seen a vehicle with a number plate do this. Yet I have seen plenty bikes do it.

That's a level of, "this light doesn't apply to me" that's way beyond any car that tries to get away with passing 5 seconds after it changes. I'd argue what the car is doing is much more dangerous, but the blatantness of ignoring the rules are not comparable here.

So what's worse? Blatantly breaking the rules in a manner that doesn't harm anyone, or "just slightly" breaking the rules in a highly dangerous fashion?

Anyone who thinks the cyclist in this situation is worse than the car driver has very skewed priorities - rules are more important than life and death.

The one that's being more dangerous obviously.

Is anybody suggesting this?

Car drivers, motorcyclists, and cyclists are not homogeneous groups with only a single behavioural trait. Why this seems so hard to grasp for some people is beyond me. Maybe it's just easier to get angry at things when they're simplistic, or maybe it's just tribalism.

They do. Drivers are only allowed on the road under licence. Cyclists have an innate right to be on the road (barring motorways, where they are excluded by law).

You appeared to be describing a 'shared use' situation, where a road is divided into a bike lane and a car lane. In this case, I cannot see cyclists demanding the right to ride in car lane, if the cycle lane is  an acceptable facility on the same road. The problem is that such cycle facilities are often unacceptable and inadequate. Obviously, there will be occasions where the road layout will require a cyclist to enter the 'car lane', to turn right, to avoid parked cars and other obstructions in the 'cycle lane', etc.

In the case of dedicated cycle facilities, they are often poorly designed, don't go where the cyclist needs to go, poorly constructed & poorly maintained, so it is safer and quicker to cycle on the road.

No. You have just normalised law breaking for the two going through on red unless the timing is screwed. The one going through on amber might have an excuse but the other two not so much.

It is a sign of the average drivers disregard for the law that amber gambler has been replaced with red light gamblers.

A rather flawed comparison since a cyclist turning up at the back of the queue can filter forward and so could jump the light. The driver in the same situation is more limited. 

That said given the general disregard for the law drivers have it may well be the cyclist filtered forward and found someone blocking the ASL

Will head out for a ride in a few minutes. I can pretty much guarantee there will be several drivers blatantly ignoring the rules. Its just you are selective in choosing which ones to get offended about.

Yup and in my experience someone who is an idiot when cycling will also be an idiot when driving. As such I prefer them cycling since they are a lower overall threat.

They can't provide powered assistance when going above 15.5 mph, the bike is still able to exceed this without breaking any laws if it is propelled by the rider.

I think you are just completely miss-interpreting what I'm saying.

I said upthread that I actually don't mind bikes jumping red lights. As long as they do it safely. I also said I think we should introduce a red give way rule like in America.

How am I normalising it? I'm just highlighting what a lot of car drivers do and how they think about it.

Motorbike? Cars at the front of the queue.

I don't know why you are getting so defensive over this.

Your average bicycle rider is going to be more blase about jumping a red light than your average car driver because they don't have the traceability. And this is what I see. I'm not have a pop at anyone.

I think bikes should be allowed to. If they check carefully they can cross safely. 

I honestly don't care and would support a rule change for bikes. 

I think that’s what I said, yes. 

The vast majority of delivery ebikes I see have clearly been modified to remove the regulator; going much faster than 15mph, and not 'assisting', since the riders are not pedalling at all.

That's not to mention the kids on e-trials bikes who razz around at 50kph+

These are becoming a menace, and it's annoying how people regard them as cyclists and cite their behaviour as cyclists behaving dangerously.

They are not cyclists. They are riding illegal unregistered electric motorcycles.

"Innate"!? Sorry that just nuts. It's entirely reasonable to regulate cyclists as it is to regulate any road user. 

You said they couldn't go over 15.5mph, there is a significant difference between can't exceed and can't provide assistance. They are effectively just a heavy bike once you exceed 15.5mph.

If they've been modified to provide assistance above this speed my understanding is that they attract the requirements and limitations associated with a motorbike/ scooter (as they would if a throttle was fitted).

That's pretty much what a right of way means - a right* that did not change for paths, bridleways & roads when motor vehicles were invented and still hasn't changed for most roads.

*a birthright or innate even as there is no minimum age

In law. As opposed to motor vehicle users.

Like horse riders or pedestrians?

Lets take speed limits. For cars it is easy (lets ignore people driving very old cars) since there is the requirement for type approval. So we can have a basic requirement for a working speedometer and if its broken then tough luck if you get caught speeding. In terms of how much the vehicle costs it is minor.

For a bicycle though it could be a significant addition to the cost for a low end bike. Arguably slightly more feasible with e-bikes but thats a new thing.

Exactly. Horses aren't allowed on footpaths, for instance. 

I see cars running the red every time I use the Kemplay Bank roundabout just out of Penrith. And today a Stobart lorry.

I am not sure of the relevance of this to your claim about regulating road users?

Just in case its supposed to refer to cyclists on footpaths lets go back to the last (as far as I am aware) comment from a government minister about cyclists on footpaths in 2014 where Goodwill supported the guidance given in 1999 that the police should use discretion for "responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so".

Personally I think it should have been fixed in the rules one way or another but there you have it.

I would note its also a problem for your liking for those unsegregated paths and at what point a cyclist should be on the road instead.

Ah ok. Semantics. 
What I meant was that beyond that speed they are classed as something other than a bike, which is a bit weird as the rental bike scheme bikes can reach speeds of 19.5km/hr or so. It’s an aside to this tragic episode and debate however. 
For what it’s worth, the implementation of shared use paths in Bristol is widely accepted as very poor. It doesn’t work. 

By "tedious pedantry" I assume you mean awkward facts that undermine your particular world view?

Please point to any post of mine in this thread or elsewhere where I have suggested otherwise?

Or in a motor vehicle, and yet it doesn't seem to dissuade some drivers from doing so - and typically with far more serious consequences than if a cyclist, horse rider or carriage driver were to do it.

As the saying goes: In the war against the motorist, the other side seems to be taking far greater casualties.

There are some other exceptions: bicycles and horse-drawn vehicles over three years old don't need an MoT, for example.  It is generally the case that there are more regulations which apply to the use of motor vehicles on public roads than other vehicles.  Can you imagine why that might be?

No, and I absolutely do not condone cyclists failing to stop at traffic lights.  I also do not condone drivers "amber gambling" or even "red gambling" (something that taxi drivers round here seem to be particularly prone to).  My own experience in my own 'patch' is that I see far more instances of the latter these days than I do of the former (though I wouldn't suggest that the same situation pertains everywhere).

(I still shudder when I recall a time when I saw someone drive straight though a pelican crossing when the lights had been red for several seconds, apparently without even registering that it was a crossing.  They may have been hoping to get through the traffic lights at the junction 40m further on while they were still green - and arguably it's not ideal having a pelican so close to another set of lights - but that's no excuse.  Fortunately, instances of egregiously careless driving like that are very rare in my experience.)

Two-wheeled vehicles "overtaking on the inside" in traffic is otherwise known as filtering and, at the risk of being accused once again of "tedious pedantry", it is explicitly permitted in the Highway Code. The eighth bullet point of Rule 163 states:

• stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left. Cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on their right or left and should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you. Be careful about doing so, particularly on the approach to junctions, and especially when deciding whether it is safe to pass lorries or other large vehicles.

So, much as with the (IMO rather unsatisfactory) "guidance"regarding cycling on the footway, while it's not illegal, cyclists are expected to exercise caution when doing it.

However, do please share any statistics you may have regarding the risks of filtering vs speeding.

Agreed. A horrible case, but can say from personal experience that getting around on pavements as a vulnerable pedestrian (particularly as one who is assumed to be ablebodied and minded by others) is already difficult and sometimes dangerous enough. With bikes on the paths too, no doubt assuming anyone who doesn't look 85 is fit and able to a) notice them quickly and b) get out of the way, it would just force vulnerable pedestrians to barely leave the house. 

It's strongly implied in your speed limits comments.

Yes, that is my point in the whole discussion.

Apologies, I wasn't ignoring your reply. I've been away cycling. On the roads generally...

But thank you for including the totally irrelevant side issue, it was unnecessary. And no, I didn't infer that anything was a bad idea, I was more interested in your opinion of why the decision to prosecute was 'incredible' 

There was a death that resulted from one person's compliance with another person's direction. A very tragic case. 

In the end, justice was served, would you not agree?

"It is preferred to say "Down syndrome" rather than "Down's syndrome." 
Down syndrome is named for the English physician John Langdon Down, who characterised the condition, but did not have it. An apostrophe "s" connotes ownership or possession."
(National Down Syndrome Society)

Is that true in the UK?

The National Down Syndrome Society is US based. In he UK we have the Down's Syndrome Association and NHS online links use Down's Syndrome. 

Most of my working life, and training, (in the UK) I worked with people with Down syndrome, and always used 'Down', and it was common usage.
It relates to to the move away from the adjective, i.e. 'disabled person', to 'person with a disability' Been retired 5 years, so maybe things have changed, descriptors often did over my working life.
I'm equally pedantic about the inexcusable 'Peaks'.

Interesting; ought we be leaning towards the same principle for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's etc? It feels a bit clumsy, but maybe reduces the perception of a pejorative slight

An eye witness said that Auriol made contact, there is also unseen video which was shown in court, not shown on what’s publicly available.  The council and police were unable to say if cycling was permitted on that section of footway or not.

An old woman died, as a result of Auriol’s actions, let’s not try and victim blame. 

Why do people not also object to "The Lakes"?

People can call it whatever they like. Relieve yourself of this unnecessary and unsolicited policing.

Because of the numerous bodies of water there?

Compare and contrast - the "cycle lane" on my former commute (got shouted at a number of times for using the road, even though the foot wide bit of pavement usually had pedestrians waking), a real cycle lane in France that I used last summer

Does the Peak District not have several pointy summit thingies?

It has two "peaks" I believe. Therefore, logically, of the Lake District van be referred to as "The Lakes" then the Peak District can be referred to as "The Peaks". Either that or people should stop calling the Lake District "The Lakes". I don't care either way.

At the risk of eliciting further apathy, or exposing that I have missed irony, I thought it was named after an Anglo Saxon tribe, the Pecsaetan. Or something.

Fascinating: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecsaetan

So it seems they were calked the "peak dwellers" before migrating to the area and gave their name to the area rather than vice versa. So I suppose if one goes on the name of the tribe it should be "The Peak". And if Dark and White just refer to parts of the same "peak" rather than separate "peaks" it should still be "The Peak". Is this the case or have they become considered separate peaks over time?

And amongst what peaks further south did these people originally dwell?

Problem is that probably means, roughly translated, peak dweller so just boots the problem back a few centuries.

Whereas my limited experience has been working in collaboration with the Down's Syndrome Association? 

Certainly agree with that, someone who has Down's Syndrome not someone who suffers from Down's Syndrome.

For us at the Down’s Syndrome Association, the most important thing is the use of person first terminology (e.g. ‘person who has Down’s syndrome’, not ‘Down’s syndrome person’).

There should also be no comment that they suffer from or are victims of

It appears some thought has been given to this

It is generally accepted that both Down’s syndrome and Down syndrome can be used interchangeably.

The use of the possessive apostrophe is a recognised model that is used for a number of conditions in Britain, thus, in the UK Down’s syndrome is used more commonly, whereas in other countries the more prominent is Down syndrome.

They aren't really peaks at all though. The Dark one in particular is famously flat on top

Depends on how you choose to define the work peak. As an adjective it just means the highest level of anything. So a rolling hill has a peak.

Which suggests perhaps that the term "Peak District" means "The district where the (former) peak dwelling people now live" and that it does not imply the existence of any peak or peaks in the area - if they had migrated to the fens, it would now be called the Peak District.

The language preference between person first and identity first also varies significantly between different communities, the autistic community seems to have largely settled on identity first language, i.e.:

"I am an autistic person"

Your best bet is to be polite about it and accept that you will describe it in a way that someone doesn't like at least once due to opinions on language during. If interacting with members of a community on a repeat basis look up the consensus for the given community and accept correction from individuals within the community if they want themselves to be described differently. The opinions of people with the specific condition are typically seen as more valuable than those of caretakers and the like as disabled people are very often talked over/ "for" by the people around them (likewise autistic people with higher support needs are often talked over by those with lower support needs so I make efforts to acknowledge that their experience is very different to mine in many ways).

 I think all map titles etc should be replaced with this to end all the discussion and arguments.

19.5kmh is below the 25 kmh (15.5mph if you must) regulatory limit. So it's not "a bit weird", unless of course you are referring to the UKs continued use of archaic units used by about 4 countries worldwide. p.s. yes, this is a hangover European regulation. 

Thanks. I’ve been caught out yet again on some detail I couldn’t care less about. 

You're welcome. I can also agree with you that the Bristol shared paths are terrible - although I say this as someone who is used to the luxury of a proper segregated bike lane system, not that it stopped a car turning across me at the weekend! 

Alternatively abled, surely...?

So we should be talking about "The District with Peaks" (or, arguably, "The District with a Peak) then; no district should be defined by its orogeny.

As above, language preferences are specific to the individual and vary across groups of people with similar conditions, I have a couple of different conditions which collectively present a set of symptoms which I find disabling, I find that person first and identity first language feels clumsy in some contexts so I will sometimes swap between them.

Disability is not a dirty word, it's consideration as such by some people is indicative of one of the many stains on society, terms like "alternatively abled" aren't particularly helpful in my eyes so I don't use them, however I know some of my colleagues like to describe their Neurodiversity as super powers so you may find people with a disabling set of symptoms who prefer to be described as "alternatively abled".

https://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/learning-about/news/mediacentrefacts

See point 13, 

The name ‘Peak’ does not relate to mountains (there are none) – it is thought to derive from the Pecsaetan, an Anglo-Saxon tribe who settled the area.

Irrefutable facts all you "peaks" heathens!

The spirit of Al Evans is strong on UKC today! 😁

Indeed, and although I'm quite happy with Peak District, I can straight off think of several actual peaks within the Peak District (there must be loads more)

• Lose Hill
• Mam Tor
• Chrome Hill
• Hen Cloud

So those who are saying it's all flat up top are not correct, only the highest dark peak areas are "flat".

Wouldn't a better name be 'The Hills'? 🤔

I'm not sure what you mean by an irrelevant side issue. If you mean the fact that our prisons are overcrowded already, of course that's not an irrelevant side issue to a decision to prosecute. A major component of that decision is whether or not it's in the public interest to prosecute; that's why there's a discretion at all. If by putting this defendant in prison we need to release other defendants before their time, that's a highly relevant consideration.

It also seems incredible to me a technical level; if you conclude that you can't succeed with an ordinary manslaughter charge because there isn't the necessary mental state, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to go ahead arguing that the arm-waving and so on was an assault and hence can found this unusual form of manslaughter charge: as the CA said, it would be inconceivable to prosecute that as such.

I don't think justice was done, no. Someone was imprisoned for a year who shouldn't have been. The victim's family endured two trials when they shouldn't have done. Court time was wasted as a result of which others, perhaps innocent, spent more time remanded in custody than they should have done. Public money was wasted which could have been better spent.

It's necessary to accept the human condition. Part of that condition is that it's possible for people to die in tragic accidents, even ones which would have been avoided with better behaviour on the part of others, without it being just or desirable to put those others in prison.

jcm

It is reasonably forseeable that waving your arms at a cyclist in close proximity to yourself is going to cause them to swerve and if you're next to a busy road that them swerving could easily result in their death. The public haven't seen the full CCTV footage but the jury did and what the jury saw convinced them that she was guilty of manslaughter. She has basically been let out on a technicality. I'm not a lawyer, and maybe if applied correctly the law says that she isn't guilty, but on a basic moral level, her unprovoked actions resulted in a death and it was reasonably foreesable that would be the outcome. A year in prison seems pretty justified, especially with the lack of remorse, leaving the scene instantly to go home

aren't you applying the rules that might be applicable to a defendant of full capacity?  I agree that such behaviours carried out by someone without any physical or mental impairment and able to react normally to an approaching cyclist would be fully culpable but the defendant in question was not such a person.

From what I can tell, the pedestrian should have been able to see the road traffic approaching from behind the cyclist.

You might not like the outcome, and sometimes it does feel like the law is at odds with what seems just (I’m not convinced that this is the case here, personally), but at the end of the day if the law is to mean anything I think it has to be applied equally, correctly and without prejudice. If I was ever a defendant in a criminal case I’d certainly be hoping that the law would be applied fairly - I really wouldn’t want there to be precedents for convictions being upheld when it hasn’t been shown that the person has committed the crime they are accused of. 

That’s not why the appeals court overturned it, as I understand it. My understanding is that they overturned it because manslaughter requires that the persons actions would have been criminal regardless of whether someone had died, and swearing and waving weren’t deemed to be a criminal action. 

Re. Your irrelevant side issue, I couldn't disagree more. 
I think basically what you are saying is that the CPS should triage based on how many prison beds are available.

There were two victims in this case. The cyclist and the motorist. The cyclist obviously will never receive any justice as that concept no longer exists for her. Nobody will ever know her human condition...what her vulnerabilities were, if she was stopping, braking, her intentions, or how considerate a cyclist  she may have been. She died as a result of complying with a quite forceful and aggressive direction from another person. 
Of course justice was served! A decision to prosecute doesn't necessarily mean a conviction will result.