Several changes are being planned for cycle paths in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, including putting up signs indicating “shared-use path” and updating the town’s cycle maps, after a 77-year-old cyclist was killed by a pedestrian angered by her “presence” on the pavement.
Cambridgeshire County Council is seeking funding for the improvements on Walden Road, Castle Moat Road and Hartford Road, along the ring-road, including putting up more signs to indicate that the path is for shared use by pedestrians and cyclists alike.
Updated cycle maps would also be published on the council’s website. Printed versions of the maps would also be distributed locally to libraries, community centres and bike shops, reports Cambridgeshire Live.
The council also said there would be longer-term plans, including a review of the status of the whole ring road and links to the cycle network in Huntingdon through to the city centre.
Auriol Grey, aged 49, was sentenced to three years in prison, for aggressively confronting Celia Ward, a 77-year-old cyclist who was riding on the pavement, causing her to be killed after she fell into the path of an oncoming vehicle.
> Remove conflict between cyclists and pedestrians, urge campaigners in wake of manslaughter case
At the hearing at Peterborough Crown Court last month, there was some confusion as to whether the path was a pavement or a shared footpath and cycling route, with the Cambridgeshire Constabulary unable to “categorically” ascertain whether Mrs Ward had been cycling on a shared use path.
While the council said it had never been signed as shared use and did not appear on bike maps as a cycle route, the judge later concluded in his sentencing remarks that it was a shared facility. The judge also told her she was “territorial about the pavement” and “resented” the presence of the cyclist.
CCTV footage shared by the Constabulary showed Grey, who has cerebral palsy and is partially sighted, shouting at Mrs Ward, described by her widower as an “experienced and competent cyclist,” to “get off the f*ck*ng pavement.”
Grey left the scene before the arrival of the emergency services and went to a supermarket to do her shopping. She was arrested the next day, and claimed that Mrs Ward had been cycling “at high speed” and that she was “anxious I was going to get hit by it,” so “flinched out” with her left arm to protect herself.”
The case had drawn national attention after an article in the Spectator was published claiming that cyclists have “been given licence to ride on the pavement”. However, it was lambasted by cyclists as “ill-informed”, “barely-disguised hatred” and “using such a tragic offence to seed hatred against cyclists”.
One person on social media wrote: “Reading this article, it’s hard to believe someone died as a result. What a terrible take and a disgusting piece.”
Cycling and disability rights campaign groups also reacted to the incident, urging for highways authorities to remove conflict between cyclists and pedestrians.
Camcycle, the cycling campaign group for Cambridgeshire and the UK’s largest cycling campaign group outside London, said that action was urgently needed in locations where there is “unnecessary conflict” between cyclists and pedestrians if Vision Zero targets are to be met.
It said after the sentencing: “It highlights a situation in which people walking and cycling were placed in unnecessary conflict next to a busy road of fast-moving motor vehicles. Cambridgeshire County Council has committed to reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads to zero by 2040, but reports published this week show that it is not currently on target to meet this goal.”
65 thoughts on ““Shared-use path” signs to be put up after pedestrian’s “resentment” towards cyclist using pavement led to manslaughter”
Cambs county maps and
Cambs county maps and Cyclestreets clearly show the shared use was on the inside of the ring road, not the outside of the ring road where the incident occured….. years of neglect of the towns cycling and walking infrastructure from the then blue party led county council led to this, ignoring local peoples calls for improvement, with their Cambridge bias. Now the County Council is no overall control these matters are finally being address, sadly after a tragic death.
It does seem rather like
It does seem rather like bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted, certainly. And after such a terrible incident.
You wonder whether Ms Grey’s supporters will make a fuss over this, saying that they were right all along and the council only now trying to put up shared-use signs proves it…
brooksby wrote:
I don’t understand how people could support that level of aggression and territorialism – it’s more fitting behaviour for a badly trained dog. Maybe Celia would still be alive today if someone had had the good sense to keep Auriol under control and on a lead.
hawkinspeter wrote:
‘Cyclists’, innit? Part of the Culture Wars.
Can anyone clear up the legal
Can anyone clear up the legal process of designating a footway as a shared use cycle track? Surely there is some legal process and subsequent record of any such designation? This reads like the council still don’t actually know whether or not that section of path is shared use or not, but they are going to put up signs anyway and hope it helps.
OnYerBike wrote:
Maybe when they did the legislation they didn’t say “this footway” and “that footway” but said “the section coloured green” and then only included a greyscale copy of the map…
In terms of the legality, a
In terms of the legality, a highway authority (i.e. the council in this case) can turn any footpath/footway into shared use as they deem fit. Only if it crosses agricultural land is any sort of approval needed.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/38/data.html
So no ‘traffic regulation’ order or any sort required. I doubt there’s a record kept like there is for public rights of way. When looking at our councils mapping toolset, shared use paths are just simply marked as adopted highway; the same as the road.
My understanding of the
My understanding of the process, having enquired to my local council about this, is that there is a specific instrument that is used to declare this. Specifically, the local authority should apply an order under section 27 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. So there should be a clear bit of paperwork delineating this. Unless the wording, diagrams and general description on the paperwork wasn’t exactly clear on where this shared use path began and ended.
Shared use path is a specific category of highway, like pavement, dual carriageway, bridlepath etc. It has legal meaning. Hence sections of the highway code that specifically refer to these shared use paths.
Section 27 of the RTA is
Section 27 of the RTA is control of dogs! https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/27
is it the highways act? That covers new footpaths https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/27
however, I think converting an existing footpath into shared use is a much simpler process. There will be a paper trail, but it can just be done in-house by the council and it might not be kept as an accessible record once the works are completed.
In the absence of proof of
In the absence of proof of the definitive status of the pavement as either footway or shared path, any accusation that the cyclist was at fault for cycling there is likely not to be enforceable on appeal. Moreover, multiple government ministers across parties have reinforced the ‘advice’ to ACPO/NPCC is not to prosecute cyclists on the footway who are otherwise cycling considerately.
However, whether the path was a footway or a shared path is a red herring. It was not within the pedestrian’s gift to enforce the matter to the extent that she put another person’s life at risk for an unreasonably perceived fear.
road.cc wrote:
Argh! Stop with the “sign it better” already! Never mind this sad case (as others said likely signs irrelevant) as I’ve discovered even very clear signs and courtesy don’t stop pedestrians hating on the few cyclists.
(This is the flip side of “bloody cyclists, on our roads, getting in our way then ‘undertaking’.”)
Cheap version of the Sir Humphrey “get stuffed” – let’s declare we plan to have a review, in due course…
I thought it was getting a
I thought it was getting a bit autumnal today, but…
I had the “resentment” attack
I had the “resentment” attack a few weeks back on a shared use path near Epping Forest. At a slight pinch point where a lamppost was situated on the cycle side of the white line the person walking towards me informed me that he resented me squeezing the space as I passed, informing me that I should have moved onto the road. I had even slowed down and smiled as I passed and we were both clearly not in any remote danger of causing physical conflict.
When pointing this out he continued with on the resentment angle at which point I asked him if he just resented cyclists per se, at which juncture he glanced at my bike and said he had two of the same brand (relatively unlikely as my bike was custom built and not a mainstream brand).
Just quite weird and unnecessary but obviously his “resentment meter” was in the red that morning.
I cycle through Southampton
I cycle through Southampton common fairly often and it’s the place where I’ve experienced more of this kind of incident than anywhere else. From being yelled at by dog walkers standing around having a chat while their dogs run around everywhere, to having to emergency stop because I noticed the long dog lead stretched across the path – one man aggressively asked why he shouldn’t be using a long lead – to which I replied that if my bike got caught in it I would drag his dog along the path and strangle it until I could stop.
Then there are the large groups of walkers, generally found on a Sunday afternoon, who stretch across the entire path and refuse to give way, then shout at me for riding too close.
I always give plenty of notice of my presence by ringing my bell and always give a friendly wave and a thanks to people who acknowledge me.
I was on a shared path
I was on a shared path recently going across Hampstead Heath. I always cycle really slowly and give people space. Anyway, this bloke shouts after me – ‘no cycling’. So I stopped, turned around and replied ‘this is a shared path’. He thought about it for a second and replied ‘yes, you are correct, I’m really sorry please accept my apologies etc. He was genuinely apologetic. Sometimes I think people just shoot their mouths off as soon as they see someone on a bike. It’s as if they are programmed to do so by endless negative media reporting or something.
Some paths on Hampstead Heath
Some paths on Hampstead Heath are marked no cycling. He may just have forgotten which one he was on. But yes, shout first think later is prevalent.
I think there’s a balance
I think there’s a balance here between providing off road facilities for cyclists who may not feel comfortable riding on the road, and signposting them correctly so pedestrians are aware there may be cyclists, and ensuring that cyclists who want to use the road aren’t expected by drivers to use the shared cycle facilities.
On one hand you can be yelled at by pedestrians for using the shared path, and on the other you can be yelled at by drivers for not using it. Putting a sign up doesn’t make the pavement fit for purpose as a cycle route.
Hoo now …..
Hoo now …..
This case and the general yattering fest of cyclist vs pedestrian is yet another fine distraction from the basic issue, which is that motorised hooligans have effectively annexed the roads to themselves, crowing everyone else on to their parking pavements.
If Toryspiv wish (and they do) to employ the cyclist as a scapegoat, pariah and general witchlike entity for plebs to persecute, thereby gathering pleb-vote by the millions as economics and the predations of The New Model Aristocracy are forgotten in favour of policies to divide, conquer then punish the not-motoring …… well …. they’ve once more succeeded.
Peds vs cyclists – see ’em cut each other up and thumbs down to any survivors! Bring in the new laws to severely curtail the evil nuisance of two wheels and two legs, cluttering up the raceways and parking spots! Let loose the vigilante-cars with feersum enjins, to squish any bluddy cyclo-peds who escape the new justice!!
Cugel wrote:
You’re veering into Iain M Banks territory now
hawkinspeter wrote:
…with just a hint of James Joyce 😀
hawkinspeter wrote:
Glad I’m not the only one to struggle through that. (Easier than some of Irving Welsh’s oevre though IIRC).
It’s little wonder that most
It’s little wonder that most people don’t know or understand the laws around the use of footways, when even in articles discussing it, the use of language is grossly inaccurate:
“path was a pavement or a shared footpath and cycling route”
1. By path you mean footway. A footway is the correct generic name for paths/pavements/footpaths etc.
2. Legally, a pavement is any paved public highway/byway. The A1 is a pavement.
3. You can’t share a footpath. By definition, a footpath is solely for the use of pedestrians.
4. You failed to explain that there is no legal requirement to sign post the usage of a footway. Most people erroneously believe that if there is no sign, then you can not cycle on it. This is not the case because the law states that there is no requirement to place any signs either to indicate that the footway is a footpath, a shared footway, a cycle path, a segregated footway or a BOAT.
If you don’t correctly explain what the laws are, people can’t understand the issue(s). There was no confusion about whether it was a shared footway. That was established, in law and registered at the council. There was ignorance by the attacker that it was a shared footway and ignorance that no signs are legally required to indicate that it is.
The rule of thumb is footways
The rule of thumb is footways are next to a road, footpaths are not. Cycling on footways is a criminal issue, on footpaths it’s a civil one. I think part of the legal issue with the Auriol Grey case was that there *was* a sign, but it was up the road, so the confusion was whether this footway was near enough to that sign to still count as shared one and the judge ruled it did.
Could you expand your point 4
Could you expand your point 4? I’m interested where you get that from. In practice though, it’s a fair working assumption that if there is no shared use sign, you shouldn’t cycle on it. [Edited to add that, of course, there is national police guidance that considerate pavement cycling should not be enforced against]
Also, not sure how you conclude this was a shared footway registered at the council, given that the council was unable to confirm.
TheAdebo wrote:
Happy to be corrected, but I am pretty sure that is not correct (or is a US definition, not a UK one).
Given your post is entirely
Given your post is entirely about the accuracy of language, it is remarkable how much you got wrong.
1) Given the legal status of the “path” in question is uncertain, it would be inappropriate to use a legally defined term such as footway. “Footway” is not a generic term – footway specifically applies to the portion of a highway, which also consists of a carriageway, over which there is right of way by foot only. “Shared footway” is a legal oxymoron – a footway is never shared; the legal term for a shared use path is a cycle track (this term applies whether or not there is also a right of way on foot).
2) To the best of my knowledge, the term “pavement” has no legal meaning – it is certainly not defined in any of the main pieces of legislation. (I did find an obscure and repealed piece of legislation relating to dog fouling, in which “pavement” was used to mean a footway).
3) If it’s a footpath, then only pedestrians have a right of way. There is no legal prohibition against cyclists using footpaths – although doing so may be considered trespass (a civil tort) if done without the landowner’s permission. But with the landowner’s permission, it would be entirely possible to share a footpath.
The most relevant piece of legislation is the Highways Act 1980 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/contents) but see also the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.
Cycling on footpaths:
Cycling on footpaths:
Advice is not Law.
Until the Law is changed to allow cycling on footpaths, it matters not one jot what the ‘advice’ is … you can still get prosecuted.
Does anyone have a link on the NPCC website for this advice … or would you just quote it by rote to an officer and immediately expect them to know it.
Is this advice also valid in other dominions of the UK? Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own Police Services, so is this advice universally applied?
https://news.npcc.police.uk
https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/support-for-police-discretion-when-responding-to-people-cycling-on-the-pavement
But you’re right, it’s a discretion. Police Scotland appears to be a NPCC member, but not NI.
Cheers Quiff.
Cheers Quiff.
Reading through the comments on this thread, the advice is being banded about like it is set in stone … and a cast iron guarantee.
It appears to be forgotten that Laws tump Advice.
But … its not unique to us cyclists.
It’s a little bit different
It’s a little bit different in Scotland, as the law there is far more specific about not cycling on a footway. I think it also forbids cycling on a footpath.
In England, it’s an old law about not driving a carriage on a footway by the side of a road. Doesn’t mention bicycles at all (clearly wasn’t aimed at bicycles at the time either). So cycling on a footpath away from the road is not illegal as it is in Scotland (unless there is a specific bylaw).
The law around cycling on
The law around cycling on footways is slightly more modern in Scotland, but as far as I can tell the English law is perfectly clear enough.
Away from footways though you’ve got it completely the wrong way – “footpaths” don’t exist in Scotland anymore, with the Land Reform (Scotland) Act giving cyclists the right to access pretty much all paths away from roads.
Police officers have
Police officers have considerable discretion, so of course it matters.
Sigh! This is still unhelpful
Sigh! This is still unhelpful and sloppy reporting. A shared use sign wouldn’t have helped as unfortunately the lady who passed would have still been required to stop. There was’t enough room to pass safely.
Yes that was because Aurial was asserting her space (you know like we cyclists do).
She also very clearly has learning challenges and her visual impairment isn’t trivial. She had every right to feel safe on the pavement which she didn’t that’s why this happened. It’s also why she was sent away and thought it was a good idea to go shopping. Unless we are planning to banish a large group of people with needs we should be clear the onus is on the cyclists giving way.
This was one of the most shocking examples of disability discrimination in recent history with the judge and police denying suitable support and making arbitrary judgements on capability. Its not just about cycling.
Also a very good chance the driver wasn’t paying attention to hazards on a dual lane but the judge was quite clear that wasn’t going to be considered despite this scenario being a textbook hazard.
Let’s not pass on the discrimination we face as cyclists to other groups
Irrational Pi wrote:
It was noted in court that at the point at which the incident occurred the pavement is 2.4 m wide. That is more than enough space to pass a pedestrian safely. Grey chose to stand in the middle of the pavement, shouting at the cyclist. Even then there was sufficient space to pass until Grey stepped towards Mrs Ward and pushed her.
I’m certainly not competent (and I’d say nobody who hasn’t actually got professional expertise and has assessed Grey is) to pronounce on the extent to which Grey’s disabilities influenced her actions. I don’t recall her lawyers either at the trial or at the appeal putting forward that line of defence.
I would say it’s absolute nonsense and totally unfair to blame the driver in this situation; she was proceeding along in a perfectly legal manner when someone was pushed off the kerb right in front of her, what exactly should she have done? Should all of us, drivers and cyclists, slow down if we see more than one pedestrian on the pavement and not overtake them until we can move fully into the opposite lane just in case one decides to push the other in front of us?
As a disabled person I don’t
As a disabled person I don’t associate that with being willing to endanger another human being by forcing them into a hazardous place. That behaviour is associated with being a sociopath, without concern for the wellbeing of people generally. If a person is such a public hazard surely it’s not reasonable for the judge to allow them access to any public space..
The pavement may be 2.4m wide
The pavement may be 2.4m wide but what about the lamposts and signposts? The usable width at the incident point is much less that 2.4m!
Screenshot below shows the
Screenshot below shows the exact signpost by which the incident occurred. It’s taking up maybe 30 cm of lateral space, so there was still over two metres available. Given that the average person is less than 50 cm wide, the pedestrian and cyclist could have passed each other left shoulder to left shoulder with more than a metre of clear space in between. Whatever other mitigations can be raised, it can’t seriously be claimed that there wasn’t enough space for the two to pass safely.
I disagree. Neither a
I disagree. Neither a pedestrian or a cyclist could simply pass through a 0.5m gap. Each requires 1.0m each. So that leaves zero gap between them. The signpost is a particular hazard and requires 0.5m of space to be passed safely particularly by a cyclist. Why is the cyclist on the wrong side on the pavement? I suggest that it is because of the signpost. So that leaves a deficit of 0.5m. Even then there is no margin for error by the party next to the road. Further, all of that assumes that the two parties have a clear understanding of which side they are going to pass on. They may both choose the same side. I agree that many times people could pass each other without incident but that is not to say that they are being considerate to each other or that there is no risk at all.
carefulrider wrote:
No, that leaves zero gap between the wide dynamic envelopes you have given each of them.
Yes. Zero gap between the
Yes. Zero gap between the absolute bare minimum reasonable envelopes (that have hard edges on both sides). Then on to the question of agreeing to use those envelopes. Is it really a crime to not to use those envelopes? Shouldn’t they pass on the left? Shouldn’t the party closer to the road be facing the oncoming traffic?
The cyclist is on the wrong side whatever way you look at it. She should not force the pedestrian to move over.
The cyclist is reluctant to slow down or stop or cycle anywhere near the signpost. She is determined to stay on the line that she considers that she is entitled to use regardless of whether that is the right side or if someone else is already on that line.
The only video released of
The only video released of this incident shows Mrs Ward for a split second before Grey indubitably moves towards her and pushes her into the road. So I’m not sure how you managed to deduce that she wasn’t slowing down and was deliberately holding a line already owned by the pedestrian. One thing that is perfectly clear on the video is that there was plenty of room for Mrs Ward to pass Grey on the kerbside if Grey had not moved towards her and pushed her.
The full video was shown to
The full video was shown to the jury and police even released a statement about it.
“Det Sgt Dollard, who interviewed Grey, told BBC Radio Cambridgeshire: “I’ll always remember the morning after it occurred obtaining the CCTV and watching it in its entirety.
“In all honesty it’s horrific and not appropriate for wider release to the public, but, if it were, then I think a lot of the arguments in relation to appropriate responses would be null and void.” “
Hirsute wrote:
Link to that quote:
Routed from the BBC article above
But I’m finding it difficult
But I’m finding it difficult to know who to believe here, the police, CPS, Crown Court jury and judge and the judges of the Court of Appeal, all of whom have seen the full video and weighed all the evidence, or a spiteful little attention-seeking cyclist-hating troll who’s been banned from this site at least five times. It’s a headscratcher alright.
Point of order to be
Point of order to be scrupulously fair – I don’t think the Court of Appeal would necessarily have seen the evidence, as they were only concerned with permission to appeal the sentence. Not that that diminishes your overall point.
Fair point, although they
Fair point, although they would have read the full transcript of the trial, I think?
Not sure. It was only a
Not sure. It was only a permission to appeal hearing, not a full appeal, and the appeal only related to the sentence, so it’s possible not even that. Happy to be corrected if there are any Court of Appeal judges among the commenters…
Sadly those seeking “argument
Sadly those seeking “argument” gonna do the usual. I recall these articles, including the one about the appeal though, worth a quote:
They also looked at the length of the sentence and found that consideration had been given to her condition.
The sentencing judge Sean Enright had “placed very strong emphasis” on Grey’s disabilities, he said.
He added: “We do not consider that the recent psychology report calls for a greater reduction than was already given in this respect by the judge.”— bbc
That doesn’t mean that prisons are a good place for people with serious conditions. Nor that the legal world has a great understanding of the impact of disabilities or mental health – but I suspect that judges sadly see more of this than many of us however.
If Ward collided with Grey
If Ward collided with Grey then Ward is at fault.
carefulrider wrote:
If you’re walking down the pavement towards me and I step into your path, you will collide with me. Will that then be your fault?
carefulrider wrote:
That’s not what happened according to witnesses
Wait a minute, I think quiff
Wait a minute, I think quiff has it … “[the court’s] judgement had just as many guesses and assumptions as mine. … an established line … the cyclist is reckless … Mrs Ward looked very unstable to me, she lost control very easily … [the victim] cycling far too close to Grey in an inconsiderate and reckless way…”
Even a child knows this?
Yes, ‘established’ triggered
Yes, ‘established’ triggered my spidey senses. As did the faint whiff of fat shaming in “he is quite stable”.
I was commenting on the
I was commenting on the sentence “Appeal judges said Mrs Ward then “collided” with Grey”. William Walker’s evidence is inconsistent with the video, the two parties do not come to a halt.
carefulrider wrote:
I have no problem with the concept that cyclists should be considerate of pedestrians if they are cycling on the pavement. But I don’t know where you’re getting your picture of this incident from. The only footage I am aware of doesn’t give nearly enough information for you to make that judgement, as the cyclist only appears in it momentarily. There is also no ‘right’ (correct) side to use.
Edited to add that the BBC video at 31 seconds gives a good impression of how much space there is:
I agree that there is limited
I agree that there is limited footage available to make a judgement. However, that did not stop the court from making one! Their judgement had just as many guesses and assumptions as mine. However, it is irrefutable that Auriol Grey was on the pavement first so had an established line. Yes I saw that BBC video. I think that the cyclist is reckless in that video. I would not cycle like that. He could easily have totalled the news reporter or she could have nudged him into the road. However, I would also say that any micro contact between Auriol Grey and Celia Ward probably would not have bothered this cyclist too much. He is quite stable. Mrs Ward looked very unstable to me, she lost control very easily.
The video does not show Grey moving towards Ward and does not show Grey pushing Ward into the road. What it does show is Ward cycling far too close to Grey in an inconsiderate and reckless way. She has poor control of her bicycle and is unstable. She has a bag over one shoulder! Who cycles like that? Ward ignores Grey’s warnings. Is she looking where she is going? Grey simply stands her ground and maintains her line. If there is any contact then it is a result of bad cycling. It is the unfortunate truth.
carefulrider wrote:
Ah, onto the victim blaming now, it’s Mrs Ward’s fault that she fell into the road when pushed because she, a very small 77-year-old woman, wasn’t (according to you) as stable as a burly young male cyclist. Amazing how you insist the video is limited and relies on guesswork as to Grey’s guilt and yet from the half a second (that we can see) that shows Mrs Ward you can apparently judge that she was riding on the wrong line, failed to stop and only fell into the road on contact because she was unstable. You perhaps need to look at the interviewing Detective Sergeant’s comment about the video again:
“In all honesty it’s horrific and not appropriate for wider release to the public, but, if it were, then I think a lot of the arguments in relation to appropriate responses would be null and void.”
carefulrider wrote:
The court had more footage to make a judgement.
Meanwhile, I’ve seen enough material to form a judgement that you’re not to be taken seriously.
I don’t think that the court
I don’t think that the court had any more footage from before the near collison, only after it. Everyone can only make an assumption about where the cyclist was or what she was doing.
The cyclist wasn’t pushed;
The cyclist wasn’t pushed; she was startled and being quite old at 77, lost control of her bike and fell into the roadway.
grOg wrote:
Leaving aside the stupidly ageist part of your comment, if it were the case that she was not pushed but the pedestrian’s behaviour startled Mrs Ward to the extent that that she fell into the road, that would still be manslaughter. However, the police, the CPS, the witness, the jury (presumably), the judge, the Court of Appeal and indeed the clear evidence of the video all agree that there was physical contact.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Is it equally not stupid to dismiss her age as a factor in this? It’s not ageist to suggest that because of her age, she may have reacted in a different way to a teenager for example.
Irrational Pi wrote:
Why? I mean – yes – this article is pretty much copy-paste from other reporting so “lazy” in that sense. However I think they’ve tried to cover the topic from various angles and viewpoints and a modicum of context. And this is a cycling site. Just disagreeing with the reported opinions or “facts” from elsewhere doesn’t make this one sloppy .
What would you improve?
I agree with Rendell on this one. I’m not aware of evidence that the cyclist didn’t try to pass carefully.
Once again the real issue is (as the article notes others saying) councils and authorities needlessly creating conflict between people cycling and people walking by prioritising space for drivers and making inadequate provision for others. Quite often inadequate provision for people on foot alone – which they then sign (or not …) and say “shared use”.
However people have learned to tolerate cars passing at close distance at e.g. 30 mph but are worried by or can even become aggressive towards cyclists “in their space”. Cycling has declined so much it is “rare” and very salient – and meanwhile there is very little space available that’s not filled with motor vehicles.
As noted above – that is “like” but not the same as a car vs. cyclist case. Both parties were vulnerable here. Again we should always be considerate. But I’m not aware that a stranger cycling towards her could have assessed her learning disability and degree of visual impairment (and judged that this might have required even more caution) as they did so.
The first – absolutely, people should feel safe. That’s why we should be campaigning for proper cycling infra – so people on foot, in wheelchairs, pushing children, with visual impairment etc. can proceed efficiently and conveniently in safety.
The second – in the end unless we start getting many more people out of cars we all lose out (even drivers). As always “too many cars” most affects those who can’t drive or need to use taxis etc. I certainly agree that we need to go about this very carefully. So “shared use” should be almost last on the list. However simply saying “cyclists must stop if a pedestrian objects, even where they can pass safely” is definitely not going to help reduce car use.
https://rozenberg.substack
https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/why-grey-got-three-years
We’ve now closed the comments
We’ve now closed the comments section under this story and removed some threads containing comments that break our terms. While it’s not explicitly against the rules of our forum or comments section, please try to make sure your comments are on topic and avoid ‘trolling’/deliberately provoking others. Don’t post abusive comments or make personal attacks against other forum users, and email info@road.cc (with a link and screenshot of the offending material if possible) if you spot something that you think crosses this line. Thanks.