[End Times Sentinel]

Most definitely that conviction should be overturned.

At 77, Mrs. Ward has had plenty of time to know bicycles don’t belong on the sidewalk. Really, anyone over the age of 12 should know they’re essentially asking to be shoved into the street.

[Gaffer]

It all depends on whether it was a regular sidewalk or a ‘path’ as described in the article (2.4 meters wide) and bikes allowed.

[Valpal1]

Furthermore, she wasn’t shoved, she veered off by her own choice instead of stopping and walking her bike past the disabled person.

She made poor choices and they caught up with her.

[Wuli]

“At 77, Mrs. Ward has had plenty of time to know bicycles don’t belong on the sidewalk.”

Not necessarily true. It’s circumstantial. If the car lanes are so narrow that a bicyclist is either an obstruction to the cars or using the car lane is unsafe to the bicyclist, then the sidewalk, if there is one, is often a legal alternative.

I used to bicyle a lot in my area. There are some sections where both the car and truck drivers and I were all glad I had a section of sidewalk to use.

As to the conviction.

I think the shouting woman has some mental issue related to her disability.

I think that is fair to consider in any sentence, but is not fair as a total excuse, in terms of general innoence or guilt, as far as “negligence”. “Forgiveness” toward her should be tempered by the justice and mercy for the woman who died. Justice should be equal in some way to both.

Regardless, the case seems to have been handled poorly.

There are different ways in which someone is negligent in someone’s death, and they are not always “criminal”, but can still be considered negligent. The prosecutors (1) never seemed to make that distinction and (2) then never identified the law broken by the screaming woman. THAT legal fine line seems to be basis for the appeals court ruling.

[Winniesboy]

The path in question was designated and signed as a 'shared use' (pedestrian/cyclist) path some way before and some way after the location, but the status at that particular point was unclear. The local authority was unable to confirm that it had ever been formally designated.

But whether or not the victim had a formal legal right to be riding there, that didn't justify somebody shouting and gesticulating at her, especially as there was plenty of room for both to pass. Whether Auriol Grey's actions amounted to criminality is another matter. The police and prosecution insisted that they did, mainly because of video evidence of the actual fall and the moment the car hit which was never published. They were so confident of their case hat they pressed for a retrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict first time round.

The appeal appears to have succeeded after highly technical arguments about the criteria for manslaughter. Anyway a sad case for all concerned.