- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Shared use path sign (image: jpennycook via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0)“Shared-use path” signs to be put up after pedestrian’s “resentment” towards cyclist using pavement led to manslaughter
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.”
Adwitiya joined road.cc in 2023 as a news writer after graduating with a masters in journalism from Cardiff University. His dissertation focused on active travel, which soon threw him into the deep end of covering everything related to the two-wheeled tool, and now cycling is as big a part of his life as guitars and football. He has previously covered local and national politics for Voice Wales, and also likes to writes about science, tech and the environment, if he can find the time. Living right next to the Taff trail in the Welsh capital, you can find him trying to tackle the brutal climbs in the valleys.
Latest Comments
- hawkinspeter 0 sec ago
So, do we need to start recruiting children to the Evil Cycling Lobby?
- froze 45 min 13 sec ago
This is terrible news, one of the best, if not the best, custom-made steel bicycle manufacturers in the world becoming extinct....
- froze 51 min 43 sec ago
Hmm, well some people are a pain the arse to get the pain the ass gone, I'm one of those....
- mattw 2 hours 4 min ago
I wonder three things....
- Eton Rifle 3 hours 18 min ago
I've never been "forced" to stop in an ASL when driving. I use this one weird trick called "paying attention and planning my driving". It will...
- Eton Rifle 3 hours 39 min ago
Anyone else surprised that this POS didn't get a tougher sentence for stealing a car than for killing a cyclist ?
- eburtthebike 4 hours 10 min ago
I look forward to this being thoroughly analysed and discussed ignored in the election campaign....
- Simon E 4 hours 49 min ago
What's your point? They are using recycled aluminium, which is surely a positive move and doesn't appear to be common practice....
- chrisonabike 5 hours 33 min ago
Indeed. So you wonder - why facilitate them? What are they contributing to?...
Add new comment
65 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 [at] road.cc (with a link and screenshot of the offending material if possible) if you spot something that you think crosses this line. Thanks.
https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/why-grey-got-three-years
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
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 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 but what about the lamposts and signposts? The usable width at the incident point is much less that 2.4m!
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 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.
No, that leaves zero gap between the wide dynamic envelopes you have given each of them.
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.
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 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.
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."
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 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 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 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." "
Link to that quote:
Routed from the BBC article above
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 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 would have read the full transcript of the trial, I think?
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" 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.
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 then Ward is at fault.
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?
That's not what happened according to witnesses
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 my spidey senses. As did the faint whiff of fat shaming in "he is quite stable".
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.
The cyclist wasn't pushed; she was startled and being quite old at 77, lost control of her bike and fell into the roadway.
Pages