And here I stopped reading, after all, as his supporters tell us, his rants and misleading lies are nothing but his opinion as opposed to fact based news.
And there you have it
“in his sentencing remarks Judge Sean Enright said it was a shared cycleway.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64824436?at_bbc_team=editorial&at_link_origin=BBC_News&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_format=link&at_link_id=A4A40CA0-B902-11ED-B634-78643AE5AB7B&at_link_type=web_link&at_medium=social&at_ptr_name=facebook_page&at_campaign_type=owned
Deflect away all you wish, but the fact remains this issue is not about the use of carbon neutral energy sources, as you claimed.
Oh, and trying to make this personal by making erroneous claims about myself is quite possibly trolling behaviour.
The pathway was a shared one as the article makes clear.
Please post proof to back up your implication that this was not indicated for this particular pathway.
The cyclist had the right to use the path in this situation because of the nature of the road it ran alongside.
"the pavement was 2.4 metres wide where the accident happened, and it was a “shared path on the ring road”.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/02/pedestrian-jailed-manslaughter-cyclist-fall-car-huntingdon