Dalston fatal e-bike crash rider 'going too fast' - Court Case

[Nealh]

Esp acquitted for driving while uninsured and unlicensed.

A 'Hardrock' mountain model from cycle company Specialized had been fitted with a highly-powered battery motor capable of travelling at double the legal 15.5mph speed limit for E-bikes. He claimed he bought the bike a year earlier on Gumtree for £850. Mr Hanlon, who declined to give evidence, accepted he did not have a licence or insurance.

I wonder if the woman's family will bring a private prosecution for compensation like in this case.

Cyclist ordered to pay £105,000 for knocking over woman who crossed road looking at phone

A cyclist who collided with a woman as she walked out into the road while looking at her phone has been ordered to pay almost £105,000 in compensation and costs.

Robert Hazeldean said he was facing bankruptcy following the court ruling, which came despite a judge acknowledging pedestrian Emma Brushett was equally at fault for the collision.

The cyclist I believe counter claimed and the settlement was changed as she was found 50% liable as well, I think it was lowered to about 30K. Also a just giving page was set up to help him and again believe monies donated exceeded the compo amount.

 

[flecc]

If you can run in to someone and they die with a 1kw bike over the speed limit does this ruling in some way say it is ok then to ride a high powered bike ?

What a bloody mess we are in now !!!

Indeed, and sadly have always been with power assisted cycling. It's been the continuing shambles and mishandling that prompted me long ago to closely follow and know all the intricacies of this law.

The added complication of this decision is that, despite being a case at the Central Criminal Court (The Old Bailey), it's not a test case so we have no precedent. To be a test case the judge would usually have to be a High Court judge, but they normally sit in The Law Courts in The Strand. They are usually only employed as a a judge in an Old Bailey case when it is of exceptional importance, which this one clearly isn't.

Most Old Bailey cases are presided over by Circuit Judges or Recorders.
.

 

[soundwave]

well that was a waste of time pmsl like the 15mph speed limit totally pointless if no one enforces it.

yet 120 thousand ppl per year get sent down or fined for no tv licence WTF!

 

[John F]

I have an issue with adaptive braking, or at least the system fitted to our Skoda Octavia.

Last year on the M25 whilst driving along the central lane of three, a plastic bag blew across in front of the car, and the braking took over really sharply and aggressively. Had a car been sitting behind at close distance, I have no doubt that we would probably have been hit. The noise alone of the system scared the crap out of me.

On my Polo you can adjust the sensitivity I think. Apparently crisp packets are the worst!

 

[Deleted member 25121]

It will be interesting to see if follow up charges are made against him for riding an illegal machine, having no insurance, speeding, no insurance etc etc.

If not, the pedelec law is a farce and many more people will be ignoring it.

 

[Nealh]

It will be interesting to see if follow up charges are made against him for riding an illegal machine, having no insurance, speeding, no insurance etc etc.

If not, the pedelec law is a farce and we are all safe to ignore it.

It's a farce ebiker99 see Robf;s reply in #5 of the thread below.

E-bike rider weeps as he is cleared of death by careless driving

I'm quite surprised he hasn't been sent down using a derestricted bike! https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/thomas-hanlon-ebike-sakine-cihan-dalston-crash-a4376446.html

www.pedelecs.co.uk

 

[RobF]

It certainly wouldn't be the first time that the judiciary received a broad hint from the government on how to proceed. .

The jury acquitted him, not the judge.

Tempting to suggest there may have been a hint or two in the judge's summing up of the case.

But that is being listened to by both lawyers who will jump on any suggestion of bias in either direction.

 

[Andy McNish]

Each case stands on its own facts.

In the recent civil suit case (the £104,000 costs one) , the cyclist was 50% to blame. He could have stopped, but chose to blast his air horn at a gaggle of pedestrians ahead and continue on to hit a phone zombie. The injuries weren't that serious and the costs arose from him fighting the case to trial without legal help and not putting in a counterclaim.

In the Charlie Alliston case, he had plenty of time to stop, saw the pedestrian but didn't even try (mainly because he was riding a track bike which had no brakes). His attitude was 'get out of my way plebs and I'm not going to even ride a bike that allows me to stop'.

Here a guy is riding an electric moped in the middle of a road (over the 20mph speed limit but probably no faster than the rest of the motor traffic flow) and a woman basically sprints across a road without looking at all and straight into him. As I said when looking at the video, I'm not sure there was anything he could have done to avoid her, nor do I think he would necessarily have seen her before they collided given the angles involved. It definitely wasn't a 'get out of my way pleb' scenario like the other two cases.

I did think his excess speed might do for him but I would have been tempted to acquit myself if I'd been on a jury to be honest. Remember criminal cases are a much higher standard of proof than civil ones. If there is any doubt you should acquit.

 

[Amoto65]

Here a guy is riding an electric moped in the middle of a road (over the 20mph speed limit but probably no faster than the rest of the motor traffic flow) and a woman basically sprints across a road without looking at all and straight into him. As I said when looking at the video, I'm not sure there was anything he could have done to avoid her, nor do I think he would necessarily have seen her before they collided given the angles involved. It definitely wasn't a 'get out of my way pleb' scenario like the other two cases.

But at the end of the day he should not have even been on the road, the bike was illegal..

 

[Andy McNish]

But at the end of the day he should not have even been on the road, the bike was illegal..

But this doesn't mean his driving was careless, or caused the death, legally. He's just treated as driving a moped for the purposes of this charge.

 

[Amoto65]

But this doesn't mean his driving was careless, or caused the death, legally. He's just treated as driving a moped for the purposes of this charge.

If that is the case he should be charged for hit and run, No insurance,no mot,no tax and no licence.

 

[flecc]

The jury acquitted him, not the judge.

Tempting to suggest there may have been a hint or two in the judge's summing up of the case.

But that is being listened to by both lawyers who will jump on any suggestion of bias in either direction.

As I said, a broad hint on how to proceed. Don't be so sure about your last sentence, I've enough case experience to know how there can be pre case collaboration between judge and prosecuting and defence barristers. The most suspect in this respect are the cases wrapped up on the pre-trial day with no jury ever appointed, but it also happens in jury cases too, when the jury are "steered" during the case.
.

 

[flecc]

But this doesn't mean his driving was careless, or caused the death, legally. He's just treated as driving a moped for the purposes of this charge.

But he was unqualified to drive one. It's a problem with how the word careless is always interpreted. I've always maintained that someone who hasn't take a driving test and passed, but still chooses to drive is careless. i.e. they haven't cared enough to bother to qualify. But for some odd reason in driving law, careless has always been seen as far lower ranking in seriousness than dangerous with vastly different sentencing.

There's a hole in the middle in driving law, either "careless" usually with a petty fine or "dangerous" often with a prison sentence and a life potentially ruined.
.

 

[Andy McNish]

Careless driving is about the activity of driving itself.

There are other offences that deal specifically with right to drive, speed and legality of vehicle etc., though I dare say some aspects of them may be taken into account by a jury when considering carelessness in the round.

I assume that driving in excess of the speed limit isn't always careless, or people would be getting a careless driving charge with every speeding ticket.

Also the offence requires a direct causal connection. It has to be his careless driving that caused the death. On the 'get out if my way pleb'/failure to brake cases this is easy to show.
Not so much when a pedestrian rushes out into the middle of the road and blindsides the driver.

I'm slightly surprised he got off becasue of all the background stuff about illegal ebike/leaving the scene etc, but it's well within the realm of rational decisions a jury could make IMHO.

 

[flecc]

Careless driving is about the activity of driving itself.

True, and choosing to drive without qualifying to do so by passing a driving test is surely without care.
.

 

[Charliefox]

dongles will be software updates that you pay for in the next 15 years when cars drive them self the only way to go faster will be to pay for it.

you wont even own the car it will be a service that you pay for and the only way to activate the performance options ect is to pay for them to be activated on a online active account.

or some one hacks the system and this happens.

How the hell did they make that film and at what cost!!

 

[Bobajob]

The law is an ass.

May I ask on what evidence you base that statement on?
would you not admit that those in the court who’ve heard all the evidence, from witnesses, the police accident reports etc etc has a little more insight into the case?
Unless you were in court do you not feel you’re at a disadvantage in your knowledge?

 

[Bobajob]

I’m playing devils advocate here. I feel so many (me included) on occasions let emotions interfere with judgement.
We must allow the courts to decide if it is within the law or outside of it.
This is a sad case as someone’s loved one has died because not only the supposed illegality of the bike but her unfortunate actions.
The real danger I’ve mentioned before on here is the quietness of electric vehicles. A problem the government should address as soon as possible, as their popularity increases.

 

[soundwave]

what gets me is if she was millionaire the family of the estate could of proved the bike was not road legal and thus not road legal and got sent down down on that alone if you can afford it.

the fact this was not even a point in the case means the law means nothing unless you have the money to fight your case.

How the hell did they make that film and at what cost!!

a shite load of servers with 250 million budget

 

[Deleted member 25121]

May I ask on what evidence you base that statement on?
would you not admit that those in the court who’ve heard all the evidence, from witnesses, the police accident reports etc etc has a little more insight into the case?
Unless you were in court do you not feel you’re at a disadvantage in your knowledge?

Well let's see now...... the driver of an illegal uninsured vehicle driving at an alleged 10mph over the speed limit (remember that wasn't contested) in a heavily pedestrianised area runs into and kills a woman, does a runner and get off scot free.

Is that not true?

Yep, in my considered opinion the law is one huge big ASS.

You're welcome.