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

Court case has started...

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51647068

 

 

A cyclist accused of killing a pedestrian while riding a modified e-bike was travelling more than 10mph over the speed limit, a jury heard.

 

Thomas Hanlon, 32, was "going way too quickly" when he hit Sakine Cihan in Kingsland High Street in Dalston, east London, the Old Bailey heard.

 

Mrs Cihan, 56, suffered a "catastrophic" head injury and died the next day, jurors heard.

 

Mr Hanlon denies causing death by careless driving.

 

Under the law, e-bikes which are fitted with an electric motor can only be driven without a licence or insurance if their power is limited and if the motor automatically switches off at speeds above 15.5 mph.

 

The court heard Mr Hanlon's bike was capable of going double that speed and as such should have been categorised as a motorbike.

 

'Jesus, that's fast'

 

Prosecutor Nathan Rasiah read out a statement by cyclist Raymond Murphy, a witness to the 28 August crash, who said he was "struck" that Mr Hanlon's bike was "going way too quickly for a normal electric bicycle".

 

"He described riding along approaching the station and becoming aware of a bike travelling very quickly past him, but heading in the same direction as him.

 

"He recalls thinking 'Jesus, that's fast'," Mr Rasiah.

 

A few moments later, Mr Murphy "suddenly saw arms and legs everywhere, flying in the air", the court heard.

 

Mr Rasiah quoted a second witness, Joshua Stubbs, as saying: "It looked like their heads made contact then the cyclist fell to the ground.

 

"After a few seconds the cyclist got up and looked dazed and confused, the lady lay motionless on the road."

 

Jurors were shown CCTV footage of Mrs Cihan stepping off the pavement and running in front of Mr Hanlon, of Queen's Drive, Leyton, east London.

 

The court was told Mr Hanlon left the scene despite a passer-by trying to stop him.

 

The jury heard that, when interviewed by the police, Mr Hanlon admitted leaving the scene but said he had no time to swerve as Mrs Cihan had crossed the road unexpectedly.

 

Quoting from the police interview, Mr Rasiah said: "She rushed out in front of me to cross and she didn't even look at me."

 

Mr Rasiah told jurors the lights at the crossing were green for traffic but he said Mr Hanlon's speed amounted to driving without due care and attention.

 

Both the prosecution and defence agree that Mr Hanlon did not have a licence or insurance for a motorbike.

 

But he denies further charges of causing death while uninsured and causing death while unlicensed.

 

The court heard he is contesting these because they require a fault in the driving which contributed to Ms Cihan's death.

 

The case continues.

Of Course, if he had hit the 'jaywalking' lady whilst driving a car then it might not have even made the news. Or if he was a lycra wearing guy on a road bike. After all, she was clearly in the wrong. But it had to be an over powered ebike!

Maybe if he had not left the scene of the accident dragging his illegal bike with him it would not have made the news also....

Of Course, if he had hit the 'jaywalking' lady whilst driving a car then it might not have even made the news. Or if he was a lycra wearing guy on a road bike. After all, she was clearly in the wrong. But it had to be an over powered ebike!

There is no such thing as jaywalking in the UK. Pedestrians aren't even required by law to abide by the red man at light controlled crossings.

This will put more pressure on the pedelec concessions which are being flagrantly abused, what could the outcome be?

A total removal of the concession with registration, insurance etc etc being required for all ebikes?

A form of MOT where ebikes require yearly tests for conformance and carry license discs?

Who knows....

No concessions will be removed for legal pedelecs, riders abiding by the law have nothing to worry about. Simply make sure your bike is limited, whether plod have time or resources to stop every ebike /pedelecs they see I doubt it.

 

Hanlon didn't think about the consequences of riding at the speed at which he was going and the onus was completely on him. End of the day the bike was totally illegal and there is little to excuse his behaviour on that fateful day.

But when the pedelec concessions are being so widely abused something has to happen, either remove them or put in measures to make them enforceable.

Right now they are farcical.

Of Course, if he had hit the 'jaywalking' lady whilst driving a car then it might not have even made the news. Or if he was a lycra wearing guy on a road bike. After all, she was clearly in the wrong. But it had to be an over powered ebike!

 

We will never know the ladies account as she perished due to the fact she was hit at speed.

Likely she may have thought she had time to nip across, saw a bicycle and simply did not comprehend the approaching speed of the bike. Despite you laying the fault at the woman as being in the wrong, she was an innocent victim.

Hanlon hasn't a leg to stand on in this case.

Of Course, if he had hit the 'jaywalking' lady whilst driving a car then it might not have even made the news. Or if he was a lycra wearing guy on a road bike. After all, she was clearly in the wrong. But it had to be an over powered ebike!

Overpowered bike = Illegal uninsured moped.

We will never know the ladies account as she perished due to the fact she was hit at speed.

Likely she may have thought she had time to nip across, saw a bicycle and simply did not comprehend the approaching speed of the bike. Despite you laying the fault at the woman as being in the wrong, she was an innocent victim.

Hanlon hasn't a leg to stand on in this case.

Yes indeed, apparently he was cycling at 10mph over the speed limit which on a motorcycle type vehicle is illegal.

Either way, nobody glancing at a bike would expect it to be travelling at such a ludicrous speed, he deserves to be strung up not just locked up.

The law is already laid down for pedelecs regs, any one causing injury or death on the road will be dealt with within the law as it is. If you are stopped plod can confiscate your bike if they suspect illegality, if the bike is checked over and found to be illegal then they might prosecute with courts/magistrates endorsing licences and issuing fines

OR

As I mentioned in another thread ' The Met' confiscated 100 pedicabs last 1/4 of last year, no one was prosecuted but were sent written warnings. The fact that the Dalston death had already occurred and didn't lead to any heavy handedness or prosecutions.

lets go back a few years

 

Yes indeed, apparently he was cycling at 10mph over the speed limit which on a motorcycle type vehicle is illegal.

Either way, nobody glancing at a bike would expect it to be travelling at such a ludicrous speed, he deserves to be strung up not just locked up.

 

What seems to be implied in this case is he was going at over10mph above the legal ebike assisted speed limit of 15.5 mph but not on his own power. He may well have been below the road speed limit if it was a 30mph zone.

Edited February 27, 20206 yr by Nealh

We will have to wait and see what else develops in the case, if he is belligerent and remorseless of his actions then he may likely go down. He has already racked up a few offences besides just the speed issue.

 

Don't forget the fixie biker of 2018 who went down, he was on his illegal push bike with no effective brake. The lady in that case stepped out ahead of him whilst looking at her hand held device, he showed no remorse and that likely swayed more on the judgement then the bikes illegality.

Pedestrians are also venerable road users when it comes to bicycles or motorised ones just as are cyclists when other vehicles are involved, tis why when riding on shared paths or in busy shared spaces one needs to be very sure of their actions.

But when the pedelec concessions are being so widely abused something has to happen, either remove them or put in measures to make them enforceable.

Right now they are farcical.

 

It is possible that they could be banned from National parks or trail centres.

It is possible that they could be banned from National parks or trail centres.

Whatever, those things are lethal in the wrong hands and something needs to happen. They're not dissimilar to guns in fact, and effective enforceable laws need to be in place to protect society.

Whatever, those things are lethal in the wrong hands and something needs to happen. They're not dissimilar to guns in fact, and effective enforceable laws need to be in place to protect society.

 

Comparing the two is ridiculous.

Villians who use guns will never swap them for ebikes

There are a number of interesting legal arguments in this case. The defence is not disputing that he was driving a motor vehicle and that he needed a licence, insurance, etc. The defence is that the three offences he is charged with (causing death by dangerous driving, causing death whilst uninsured and causing death whilst unlicensed) are all predicated on the basis that his driving was at fault. If he was within the (motor vehicle) speed limit for the road and didn't otherwise break any road laws then he is not automatically at fault and the pedestrian who stepped out in front of him is the primary cause. The prosecution is arguing that the fact he was over the speed limit for an ebike represents driving without due care and attention and establishes cause. The defence response is that they have already admitted his bike was legally a motor vehicle and ebike legislation does not apply.

If the defence wins this argument the judge could order the jury to find him not guilty of the three offences he is charged with. He would then presumably be charged with lesser offences carrying licence points and fines as their only penalty. If you have no licence (or don't use your licence) the points are meaningless. If you are on benefits (which I think he now is) then that's a £5 a week deduction from those benefits.

 

As UK law is based on case law this would set the pattern for all future cases. Drive your unrestricted ebike within motor vehicle law and have an accident and your safe from any serious criminal prosecution.

 

If the prosecution wins this argument (that the speed he was riding the ebike at is the main factor) then an ebike being ridden under the riders own power over the ebike speed limit could be classified as the cause of an accident in its own right. Not a good thing in my opinion.

 

 

Darren

There are a number of interesting legal arguments in this case. The defence is not disputing that he was driving a motor vehicle and that he needed a licence, insurance, etc. The defence is that the three offences he is charged with (causing death by dangerous driving, causing death whilst uninsured and causing death whilst unlicensed) are all predicated on the basis that his driving was at fault. If he was within the (motor vehicle) speed limit for the road and didn't otherwise break any road laws then he is not automatically at fault and the pedestrian who stepped out in front of him is the primary cause. The prosecution is arguing that the fact he was over the speed limit for an ebike represents driving without due care and attention and establishes cause. The defence response is that they have already admitted his bike was legally a motor vehicle and ebike legislation does not apply.

If the defence wins this argument the judge could order the jury to find him not guilty of the three offences he is charged with. He would then presumably be charged with lesser offences carrying licence points and fines as their only penalty. If you have no licence (or don't use your licence) the points are meaningless. If you are on benefits (which I think he now is) then that's a £5 a week deduction from those benefits.

 

As UK law is based on case law this would set the pattern for all future cases. Drive your unrestricted ebike within motor vehicle law and have an accident and your safe from any serious criminal prosecution.

 

If the prosecution wins this argument (that the speed he was riding the ebike at is the main factor) then an ebike being ridden under the riders own power over the ebike speed limit could be classified as the cause of an accident in its own right. Not a good thing in my opinion.

 

 

Darren

Having looked at other reports it appears that he is accused of travelling at 10mph over the speed limit in operation for all traffic on that road, ie 30mph in a 20mph limit. That being the case there is no need for the prosecution to link exceeding the 15mph assisted power maximum for ebikes with the cause of this accident.

If these are the facts then he will be found guilty of careless (not dangerous) driving as he would be if riding an unassisted bike or a motorbike or a tank.

Quite separately, if his ebike has been modified to provide assistance above the 15mph legal limit then he will also be found guilty of riding with no insurance and unlicensed.

I don't think anyone riding a legal ebike with a modicum of common sense and respect for other road users has anything to worry about.

Having looked at other reports it appears that he is accused of travelling at 10mph over the speed limit in operation for all traffic on that road, ie 30mph in a 20mph limit. That being the case there is no need for the prosecution to link exceeding the 15mph assisted power maximum for ebikes with the cause of this accident.

If these are the facts then he will be found guilty of careless (not dangerous) driving as he would be if riding an unassisted bike or a motorbike or a tank.

Quite separately, if his ebike has been modified to provide assistance above the 15mph legal limit then he will also be found guilty of riding with no insurance and unlicensed.

I don't think anyone riding a legal ebike with a modicum of common sense and respect for other road users has anything to worry about.

 

At the moment he is not charged with careless driving so he can't be found guilty of that in this court case. If found not guilty of the three offences he is charged with then lesser charges will presumably be brought.

 

Darren

At the moment he is not charged with careless driving so he can't be found guilty of that in this court case. If found not guilty of the three offences he is charged with then lesser charges will presumably be brought.

 

Darren

 

He is charged with death by careless driving.

 

As Grahame says, all the prosecution has to prove is he caused the death and his driving was careless, defined as a momentary lapse of attention, or riding below the standard of a careful and competent rider.

 

For the purpose of this court case, the legality or otherwise of the ebike is largely irrelevant.

 

His alleged high speed is relevant because that goes to prove careless.

For the purpose of this court case, the legality or otherwise of the ebike is largely irrelevant.

this may be semantics but is it true that:

 

- careless driving: applies to motor vehicles

- furious riding: applies to bikes

 

his bike seems to be classified as a motor vehicle, so at this level, the determination has an effect on his case.

Of Course, if he had hit the 'jaywalking' lady whilst driving a car then it might not have even made the news. Or if he was a lycra wearing guy on a road bike. After all, she was clearly in the wrong. But it had to be an over powered ebike!

I personally find your reaction to this case, when it has still not been fully played out, to be rather strange.....

I assume, maybe completely wrongly, that you feel/give the impression, that its OK to hit somebody while riding on an illegal tuned e-bike, ridden at possibly twice the legal limit for such bikes, the victim who subsequently dies, because (your words) if a car had hit the victim, it would sort of be OK......

May I ask, why your reaction is so out of line with British laws?

As it would appear that the bike was illegally tuned, and the victim subsequently died.

But if a car had hit her, the driver would be also put before a court, his car examined in depth, and things like worn brakes, bad steering and bald or damaged tyres for example, would count heavily against the driver, as would be possible proof that was driving too fast for the state of his car and the conditions at the time,apparently noticed by witnesses, who spoke under oath.

I myself do not see any difference for anyone driving/riding illegally, and injuring someone.

For example, a pedestrian, completely unaware that illegal e-bikes can go so fast AND SO QUIETLY, she may not even have noticed that it even was an e-bike, but she may not expect any bike to be traveling at such a speed.....

Any driver/rider must take this into account, as people may suddenly cross the road, without due care and attention!

THAT IS THE JOB OF A DRIVER/RIDER WHEN ON THE ROAD.

I also feel that your attitude, and the attitude of a small number of riders, gives our hobby a really bad name.

For example, in 1966, I was driving my Hillman Imp, late at night, on the roads inside HMS Collingwood, in Fareham, Hants., well under the legal limit on base of 25 MPH (far less apparently than this e-bike rider), I saw two men, walking in the middle of the road, so I flashed my headlights and they separated left and right.

I went to drive between them, and the one on the left suddenly walked directly in front of my car. My left front wing caught him at the back of his right thigh.

The shore patrol that attended the accident, measured the skid marks and as it was a dry night, my car was in a good condition with regards brakes, steering and tyres, it was calculated that I had hit him with a maximum speed of around 12 MPH!

It broke his right thigh bone, and sent him up in the air like a crazy fast ballet dancer, his arms flailing out on either side. I will never, ever forget it.....

It was SO fast, that he unintentionally, as I continued past him whilst doing an emergency stop, that his twirling arms, the knuckles hit the passenger door, leaving distinct impressions of 3 knuckles in the metal!

Demonstrating clearly the HUGE amount of energy that was transferred into his body, even at just 12MPH, from my car!

Once he was off the danger list, I visited him in HMS Haslar, the Royal Navy's Hospital (then) in the Portsmouth area, and I asked him why he did it.

Firstly, he had had a few pints, though in the seconds before the accident, he was walking apparently normally to me, he said he had simply forgot that I was coming along, and wanted to say something to his mate......

He even apologized to me as well!

He made a statement to the effect, that was read out at my "visit" to the Captain's Table, to answer any and all charges.

All of which I was subsequently cleared of....

But do notice, that I still had to answer the charges, to make quite certain that I was not guilty!

Also, I have never ever forgotten to this day, that accident. It was horrific for all concerned, and he spent 4 months or so, both in hospital and on light duties till he leg had mended...

May I ask you, that in the future you try and avoid pedestrians, who though still not on the road, are possibly totally uninformed of your silent approach on an e-bike, maybe even due to their own stupidity possibly, as in my case.

BUT YOU STILL FEEL TERRIBLE THAT AN ACCIDENT HAS HAPPENED, even though it may not be your fault in any way!

A court will make the final decision in such cases, not the rider....

Many years ago, when leaving the RN, I took an advanced drivers course with the UK Police, free for people leaving the Royal Navy at that time, and they teach awareness of of other road users and pedestrians to a really high level. Far beyond the normal driving test.

For me it was a huge eye opener that I have never ever forgotten, and still follow today....it has allowed me up to now, to avid such pedestrians more times than I can count, and to avoid running into badly driven vehicles in front of me.

All of my accidents, in 57 years of car driving, have all been"rear-end-ers" to MY car, except for one, consisting of several bike riders (no e-bikes up to now), several cars and one big truck, caused simply by people driving too close and often too fast for the conditions.....

One idiot, who ran into my stopped car, wanted money from my insurance because I had a tow bar (mostly on all the cars I have driven!) fitted, that had damaged his car!! Bad luck mate, you not only paid for your own damage, but you had to pay for mine AND buy me a new tow bar too!!!:p

If still available, everyone should take the Advanced Driving Course, as you will learn a lot, no matter how long you have been driving.

Furthermore, may I remind you that the manner in which you might possibly reply to this post, will tell us all a lot about you, both possibly good and maybe not so good things.

Your personal choice of course...

But I really disagree with your recent comments about this accident, no matter who is found at fault in the end, as you may have noticed!

Regards and I wish you an accident free life

Andy

I assume, maybe completely wrongly, that you feel/give the impression, that its OK to hit somebody while riding on an illegal tuned e-bike, ridden at possibly twice the legal limit for such bikes, the victim who subsequently dies, because (your words) if a car had hit the victim, it would sort of be OK......

May I ask, why your reaction is so out of line with British laws?

I think he means it wouldn 't have attracted the media attention that it did as it wouldn't have been that unusual; not that it would be OK.

possible consequences of derestricting your bike:

 

- punishment for careless driving causing injuries or death: 5 years in prison, unlimited fines.

- punishment for furious riding causing injuries or death: 2 years in prison (section 35 of the Offences Against the Persons Act which dates from 1861).