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

[sjpt]

The U.K. is relying on 19th century laws to prosecute 21st century crimes.

Maybe true, but the essence of the issue has not changed since (before) the 19th century. Causing death by dangerous driving is the same whether it is a horse and carriage, car, legal moped, or illegal moped. Really, it is still the same when it's a legal e-bike or non-electric bicycle; they just happens to come under a different part of the law.

I agree with an earlier comment (by Andy-Mat?) that it is a shame that the 'death by' part is considered so important. I think there should be harsher punishment than now for dangerous driving that easily could cause death/harm, and slightly lesser ones than now for the cases that actually do cause death. Main thing about the 'death by' part is that is makes it easier to prove.

 

[sjpt]

Can you or anyone here post a link for the video footage, my search argument is not finding it online.
Thanks in advance.
Andy

CCTV of Dalston hit-and-run bike crash shows moment woman crossing road gets struck by cyclist

THIS shocking footage shows the moment a cyclist hurtled into a pedestrian – before fleeing the scene carrying his mangled electric-powered bike. The CCTV shows the woman, named locally as Cihan Sa…

www.thesun.co.uk

is the only one I have seen.

 

[Andy-Mat]

CCTV of Dalston hit-and-run bike crash shows moment woman crossing road gets struck by cyclist

THIS shocking footage shows the moment a cyclist hurtled into a pedestrian – before fleeing the scene carrying his mangled electric-powered bike. The CCTV shows the woman, named locally as Cihan Sa…

www.thesun.co.uk

is the only one I have seen.

Many thanks for the video link.
Totally disgusting how he just left her lying there, and despite obvious requests from passersby to at least wait...
He obviously knew that he was at fault....or he would have not attempted to get away....
He deserves to receive the full weight of the law, just as ANY lawbreaker does!
regards
Andy

 

[Michael Price]

The bloke on the illegal bike is seriously at fault here - hope he gets what he deserves.
However, looking at the video - in spite of it being on the sun website - she does kinda just run out into him when he was perfectly visible.
In effect it could have been a perfectly legal moped that she ran into.
A video on Youtube (

) says that he was doing 30MPH in a 20 MPH limit road - but there is no information about how this was determined - so I am a bit dubious about that figure - but he does look to be really zooming along compared to the 'normal' bike who had passed the crossing at the start of the video

 

[Woosh]

he could see her crossing the street from some distance and brake or at least slow down well in time.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

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.

Sorry, that's incorrect. According to The Times this morning he allegedly crashed into the lady "at 10mph above the 20mph speed limit in the area".
If a car was being driven at 30mph in a 20mph area and killed a pedestrian on the road I can't imagine many people would have any sympathy for him.
Cars are much more visible than bikes so cyclists need to be even more cautious of pedestrians when moving quickly.
This whole business is going to reflect badly on ebikers.

 

[RobF]

no, I don't think that, I pointed out that the range of punishment for riding a bike is lesser than that of driving a moped, 2 years jail instead of 5 years plus unlimited fines.

Depends on the charge.

Charlie Alliston, the fixie rider who killed a pedestrian, was charged with manslaughter, so he could have got anything up to a life sentence.

The jury acquitted him of that, but convicted him of dangerous cycling, which carries two years.

Thus it is incorrect to say the punishment is automatically less for riding a bike than a moped.

 

[Amoto65]

) says that he was doing 30MPH in a 20 MPH limit road - but there is no information about how this was determined - so I am a bit dubious about that figure - but he does look to be really zooming along compared to the 'normal' bike who had passed the crossing at the start of the video

It is totally irrelevant what speed he was doing with it being an illegal bike as it should never have been on the road in the first place.

 

[Woosh]

Thus it is incorrect to say the punishment is automatically less for riding a bike than a moped.

you are incorrect on this.
Careless driving: section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988
Careless riding: section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 .

Check them up.

 

[Andy McNish]

Dalston vid |(warning shows moment of contact)

 

[Michael Price]

It is totally irrelevant what speed he was doing with it being an illegal bike as it should never have been on the road in the first place.

It is relevant in some ways because it affects what they can charge him with and how they can prove the 'without due care and attention' part of it
But no - he should not have been on the road on that thing anyway - which is the main thing

 

[Capt Sisko]

I have to say, having seen the video, that, for a moped, the vehicle didn't seem to be driven particularly aggressively.

He was in the middle of the road, not near the edge, there were no other pedestrians in it, so no particular reason for him to slow down/anticipate an issue and she just walked out several meters quite briskly without looking.

He also had flashing lights on his vehicle so she would have been able to see it at a glance.

That is exactly the same acquastion we as cyclists throw at car/van drivers. Get out of my way, I've paid my road tax etc etc. Replace ebike with souped up Corsa (or whatever the local boy racers are driving this week) and I doubt for one moment anyone would have any sympathy for the car driver.

 

[RobF]

you are incorrect on this.
Careless driving: section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988
Careless riding: section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 .

Check them up.

My post is not incorrect - my summary of the Charlie Alliston case is spot on.

You cited Alliston who killed someone, now you are on about a fish and chippy careless driving.

Stop shifting the goal posts.

 

[Woosh]

My post is not incorrect - my summary of the Charlie Alliston case is spot on.

You cited Alliston who killed someone, now you are on about a fish and chippy careless driving.

Stop shifting the goal posts.

Charlie Alliston was not accused of careless driving but a different charge with less penalty, careless riding - that's why his sentence was only 1 1/2 years. Hanlon is accused of careless driving. If that charge is proven, I expect his sentence may be double.
My point is still the same, derestrict your bike will land you in much hotter water than not in case of accident. A few years back, I could see that a derestricted crank drive bike is capable of much higher cruising speed on a flat road than a derestricted geared hub bike. That's why I prefer making geared hub bikes.

 

[mike killay]

The U.K. is relying on 19th century laws to prosecute 21st century crimes.

When it comes to murder, we recognise the 10 commandments because murder is charged at common law (ie law before the memory of no man runneth to the contrary)

 

[Andy McNish]

That is exactly the same acquastion we as cyclists throw at car/van drivers. Get out of my way, I've paid my road tax etc etc. Replace ebike with souped up Corsa (or whatever the local boy racers are driving this week) and I doubt for one moment anyone would have any sympathy for the car driver.

It's not a 'get out of my way' scenario at all.

That would be an appropriate critique of the cyclist who recently tried to plough through a gaggle of pedestrians beeping his airhorn and got stung for £100k of costs when he hit one.

In this scenario she walked out alone against the lights briskly into the middle of a main road without looking.

Looking at the video, he had no real chance of avoiding her IMHO.

He might have had a better chance had he been going more slowly of course (or at least would have done less damage) but the traffic conditions were not generally shouting out 'danger pedestrians likely to stride out in front of you' from what I can see.

If you view him as a cyclist he is riding an illegal machine and going too fast.
Viewed as a human being he flees the scene and comes across as a scroat.
But viewed as someone on an electric moped the only question for me is his speed as compared to the rest of the traffic flow. We don't get to see enough of the CCTV to see what speed cars, vans and mopeds/motorbikes are doing down that stretch.
But all of them would be much more deadly.
Force=1/2 mass x velocity^2.
At 30kg and 30mph (13.4m/s) he's hitting her with a force of just under 2700N.
A mini at 20 mph would hit at 52000N.
And that is why death by bike is super rare compared to by car and makes national headlines when it does happen.

 

[Woosh]

At 30kg and 30mph (13.4m/s) he's hitting her with a force of just under 2700N.
A mini at 20 mph would hit at 52000N.

1. you forgot to add the rider's weight (100kgs) to your 30kg bike.
2. you don't need a huge amount of force to kill someone when that person is hit in the head.
3. If you hit a car in front because he brakes suddenly, you can't say it's his fault because you don't expect it.
You are supposed to keep a safe distance.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

But all of them would be much more deadly.
Force=1/2 mass x velocity^2.
At 30kg and 30mph (13.4m/s) he's hitting her with a force of just under 2700N.
A mini at 20 mph would hit at 52000N.
And that is why death by bike is super rare compared to by car and makes national headlines when it does happen.

You've totally ignored stopping distance, car brakes are much more efficient than cycle brakes, it's faster to move your foot and stamp on the brake pedal than reach for the brake lever and start to pull it, and since car tyres are much wider than cycle and cars are much heavier and have ABS then they're much less likely to skid.
Force of impact is a secondary issue at 30mph.

 

[Andy McNish]

1. you forgot to add the rider's weight (100kgs) to your 30kg bike.
2. you don't need a huge amount of force to kill someone when that person is hit in the head.
3. If you hit a car in front because he brakes suddenly, you can't say it's his fault because you don't expect it.
You are supposed to keep a safe distance.

True - lets say 100kg in total then. It's 9000N.
Still less than a fifth of the force from a 20mph mini.

Obviously and sadly 9kN is enough to kill someone but it's still not generally as dangerous as 51kN.

Looking at the video, if he'd been driving a mini at 20mph and she had walked straight out in the same way, I'd be surprised if there would be a prosecution.

Failing to leave sufficient stopping distance to the vehicle in front isn't relevant here and is usually only used in civil cases. I've not heard of each participant in multi car pile ups on the motorway being generally prosecuted for failing to stop in time...

 

[Andy McNish]

You've totally ignored stopping distance, car brakes are much more efficient than cycle brakes, it's faster to move your foot and stamp on the brake pedal than reach for the brake lever and start to pull it, and since car tyres are much wider than cycle and cars are much heavier and have ABS then they're much less likely to skid.
Force of impact is a secondary issue at 30mph.

Stopping distance doesn't matter in the instant case as much as there was so little time to react.
She walked quickly out into the traffic with no warning.

The stopping distance of an average car at 20mph is 12 metres. What do we think the stopping distance of an ebike, at 30mph, would be? I mean 30mph is bloody fast for an ebike, I'd grant you.