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

[flecc]

I find speed limiters to be rather restrictive because I appreciate the ability to accelerate quickly to avoid danger should the (very seldom) need arise, they've been around for decades.

Basic cruise controls are OK on quiet motorways but often they interfere when you want to moderate your speed depending on surrounding traffic whose speed varies a little. You can normally spot cars running on their cruise controls, they are doing 70 +/-0 mph in the outside lanes of motorways when the middle lane is empty.

I do like adaptive cruise controls though, these are the ones that use a radar device at the front of the car to measure the distance to the vehicle in front. They are great when there are prolonged speed restrictions on motorways where you just want to cruise along in a lane that's doing a sensible legal speed however if they suddenly sense a vehicle pulling out in front of you they can sometimes panic and brake the car excessively which causes problems for vehicles behind you. I've seen this with several recent high end German cars.

Adaptive is the cruise control my Nissan Leaf has too, forward radar, all round cameras and all round sonar, so it can either warn of or avoid any impending possible collision from any direction. A bit disconcerting as you say when it takes avoidance control at times.
.

 

[D C]

I find speed limiters to be rather restrictive because I appreciate the ability to accelerate quickly to avoid danger should the (very seldom) need arise, they've been around for decades.

Mine isn't like that, it's a modern system. If you accelerate very strongly, kick-down is automatic, it cancels the limiter until you slow back down. It works really well.
Dave.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

A bit disconcerting as you say when it takes avoidance control at times.

Yes, I remember last year wanting to overtake 2 slow moving lorries going up a steep hill just after a 30mph limit ended and the nearside lane opened up into 2 carriageways. I accelerated sharply out of the 30mph limit and got deliberately close to the lorry in front as I pull out out into the 2nd lane - all of a sudden the dashboard was beeping and flashing strange lights. It was very distracting and I was worried the car would put the brakes on.

I'm not sure it's an entirely good thing.

 

[Poolepete]

And he's been acquitted... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51707616

 

[Deleted member 25121]

Mine isn't like that, it's a modern system. If you accelerate very strongly, kick-down in an automatic, it cancels the limiter until you slow back down. It works really well.
Dave.

Mine's the same but I still find it disconcerting.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

And he's been acquitted... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51707616

The law is an ass.

 

[EddiePJ]

Yes, I remember last year wanting to overtake 2 slow moving lorries going up a steep hill just after a 30mph limit ended and the nearside lane opened up into 2 carriageways. I accelerated sharply out of the 30mph limit and got deliberately close to the lorry in front as I pull out out into the 2nd lane - all of a sudden the dashboard was beeping and flashing strange lights. It was very distracting and I was worried the car would put the brakes on.

I'm not sure it's an entirely good thing.

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.

 

[gw8izr]

And he's been acquitted... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51707616

Blimey, I didn’t expect that

 

[trevor brooker]

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

Well you forecast the defence correctly

 

[KirstinS]

Blimey, I didn’t expect that

Me neither, very surprised

 

[flecc]

And he's been acquitted... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51707616

Blimey, I didn’t expect that

Me neither, very surprised

I am caused to wonder if there's more to this than what we see on the surface.

Government policy is to strongly back all forms of cycling, including e-bikes and indeed all pure electric vehicles. This case has attracted huge publicity which is very unhelpful to that policy to say the least.

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

 

[KirstinS]

I am caused to wonder if there's more to this than what we see on the surface.

Government policy is to strongly back all forms of cycling, including e-bikes and indeed all pure electric vehicles. This case has attracted huge publicity which is very unhelpful to that policy to say the least.

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

I had similar thoughts

I'm struggling with why the bloke who had the illegal bike (fixie no front brake) is guilty

But this guy, with the illegal ebike for admittedly different reasons, is innocent

In both case the pedestrian doesn't seem to have been paying attention

 

[Wicky]

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.

 

[KirstinS]

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.

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

Pretty easy to prove a gumtree purchase usually so likely very true

Assume it was a dd 1000w ebay job?

But this may set. a poor precedent. I don't really want to see those have added an mph or two by playing with their lcd settings on a legal 250w system getting prosecuted

But if you are screaming along at 30mph on a 1000w system and get away with killing someone...... Seems rather different to me on a moral if not legal basis

 

[Amoto65]

Not to mention leaving the scene of an accident.......

 

[gw8izr]

I am caused to wonder if there's more to this than what we see on the surface.

I wonder how accurately the darlings in the press have accounted for his lack of remorse and attitude. (edit) the jury actually saw his conduct, I certainly havent..

As previously we only know part of the story, his fleeing the scene was reported as damning, when frightened to death having just seriously hurt someone and a crowd gathering momentum then fight or flight are instinctive actions. ( I'm not defending his actions )

but I am still surprised.

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

Indeed, and not always productively IMVHO

whichever way, he and the affected families have to live with it, everyone involved is worse off for the whole affair.

 

[Nealh]

Quite stunned he has got away scot free from a court, but as said private action for damages could still come.


So what now for users of non legal ebikes if they get stopped or the rating of their bike is questioned, does the not guilty judgement mean it has set a precedence for high powered bikes ?
Or in future will the prosecution just be for the use of an illegal bike ?
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 !!!

 

[Nealh]

He was only found not guilty of causing her death, I assume the police could pursue and prosecute for the bikes illegality ?

 

[flecc]

I wonder how accurately the darlings in the press have accounted for his lack of remorse and attitude. (edit) the jury actually saw his conduct, I certainly havent..

According to the BBC radio 4 news at 6pm, he was sobbing with relief in the dock when the jury cleared him. So it may well be that the defence had said during the case that he was remorseful over the death.
.

 

[flecc]

He was only found not guilty of causing her death, I assume the police could pursue and prosecute for the bikes illegality ?

Probably only a couple of fines and a driving ban on a present or future driving licence though. He'd have to have a history of such offences as driving without insurance to earn a short custodial such as six months.
.