Rides illegal machine - kills pedestrian & blames her........

Danidl

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 29, 2016
8,611
12,256
73
Ireland
That article has this wrong comment by the BBC:

"By law, a bike on a public road in the UK must have two brakes.

A fixed-wheel bicycle has a single gear, no freewheel mechanism and dropped handlebars. The rear fixed wheel of a fixie - which a rider can slow using the pedals - counts as a brake."


The law specifies that a fixie with a front brake has one brake, and that it is legal, so it is incorrect to say every bicycle has to have two brakes. Nowhere does the law specify the fixie transmission is a brake. By inference from a further section it says the opposite.
.
I'm sorry but again fecc , I don't read the regulation in that light.
The regulation states very clearly that there be at least one braking system.
It then makes a distinction between fixed and free wheeling bikes. In the case of the fixie, it then requires that there be a brake fitted to the front wheel.
It explicitly states that where the pedals are fixed to the front wheel, without an intermediate chain as in penny farthing or children trikes, that would serve as a brake.
So it is at best silent on whether a rear wheel fixie, via or without a chain constitutes a brake. Somewhere else, on a bike forum, I picked up a reference, cannot confirm, that in a German court case, which requires two brakes, a rear fixie met the requirement of a brake.
As an aside, in Irish law, the offense of wanton and furious driving , which would have been carried accross from UK law was dropped from the statue books.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: LeighPing

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,268
30,652
It explicitly states that where the pedals are fixed to the front wheel, without an intermediate chain as in penny farthing or children trikes, that would serve as a brake.
Which as I've already pointed out in this disagreement is specified in a separate section 8, not referring to a chain transmission fixie.

Section 7 referring to a fixie clearly states the legal case of a bike having one brake, and the fixie is that one and only case. Since that one brake is the front one, the fixie through a chain transmission is not considered a brake, for if it was, it would not be the bicycle with one brake specified. That logic and legal position is inescapable.

This law has obviously been sensibly drafted with good technical advice. It clearly separates the dependable case of pedals directly on the front wheel, from the far less dependable stopping ability though a breakable chain of a fixie.

The regulation states very clearly that there be at least one braking system.
Again proving I was right to say the BBC was wrong to say a bicycle had to have two brakes.
.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: LeighPing
D

Deleted member 4366

Guest
You don't need to interpret why the rules are like they are. It's simply that for a normal freewheeling bicycle, you must have two independent brakes. One must be on the front wheel and one on the back. If you have a fixie, you must have a front brake. Anything else is optional. Personally, I think that that implies that they see the fixed wheel as being equivalent to a back brake, but it matters not. You have to do as they say.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mike killay

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,268
30,652
Well we now have case law that says the fixie does not constitute a brake in law.

Initially the defence said it did, the prosecution that it didn't. In such instances the judge checks the law and if necessary intervenes with a ruling. After examining the law the defence finally accepted the prosecution were correct, and the judge hadn't intervened.

Had the law been unclear the judge would have adjourned the case and consulted with a Master at the high court for guidance. Since that didn't happen and the judge in summing up, and both prosecution and defence in the case in question define a fixie with no front brake as having no brakes, we have that as a legal ruling.

That is what I've argued and accept as definitive.
.
 
Last edited:

Danidl

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 29, 2016
8,611
12,256
73
Ireland
Well we now have case law that says the fixie does not constitute a brake in law.

Initially the defence said it did, the prosecution that it didn't. In such instances the judge checks the law and if necessary intervenes with a ruling. After examining the law the defence finally accepted the prosecution were correct, and the judge hadn't intervened.

Had the law been unclear the judge would have adjourned the case and consulted with a Master at the high court for guidance. Since that didn't happen and the judge in summing up, and both prosecution and defence in the case in question define a fixie with no front brake as having no brakes, we have that as a legal ruling.

That is what I've argued and accept as definitive.
.
Again this is contrary to my understanding. Barristers make pleadings or assertions, these may or may not be refuted by the opposite side. Unless the judge makes a definite ruling and this appears in the written judgement, it would not form part of case law
According to what you have written, and you have obviously followed this case more closely than many, the defense barrister withdrew it as a defense. So the judge was not required to make a call. It was the failure to have a front wheel brake in contravention of the regulation which met the test for" wanton ".
As another aside, as there was apparently CCTV evidence, did this allow the prosecution determine the speed of the bike, the duration of time where the cyclist might have slowed down and how much Street traffic was there, which might have impeded avoidance.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,268
30,652
Again this is contrary to my understanding. Barristers make pleadings or assertions, these may or may not be refuted by the opposite side. Unless the judge makes a definite ruling and this appears in the written judgement, it would not form part of case law
According to what you have written, and you have obviously followed this case more closely than many, the defense barrister withdrew it as a defense. So the judge was not required to make a call. It was the failure to have a front wheel brake in contravention of the regulation which met the test for" wanton ".
As another aside, as there was apparently CCTV evidence, did this allow the prosecution determine the speed of the bike, the duration of time where the cyclist might have slowed down and how much Street traffic was there, which might have impeded avoidance.
I fundamentally disagree with your reading of the regulations. The regulation has a header stating a bicycle can have one brake, and that precedes both the section 7 chain fixie and the section 8 pedals direct on the wheel case. It follows that both could have an instance of one brake, in the case of the chain drive fixie it's the front brake, meaning the fixie transmission isn't a brake.

If the pedals direct on the wheel was the only one brake bicycle instance, the header stating there is a one brake circumstance would only precede section 8, since it couldn't apply to section 7.

The judge stated in summing up for the jury that the bike had no brakes. That concurrence with the opinions of both prosecution and defence in the case creates a precedence, and shows their reading of the law coincides with mine.
.
 

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
8,086
4,290
I was out on my legal Haibike ( had a dongle when purchased) in Wales last weekend.
A bloke cycled along side and started chuntering about how expensive ( and basically crap) my haibike was ...He was on some kit bike with a bloody great big hub motor ( was nearly as big as wheel) After going up a long drag he reluctantly accepted my bike " kept up" better than he,d expected. We had a sort of conversation ( he was the most aggressive person I,ve ever met) He proceeded to show of his collection of batteries. Three of them..I think he had around 1500 wh in total. His boast was he could flatten batteries in an hour but I literally could not pick his bike up. Must have been around 50kg ??.( mind you he was at least 120 ( kg not years)
It was a motorbike. How much longer are folk going to get away with this ??? No tax, test, insurance,registration or helmet. ( our cycle helmets dont count as mc helmets) And he was on National Park land which access could be lost so easily for bikes..( yes all of them. Its going to be "off road motorbikes" all over again)
What's going to happen when oafs like this hurt somebody ? Ebikes ...good bye. Or registration etc for them all.
And to add injury to insult on next climb my haibike left him !! ( I did try a little harder)


And my point for this thread. There does seem a ,thankfully small, minority of cyclists ( ecyclists included) who seem to think rules and regs are simply meant for somebody else.
 
Last edited:

Danidl

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 29, 2016
8,611
12,256
73
Ireland
I fundamentally disagree with your reading of the regulations. The regulation has a header stating a bicycle can have one brake, and that precedes both the section 7 chain fixie and the section 8 pedals direct on the wheel case. It follows that both could have an instance of one brake, in the case of the chain drive fixie it's the front brake, meaning the fixie transmission isn't a brake.

If the pedals direct on the wheel was the only one brake bicycle instance, the header stating there is a one brake circumstance would only precede section 8, since it couldn't apply to section 7.

I would have read the statement that a bicycle must have a breaking system as being an absolute statement, not needing to be qualified.

The judge stated in summing up for the jury that the bike had no brakes. That concurrence with the opinions of both prosecution and defence in the case creates a precedence, and shows their reading of the law coincides with mine.
.
I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree. I would await the written judgement for vindication, but it's a moot point in any event.
If the judge stated that the bike has no brakes .. plural, that was correct.
Since according to the prosecution, the bike was initially at 25 mph but at the instant of collision at 18 mph, unless it was going up hill, a brake , of some type was involved.
Its all moot, because failure to have a front wheel brake was sufficient reason to deem the bike illegal.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 4366

Guest
I was out on my legal Haibike ( had a dongle when purchased) in Wales last weekend.
A bloke cycled along side and started chuntering about how expensive ( and basically crap) my haibike was ...He was on some kit bike with a bloody great big hub motor ( was nearly as big as wheel) After going up a long drag he reluctantly accepted my bike " kept up" better than he,d expected. We had a sort of conversation ( he was the most aggressive person I,ve ever met) He proceeded to show of his collection of batteries. Three of them..I think he had around 1500 wh in total. His boast was he could flatten batteries in an hour but I literally could not pick his bike up. Must have been around 50kg ??.( mind you he was at least 120 ( kg not years)
It was a motorbike. How much longer are folk going to get away with this ??? No tax, test, insurance,registration or helmet. ( our cycle helmets dont count as mc helmets) And he was on National Park land which access could be lost so easily for bikes..( yes all of them. Its going to be "off road motorbikes" all over again)
What's going to happen when oafs like this hurt somebody ? Ebikes ...good bye. Or registration etc for them all.
And to add injury to insult on next climb my haibike left him !! ( I did try a little harder)


And my point for this thread. There does seem a ,thankfully small, minority of cyclists ( ecyclists included) who seem to think rules and regs are simply meant for somebody else.
Go on any motorway and see how many people pass you at 90 mph or more. They're more likely to injure innocent people than anybody on an electric bike. Nobody seems to be bothered about them either. If I were to start bleating, I might start there. On the other hand, I might start on all those guys that you see hanging around street corners on any sink estate selling drugs. They don't care about the law either.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,268
30,652
Since according to the prosecution, the bike was initially at 25 mph but at the instant of collision at 18 mph, unless it was going up hill, a brake , of some type was involved.
Depends on who one believes, the defence two speeds were 20 mph and 14 mph.

The slowing was by using the pedals of the fixie, slowing the bike down, so of course braking of sorts was involved. That could also be done as we used to as kids, planting one's shoes flat onto the ground, but would you call that a brake?

As I've maintained all along, it only matters what the law says, and the law does not recognise a fixie as a brake. That to me is justified since a fixie has a pathetic slowing action compared to the weakest of bike brake types. As an accident prevention system in an emergency it's hopelessly inadequate and why their riders depend on their avoidance skills rather than stopping.

Hopefully all the couriers who routinely ride fixies in London take note of this case, I've read that some are concerned. If it prompts them to fit and use front brakes, that poor woman's death will not have been totally in vain.
.
.
 

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
8,086
4,290
Go on any motorway and see how many people pass you at 90 mph or more. They're more likely to injure innocent people than anybody on an electric bike. Nobody seems to be bothered about them either. If I were to start bleating, I might start there. On the other hand, I might start on all those guys that you see hanging around street corners on any sink estate selling drugs. They don't care about the law either.
I know point you are making and its a fair one but...
A) Those folk risk their own licenses..not mine and yours. Oaf I was speaking of could so easily get us all stopped.

B) Not sure how many drivers I know but I don't know a single one who drives without reg; insurance: test etc. I know 3 ebikers who ride on and off road on machines which are simply not ebikes. ( ie they have either removed 15 mph limit and/or are way way over the 250w limit.
C) Your speeding motorist is instantly traceable.( only too so) Cyclists are not.
D) Two wrongs have never made a right.
E) I reckon motorists have slowed down on motorway..
???
If folk continue its only a matter of time before we see legislation either enforcing registration ,insurance etc for us all.
We should police ourselves before government do so.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: mike killay and D C

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,268
30,652
If folk continue its only a matter of time before we see legislation either enforcing registration ,insurance etc for us all.
We should police ourselves before government do so.
While in the EU there's little chance of this, but our departure, freeing us of EU rulings on pedelecs, could bring such measures much more easily.
.
 

Tabs

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jul 1, 2016
279
132
64
Scotland
I had a look on YouTube for London bike couriers and I'm amazed there's not been more accidents reported on the news,I know the camera can make things look different but some of these guys look like their on a kamikaze run !!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: LeighPing

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,268
30,652
I had a look on YouTube for London bike couriers and I'm amazed there's not been more accidents reported on the news,I know the camera can make things look different but some of these guys look like their on a kamikaze run !!
They really are a menace, riding like lunatics. There's been many minor collisions with pedestrians, but they don't always stop. Of course the man tried for this death is an ex courier.

Trouble is they are paid by the run and not well, so they have to get through plenty of runs to survive.
.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: LeighPing

soundwave

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 23, 2015
17,002
6,536
  • Informative
Reactions: LeighPing

Danidl

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 29, 2016
8,611
12,256
73
Ireland
Just a random thought.. the wanton and furious driving law seems to be all embracing. If you have a defective or illegal contraption, and you cause an injury to another person, whether on a public road or private land, then you are liable for prosecution. .. that should concern anybody in the UK riding either a dongled ebike or a speed pedelec . Speed pedelecs would run foul on both the grounds of wanton (deliberately using an illegal) and furious due to the faster speed.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Zlatan

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,268
30,652
http://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/keen-accomplished-cheltenham-cyclist-dies-436755
‘Keen and accomplished’ Cheltenham cyclist dies after colliding with pedestrian
I know this will fall on deaf ears in Britain, but it's worth saying anyway. Once again we have someone belting along on a bike at over 20 mph, in this cyclists case 24 mph, and he got killed. I've long since lost count of the number of forum members reporting or showing videos about their injuries from riding at those speeds These sporting speeds ridden at by so many cyclists are a comparatively recent phenomenon in Britain, post 1980 and mostly much later.

I grew up in an era when much of the British public cycled as utility cyclists, riding at no more than 12 mph most of the time, often a bit slower and only very rarely at 15 mph. Coming off at those speeds is very unlikely to kill and in any case, braking from those speeds instantly results in greatly reduced speed without risk of going over the bars. It also gives other road users far longer to see you and avoid collisions and yourself more chance of slowing or stopping.

In the trade in the 1950s, I never heard of a single cyclist death or serious injury in my general area, despite 25% of all journeys nationally in the 1950s being by bicycle. And there was no such thing as a cycle helmet then, everyone riding wearing a hat or bare headed. Our customers did crash sometimes, often skids on wet roads, in part due to the hard rubber tyres of that era. But it was mainly their bikes that got the odd scars and they were never badly hurt.

So the choice is obvious, continue to ride at 20 or more mph and sooner or later come unstuck, often through no fault of your own but with possibly very serious consequences. Or take a few minutes longer on journeys and amble along more pleasantly with a lot less effort, not getting hurt.

In a near 70 year span of cycling in Britain, the majority in London and the South-East with the greatest traffic density in the country, I've never worn a helmet and never hurt myself once. But my routine cycling speeds have been 15 mph or less on e-bikes and more like 12 mph on unpowered bikes. The very few times I've indulged in higher speeds has only been in the safest possible known circumstances.
.
 
Last edited:

LeighPing

Esteemed Pedelecer
Mar 27, 2016
2,547
1,945
The Red Ditch
In this, and the other fatality case, neither were attributed to speed being the cause of the accident. The motorway national speed limit has been 70 mph since 1965. There were less accidents then. But not by virtue of technology. There were just less cars, less people and less mobile phones back then.

No ebikes were involved in either. Just pedestrians wrapped up in their daily lives. Although indeed, speed may well have been a factor. Had both riders been going faster, the victims may well have survived.
 

Advertisers