Riding illegal bikes can lead to being charged with driving offences.

[trevor brooker]

Anyone with a basic understanding of human psychology can see that the type of person to decide to break the law in the first case is more likely to decide to break it in the second as well.

I think that we would like that to be true & believe that it is true, but I have not seen any evidence.

Every single car driver breaks the speed limit every single time they drive!

I'll explain my reasoning - the limit is say 20mph, the only way not to exceed that would be to drive at say 80-90% of that limit, as bumps/potholes etc cause the throttle/vehicle to change speed by a few mph. So 20.1mph is breaking the law, the convention however is that you will not be prosecuted until you exceed 20mph plus.

So each driver accepts that he does not need to watch his speed to the last decimal & instead can watch the road & reduce his speed when he next looks at the speedometer.

But having spotted that the speed may be over the limit behaviour is not altered to drive at say 80% of the limit in the future, because the majority drive at 100% plus.

I think we all decide what laws to follow, in the hope that others will conform.

I certainly have wished to drive through red lights, when stuck behind a smoke belching exhaust, but never would, not because I do not have a number plate & so the chances of being caught are slight, but because I wish to set an obvious example of abiding by the law.

Perhaps in the forlorn hope that drivers will also not break the law, such as overtaking me on solid white lines, when if the meet an oncoming car, rather than have a head on crash they will instead take me out.

 

[xena]

I think a lot of people dongle their bikes solely so that they can keep up with their riding partner, e.g. a female on an electric bike trying to keep up with a male partner on a road bike. A restricted bike would make the partnership not work as the road biker would not want to stick to 15mph on the flat.

I don't think that kind of person would be more likely to run a red light.

 

[georgehenry]

From the footage you cannot see what aspect the pedestrian crossing lights were showing.

However the cyclist that hit the lady goes through the crossing at almost the same time as a car going in the opposite direction passes through the crossing implying circumstantially that they were at proceed for road traffic.

This might be supported by the way the lady makes a run for it with other pedestrians waiting exactly like someone trying to cross quickly against the lights.

However the result was a tragedy and the cyclist should have stayed at the scene and tried to help whether they were on a legal bike or not.

In another recent case in London a guy was sued successfully by a lady who was hit by him when she stepped out onto a pedestrian crossing while using her mobile phone and against the lights. I think in that case the judge thought the cyclist should have approached the crossing more carefully despite the lights being in his favour due to the number of pedestrians at the crossing.

This was also the case where the cyclist is now in prison. The lights were in his favour when he hit a lady using her mobile phone. In that case his lack of a front brake and arrogant attitude were also factors.

All these cases were in London where there has been a huge rise in the use of bicycles to commute to work and friction has risen between cyclist, pedestrians and car drivers.

However our legal system is based on case law and once a precedent has been set it can be applied throughout the country.

Whether the law is in reality changing more in favour of the pedestrian due to these court cases is hard to say but It would appear that even more so than ever before you need to be very cautious approaching pedestrian crossings whether they are in your favour or not.

Any illegal aspect of a bike involved in an accident strengthens the case against the cyclist.

 

[sjpt]

I think we are pretty much on the same side about the case in question ... the differences are more about how we can generalize from this case.

 

[vfr400]

It's not, because most cyclists haven't a clue about the law as regards lights at all so don't make a positive decision to break it. Everyone who dongles a bike or runs a red light knows perfectly well it's illegal.

People who knowingly break the 30mph speed limit in cars are a better example yes. I bet there is a strong corollation between motorists who get speeding points and ones who get points for running red lights. You're suggesting there won't be?

I can answer that point with a question. How many times did you intentionally exceed the speed limit, and how many times did you intentionally go through red lights?

 

[Andy McNish]

I can answer that point with a question. How many times did you intentionally exceed the speed limit, and how many times did you intentionally go through red lights?

I'm not sure you know what correlation means.
In general more drivers will exceed the speed limit than will shoot red lights.
But people who never exceed the speed limit will be very unlikely to run red lights.
And people who regularly exceed the speed limit will be much more likely to run red lights.
People who occasionally exceed the speed limit will be somewhere in the middle

And people who regularly exceed the speed limit and run red lights will be more likely to be involved in accidents. That is why points on your licence or driving bans increase insurance costs.

 

[flecc]

How? Where's the evidence? It's just something you've imagined. That doesn't make it true.

Here's some hard proven evidence that those inclined to break minor laws are more inclined to break other more important ones. Many years ago when Rudy Giuliani became the Mayor of New York, he was convinced that was true, based only on the logic and previous studies.

Therefore he ordered the police to crack down on every incidence of law breaking, graffiti and even misbehaviour, however minor and unimportant. The result was an astonishing reduction in all crime, even the most serious like murders.

Previous criminological studies had demonstrated the value of such strategies which became known as "Broken Windows", reflecting that even a broken window in a neighbourhood was treated as serious vandal crime.

I could bury you in links and quotes showing the decades of evidence showing the causal links between inclination to commit minor offences and willingess to commit more major ones, but I'll leave it to you to do some Googling if you still don't believe it. Meanwhile this quote of the effect on New York should suffice:

"Just 20 years ago, New York City was racked with crime: murders, burglaries, drug deals, car thefts, thefts from cars. (Remember the signs in car windows advising no radio?) Unlike many cities’ crime problems, New York’s were not limited to a few inner-city neighborhoods that could be avoided. Bryant Park, in the heart of midtown and adjacent to the New York Public Library, was an open-air drug market; Grand Central Terminal, a gigantic flophouse; the Port Authority Bus Terminal, “a grim gauntlet for bus passengers dodging beggars, drunks, thieves, and destitute drug addicts,” as the New York Times put it in 1992. In July 1985, the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City published a study showing widespread fear of theft and assault in downtown Brooklyn, Fordham Road in the Bronx, and Jamaica Center in Queens. Riders abandoned the subway in droves, fearing assault from lunatics and gangs.

New York’s drop in crime during the 1990s was correspondingly astonishing—indeed, “one of the most remarkable stories in the history of urban crime,” according to University of California law professor Franklin Zimring."
.

 

[vfr400]

I can make a new logical theory. People that have unrestricted ebikes don't want to stand out because they believe that if a policemen stopped them, they might have a lot of very difficult questions to answer about their bikes, so they make sure that they don't do anything that might bring themselves into the limelight. That would include jumping lights.

That's the same idea that drivers that reckon they might be over the drink-drive limit make sure that they stick to speed limits and don't jump traffic lights.

I therefore declare that people that dongle their bikes are less likely to jump red lights and commit other traffic offences, so good for them!

I say again that there is absolutely nothing but a made up theory, and no evidence whatsoever that guys with dongled bikes disregard red traffic lights.

 

[Amoto65]

So the ones that come on this site bragging about doing 30 mph on cycle paths dont want to stand out, interesting.

 

[Andy McNish]

The problem is that there has now been a pedestrian death due to an ebike in the UK.

Is anyone honestly surprised it was an illegal ebike?

If you want data we'll need to wait say ten years to get a data set of pedestrian deaths.

And does anyone really think that, proportionate to their respective numbers, dongled ebikes will be involved in less fatal accidents than legal ones?
If so, I've a bridge to sell you ...

 

[vfr400]

So the ones that come on this site bragging about doing 30 mph on cycle paths dont want to stand out, interesting.

I think you mean the one not the ones, or can you show us who the ones are?

 

[soundwave]

loads of ppl have sent me pm asking what dongles to get for there bikes as dont want to post on the forum cos of the crap they get about it lol.

and there all older than me even bike shops have sent me pm that they support dongles and will honer the warranty.

only 2 tho but you can have your dongle and warranty

 

[flecc]

I say again that there is absolutely nothing but a made up theory, and no evidence whatsoever that guys with dongled bikes disregard red traffic lights.

You're turning th argument on its head.

The argument is that those inclined to use knowingly illegal dongles are more likely to break other somewhat more serious laws, like jumping lights. That's because not all dongle users will have that as their limit of offending, so a proportion will be inclined to commit more serious offences.

Conversely, those whose limits of offending fall short of riding outside of pedelec law are more unlikely to jump red lights. Their proportion who might will be very much smaller than that of the dongle users.

There's decades of evidence of the truth of the crime escalator and to deny it exists is perverse.
.

 

[sjpt]

Is anyone honestly surprised it was an illegal ebike?

Just clarifying, not criticising ...

Are we even 100% sure it was an illegal bike? The reporting is so scanty it is difficult to tell. The prosecutor has alleged it was but we don't really know his grounds. The only statement I have seen reported was on the grounds it was a bike that could go more than 15.5 mph ... no mention of assisted speed (which doesn't make it illegal). It is more likely a reporter mistake than a prosecutor mistake; but I'm not 100% sure.

 

[georgehenry]

And with that in mind flec, and I think you are right that the proportion of illegal bikes could easily be higher than legal bikes, there have actually been very few serious accidents.

As anotherkiwi alluded to, a bit like shark attacks, it might loom large in the public imagination while it is in the focus of the media / Daily Mail, but in reality you are very unlikely to be hit and seriously injured by any kind of bike, electric or otherwise.

Pedestrians and for that matter cyclists are much more likely to suffer injury or death by cars or lorries.

I know we all get a bit heated by the legal non legal issue but we should also retain a bigger picture perspective.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

Just clarifying, not criticising ...

Are we even 100% sure it was an illegal bike? The reporting is so scanty it is difficult to tell. The prosecutor has alleged it was but we don't really know his grounds. The only statement I have seen reported was on the grounds it was a bike that could go more than 15.5 mph ... no mention of assisted speed (which doesn't make it illegal). It is more likely a reporter mistake than a prosecutor mistake; but I'm not 100% sure.

He's being charged on 3 counts: causing death by careless driving, causing death while uninsured and causing death while unlicensed. None of those charges could be brought if the bike was legal.

It's not a legal bike.

 

[soundwave]

Harlem Electric-Bike Rider Is Fourth to Die in Crash in New York City This Year

Harlem Electric-Bike Rider Is Fourth to Die in Crash in New York City This Year

A rider of an electric-powered bicycle has died days after he collided with an elderly man walking in Manhattan’s Central Park.

www.wsj.com

and what do the police do about it same as here nothing the same as everywhere else, there is no point in laws that are unenforceable in the first place.

go on ebay and find a diy kit you cant change the speed limit and adjust the settings and if there not legal why are they even getting past customs same as scooters hover boards and dead people from china.

Mobility scooter crashes killed 14 people last year

MOBILITY scooter crashes killed 14 people last year — up from just one five years ago. A further 61 incidents were classed as “serious”, with 44 pedestrians injured by the electric buggies. Figures…

www.thesun.co.uk

The Department for Transport said: “We urge mobility scooter users to get training to ensure that they can steer and control the vehicle properly.”

 

[flecc]

go on ebay and find a diy kit you cant change the speed limit and adjust the settings and if there not legal why are they even getting past customs

It's not illegal to sell vehicles that can't be used on the roads since there are some legal places they can be used.

Vehicle illegality is only about usage, never about supply.
.

 

[soundwave]

Vehicle illegality is only about usage, never about supply.

and that is why its like a dog chasing its tail you can never win no matter what the law says the option is there to brake it.


i now need id to buy a small kitchen knife from tesco yet i can go to baq and buy a chain saw and a axe with no id.

and if i go on milweb i can buy one of these for 150k

 

[Wicky]

and that is why its like a dog chasing its tail you can never win no matter what the law says the option is there to brake it.


i now need id to buy a small kitchen knife from tesco yet i can go to baq and buy a chain saw and a axe with no id.

and if i go on milweb i can buy one of these for 150kView attachment 32639

And you'll find it won't have a working gun and to drive it on the road you'll need to take a tank driving test

Guy Martin takes his tank driving test

Drives a tank but doesn't know his traffic lights...

www.visordown.com