Woman struck by hit-and-run cyclist in Dalston dies - BBC

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
I have said it before, you bet that the BBC aren't reading these posts.

I posted about an elderly gent killed in collision with a van IIRC, they quickly changed their headlines, IIRC the driver was prosecuted.

[NickWi]

Assuming that the CCTV footage which was circulating is pukka, then there seems little prospect of the rider being prosecuted for anything to do with the crash. The deceased appeared to run out into the road unexpectedly and with no obvious attempt to look out for approaching traffic and the rider seemed to be riding in a normal manner. There's a suggestion that the bike wasn't street-legal but I'm unclear of the extent to which that might have made a difference.

I entirely agree with you on this but the video does seem to show the e-bike rider going quite fast (compared to the first cycling in the video anyway) and obviously isn't pedelling. Now I know that doesn't make him guilty, but it's enought to raise suspicion, and the Police are obliged to follow up those suspicions. I presume the Police have impounded his bike as evidence and you can bet your wages packet on it they're going over it with a fine tooth comb, ebike setting and all. Ditto for them doing time & distance study establish his speed.

For the sake of all of us I hope his e-bike hadn't be tampered with and all the brakes etc were fully legit. Despite the fact the CCTV clearly shows the woman dashing into the road with the lights againster her, the haters will be looking at any excuse to hammer us once again.

[thirdcrank]

... I entirely agree with you on this but the video does seem to show the e-bike rider going quite fast (compared to the first cycling in the video anyway) and obviously isn't pedelling. Now I know that doesn't make him guilty, but it's enought to raise suspicion, and the Police are obliged to follow up those suspicions. I presume the Police have impounded his bike as evidence and you can bet your wages packet on it they're going over it with a fine tooth comb, ebike setting and all. Ditto for them doing time & distance study establish his speed.

For the sake of all of us I hope his e-bike hadn't be tampered with and all the brakes etc were fully legit. Despite the fact the CCTV clearly shows the woman dashing into the road with the lights againster her, the haters will be looking at any excuse to hammer us once again.

I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be an investigation and I wouldn't normally draw any conclusions from fragments of evidence but the BBC here has done a shallow cut-and-paste report which is either deliberately trying to raise the indignation levels or is by somebody too stupid to see that.

[the_twin]

A couple of observations. Firstly there are likely to very few cases which result in a conviction for causing death by dangerous cycling. It seems somewhat unnecessary therefore to oppose such legislation at the risk of giving ammunition to the anti-cycling lobby. Second illegally modified ebikes are likely to pose the biggest risk to other people on bikes if they are ridden at excess speed on bike paths, towpaths and the like where there is limited room to avoid a head on collision. Action by the authorities to get such machines out of circulation would therefore be welcome.

[thirdcrank]

... Action by the authorities to get such machines out of circulation would therefore be welcome.

Let's agree that prevention is better than detection. Unfortunately, the authorities failed to tackle track bikes which don't to meet the braking regs - something anybody could spot - so it's not easy to see how something presumably less obvious like this would be spotted.

A timely check of the tipper lorry's brakes at Bath might have saved the lives of Mitzi Steady, Robert Parker, Philip Allen and Stephen Vaughan. Count the number of motor vehicles being used with several lights out - in itself a minor matter - and you will have a clue about the numbers of poorly-maintained vehicles on the road.

A substantial part of the cutbacks has been carried by traffic enforcement. There's a strong argument for saying that calls for heavier sentencing for any offence are the result of a failure in prevention.

[meic]

It would be interesting if the cyclist/motorcyclist could theoretically in a future case be charged with both motorvehicle offences because the bike was modified to the point of no longer being classified as a cycle and of the proposed new cycling offences simultaneously!
I dont suppose the legal system would allow that but the public response is going down that line.

[gaz]

... Count the number of motor vehicles being used with several lights out - in itself a minor matter - and you will have a clue about the numbers of poorly-maintained vehicles on the road.

We've got stats, 2015/16, 36.8% of cars failed their MOT at the first attempt, 4.9% due to brake defects.

[kwackers]

I entirely agree with you on this but the video does seem to show the e-bike rider going quite fast (compared to the first cycling in the video anyway) and obviously isn't pedelling.

Neither cyclist looks to be going that fast to me.
As for not pedalling, I frequently find myself stopping because due to the extra weight ebikes can roll for Britain.
In the circumstances shown, I may well stop pedalling as I find myself catching up with a cyclist in front of me.

[thirdcrank]

... We've got stats, 2015/16, 36.8% of cars failed their MOT at the first attempt, 4.9% due to brake defects.

Any data for vehicles which aren't put in for a test at all? Nobody has a clue, I suspect.

[mjr]

I see you pick at only that one point, so do you agree that the BBC is biased to claim the walker was "struck by" the cyclist when they will not use that language when anyone (walker or cyclist) is run over?

No I don't agree..... simply because it is an untrue statement

It is clearly true. I linked one example and there are many others. More often than not, driver-excusing language is used, isn't it? In general, they will not use "struck by" when it's a cyclist who is hit: the cyclist is "in <VEHICLE> crash" or "in collision with".

By the way, there are only 258 matches for "struck by lorry" on the BBC compared to 1770 for "struck by lightning" - you're more likely to be struck by lightning than a lorry according to the BBC!

[mjr]

... We've got stats, 2015/16, 36.8% of cars failed their MOT at the first attempt, 4.9% due to brake defects.

Any data for vehicles which aren't put in for a test at all? Nobody has a clue, I suspect.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new- ... es-in-beta says 28% of vehicles have no current MOT. I just reread that three times because it's so much higher than I expected but I don't think I've misread it.

2 out of 7 motorists are irresponsible [inappropriate word removed] gambling with everyone's lives. How was this not front-page news?

[thirdcrank]

I can think of various reasons why a car may have no current MOT off road under a SORN being one, and there are various other exceptions, but it's still very significant. Let's remember the MIB is forever publicising the cost of picking up the tab for crashes involving uninsured and/or unidentified drivers.

Somebody (irc?) linked to some figures for ANPR alarms to which the police did not respond.

[Postboxer]

If it's a 'vehicle' which falls outside e-bike regulations, does it then become a motorbike or something else? Therefore does any offence come under motorcycle regulations rather than 'furious cycling' and the like?

If the cycle was adapted outside of e-bike regulations, to allow it to be powered faster than 15mph or powered whilst not pedalling, does it make any difference in this instance if it was still travelling at a reasonable speed that a human powered cycle could have been going on that same road, other than the cycle weighing more, but a human only powered e-bike could have been going that fast too. Essentially, will it come down to if the brakes were sufficient to slow the bike, although there doesn't seem to have been much opportunity to have applied them looking at the CCTV footage.

[yakdiver]

If the cycle was adapted outside of e-bike regulations, to allow it to be powered faster than 15mph or powered whilst not pedalling,

If the said bike is pre 2016 it can have a throttle.

[thirdcrank]

If it's a 'vehicle' which falls outside e-bike regulations, does it then become a motorbike or something else? Therefore does any offence come under motorcycle regulations rather than 'furious cycling' and the like? ...

A very good point.

189 Certain vehicles not to be treated as motor vehicles.
(1)
For the purposes of the Road Traffic Acts—
...
(c) an electrically assisted pedal cycle of such a class as may be prescribed by regulations so made, ..

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/189
I take that to mean that it's a mechanically propelled vehicle if it's outside the regulations. Here they are:-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015 ... 024_en.pdf

It's going to depend on a technical examination of the machine. If it's outside those regulations and, therefore a mechanically propelled vehicle it would presumably be subject to the law relating to mechanically propelled vehicles, ie motorcycles.

PS FWIW, Furious cycling is actually "driving a carriage" so it might apply to any vehicle.