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.
Assuming the video on the Sun website (1) shows the incident in question, the cyclist was about twice as far as the pedestrian from the impact point when she started her dash from the kerb. So we can guess he was riding twice as fast as she was running, meaning not unusually fast. She is acting like someone who knows they are crossing against the lights. This seems to be the general view of those with sharp enough eyes to pick the lights out, and is presumably what the Sun means by the lights being green.
She strikes the bike at the front, more or less from the side.
So we start with an assault on the cyclist by the pedestrian, knocking him off and wrecking his machine. After this he gets up and staggers off bloody and confused, carrying his damaged bicycle. Hardly a hit and run.
As he walks away someone touches him briefly on the arm. We cannot tell whether this is to offer help with his injuries or to remonstrate with him. The latter would make the contact technically an assault.
In the cyclists position I might very well have left the scene before worse happened, either that or remonstrated with my assailant and her supporters, rather like Mr Alliston in the Briggs case. My fight or flight reflex is rather unpredictable. In this case I think I would have been too shattered to do anything but stagger off.
The cyclist may be coasting, but as Kwackers has already pointed out, ebikes no more stop instantly when you stop pedalling than ordinary bikes, although the general public seem to think so. Coasting on the approach to a crossing could suggest a careful attitude.
Third Crank appears to have quoted the laws that place e-bikes under the same regulations as cyclists, despite them being obviously mechanically propelled, which presumably exempts them from the stop and report requirements applied to mechanically propelled vehicles.
He has obviously complied with the stop part of any regulations. As a cyclist or horse rider he would seem to have no further obligations, in fact probably not even that one. If he had been a driver he would be required to report the incident within 24 hours.
The Sun seems to have done a good job of reporting the essential facts, probably because it has its roots in the print newspaper world, unlike a lot of the newer sources who seem to be getting up the usual hue and cry. This comes close to demonstrating a public belief that you should be able to knock a cyclist off his bicycle, and then have him prosecuted, which is a useful demonstration of the reality that cycling is not popular in the UK, but rather depressing, for its illogic if nothing else. I suppose one can expect little better in the land of the 52%.
A law against jay walking, at least as far as hitting cyclists goes, would be a more logical response to the recent incidents than a dangerous cycling law. Jay walking into motor vehicles tends to be self punishing.
(1) https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7136632/c ... ike-crash/
(2) (2) R -v- Charlie Alliston, 'Sentencing remarks of Her Honour Judge Wendy Joseph QC'