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

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
Lance Dopestrong
Posts: 668
Joined: 18 Sep 2014, 1:52pm

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

Postby Lance Dopestrong » 13 Sep 2018, 7:59pm

Postboxer wrote: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.


Yes, it would then become a motor vehicle, subject to the same licencing and documentation requirements as any other motorbike/moped, depending on max speed and weight. If that is indeed the case (and I must stress we don't know that) then the speed at which it is travelling is immaterial, it's a motor vehicle.
https://themediocrecyclist.home.blog
Self employed MIAS L5.B Instructor.
Warwickshire Lowland Rescue Bike lead.
IPMBA member.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 8312
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Woman struck by hit and run cyclist dies

Postby Cunobelin » 13 Sep 2018, 8:08pm

mjr wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:
mjr wrote: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".


Rubbish ... the examples you have chosen to edit out , unequivocally prove that this is not the case.

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! ;-)


Struck by "Baseball Bat" gives 8,810,000 matches, and a "struck by a tennis racquet" gives 523.000 matches, so you are far more likely to be struck by sports equipment but does that prove anything?


Also the criteria has been changed from "will not" to "don't always?"

Also changed to exclude all other vehicle accidents apart from vans or lorries.

The fact remains is that the original criteria are untrue, and the statement that changing the criteria to suit a personal agenda Is at least rather desperate and at worse less than honest

wjhall
Posts: 45
Joined: 1 Sep 2014, 8:46am

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

Postby wjhall » 17 Sep 2018, 11:40am

kwackers wrote:[...
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'
Last edited by wjhall on 17 Sep 2018, 12:31pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 9223
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

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

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 17 Sep 2018, 11:58am

Hi,
No surprise there, motoway -
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... accidents/

But who surfing media are interested in stats.
Sorry to digress.
Priority Is Still 500K In 24......Just Dreaming..............Stay Focused Guys And Keep Sharp.....
You'll Find Me At The Top Of a Hill...............Somewhere

brynpoeth
Posts: 7915
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

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

Postby brynpoeth » 17 Sep 2018, 4:41pm

What rubbish, an expert explains that following too close is mostly unintentional, most of us do it without realising :(
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott

kwackers
Posts: 12138
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

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

Postby kwackers » 17 Sep 2018, 4:47pm

brynpoeth wrote:What rubbish, an expert explains that following too close is mostly unintentional, most of us do it without realising :(

I think he's right.
That I (and presumably you) make a conscious effort to leave space doesn't mean most folk do.

Folk don't think, most of the behaviour I see on the road is down to a lack of thought. When someone is daydreaming the monkey's in charge.

Hanlon's Razor applies.

robing
Posts: 896
Joined: 7 Sep 2014, 9:11am

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

Postby robing » 17 Sep 2018, 7:16pm

I've been saying this for years. Worst offenders are lorries through roadworks where is is mandatory 50mph limit. They drive right up your ars@, so dangerous.

brynpoeth
Posts: 7915
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

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

Postby brynpoeth » 17 Sep 2018, 7:38pm

kwackers wrote:
brynpoeth wrote:What rubbish, an expert explains that following too close is mostly unintentional, most of us do it without realising :(

I think he's right.
That I (and presumably you) make a conscious effort to leave space doesn't mean most folk do.

Folk don't think, most of the behaviour I see on the road is down to a lack of thought. When someone is daydreaming the monkey's in charge.

Hanlon's Razor applies.

I think they do it deliberately, truck drivers certainly do
But *why* anyone breaks the law is irrelevant
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott

User avatar
Lance Dopestrong
Posts: 668
Joined: 18 Sep 2014, 1:52pm

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

Postby Lance Dopestrong » 17 Sep 2018, 8:06pm

brynpoeth wrote:What rubbish, an expert explains that following too close is mostly unintentional, most of us do it without realising :(


He has no expertise or qualifications. He's simply a talking head for Highwaymen England.
https://themediocrecyclist.home.blog
Self employed MIAS L5.B Instructor.
Warwickshire Lowland Rescue Bike lead.
IPMBA member.

kwackers
Posts: 12138
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

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

Postby kwackers » 17 Sep 2018, 8:20pm

brynpoeth wrote:I think they do it deliberately, truck drivers certainly do
But *why* anyone breaks the law is irrelevant

By deliberate you assume they make a conscious effort, but that's not necessarily true. I doubt they drive along thinking "oh, I'll just get a bit closer to that truck in front".
No, like pavement parking and loads of other things it's a force of habit, done mostly without thought.

Claiming that "why" folk break the law is irrelevant is wrong.
In this case it's simplistic and pulling a few over will be enough to override the monkey and get the brain engaged for the rest, but for some things without understanding you can't fix it.
Dangerous dogs, gun laws are two examples that spring instantly to mind.