I still don't think there's a definition of Wanton & Furious, except there appears a 'common thread' running through the cases where the defendants have been convicted - that of having defective or missing brakes and missing (not legally required) bells! There are many issues here, one being that if the law (pertaining to cyclist) was clarified, maybe only by removing the 'motorised vehicles' part of existing legislation, there may be more clarity. It's about as clear as mud though.
I put forward a scenario........ I sometimes pedal along a coastal road where it has become apparent that some pedestrians either think the road is pedestrianised to the exclusion of all traffic, or are otherwise distracted. When I cycle along it (at, I would suggest is
sedate 10-15MPH) I am aware and ready to have to brake because of someone leaping into the road without warning. If one day a pedestrian collides with me, would I face the 'wanton & furious' charge? Am I expected to be ringing a bell continuously to warn the pedestrians - I consider 'covering the brake' to be better use of my hand.
Witness comments from pedestrians (non-cyclist motorists) could be 1) he had no bell. 2) He was riding very fast - a lot faster than I would ride 3) He had drop bars - it's a racing bike, so he was racing.
Discuss.
FP (maybe I should use a different alias
but It refers to my rate of pedalling a low gear rather than my speed along the road)