# Ebike court case



## Blue Hills (26 Feb 2020)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51647068

be interesting to see what happens here.

If I've read it right it seems that the lights may have been in favour of the the bike but that it may have been tinkered with.

Definitely a fair few tinkered with ones around London.


----------



## jowwy (26 Feb 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51647068
> 
> be interesting to see what happens here.
> 
> ...


Yes the bike was fitted with illegal motor and throttle......all this was reported 18mths ago. Yes it’s in court today, but its been wrongly quoted as being an ebike.....rather than an unregistered moped


----------



## classic33 (26 Feb 2020)

To be fair it does say that it was pointed out in court.
_"The court heard Mr Hanlon's bike was capable of going double that speed and as such should have been categorised as a motorbike."_


----------



## ianrauk (26 Feb 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51647068
> 
> be interesting to see what happens here.
> 
> ...


I would say the majority of ebikes I come across in London are deristricted


----------



## jowwy (26 Feb 2020)

ianrauk said:


> I would say the majority of ebikes I come across in London are deristricted


Bloody buggers.......why can’t they just ride legal ones


----------



## HMS_Dave (26 Feb 2020)

Clearly I muppet. Unfortunately this will be seen as a loutish cyclist rather than an illegal motorist in the media (daily mail brigade) which is clearly the case. Sympathies with the poor woman and her family...


----------



## PK99 (26 Feb 2020)

HMS_Dave said:


> Clearly I muppet. Unfortunately this will be seen as a loutish cyclist rather than an illegal motorist in the media (daily mail brigade) which is clearly the case. Sympathies with the poor woman and her family...



He was a loutish cyclist. The cycle was illegal, but it was a cycle.


----------



## Slick (26 Feb 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51647068
> 
> be interesting to see what happens here.
> 
> ...


I got the thing about the lights but unsure as to where you reckoned they were tinkered with?


----------



## HMS_Dave (26 Feb 2020)

PK99 said:


> He was a loutish cyclist. The cycle was illegal, but it was a cycle.


The law is clear, it is referred to as such in this particular case as an unregistered moped. Which is what it is. He is being had for no insurance while we're at it. It was suggested that it could do double the speed limit of lawful ebike so that's 30mph. That is moped territory. It may look like a bicycle and I remember some mopeds as a kid had pedals, it still is lawfully classed as a moped.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (26 Feb 2020)

PK99 said:


> He was a loutish cyclist. The cycle was illegal, but it was a cycle.



Nope he’s a loutish moped rider. Mopeds have pedals as well you know that’s what the second bit in the name refers to, the first bit being motor. Yep defo a moped.


----------



## Blue Hills (27 Feb 2020)

Slick said:


> I got the thing about the lights but unsure as to where you reckoned they were tinkered with?


Bike tinkered with, not the traffic lights.


----------



## Blue Hills (27 Feb 2020)

jowwy said:


> Yes the bike was fitted with illegal motor and throttle......all this was reported 18mths ago. Yes it’s in court today, but its been wrongly quoted as being an ebike.....rather than an unregistered moped


Whether it was a modified ebike or an unregistered moped will be decided by the court i assume?


----------



## Pale Rider (27 Feb 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> Whether it was a modified ebike or an unregistered moped will be decided by the court i assume?



Not really because it's not relevant to the charges.

The most serious charge is death by careless driving, for which the prosecution has to prove only two things.

He caused the death, and his driving/riding was careless, defined as falling below the standard of a careful and competent driver, or a momentary lapse of attention.

The type of vehicle doesn't come into it, only that it must be mechanically propelled, which for this purpose includes an electric motor.

The other two charges are simply that he had no licence for that type of vehicle and that he had no insurance - again nothing to do with the legality or otherwise of the bike.

The derestricted nature of the bike has been given in evidence, or at least, opened by the prosecutor which means he has evidence of it.

Likely to be a statement from a suitably qualified electrical engineer or traffic cop, which probably won't be challenged - assuming they got to examine the bike.

He left the scene with it, so may have tried to tinker or dispose of the bike before handing himself in.

The prosecutor has also mentioned two other strands of evidence he intends to present.

Another cyclist who said the defendant barrelled past him at high speed, and CCTV showing him going at speed without pedalling.

All that is trying to prove is he was going fast, which the prosecutor hopes will convince the jury his driving was careless.


----------



## CXRAndy (27 Feb 2020)

Hopefully some separate and clear legislation will be introduced to allow a definitive S Pedelec rules, instead of patching onto moped legislation


----------



## Pale Rider (27 Feb 2020)

CXRAndy said:


> Hopefully some separate and clear legislation will be introduced to allow a definitive S Pedelec rules, instead of patching onto moped legislation



Agreed, currently it's a mess.

This trial in Belgium is looking for a way forward.

https://cyclingindustry.news/leva-eu-makes-case-for-softening-speed-pedelec-rules-in-europe/


----------



## MrGrumpy (27 Feb 2020)

jowwy said:


> Yes the bike was fitted with illegal motor and throttle......all this was reported 18mths ago. Yes it’s in court today, but its been wrongly quoted as being an ebike.....rather than an unregistered moped



Is there a link to the original report ?? It seems clear in what is written that it was a modified ebike ? However because of that it would then be classed as a motorbike and would require licence/insurance etc. However it seems that there is a bit more detail available elsewhere ?


----------



## Blue Hills (27 Feb 2020)

Pale Rider said:


> Not really because it's not relevant to the charges.
> 
> The most serious charge is death by careless driving, for which the prosecution has to prove only two things.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the reply.
I thought riding a derestricted ebike was a crime. Are you saying it's not and that folk have to be caught by not having a licence for a different type of vehicle?
Why hasn't he been charged with anything relating to the vehicle? Seems odd.

Typo corrected to "deristricted"


----------



## Pale Rider (27 Feb 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> I thought riding a restricted ebike was a crime. Are you saying it's not and that folk have to be caught by not having a licence for a different type of vehicle?
> Why hasn't he been charged with anything relating to the vehicle? Seems odd.



Using an illegal ebike on the road otherwise responsibly is a construction and use offence which would only be dealt with by a fine.

This defendant has killed someone, so that trumps other possible charges.

He is charged with the more unusual offences of causing death while driving unlicensed and causing death while driving uninsured.

They both carry a maximum of two years.

The death by careless is the most serious which has a maximum of five years.


----------



## Smudge (27 Feb 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> I thought riding a derestricted ebike was a crime. Are you saying it's not and that folk have to be caught by not having a licence for a different type of vehicle?
> Why hasn't he been charged with anything relating to the vehicle? Seems odd.
> 
> Typo corrected to "deristricted"



Its not a crime to have a non road legal ebike, as its perfectly legal to use them on private land.
The offences that you can be charged with, are when you use them on the road. Had he not hit and killed this woman and was just stopped by the police, he could have been charged with riding with no licence and insurance. As it is, it seems they've lumped this in with causing death on a motor vehicle without a licence & insurance.


----------



## Smudge (27 Feb 2020)

This ebike rider, that shouldn't have even been on the road, not only hit and killed this woman. But then the coward tried to escape from the scene, taking the evidence of his non road legal ebike with him. Caring only about not getting nicked, without a thought for the poor woman he hit.
I hope they throw the book at him and he gets the maximum sentence allowed.


----------



## jowwy (27 Feb 2020)

Smudge said:


> This ebike rider, that shouldn't have even been on the road, not only hit and killed this woman. But then the coward tried to escape from the scene, taking the evidence of his non road legal ebike with him. Caring only about not getting nicked, without a thought for the poor woman he hit.
> I hope they throw the book at him and he gets the maximum sentence allowed.


as far as i am aware, he didnt take the bike with him, it was dumped on the roadside. if he had, then no one would know it was an ebike or illegal ebike


----------



## Smudge (27 Feb 2020)

jowwy said:


> as far as i am aware, he didnt take the bike with him, it was dumped on the roadside. if he had, then no one would know it was an ebike or illegal ebike



He did take the bike with him, he ran off carrying it. It was only when he was further away did he dump it.
As you know, because of the heavy weight of ebikes, they are hard to carry for any meaningful distance. This one being non road legal will have an even heavier motor.


----------



## PK99 (27 Feb 2020)

jowwy said:


> as far as i am aware, he didnt take the bike with him, it was dumped on the roadside. if he had, then no one would know it was an ebike or illegal ebike



There is CCTV of the incident showing the impact through to him carrying the bicycle away from the scene. It was found dumped a mile away.

Btw it looks indistinguishable from a normal MTB. 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7238430/woman-killed-dalston-kingsland-road-electric-bike/


----------



## jowwy (27 Feb 2020)

PK99 said:


> There is CCTV of the incident showing the impact through to him carrying the bicycle away from the scene. It was found dumped a mile away.
> 
> Btw it looks indistinguishable from a normal MTB.
> 
> https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7238430/woman-killed-dalston-kingsland-road-electric-bike/


im not clicking on a link that is quoting the SUN newspaper.............


----------



## Pale Rider (27 Feb 2020)

PK99 said:


> There is CCTV of the incident showing the impact through to him carrying the bicycle away from the scene. It was found dumped a mile away.
> 
> Btw it looks indistinguishable from a normal MTB.
> 
> https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7238430/woman-killed-dalston-kingsland-road-electric-bike/



Looks like a pringled front wheel which is why he had to carry it.

No sign of a large battery pack, but he wouldn't need one if he was only commuting a few miles.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (27 Feb 2020)

jowwy said:


> im not clicking on a link that is quoting the SUN newspaper.............


I agree - but in this case it seems to be the only actual CCTV of the incident so I held my nose and had a look

quite informative - he was going very fast for a bike - and she had quite a long way to walk/run to get up to him - but he made absolutely no attempt to slow down of swerve - I can only assume he was distracted by a phone or something

Although she did move quite quickly!
In any case he should not have been on the road on that thing - and whatever he was riding he should have been paying FAR more attention to the road

in this case 2 people were not paying attention and their paths crossed in a bad way - but in the end the one on the faster, more powerful and more potentially deadly object has to bear the most responsibly
In the same way that if a car and bike collide - you know the rest

In the end - sympathy to the family of the poor woman who died


----------



## MichaelW2 (2 Mar 2020)

So the verdict is in on the case of a "cyclist" charged with causing death by careless driving, and driving without a licence, on an illegally quick electric motorbike.

The only thing this has to do with cycling is that the electric motorbike started life as a bicycle before being illegally modified.

I am baffled how this particular uninsured individual was given not guilty verdict. Can anyone enlighten?


----------



## icowden (2 Mar 2020)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51707616

I suspect that the aquittal is on technicalities. It would be interesting to see more detail.


----------



## steveindenmark (2 Mar 2020)

A real travisty. But like you say, probably on technicalities.


----------



## steveindenmark (2 Mar 2020)

It would be guesswork.


----------



## Bromptonaut (2 Mar 2020)

Can you link to a report of case please?


----------



## Beebo (2 Mar 2020)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51707616


Here’s the story


----------



## Beebo (2 Mar 2020)

I presume that the same verdict would have been given whether he was on a motorcycle or pedal cycle. 
Either way it sounds like the pedestrian walked into the road. Criminal liability is a far higher bar than civil liability. We know that from loads of cases involving cars.


----------



## Drago (2 Mar 2020)

I suspect there'll be a change in the law to shut this down if there are many more cases like that.


----------



## numbnuts (2 Mar 2020)

now where did I put that bigger E-motor


----------



## winjim (2 Mar 2020)

MichaelW2 said:


> So the verdict is in on the case of a "cyclist" charged with causing death by careless driving, and driving without a licence, on an illegally quick electric motorbike.
> 
> The only thing this has to do with cycling is that the electric motorbike started life as a bicycle before being illegally modified.
> 
> I am baffled how this particular uninsured individual was given not guilty verdict. Can anyone enlighten?


He had right of way.


----------



## winjim (2 Mar 2020)

It's like deja vu in here


----------



## Blue Hills (2 Mar 2020)

winjim said:


> He had right of way.


I don't think that is an absolute right.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (2 Mar 2020)

The wording of the article - including the quotes from the court - suggest that the main points were
He was going in a straight line along a straight road in clear visibility - the pedestrian basically walked/ran into him
He reacted quickly suggesting that he WAS paying attention

OK - from the CCTV I have seen that is not how I saw it - however she did leg it across the road and into him
I guess there was other evidence in the court - of a better view of the incident

I would still think he should be prosecuted for using the bike anyway - but I assume the court had a good reason for saying the actual collision was not his fault


----------



## Pale Rider (2 Mar 2020)

The prosecution failed to convince the jury his riding was careless - below the standard of a competent driver or that he displayed a momentary lack of attention.

In other words, they accepted the defence barrister's submission: "His reactions were quicker than many confident and careful drivers in the time it took him to react to her stepping out, which suggests he was keeping a good look out."


----------



## Drago (2 Mar 2020)

Dreadful prosecution lawyer - one of the things a "careful" driver does is adapt their speed, positioning and observation to the environment, so if one of those pesky pedestrians does do something unexpected they can take avoiding action. A halfway decent prosecutor could easily have shot down what is a fairly vague and non specific defence, and I've seen that very defence screwed over first hand in court more than once.

I'm surprised as well he got not guilty on the licence and insurance charges, when so many other people caught riding simiarly modified e-bikes have been successfully fingered for it.

But hey ho. All it needs is an indifferent prosecutor, or one not especially well versed in the sphere of law at hand, and a mad/indifferent/gullible jury and stuff like this happens.


----------



## mjr (2 Mar 2020)

More reporting but no more sources yet at https://road.cc/content/news/271675...ing-london-pedestrians-death-careless-driving

That repeats the BBC report that he was not guilty of death-by-careless and driving-unlicensed, but I thought there was also an uninsured-motoring charge - do we know what happened to that?

This all feels a bit like a cyclist who did a few illegal but widespread mods has actually benefitted from the shoot that usually allows motorists to get away with killing cyclists too easily. Basically, the courts do not uphold the "Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear" from the Highway Code. I'm very conflicted about this case!


----------



## Phaeton (2 Mar 2020)

Maybe the victim wasn't well connected so didn't warrant the proper verdict, if only she had influencal friends


----------



## Smudge (2 Mar 2020)

I'm gobsmacked that he was acquitted.
It certainly won't go any way to put off users of non road legal ebikes to carry on riding them wherever they please.


----------



## Blue Hills (2 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> More reporting but no more sources yet at https://road.cc/content/news/271675...ing-london-pedestrians-death-careless-driving
> 
> That repeats the BBC report that he was not guilty of death-by-careless and driving-unlicensed, but I thought there was also an uninsured-motoring charge - do we know what happened to that?
> 
> This all feels a bit like a cyclist who did a few illegal but widespread mods has actually benefitted from the shoot that usually allows motorists to get away with killing cyclists too easily. Basically, the courts do not uphold the "Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear" from the Highway Code. I'm very conflicted about this case!


Don't understand why you are conflicted unless you think "now it"s our turn to flatten people" . No difference between speeding unlicenced irresponsible folk guiding illegally modified vehicles in my book, whether on four or two wheels. The defence appears to have been based on the self serving junk some drivers tell themselves about their oh so wonderful driving skills.


----------



## jowwy (2 Mar 2020)

Drago said:


> Dreadful prosecution lawyer - one of the things a "careful" driver does is adapt their speed, positioning and observation to the environment, so if one of those pesky pedestrians does do something unexpected they can take avoiding action. A halfway decent prosecutor could easily have shot down what is a fairly vague and non specific defence, and I've seen that very defence screwed over first hand in court more than once.
> 
> I'm surprised as well he got not guilty on the licence and insurance charges, when so many other people caught riding simiarly modified e-bikes have been successfully fingered for it.
> 
> But hey ho. All it needs is an indifferent prosecutor, or one not especially well versed in the sphere of law at hand, and a mad/indifferent/gullible jury and stuff like this happens.


So if she ran out in front of a car doing 30mph....how quick would the driver react and reduce speed before hitting her???


----------



## Cycleops (2 Mar 2020)

I wonder if the outcome would have been the same for the pedestrian if he had been riding a road legal e-bike?


----------



## Pale Rider (2 Mar 2020)

Slagging off the prosecutor may be unfair.

The law accepts there are circumstances in which a driver may hit a pedestrian.

Essentially, if the pedestrian darts out in front of a moving vehicle , as happened in this case.

It seems the jury found the rider had no realistic prospect of missing the pedestrian, and accordingly, acquitted him.


----------



## winjim (2 Mar 2020)

Cycleops said:


> I wonder if the outcome would have been the same for the pedestrian if he had been riding a road legal e-bike?


Wrong question. What would the outcome have been had he been riding a legal, licensed, insured moped or scooter?


----------



## mjr (2 Mar 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> Don't understand why you are conflicted unless you think "now it"s our turn to flatten people" .


Because it's nice to see a cyclist get off for a change but why this one this of all!



> No difference between speeding unlicenced irresponsible folk guiding illegally modified vehicles in my book, whether on four or two wheels. The defence appears to have been based on the self serving junk some drivers tell themselves about their oh so wonderful driving skills.


Yes, the vast majority of drivers think themselves above average. To be fair, I do too but that's partly because what I see from the bike makes me think mostly-competent is above average, rather than thinking I'm much good!


----------



## classic33 (2 Mar 2020)

Would it have made any difference in how its being viewed, if she'd been hit and killed by a car doing thirty in a twenty zone? 

He was 10mph over the speed limit.


----------



## Phaeton (3 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> Because it's nice to see a cyclist get off for a change but why this one this of all!


I beg to differ, there is nothing nice about this


----------



## Smudge (3 Mar 2020)

He was riding a non road legal vehicle, had no licence or insurance, was riding 30% over the speed limit and hits and kills a pedestrian. Yet gets off scot free.
If that isn't a travesty of justice, i don't know what is.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (3 Mar 2020)

Was the question asked what the outcome would have been had he been travelling within the speed limits?


----------



## Phaeton (3 Mar 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> Was the question asked what the outcome would have been had he been travelling within the speed limits?


Well presumably had be seen travelling 50% slower he wouldn't have been anywhere near the lady


----------



## Randy Butternubs (3 Mar 2020)

Hang on, I've lost track. Was there evidence given regarding his speed in the end? I thought the 30mph figure was a witness' estimate, and therefore fairly meaningless.


----------



## fossyant (3 Mar 2020)

Smudge said:


> He was riding a non road legal vehicle, had no licence or insurance, was riding 30% over the speed limit and hits and kills a pedestrian. Yet gets off scot free.
> If that isn't a travesty of justice, i don't know what is.



It's just wrong. Take in case the poor chap cycling a legal bike, under the speed limit, that hit the person using a phone - he got hammered on the civil case


----------



## Milkfloat (3 Mar 2020)

Surely he got off the careless charge because he was treated as a motorist, rather than a cyclist. 
Maybe he got off the legal vehicle, tax and insurance charges because there was no proof that is what he was riding at the time or Plod could not be bothered to get the bike tested. If I remember correctly he took the bike away from the scene and then dumped it, plenty of time for someone to have tamped with it, honest Guv.


----------



## Phaeton (3 Mar 2020)

fossyant said:


> It's just wrong. Take in case the poor chap cycling a legal bike, under the speed limit, that hit the person using a phone - he got hammered on the civil case


But he too was riding an illegal bike


----------



## Phaeton (3 Mar 2020)

Randy Butternubs said:


> Hang on, I've lost track. Was there evidence given regarding his speed in the end? I thought the 30mph figure was a witness' estimate, and therefore fairly meaningless.


Did you bother to read the first line? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51647068


----------



## fossyant (3 Mar 2020)

Phaeton said:


> But he too was riding an illegal bike



Ah was it no brakes ?


----------



## Randy Butternubs (3 Mar 2020)

Phaeton said:


> Did you bother to read the first line? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51647068



Yes, but wasn't that figure based soley on the single witness' statement mentioned in the article? Thought someone on here said that, and that the BBC article was therefore misreporting. People have a lot of trouble judging the speed of bicycles.

I'm not defending the cyclist, but if he was travelling at a normal bicycle speed then the issue becomes much less black and white.


----------



## Pale Rider (3 Mar 2020)

The prosecution had no evidence of speeding in the sense of a camera reading to give an accurate number.

What they had was the estimate of another cyclist.

They used that evidence in bid to prove the rider was riding carelessly - a careful and competent rider would not ride at that (estimated) speed in those circumstances.

It is likely the jury accepted he killed the pedestrian, so to find him not guilty they must have rejected the contention he was riding carelessly.


----------



## Notafettler (3 Mar 2020)

ianrauk said:


> I would say the majority of ebikes I come across in London are deristricted


Why would you want one that goes that fast. Surely London is to congested for it to be beneficial? 
I have feelings your statement has no basis in fact.


----------



## Notafettler (3 Mar 2020)

15 mph seems reasonable to me IF the person hasn't got a license. If he has and he wants to go faster get insurance.


----------



## Randy Butternubs (3 Mar 2020)

fossyant said:


> It's just wrong. Take in case the poor chap cycling a legal bike, under the speed limit, that hit the person using a phone - he got hammered on the civil case





Phaeton said:


> But he too was riding an illegal bike



This is regarding Hazeldean presumably? I thought he was riding a legal bike?


----------



## Notafettler (3 Mar 2020)

He was driving the equivalent of a motorcycle without qualification and no insurance. And to cap it all he left the scene knowing that the person was at probably badly injured. Someone tried to stop him but he still rode off. He handed himself into the police because he knew he was bound to get caught with all the cameras around. 
Clearly worthy of a decent sentence.


----------



## Pale Rider (3 Mar 2020)

Notafettler said:


> Clearly worthy of a decent sentence.



The jury begs to differ.

They only spent an hour considering the case after hearing all the evidence.

That they returned unanimous not guilty verdicts in a relatively short time suggests they thought the decision was clear cut.


----------



## ianrauk (3 Mar 2020)

Notafettler said:


> Why would you want one that goes that fast. Surely London is to congested for it to be beneficial?
> I have feelings your statement has no basis in fact.


Feel what you like.
I talk from experience of what I see on a daily SE London commute of 33 miles. Are you actually in London or experienced in cycling in London? It's looking like you aren't.


----------



## Notafettler (3 Mar 2020)

Pale Rider said:


> The jury begs to differ.
> 
> They only spent an hour considering the case after hearing all the evidence.
> 
> That they returned unanimous not guilty verdicts in a relatively short time suggests they thought the decision was clear cut.


I was thinking of the future court case ie driving with out a license no insurance and leaving the scene


----------



## Notafettler (3 Mar 2020)

ianrauk said:


> Feel what you like.
> I talk from experience of what I see on a daily SE London commute of 33 miles. Are you actually in London or experienced in cycling in London? It's looking like you aren't.


Correct definitely not in London. I just don't believe that the majority of power assist bikes have been "unrestricted "


----------



## ianrauk (3 Mar 2020)

Notafettler said:


> Correct definitely not in London. I just don't believe that the majority of power assist bikes have been "unrestricted "




London is nowhere nears as congested as you like to think it is. There are many bus lanes and cycle highways that make travelling by bike far quicker then motor transport.

Read again what I wrote. I actually said the majority of Ebikes in London THAT I COME ACROSS are unrestricted and I stand by that
To back that up, feel free to have a peruse of Bike Radar's SCR forum thread. You will see I'm not alone.


----------



## Pale Rider (3 Mar 2020)

Notafettler said:


> I was thinking of the future court case ie driving with out a license no insurance and leaving the scene



There cannot be a 'future court case'.

The prosecution get one go at charging from this incident.

Three charges were laid, the jury acquitted on all three, so that's the end of it.


----------



## Notafettler (3 Mar 2020)

They acquitted him on driving without a licence and insurance?


----------



## Notafettler (3 Mar 2020)

ianrauk said:


> London is nowhere nears as congested as you like to think it is. There are many bus lanes and cycle highways that make travelling by bike far quicker then motor transport.
> 
> Read again what I wrote. I actually said the majority of Ebikes in London THAT I COME ACROSS are unrestricted and I stand by that
> To back that up, feel free to have a peruse of Bike Radar's SCR forum thread. You will see I'm not alone.


I will take your word for it. I have just been a cider tasting and can't be bothered checking anything out.


----------



## Blue Hills (3 Mar 2020)

Notafettler said:


> I will take your word for it. I have just been a cider tasting and can't be bothered checking anything out.


i salute you for your honesty 
very refreshing (as I hope was the cider)
all the best.


----------



## icowden (3 Mar 2020)

Notafettler said:


> They acquitted him on driving without a licence and insurance?



Yes. But that could be as simple as something like the ebike not qualifying for a license and insurance therefore he can't be convicted of an offence.


----------



## Pale Rider (3 Mar 2020)

The ebike is categorised as a light moped, or it would be if it went through the long and complex single vehicle type approval process.

It therefore requires a moped licence to ride it, so he was in line for that charge.

However, the full charge is 'causing a death while driving a vehicle without having a licence'.

For that charge to be proved, there must be an element of careless driving.

The jury acquitted him of driving carelessly in the death by careless charge, so it would have been perverse to find him guilty of the riding without a licence charge.

Although they could have returned mixed verdicts if they wanted to.

The same chain of reasoning applies to the insurance charge.


----------



## icowden (4 Mar 2020)

Some very poor reporting by the beeb now that I look closely.

The second article says:-



> He was acquitted of causing death by careless driving and driving without a licence at the Old Bailey.



But the first article says the offences are:



> But he denies further charges of causing death while uninsured and causing death while unlicensed.
> The court heard he is contesting these because they require a fault in the driving which contributed to Ms Cihan's death.



So he was never charged with driving without a license, or driving an illegal e-bike. Instead CPS went for the more serious charges which they couldn't support in prosecution.


----------



## Notafettler (5 Mar 2020)

Blue Hills said:


> i salute you for your honesty
> very refreshing (as I hope was the cider)
> all the best.









Not me


----------



## Notafettler (5 Mar 2020)

Honest


----------



## the snail (7 Mar 2020)

classic33 said:


> Would it have made any difference in how its being viewed, if she'd been hit and killed by a car doing thirty in a twenty zone?
> 
> He was 10mph over the speed limit.


I don't think you can say he was breaking the speed limit. There is an assist limit of 15mph, but the speed limit on the road is 30mph, and there is no evidence that he was going faster than that, or for that matter any solid evidence of what speed he was doing.
It seems from the report that the jury accepted that he was riding in a similar manner to the traffic around him, and could not have reacted better and avoided the accident, so was not guilty of dangerous driving.
The thing that strikes me, looking at the pictures of the scene, is that really we shouldn't have traffic of any kind travelling at 20mph+ in close proximity to pedestrians, where people feel forced to run across the road. The whole urban environment is horrible for vulnerable road users and needs to be completely re-thought. Doubtless there have been countless similar incidents all over the country with little or no media attention.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (7 Mar 2020)

the snail said:


> I don't think you can say he was breaking the speed limit. There is an assist limit of 15mph, but the speed limit on the road is 30mph, and there is no evidence that he was going faster than that, or for that matter any solid evidence of what speed he was doing.
> It seems from the report that the jury accepted that he was riding in a similar manner to the traffic around him, and could not have reacted better and avoided the accident, so was not guilty of dangerous driving.
> The thing that strikes me, looking at the pictures of the scene, is that really we shouldn't have traffic of any kind travelling at 20mph+ in close proximity to pedestrians, where people feel forced to run across the road. The whole urban environment is horrible for vulnerable road users and needs to be completely re-thought. Doubtless there have been countless similar incidents all over the country with little or no media attention.


As far as I can see the speed limit was 20 mph - but I have not seen any information about how the speed of the bike was measured - it doesn;t seem to have been challenged by the defence (as far as I know) so it seems to have been accepted
Also - the crash seems to have been at a pedestrian crossing controlled by lights - which were green for the bike - so she had a safe alternative if she had pressed the button and waited for the lights to change.


----------



## Notafettler (7 Mar 2020)

Maybe of interest 
https://cyclingindustry.news/french-government-lead-on-e-bike-tuning-with-threat-of-e30000-fine/


----------



## mjr (11 Mar 2020)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> As far as I can see the speed limit was 20 mph - but I have not seen any information about how the speed of the bike was measured - it doesn;t seem to have been challenged by the defence (as far as I know) so it seems to have been accepted
> Also - the crash seems to have been at a pedestrian crossing controlled by lights - which were green for the bike - so she had a safe alternative if she had pressed the button and waited for the lights to change.


Any challenge from the defence is unlikely to be reported in the short articles I've seen, plus speed limits don't normally apply to bicycles, horses or runners anyway.


----------



## Drago (11 Mar 2020)

But this bike had been unlawfully converted to a light motorcycle, to which speed limits do apply.


----------



## Pale Rider (11 Mar 2020)

There was on evidence for a conviction for speeding, because that needs a recorded number.

What the prosecution did was use the evidence of the other cyclist 'he rattled past me' to say the rider was doing an excessive speed for the conditions.

The court is then invited to infer that such a rider is guilty of riding carelessly - his standard of riding was below that of a careful and competent driver.

Looks like the jury rejected that because you might think they accepted the other limb of the death by careless charge - he caused the death.


----------

