[Closed] Killer ebiker

Good last sentence from the Beeb to give a bit of context

Hmm, have you seen the video of it.  She stepped out into the road without looking, and it was as much her walking into the cyclist as the cyclist riding into her.

Wanton and furious driving innit. IANAL

Why are they still reporting it as 'she was struck by the cyclist'? - the video shows she ran straight into his path, and it was more that she collided with him, than he collided with her.

I suppose that wouldn't provoke as much outrage.

Its the hit and run bit that is interesting. Just WHY would you do that if you are innocent?

Maybe he was concussed, perhaps he feared the lynch-mob branding him a "killer e-biker"?

Its the hit and run bit that is interesting. Just WHY would you do that if you are innocent?

Exactly. No smoke without fire.

<insert Simpsons mob picture here>

Vid link?

Just WHY would you do that if you are innocent?

He didnt exactly hit and run. After she walked out in front of him he was around for at least another min or two.

The abandoning of the bike is odd but then as squadra says perhaps concussion. Certainly unlikely to be thinking completely straight.

unfortunately the Sun but shows her suddenly running out. Not sure I would have been able to dodge her.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7136632/cctv-video-dalston-hit-run-bike-crash/

I'm not a lawyer, but surely his defense will be that he has no recollection of the events, bolstered by a medical expert testifying that somebody suffering a concussion would be confused and might wander off without understanding what happened. The onus is on the prosecution to prove their case, but the video is really the only solid evidence and it shows the woman walking out in front of him without looking.

the video shows she ran straight into his path

Yeah, but notice the story almost immediately compares this to the Charlie Alliston case. Like the press have been waiting for another one like that. This is the nearest they've got, so if they include references to that story, people will get the 'evil cyclists' thing in their mind again.

^^^I think that video has been cut. I seem to remember seeing it without the actual impact being edited out.

anyone link to footage?

I think that video has been cut.

I am fairly certain saw a different one before but from a quick search that was the only one I could find. Think it is still clear enough who is to blame. Perhaps he can be done for leaving the scene or something but to try and blame him for the accident is nuts.

Hard to say from the video but there is another cyclist who goes through the crossing just before she runs out, and it does appear he is going considerably faster than the previous cyclist, so I think speed could be a factor here.  This will be particularly the case if the bike turns out to be chipped, which I’m sure is being investigated...

From that footage, it looks like she wanted to get run over

anyone link to footage?

Picture a woman, carrying some shopping, doing a little jog out into a wide road without looking. A cyclist, has nowhere to go and no time to brake, collides with her. That's about it. I'm sure there are people who see a different video from me.

I'm afraid it won't help anyone if 'we' blame the victim.

Any Cyclist has a responsibility to be riding at a speed commensurate with the prevailing conditions.

That means slow enough that he can stop if something happens. Given the scenario in the video linked above he should have been going slow enough to stop if a pedestrian suddenly ran in front of him - just the same as a car driver.

I assume then Jag, you can accurately estimate the distance to the pavement with your mark 1 eyeball, calculate the speed of someone running out in front of you thus how long it would take them to go from point a to point b on their vector and how long it would take you to brake.

I'm totally sure you could do that. Do you do that to everyone on the street? Like some kind of terminator?

Do you travel at 5mph everywhere? Just in case a suicidal person steps out in front of a blind corner?

I assume train drivers who kill them were going to fast for the conditions as well?

So by that then anywhere there is a pavement max speed of any vehicle/horse/thing should be approx. say...5mph just in case?

There does have to be some responsibility to be sensible in public places!!

[i]I’m afraid it won’t help anyone if ‘we’ blame the victim.[/i]

just the same as a car driver.

...Who would also have hit her. Maybe she was relying on hearing a car coming when she made her dash...

No opinions on here "help" anyone, in case you hadn't noticed.

<p>

Picture a woman, carrying some shopping, doing a little jog out into a wide road without looking. A cyclist, has nowhere to go and no time to brake, collides with her. That’s about it. I’m sure there are people who see a different video from me.

</p><p><em class="bbcode-em">I’m afraid it won’t help anyone if ‘we’ blame the victim.</p><p>just the same as a car driver.</p><p>…Who would also have hit her. Maybe she was relying on hearing a car coming when she made her dash…</p><p>No opinions on here “help” anyone, in case you hadn’t noticed.

Picture a woman, carrying some shopping, doing a little jog out into a wide road without looking. A driver, has nowhere to go and no time to brake, collides with her. That’s about it. I’m sure there are people who see a different video from me.

Ah… heard this one the radio… "women killed by cyclist"… I think "woman killed in incident with man on eBike"… seems more accurate.

I’m totally sure you could do that. Do you do that to everyone on the street? Like some kind of terminator?

No but it is the kind of thing that would be shown in the hazard perception test.

As my instructor said, the only things you can rely upon are that green lights can only turn red and a waiting pedestrians are going to cross, you just can't rely on when.

So by that then anywhere there is a pavement max speed of any vehicle/horse/thing should be approx. say…5mph just in case?

That would be reductio ad absurdum, but if that was a 30mph limit you wouldn't do 30 in your car would you, so it stands to reason that the slower cyclist in front was probably doing a more appropriate speed for a busy street with inattentive pedestrians everywhere.

^^^^ This

What's up squirlieking? P key stuck?

That would be reductio ad absurdum, but if that was a 30mph limit you wouldn’t do 30 in your car would you, so it stands to reason that the slower cyclist in front was probably doing a more appropriate speed for a busy street with inattentive pedestrians everywhere.

So, surely if the cyclist has a duty of care to cycle at an appropriate speed, there should also be a duty of care on the pedestrian to not just run out into the road without seeing what was there first?

If the pedestrian had been walking, which would probably be a more appropriate speed given the inattentive road users everywhere, she likely would not have careered into the cyclist.

I used to cycle down Southall high st on the way home from work and it didn't matter what speed I cycled at or how many lights I had on, I'd still get people just step off the kerb into my path without looking at all.
I'd probably have to swerve round 2 a week and be able to carry on my way, with an emergency stop perhaps once a week. Sometimes you could see what was about to happen and shout a warning, but not always.

so it stands to reason that the slower cyclist in front was probably doing a more appropriate speed for a busy street with inattentive pedestrians everywhere.

No, it only means that the first cyclist was travelling slower. You have no other comparative vehicles to make your judgement.

Be my guest though and forensically analyse the video to estimate the speed. I somehow doubt the cyclist was travelling faster than the general traffic flow.

Should have been travelling faster, then he’d have missed her.

/s

R.I.P.

Didnt think the cyclist had been charged other than failure to report.

That would be reductio ad absurdum, but if that was a 30mph limit you wouldn’t do 30 in your car would you

Its seems to have clear line of sight. No parked cars to hide people. So wouldnt rule it out. His speed whilst faster than the other cyclist looks not dissimilar to that of the vehicles on the other side.

If she had walked out he might have stood a chance of reacting but someone running out gives little time to respond.

it stands to reason that the slower cyclist in front was probably doing a more appropriate speed for a busy street with inattentive pedestrians everywhere.

That's a rubbish statement to make. The cyclist in front may have been travelling for a speed that meant they didnt work up a sweat. Just because someone is not going fast on a bike it doesnt mean they are doing so as it's not safe to do so.

The ebike didnt look to be going excessively fast when I saw the video but I am sure someone will be able to calculate the speed. It is likely that he was going at the motor cut out speed because it's easy to do so compared to the person in front who was probably just casually cycling a long without wanting to get all sweaty. As soon as you go faster than that the effort gets a lot harder, but that said pretty much anyone can cycle over 15mph.

As I said in the other thread about this I really cannot see how you can blame the cyclist for this given the video. He may well have been travelling faster than the bike in front but does that automatically mean he was travelling dangerously? I doubt the other cyclist could have stopped in time and someone on a proper road bike would have been able to travel much faster.

It is shame the woman died but ultimately she ran out into the road and it could have been two dead people if the cyclist had landed badly. Unless it is proven that the ebike was illegally travelling over the motor cut out limit and still on power then the fact it's an ebike is pretty irrelevant. Yes the bike weighs a bit more but what if it was a big 20 stone rugby doing 25mph on a road bike or someone on a heavy cargo bike?

"A bystander is seen pleading with the cyclist to stay but he ignores his protests and continues to walk down the street"

Or saying "are you ok mate, maybe wait for an ambo to get you checked over?" seeing as he had a bleeding head wound...

He was riding further out in the road so would have had a chance with the unusual zombie pedestrian that steps off the pavement, but in this case she decide to break into a run to compensate.

If you cycle nearer to the pavement you would have to ride at ridiculously slow speeds to avoid the chance of hitting one of these zombie pedestrians that just steps off the curb.

It would be interesting if there were a spate of cases of proscecuting cyclists for hitting pedestrians jumping off the pavements because all the regular cyclists will then insist on riding in the middle of the road to give them time to react, and sod the cycle lanes.

A cyclist was killed in Reading not long ago by someone crossing without looking. No charges were brought.

Did it make headline news in the national media?

[ rhetorical question ]

DezB blame the forum and not working on older versions of chrome. Now to the point, would you be defending a motorist in the same circumstances?

No, it only means that the first cyclist was travelling slower. You have no other comparative vehicles to make your judgement.

Be my guest though and forensically analyse the video to estimate the speed. I somehow doubt the cyclist was travelling faster than the general traffic flow.

Maybe it's working in H&S for a while that wired my brain up to be a bit less black and white. Things can be someones fault, but that doesn't mean other people weren't contributing factors.

Write down a list of everything that contributed to the accident (i.e. a list of everything that had to happen for the accident to occur).

1) Pedestrian runs out into the road

2) Cyclist was traveling down the road

(you could drill this down indefinitely, should she have been wearing a helmet, should she have had an extra weetabix and run a bit quicker, he should have had a normal bike, but we'll stop here).

So how do you prevent the same accident happening again,

a) you tell pedestrians not to run into the road

b) you tell road users to keep their speed down in busy areas

Now you can't 100% rely on either to work, we know pedestrians run out into the road, so it makes sense to slow down and assume they're about to do something stupid. We know vehicles and their drivers aren't perfect, so we don't run into the road. If you assume that both strategies are 90% effective (9/10 pedestrians reconsider running into the road, and 9/10 road users slow down) then you get 99% less crashes rather than just 90% less (or 75% rather than 50%, or 64% rather than 40%, whatever numbers you chose).

Same logic as would be applied to designing an oil refinery, you can make it statistically so that it will only blow up once in 100,000 years (yes, we calculate the probability of each credible failure, then rank it's consequences, and reduce that probability to an acceptable level) , then we draw a circle round it and tell people not to live there just in case (Bhopal if you want to google a horror story of when this didn't happen).

The speed might have be a contributing factor, but the primary root cause ends up being the pedestrian running out in the road without looking.

Now if the cyclist was breaking the speed limit, sure, another root cause. If not, it's a contributing factor and not one the cyclist should be punished for. You can't predict whether someone is going to run out in front of you, so acceptable speed below the defined limit in that scenario becomes a qualitative measure - weather can be defined more as it effects breaking distance, so it's easier to define and make accusations of negligence when weather is involved. If any is at fault, it's whoever set the speed limit in a busy urban environment.

Didnt think the cyclist had been charged other than failure to report.

He’s not been charged with anything at this stage.  He has been arrested and released pending further inquiries.  AFAIK s170 RTA does not apply to bicyles and presumably therefore not to peddle assist ebikes, therefore whilst leaving the scene is a bit of a shit thing to do it is not in itself a crime.

That street is a 20mph limit, as is most of London.

There's plenty of lads riding around London with throttle only ebikes, saw a group on Stealth Bomber type bikes on the street yesterday. It's hard to tell from the footage but he does not seem to be peddling. I'll bet on it being a "rev and go" not pedal assist, and that's why he dumped the bike.

[i]would you be defending a motorist in the same circumstances?[/i]

Pretty sure the answer is in the post above yours.

Now ask someone else a question. Or am I your favourite?

No, just seemed an odd departure from your usual heavily biased stance on motorist responsibility.

I’ve not viewed the video, but it was suggested in an article earlier in the week that she had a green man and he jumped a red light...  running acrosss the road makes more sense if that is true, has anyone seen footage where you can see the lights?

your usual heavily biased stance on motorist responsibility.

..and eBikes, no doubt.

Traffic has a green light up until the footage is cut just before the collision, maybe one second difference. When the footage restarts the traffic has a red light, by then there are a number of other people standing in the road.

No. On the full video he had a green light & she effectively runs into the side of him.

Here is a completely unscientific assessment of the speed assuming the CCTV is in real time.

At 5s eBiker appears to have just swerved around a car pulling out of Sandringham Road.

Using Google maps and the GIMP measuring tool I estimate this is 57m from the crossing, which he hasn't quite reached at 10s.

This suggest his maximum speed could be 11.4 metres per second or 25.5mph.

Cyclist in front looks slower indeed but seems to be mincing somewhat.  Overall I'm not convinced this was a chipped (>15.5mph) eBike.  No idea why he'd abandon it (if stolen surely he'd just leave it at the scene even if concussed) and pretty horrible to just leave.

He’s not been charged with anything at this stage.  He has been arrested and released pending further inquiries…

poly, you are right - he’s not been charged and has been released. The report I read had the cyclist being considered for both causing GBH and failing to stop and report; the possible second charge indicating an initial view that the pedal-assist bicycle is a motor vehicle, which to my mind is incorrect.

Actually, given how the misleading the new stories are I would not be surprised if "he abandoned the eBike shortly after" actually means "he locked it nearby because it was clearly unrideable and he decided to take the bus home".

anagallis_arvensis        Member

A cyclist was killed in Reading not long ago by someone crossing without looking. No charges were brought.

Posted 9 hours ago REPLY | REPORT

Kelvin           Subscriber

Did it make headline news in the national media?  [ rhetorical question ]

That's the not funny one about the two adults that come out of a pub and run across the road to get to the sweetshop......The Daily Mail covered it and like the Coroner blamed the cyclist....

[b]Cyclist died after running down pedestrian who stepped into his path as he raced through busy junction as lights changed to red[/b]

https://www.****/news/article-4858530/Cyclist-died-running-pedestrian.html

https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/reading-berkshire-news/helmet-would-not-saved-life-13583669

[i]"Collision investigator Kevin Spiller said CCTV showed the cyclist was travelling at around 24mph, but he was unable to tell what colour the nearby set of traffic lights were when Mr Pedley rode past them"[/i]

for some hard to fathom reason it seems that cyclists are expected to behave on the road differently to the majority of road users and need to take the rap....as to the ebike pedestrian death replace ebike with motorbike and sympathy would probably be with the injured and shocked rider - replace the ebike with a car and it wouldn't be news at all

(not withstanding the above the death of the pedestrian involved is obviously a terrible event)

Oooh! Do now we can direct link to the Mail? What joy.

for some hard to fathom reason it seems that cyclists are expected to behave on the road differently to the majority of road users

Well exactly.... though I doubt as you mean.

Cyclists are expected to disregard rules that other road users are expected to follow.

This however only applies right until a very serious injury or death... as soon as that happens it's a reset to expectations ..

That includes travelling at an appropriate speed and able to stop if/when a pedestrian walks in front without looking or a kid chases their ball between parked cars etc..  or a cyclist runs a red light and gets hit.. or despite being lit up like a Christmas Tree didn't have the correct BS certified pedal reflectors etc.

The video makes it pretty obvious the woman just walks/runs out into the road (and on green for the traffic) ... however her expectation is the cars will stop anyway...  or she was expecting to hear a car (which is obviously not going to happen for an electric vehicle) ...

The (e-)cyclist contributed to this by failing to stop...  but they were not the cause.

The news papers simply want to create a hype and get their comments pages as full of as much hatred as possible, generate more clicks and get more revenue.

The single story is a person (gender and ethnicity irrelevant) crosses on green traffic without looking and gets hit by a road user (type irrelevant) and sadly dies.

There’s plenty of lads riding around London with throttle only ebike

which is fine as long as it is a conversion and the max speed of assistence and power ratings are the same as for a pedelec.

I'm about to build one.

TURNER GUY - I think there was a change of law in January 2016, to give separate classes for pedal assist and throttle only, maybe have a search just to double check for yourself.

The single story is a person (gender and ethnicity irrelevant) crosses on green traffic without looking and gets hit by a road user (type irrelevant) and sadly dies.

This is it. I wonder if any of the news stories have actually used the word "accident".

Things can be someones fault, but that doesn’t mean other people weren’t contributing factors.

This, but by the same token it doesn't mean everyone involved who has contributed to an accident is criminally liable.

Let's put it another way though, if this was an MTBer that had barreled out of a bridleway onto a straight NSL road and been wiped out by a car travelling at 60 (or, more comparably to this case, considerably less than 60), would we be blaming the driver?

I still wonder whether the ebike was chipped as per the last thread. But if not I can't see any criminal responsibility.

would we be blaming the driver?

on this forum ? Yes.

I still wonder whether the ebike was chipped as per the last thread. But if not I can’t see any criminal responsibility.

Chipped or not, the contribution to the death would only be speed IMO and it doesn't look to me as though cyclist was doing much (if any) above 20 which would be legit on a pushbike, car, truck or whatever.  May have been using an illegal vehicle but unlike fakenger-kid last time round, this one presumably had 2 working brakes

As far as going more slowly is concerned, my experience of busy "urban community" roads is that people don't just step/run out at official crossings (though this one did), so traffic would have to go more slowly along its entire length.  What speed would we suggest ?

would we be blaming the driver?

I got hit myself in similar circumstances to that described and I certainly didn't (don't) blame the driver, despite my, ahem "usual heavily biased stance".

Chipped or not, the contribution to the death would only be speed IMO and it doesn’t look to me as though cyclist was doing much (if any) above 20 which would be legit on a pushbike, car, truck or whatever.  May have been using an illegal vehicle but unlike fakenger-kid last time round, this one presumably had 2 working brakes

Yep I don't see how it being chipped or not makes any difference to the accident.

.. it probably not only had 2 working brakes but big tyres and pretty much as much braking as is possible on a cycle.

As far as going more slowly is concerned, my experience of busy “urban community” roads is that people don’t just step/run out at official crossings (though this one did), so traffic would have to go more slowly along its entire length.  What speed would we suggest ?

Herein lies part of the problem.

Normal cycle lanes are usually in the worst possible position for stopping distance whereas cycles have close to the worst stopping distance. (Perhaps only horses, scooters, skateboards being exceptions)

my experience of busy “urban community” roads is that people don’t just step/run out at official crossings (though this one did)

My experience is there are a LOT of them so it only takes a tiny proportion ... not directly relevant in this case but smartphones are one factor in the increase... but the other one is simply many people simply EXPECT the traffic to stop...

TURNER GUY – I think there was a change of law in January 2016, to give separate classes for pedal assist and throttle only, maybe have a search just to double check for yourself.

This only affects certain EAPC sold as new after 1st Jan 2016, not conversions to old bikes.

I wrote to the DfT about this on 24 Sept 2016 and got a reply on the 14 Oct 2016.

I was questioning an article on this page :

http://www.pedelecs.co.uk/news/dft-pedal-cycles-converted-twist-go-exempt-type-approval/

And the quote

“In response to your email about converting a normal pedal cycle which has first been used on the public road as a pedal cycle, I am pleased to report that type approval does not apply – it only applies to new vehicles, not converted ones. Therefore if you convert a pedal cycle which has already been ridden on the road to “twist and go” operation, it does not become subject to type approval. As previously noted, the regulations will be directed at the manufacturers and so riders making conversions are not committing an offence. Manufacturers are permitted to sell kits of this nature but would need to ensure they are in line with regulations if sold as EAPC kits (EAPC power and speed limits).”

My own reply basically said that the website is correct, so that's good enough for me - although I will have a copy of that reply and the article in my back pocket ready for any copper that might pull me over 🙂

The bike will only be for my partner to get her to and from the care home she works in without getting sweaty.

It will have Magura HS33s on it so plenty of stopping power, and I think you have to hold the sparticle throttle open anyway, so releasing it for braking will be simple/automatic.

Interesting information that I have not seen anywhere else. Thanks for posting full details.

Interesting information that I have not seen anywhere else. Thanks for posting full details

pm me your email and I will forward my reply confirming what that website said...

"The guy who caused the accident was bleeding from the head", quote in the Soaraway Sun.

Our press are the worst and descending.