MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Old story but now in the courts.
"Under the law, e-bikes which are fitted with an electric motor can only be driven without a licence or insurance if their power is limited and if the motor automatically switches off at speeds above 15.5 mph.
The court heard Mr Hanlon's bike was capable of going double that speed and as such should have been categorised as a motorbike"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51647068
Interesting case. Another pedestrian steps out in front of a cyclist on an illegally modified bike 🤔
Witness said he thought it was going "easy to get for a normal ebike".... How does he judge that??
Some interesting statements which may give some riders cause for concern and also a rethink
Under the law, e-bikes which are fitted with an electric motor can only be driven without a licence or insurance if their power is limited and if the motor automatically switches off at speeds above 15.5 mph.
The court heard Mr Hanlon's bike was capable of going double that speed and as such should have been categorised as a motorbike.
Both the prosecution and defence agree that Mr Hanlon did not have a licence or insurance for a motorbike.
Going to be interesting to see how it develops and the knock on effect to those who have tampered
Somewhat lazy reporting.
Didn't see anyone suggesting that it was not being pedaled.
Either way..... Unrestricted ebikes are bad mmmkay. This all goes away if you stick within the confines of the law.
Im struggling to understand what speed he was doing. The story says he was 10mph over the speed limit, so suggesting 40mph? But then says the bike is capable of 30mph - which seems a bit contradictory. Unless he achieved the extra 10mph through leg power, which is possible I guess.
It's probably a 20mph zone.
Probably a 20mph zone 🙂
Edit: Damn, too slow. Should have de-restricted my typing 🙂
My understanding was that he was going 10mph over the ebike limit, so 25mph. So achievable on a normal bike.
Bit like the knob on the fixie who took the brakes off - how much did the modification affect his ability to avoid the pedestrian who appears to have stepped out without looking?
Every bike is ‘capable of going double that speed’
So yes it will be interesting to see how it goes.
AIUI, the law would class his machine as an uninsured, unlicensed, unregistered motorcycle, even if he had been travelling within the ebike power cut off point. (It seems that he was, in fact, really motoring along at the time of the accident)
Thats confusing then - surely the speed limit for an ebike is the same as any other vehicle - 30mph. The limit at which the assistance should cease is 15.5mph, but there would be nothing illegal about going faster per se provided there's no assistance. Going to be an interesting, albeit tragic case.
To be fair (harsh really), he'll get done for being stupid - illegal bike, but the pedestrian got punished far worse for their stupidity.
The court heard Mr Hanlon’s bike was capable of going double that speed and as such should have been categorised as a motorbike.
So presumably, if found guilty, he'll get points on his driving license and/or receive a driving ban alongside any fines…?
Witness said he thought it was going “easy to get for a normal ebike”…. How does he judge that??
Article says:
"He described riding along approaching the station and becoming aware of a bike travelling very quickly past him, but heading in the same direction as him."
It would be fairly obvious if someone came flying past at a speed way in excess of a normal overtake. If you ride somewhere with lots of cyclists (or in groups etc) you get to know the normal sort of speeds people do.
Actual speed limits don’t apply to normal bikes, as there is no requirement for a speedo to be fitted.
I would imagine they do apply to a bike is fitted with a speedo though, I could be wrong of course.
I would imagine they do apply to a bike is fitted with a speedo though, I could be wrong of course.
Calibration etc? I'd expect not.
One thing I've never understood is how this type of thing works in the US.
Over here we can't have nice things and everything is watered down or just plain illegal - electric skate boards, segways, electric scooters and proper ebikes, none of it allowed and ya boo to you for wanting to commute on anything other than pox ridden public transport
Yet in the states where litigation is 10x more rife than here you have Casey Neistat and the entire population of LA wizzing around on Boosted boards and non-pedal assist bikes with top speeds well in excess of 30kmh.....
This guy will get the book thrown at him for pimping his ebike, but IMO the things he really did wrong were break the speed limit by a few miles per hour, leave the scene after the accident...and live in the wrong country.
Another pedestrian steps out in front of a cyclist on an illegally modified bike 🤔
"Another"? This is the only one I've heard about. It's the one that the video was online when it happened. Woman walked into the road, without looking, right in front of him. Pure accident, whether it's had been ebike/bike/car/motorbike.
The Mail report has more detail, including witness reports that he wasn't pedalling.
https://www.****/news/article-8047629/Bricklayer-32-killed-woman-speeding-30mph-E-bike.html
Just a thought, but if he had a motorbike license, and 3rd party insurance, then the only charge they would be able to level at him would be the death by careless driving. But if he was 5mph under the speed limit, its hard to see that sticking...
Just to put things into context, I wonder how many pedestrians were killed by motorists on the same day?
Just a thought, but if he had a motorbike license, and 3rd party insurance, then the only charge they would be able to level at him would be the death by careless driving. But if he was 5mph under the speed limit, its hard to see that sticking…
Assuming he had the bike registered as an s-pedelec (number plates etc) and had appropriate safety gear on.
Actually the Mail report suggests it's a 20mph zone, so he was over the limit...
Not insured, so the family get nothing unless they want to take out a private prosecution.
Just reading up on the s-pedelec thing. So essentially a derestricted ebike is treated as a moped, needs to be registered with certificate of conformity etc. I wonder if there is an argument for a new category, which is easier to register and license. Hard to see in the longer term how the derestriction rules will be enforced, unless as in this case, something goes wrong, so would it not be better to make it easier for people to ride legally if they choose...?
No insurance means they can bankrupt him or get an attachment of earnings order?
DezB - the other case I was referring to was the brakeless fixie case.
wonder if there is an argument for a new category, which is easier to register and license.
Its there it's called an e bike and it's restricted to 250w and 15.5mph.
Anything else needs approval and plates and to stay off shared use paths.
The Mail report has more detail, including witness reports that he wasn’t pedalling.
But it's the Daily Mail so it's highly likely to be total bollocks anyway.
Actual speed limits don’t apply to normal bikes, as there is no requirement for a speedo to be fitted.
I would imagine they do apply to a bike is fitted with a speedo though, I could be wrong of course.
Speed limits, under road traffic act, apply to motor vehicles not bicycles
@trail_rat what I meant was a category which is in between the restricted e-bike and full blown motorbike. My thinking being if people want less restrictive bikes surely it would be better to make them easier to regulate, rather than ending up, as currently with possibly many thousands of illegal bikes..
One thing I’ve never understood is how this type of thing works in the US.
Different laws. I tested a Trek E-bike at a demo day in Santa Cruz. Basically motors up to 750W. Cuts out either at 20mph or 28mph depending on class. 20mph e-bikes legal anywhere bikes are. 28mph E-bike roads only.
https://currentebikes.com/ebike-classes-california/
Seems sensible to me. Effortless 20mph on the flat would make most commutes easy.
Actual speed limits don’t apply to normal bikes, as there is no requirement for a speedo to be fitted.
I would imagine they do apply to a bike is fitted with a speedo though, I could be wrong of course.
If the bike is an s-pedelec (a de-restricted-bike, electric moped, whatever you want to call it), then the posted speed limits apply and the bike is supposed to have a working speedo (in the same way that a moped, scooter, motorbike etc would have).
If it's a regular e-bike (one where the motor cuts out at 15.5mph), or a normal (analogue?) bike, then speed limits do not apply because it's not classifed as a vehicle, it's a bicycle.
A normal bike fitted with a speedo (any GPS for example) - the speed limits still don't apply, the only thing you can be done for is the reckless cycling or whatever law it was they got Charlie Alliston convicted with.
That reporting is atrocious, it's very confused about what the speed limit actually was, whether the rider had got the bike to that speed using leg-power alone or if it was under "throttle" to achieve that speed or what.
Then there's the strict liability angle which I think some cycling promoters favour. It cuts both ways, both "upwards" with cars and "downwards" with pedestrians.
the rider has been charged with death by dangerous driving which means the bike is being treated as a motor vehicle surely - as it should be.
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/product-news/electric-bikes-uk-law-234973
Law seems quite straightforward it is a motorbike
Ask any road traffic officer and they will tell you how unreliable eye witnesses are
I was hit by a High Top Transit Van in camoflage bright white , the eye witness said I turned right across traffic in front of the oncoming car that then hit me. No mention of being punted up the road by a ****less Transit driver
Who really looks at cyclists to see of they are furiously pedalling or freewheeling anyways?
How many of Joe public can look at a bike and state the bike was doing 20mph , or 26mph with any accuracy?
I have always maintained a 30kph ( 18mph ) E bike limit is alot more sensible , safer and less likely to lead to de - restriction Being assisted up to 18mph , then using your own poweer to hold this or accelerate to 19 - 20mph is very realistic prospect. Still safe , plus hills hold no fear , and 18-19mph is probably greater than alot of car commute average speeds, in any built up area
No doubt the Daily Fail will wind up the cyclist haters into a Frenzy , the rider facing death by journo, and the defence lawyer doing a rubbish job at pointing out the real number of KSI on the highways of which maybe 1% go to court and get a prosecuction and make it into national newspapers
Lots of ebikers butthurt because the first thing they did when they bought their "ebike" was derestrict it before telling the world "they're not motorbikes".
Right?
Either way, dead person, uninsured ****...
Either way, dead person, uninsured ****…
Why is insurance important to the dead person?
singletrackmind
...I have always maintained a 30kph ( 18mph ) E bike limit is alot more sensible , safer and less likely to lead to de – restriction...
We've been through this process 120 years ago and then repeated 50-70 years ago. Motorised bicycles.
The big problem is that once they are capable of 30mph, then their brakes, suspension, and tyres are marginal, ie they become dangerous.
The answer is to beef all those things up. Before you know it you have a moped and the next evolution is morphing into a small motorbike.
Nothing wrong with that, but maybe the law needs to recognise that there is a need for low cost transport like that, and remove the need to pay "road tax" and perhaps institute some form of low cost insurance, ie make it as close to free as possible.
Nothing wrong with that, but maybe the law needs to recognise that there is a need for low cost transport like that, and remove the need to pay “road tax” and perhaps institute some form of low cost insurance, ie make it as close to free as possible.
Or maybe the people frigging their ebikes can get a license, insurance, pay vehicle excise duty accepting it’s not legal unless they do so. Or don’t frig their ebikes.
That reporting is atrocious, it’s very confused about what the speed limit actually was, whether the rider had got the bike to that speed using leg-power alone or if it was under “throttle” to achieve that speed or what.
Its also irrelevant whether he got there by leg power, gravity or the battery - the crown case (which doesn't seem to be in dispute) is that his bike was no longer a bicycle and is now a motor vehicle. The speed limit is irrelevant, you can be dangerous driving under the limit.
Thats confusing then – surely the speed limit for an ebike is the same as any other vehicle – 30mph. The limit at which the assistance should cease is 15.5mph, but there would be nothing illegal about going faster per se provided there’s no assistance. Going to be an interesting, albeit tragic case.
Actually there is no speed limit for bikes - they limit applied to motorised vehicles. AFAIR pedal assist ebikes are not classed as motorised vehicles either. Obviously if the crown case is correct this bike was no longer such a devices.
AIUI, the law would class his machine as an uninsured, unlicensed, unregistered motorcycle, even if he had been travelling within the ebike power cut off point. (It seems that he was, in fact, really motoring along at the time of the accident)
That is correct. He is being prosecuted as though it was a motorbike he was riding. His defence positions seems to be that whilst the vehicle was illegal the manner of the driving was not - i.e. if he had been riding a perfectly legal moped with a helmet and insurance at that speed in that way he would not be guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. I suspect there is a reasonable prospect of acquittal.
Why is insurance important to the dead person?
Might be relevant to their dependants?
The answer is to beef all those things up. Before you know it you have a small motorbike.
Nothing wrong with that, but maybe the law needs to recognise that there is a need for low cost transport like that, and remove the need to pay “road tax” and perhaps institute some form of low cost insurance, ie make it as close to free as possible.
Electic scooters/mopeds are 0 banded for road tax. You can get TPFT insurance on a scooter if you've passed your test for <£100 pa.
Just to put things into context, I wonder how many pedestrians were killed by motorists on the same day?
I think it works out at about 1 and a bit pedestrian per day for the whole year whereas OTOMH 5 pedestrians are killed by cyclists in a bad year but cyclists tend to fare worse at roughly 100ish a year.
So higher risk of death if your sat on the bike.
Still as a bit of random perspective about 3k people die from falling up/down stuff without help from a cyclist so doing your shoelaces up correctly should be a greater concern than of of being Killed by a cyclist tbh.
So in reality Based on the numbers other things should be centre of attention.
Electic scooters/mopeds are 0 banded for road tax. You can get TPFT insurance on a scooter if you’ve passed your test for <£100 pa.
This is what bugs me as there are legal means for what people want and people should be encouraged this direction.
You can also get liability insurance as part of British cycling membership, a lot of leg powered cyclists have insurance.
So in reality Based on the numbers other things should be centre of attention.
But he’s still a knob and the running away is indefensible.
I also think that riding down busy streets over the marked speed limit seems a pretty selfish act.
Why is insurance important to the dead person?
Presumably their immortal soul will rest easier knowing that any dependents don't suffer further unnecessary harm?
I also think that riding down busy streets over the marked speed limit seems a pretty selfish act.
And yet it happens tens of thousands of times a day. It's called "driving".
(I'm not saying it's right by the way, just y'know, perspective. If this has been a car /pedestrian, it wouldn't even be in the news).
how ever the car not in the news would likely have been there legally, Has passed scruity for both passenger and pedestrian safety , its safety systems have been checked on an annual basis (<3yo cars excluded) the driver has recieved a minimum amount of training inclusive of a hazard perception assessment
the differentiater is that this chap was riding his motorbike without any of the above that is mandatory for motorcycling.
Had he had his training (as required for the capacity of the motorvehicle he was riding at the time) perhaps he would have reconsidered his speed.
I will say its rare that youll do even 20mph up a high street in your car - because you have been trained that it is not safe. - looking at that photo , i suspect this is one of those highstreets.
while im not pro car - I'm not going to defend someone whos riding NOT an Ebike.
Who said 30mph?
Try re reading what I wrote. 30kph not mph, 18.5mph.
No bike needs any mods to be electric assisted to 18.5mph. If they did all proficient roadies would be crashing left, right and center ad their wheels buckled and rames failed.
Its a perfectly safe speed and is way below the 30mph arbitrary value that you suddenly need leathers kite marked skid lid etc
But he’s still a knob and the running away is indefensible.
I would defend it by saying he was suffering from shock. If I was defending it, which I'm not.
Anyone driving a vehicle over the speed limit should always be responsible imo. If they had been doing the speed limit, the incident would simply not have happened.
Its a perfectly safe speed and is way below the 30mph arbitrary value that you suddenly need leathers kite marked skid lid etc
yes safe for the cyclist.
not for shared use paths of which our government seems so fond of calling cycle paths.
infact the guidance suggests that any cyclist regularly(being the key word - not someone who can hit 18mph with a tailwind downhill once in a blue moon) doing 18mph should be using the road rather than the paths.
how ever the car not in the news would likely have been there legally
Check the traffic police twitter feeds when they do periodic roadside safety checks. I know that a lot of the cars they pull over are intelligence-led (pinged on ANPR or just look a bit dodgy) but the general averaging is about 1/4 - 1/3rd of the cars on the road at any given time are illegal in one way or another. Might be minor MOT fail stuff or illegal window tinting but plenty of it is serious "this car cannot move another inch" issues.
Dunno if half the people commenting have actually read the article.
But the nuance is being completely missed that he has pled guilty to riding it without a licence and insurance.
The trial is for the charge of "causing death whilst uninsured" and "death whilst unlicensed" which requires proof that he was at fault.
And TBH I agree, in the video his riding doesn't appear to be the cause of the accident. If it had been a bigger, heavier moped or car still doing the same speed the only difference is she might have reacted to the engine noise or he might have beeped the horn. But those are hypotheticals.
It seems that everyone agrees he was riding (the equivalent of) a moped, which should have been licensed / insured but wasn't. I presume this is subject to its own sanctions, far short of death by dangerous driving. If he were insured, it's possible there would be no case to answer.
Interestingly, though, the specific law TINAS mentions 'causing death whilst uninsured' has been challenged, this is an interesting read here: https://keithborer.co.uk/news/causing-death-driving-while-uninsured-unlicensed
Essentially that case appears to show that to be guilty of that offence, there must be some fault with your driving - merely being uninsured is not enough to 'prove' that you have committed a crime. Whether your driving (or riding) is held to a higher standard in such cases is up for debate I guess. So it's potentially a really interesting case.
Suppose you have de-restricted your e-bike, therefore turning it into a moped in the eyes of the law. Is it possible to get a registration plate for it, assuming you add mirrors and whatever else is needed? Can you get an MOT for an e-bike? (sounds like a fun conversation to have at the garage...) Do moped insurance policies apply unmodified?
You would need type approval to register it, etc
You can’t just chip and go. If then it’s a road registered vehicle you can / have to mot it
The trial is for the charge of “causing death whilst uninsured” and “death whilst unlicensed” which requires proof that he was at fault.
Essentially that case appears to show that to be guilty of that offence, there must be some fault with your driving
so if they prove that he was speeding then.
so if they prove that he was speeding then.
Well, no, because it's a limit, not a target.
But go watch the video. Using my highly-un-calibrated Mk1 eyeball, I couldn't say if he was doing >20mph. And I wouldn't say he was riding dangerously, middle of the lane behind/catching up another cyclist. It's very definitely (IMO) a case of she ran out off the pavement into him.
His defence positions seems to be that whilst the vehicle was illegal the manner of the driving was not – i.e. if he had been riding a perfectly legal moped with a helmet and insurance at that speed in that way he would not be guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. I suspect there is a reasonable prospect of acquittal.
That's not the charge. He's contesting charges of "causing death while uninsured" and "causing death while unlicensed" so the prosecution don't have to prove dangerous driving (a relatively high bar), but they do have to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that his actions were causal to the death.
IANAL but going 50% over the speed limit in an area full of pedestrians (assuming it was 30 in a 20 which seems to be the consensus) I would think would be hard to argue the way out of being a significant cause of both the collision occurring, and the impact of that collision causing a death. To that extent I'm inclined to agree in part that the defective condition of the vehicle might not be directly causal itself, but I would hope the "death by" charges would stand up anyway, i.e. if he had driven a road-legal moped down that road at 50% over the limit and killed a pedestrian, while unlicensed and uninsured, he would be guilty of those offences.
There may, though, be relevance in the condition of the vehicle - e.g. the absence of a working horn might have contributed to the collision not being avoided, a road legal moped may have had brakes and tyres better suited to coping with such an emergency on a road at 30mph than bicycle ones. There may not be, though, I don't know. What I do know though is that, if he had been doing 20mph rather than 30 mph, the collision wouldn't have happened how it did.
tomd
Subscriber
Why is insurance important to the dead person?Presumably their immortal soul will rest easier knowing that any dependents don’t suffer further unnecessary harm?
Just seemed an odd thing to highlight, considering the killing part, I think that'd be where I focused my ire.
But go watch the video. Using my highly-un-calibrated Mk1 eyeball, I couldn’t say if he was doing >20mph. And I wouldn’t say he was riding dangerously, middle of the lane behind/catching up another cyclist. It’s very definitely (IMO) a case of she ran out off the pavement into him.
Given that they've got video of it occurring, I'm assuming and hoping that the prosecution assertion of 30mph is based on a bit more science than "ooo that looks about 30 to me" - otherwise the defence aren't going to find it hard to shoot that one down.
Using my highly-un-calibrated Mk1 eyeball, I couldn’t say if he was doing >20mph. And I wouldn’t say he was riding dangerously, middle of the lane behind/catching up another cyclist. It’s very definitely (IMO) a case of she ran out off the pavement into him.
I just watched the video, looks like he's doing way more than 20, he's horsing it. Also looks throttle assisted.
Regardless, of opinion, should be fairly easy to figure out with the aid of a tape measure and a stop watch.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7238430/woman-killed-dalston-kingsland-road-electric-bike/
I wish The Scum's stance was clearer on this
[i] ..hit-and-run cyclist
...she was mowed down
...ploughed into the woman[/i]
..hit-and-run cyclist
Which bit of this is inacurate? A cyclist did hit someone and 'run' away.
All the charges are based on the defendant not being a cyclist.
"Cyclist" normally refers to someone riding a pedal cycle or a (legal) e-bike.
People riding motorcycles (whether legally or not) are not usually referred to as "cyclists"
A bit worried about how many people contributing to this thread missed that that speed limit might not be 30mph.
zero sympathy for this guy tbh, if he gets to be made an example of then so be it.
Just wish the same vehemence would be used to go after drivers/motoring offenders
Maybe he would have been given an easier time if he hadn't run a way?
Which bit of this is inacurate?
Who said it was inaccurate?
If you don't think that wording is in any way designed to be influential, then it just must be me who is oversensitive about "cyclist" reports in the (ahem) news, I suppose.
@seasomah77
"Why is insurance important to the dead person?"
I'm sure providing for the dead person's family, who will suffer long-time from this criminal act (potentially lifelong) would be first and foremost in their mind, if they were alive to see it.
If you're breaking the law by being uninsured in a car, or doing the same after knowingly illegally modifying your bike then you're the same level of disgusting person, period.
Want a motorbike? Insure it, and STFU.
There are more apologist posts coming out on this thread - "oh, cars kill wayyyyy more people".
Yes. They do. But two wrongs don't make a right. There's no justifying it.
There'll be people on this thread with modded, uninsured, ebikes. It's common as muck.
Insure them, or un-mod them and buy the motorbike you want instead. It's pretty black-and-white...
but the general averaging is about 1/4 – 1/3rd of the cars on the road at any given time are illegal in one way or another. Might be minor MOT fail stuff or illegal window tinting but plenty of it is serious “this car cannot move another inch” issues.
I always think that figures like these are interesting. (Maybe it's just me!)
Specsavers had an advert years ago stating that almost a quarter of drivers didn't wear glasses or lenses but legally needed to. Since then I've wondered how accurate that is, because if you then add all of the other cars that shouldn't be on the road (uninsured, no mot, dangerous, etc) and then the drunk/drug drivers, the dangerous and the incompetent, it really does mean that a lot of cars/drivers should not be on the road at all. The roads would be a much nicer place to cycle if they were removed. Anyway, back to the topic..
I’m sure providing for the dead person’s family, who will suffer long-time from this criminal act (potentially lifelong) would be first and foremost in their mind, if they were alive to see it.
If you’re breaking the law by being uninsured in a car, or doing the same after knowingly illegally modifying your bike then you’re the same level of disgusting person, period.
Want a motorbike? Insure it, and STFU.
I'm pretty sure, being alive would be first and foremost in their mind...
Derestrict and throttle your ebike, don't horse it about like a tit in a crowded area...
Are we sure speed limits don’t apply to bikes?
No. Although to the best of my knowledge nobody has ever tested a local authority's power to set speed limits for non-motor vehicles. Not that it's relevant but there is no order regarding pedal cycles at this location
supernova
Member
Are we sure speed limits don’t apply to bikes?
Pretty sure they would apply, the speed limit is for the road is it not unless specifically specified for other vehicles?
Ebike batteries, don't they have a chip that tells the power drain etc. Was told that they use the info to reduce warranty claims as it shows that the bike has been deregulated
@seosamh77
"Derestrict and throttle your ebike, don’t horse it about like a tit in a crowded area…"
If you've done it to yours, get it insured.