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.
Pretty sure they would apply, the speed limit is for the road is it not unless specifically specified for other vehicles?
Speed limits are for ‘motor vehicles’ so bikes definitely don’t count, but I don’t know how that applies to ebikes.
“It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour.”
no, the speed limit is for (vehicles legally defined as) MOTOR VEHICLES only, doesn't apply to bikes, horses, etc etc.the speed limit is for the road is it not unless specifically specified for other vehicles?
Local bylaws (only one I'm aware of is certain roads inside London parks) can limit the speed of bicycles but this would then be a police (not council, LA etc) matter to enforce.
Superficial
Member
Pretty sure they would apply, the speed limit is for the road is it not unless specifically specified for other vehicles?Speed limits are for ‘motor vehicles’ so bikes definitely don’t count, but I don’t know how that applies to ebikes.
“It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour.”
Fair do's you'd imagine for restricted ebikes it doesn't apply then as they are classed as bicycles under the law, but for deresticted they will apply they as they need to follow the rules for mopeds.
Speed limits on normal roads do NOT apply to bicycles.
The only exception I'm aware of is in the royal parks where they do apply to bicycles.
Obviously, if your ebike is derestricted then it's no longer a 'bicycle' in the eyes of the law, it's a motorbike so speed limits apply.
Edit: posted at the same time as a couple of others
bails
it’s a motorbike so speed limits apply.
It'd be moped rather than a motorbike?
It’d be moped rather than a motorbike
Tbh, I don't know the difference, would a powerful enough ebike cross from moped to motorbike, or do the pedals mean it's always a moped?
In any case, it's a motor vehicle so the speed limit applies.
A moped in uk, is a motorcycle which goes up to power output of 4kw / 50cc, the having pedals is not a defining feature. So an ebike of over 250 watts and less than 4kw will be classed as a moped, but is still a motorcyle.
A moped in uk, is a motorcycle which goes up to power output of 4kw / 50cc, the having pedals is not a defining feature. So an ebike of over 250 watts and less than 4kw will be classed as a moped, but is still a motorcyle.
Home come the gov site differentiates mopeds heres as between 25/km to 45/km. Only mentions the 50cc/4KW limit on 3 wheelers.
https://www.gov.uk/ride-motorcycle-moped/bike-categories-ages-and-licence-requirements
Where's your info from?
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/product-news/electric-bikes-uk-law-234973
I did post this on page 1
Not guilty: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51707616
Not much more information than that at the moment.
