Google Charlie Allston for source;

I did as I don’t recall (poor memory for manes)
Now I Am confused, and want a Pizza

could he travel at that speed in that location on a normal bike; probably,

I forgot this is stw where everyone is Laurens ten dam

If the battery didn’t propel him to 25mph…the chances of him being doing 25mph there were slim – unless I missed the **** off big hill behind him

Do I think he should be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving: No, based on the video.

Do I think he should be charged with driving without a licence and insurance: Yes if it was a chipped e-bike.

The second rather leads to the first though doesn’t it?

Trail_rat- I have no idea where that is. From the video it looks pretty flat bit of road hence saying he could probably get to 25mph. If he couldn’t without a chipped ebike then he is probably screwed as it would certainly be a significant contributing factor.

Probably someone who saw a cyclist knock down a pedestrian who was looking at her phone, and thought they would go to jail for a year and a half because something on their bike did not conform to the highway code?

Google Charlie Allston for source; I’m sure everyone here will recall.

Although “they” went after him pretty hard, Charlie Alliston’s not quite as much of an innocent victim as you imply – IIRR it seems he was, in fact, a bit of a cock (including possibly lied about the phone bit?)

do road.cc block comments on all ebike articles?

I think they disable comments on current legal cases.

Is he a monumental arsehole for leaving an injured pedestrian in the road: Most definately.

I’m in two minds on this, on the one hand I agree. On the other hand if that were me and someone had just walked into me and I’d hit the road from 20mph then I’d probably be in the frame of mind that I was the victim, and once there’s a crowd of bystanders barging in to help them I’d probably slope off to find my own plasters and patch myself up thinking that the other person was probably no more badly injured than I was, rather than hang around wasting the ambulances time.

it seems he was, in fact, a bit of a cock

He really was. An odious oik.

But he found himself in the middle of a fatal accident due to a woman crossing the road while looking on her phone. If he was in an EV travelling as fast, as quietly, the woman would still be dead, and he would likely have walked away as ‘being involved in an accident’ rather than the Grim Reaper mowing down folk on his track bike.

Surely whether someone is pleasant wouldn’t affect their access to justice?

Would it?

I am very aware of saying the pedestrian was culpable in the incident is easily twisted into ‘victim shaming’, but if you walk into a road without looking there must be a little blame? When I was a kid the squirrel on tv was very clear about it.

If you see the video of this latest incident, and it was quite widely available before (I think it was before it was known that the woman had died) it’s pretty clear that she runs out in front of him without looking, while he has a green light. But, one of the morals of the story is: If you illegally alter an e-bike (or any other vehicle) & something like this happens, the prosecuting authorities will inevitably throw the book at you, I think because you have broken the law in a premeditated way. I don’t actually think he was going at an unreasonable speed & I don’t think he could have avoided her, but the fact is, he’s going to get done big time.

But he found himself in the middle of a fatal accident due to a woman crossing the road while looking on her phone.

While that was originally part of his defence it was withdrawn because no-one, including the cyclist himself, actually observed her using her phone as she crossed the road. The completely unsupported allegation was a factor in the sentencing as I think i.e. the judge didn’t take the defence fabricating an excuse.

If you see the video of this latest incident, and it was quite widely available before (I think it was before it was known that the woman had died) it’s pretty clear that she runs out in front of him without looking, while he has a green light.

Indeed. If that was a legally registered motorbike, with a licensed and insured rider and was within the speed limit then I doubt there would be any kind of case.

Entirely possible the “causing death by dangerous driving” stuff will get dropped and the illegal vehicle stuff pursued.

The video is very poor quality it’s hard to tell if he made an attempt to try and stop or exactly what she is doing, she appears to have her head down

I’d probably slope off to find my own plasters and patch myself up thinking that the other person was probably no more badly injured than I was, rather than hang around wasting the ambulances time.

**** me!

The story says he was on a Specialized e bike

Looking at that video it doesn’t look like a mid motored ebike never mind a Specialized.
More like a home conversion.
At the end of the video you can see the downtube/BB area and there’s no motor there.

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2hzivTr]Screenshot (128)[/url] by multispeedstu, on Flickr

Fwiw I was working in Dalston when this happened and I saw the aftermath on the way to the train station.

E-bike or not, it would be a struggle to be going especially fast in the direction he was heading as it’s slightly uphill and the volume of traffic/pedestrians + nearby junctions and traffic lights tended to mean nobody went fast there using any form of transport. He didn’t look like he was giving it the beans either.

At the end of the video you can see the downtube/BB area and there’s no motor there.

Looks like the uber eats deliveroo specials popular around here, they zipp along at 25mph+ without pedalling no problem. I’d agree unless there’s evidence he didn’t try to avoid the collision, 25 in a 20 zone isn’t really dangerous driving. That’s accepting the victim did just run in front of him against a red light.
The vehicle stuff is still there. I didn’t know causing death whilst unlicensed/insured was a particularl offence, live and learn.

actually observed her using her phone as she crossed the road

Then I shall withdraw the remark and put in it’s place “crossing the road without looking”. Which will always be a bad idea.

Then I shall withdraw the remark and put in it’s place “crossing the road without looking”

… and that’s fine but I also seem to remember a video where she made a panicked u-turn and went back towards the kerb, just as he was passing behind her and prob just after (yeah, I’m guessing) he shouted at her. There was definitely plenty of time to (and evidence that he did) see her

What I’m about to write doesn’t in any way make it morally right but……

I’d agree unless there’s evidence he didn’t try to avoid the collision, 25 in a 20 zone isn’t really dangerous driving

if it was a motorist doing 25 in a 20 it wouldn’t have (in any case I’ve seen) have had much influence at all. You’d have thought breaking the speed limit would put you straight in the ‘at fault’ and ‘dangerous driving’ but is usually just ignored. Everyone speeds so not even ‘careless’ in eyes of law as doesn’t fall below the minimum standard of a careful driver.

I see drivers all the time who don’t brake at all when heading towards a collision with people crossing road but have time to reach the horn. Again, I doubt that would have any relevance in a motoring collision.

You can also find frequent cases where (illegally) modified cars have contributed to a collision – theres a case in east London where a driver with heavily tinted windows doored a cyclist into the path of a bus which killed him. No charge to the driver IIRC.

This guy was almost certainly riding an illegal e-bike, and he should be prosecuted for that. Having seen the video his speed didn’t seem excessive (though I’ve made no attempt to measure it) and she did appear to run out in front of him without looking. It didn’t look to me as if he had much chance to avoid her.

The ebike being contributory to the dangerous driving part of the dangerous driving charge is pure speculation invented in this thread, it doesn’t have any basis in the press reports so not really worth getting het up about.

Painey’s post above is a good description of the road conditions on Kingsland High St and that may go some way to explain the charge.

Hopefully more facts will emerge in February.

In the same way that Charlie having no brakes wasnt contributory in his ?

As for the condition of the street…. Hazard awareness would tell you that cycling furiously up a busy crowded street would be a bad idea as pedestrians are often unpredictable.

ebike being contributory to the dangerous driving part of the dangerous driving charge is pure speculation

It really isn’t sepculation in that if it weren’t a modified ebike there could not be a charge of dangerous driving at all.

Charlie wasn’t charged with dangerous driving or cycling, he was charged with wanton or furious driving which includes wilful neglect as one of its points to prove. Willfully neglecting to put brakes on a bike is very relevant to that.

In the current case we really don’t know what the CPS thought process is from a two sentence quote in the Mail. Indeed given the CPS’s history, the time to trial and that there’s no plea yet it’s entirely possible that the CPS don’t know what their case is yet.

Jon – yes, of course. Which is why I used to awkward sentence construction I did to make it obvious.

Looking at the CCTV footage does anyone else think it looks like he’s not pedalling?

I don’t think he was. That isn’t a Specialized ebike, it’s a low end Specialized with a conversion on it. I’ve been looking round at conversion kits recently and a lot come with throttles on and up to 1000w – huge speed available.
For some reason the only bikes people tend to convert are BSO’s or low end MTB/hybrid bikes when I look round the forums.

I’m in two minds on this, on the one hand I agree. On the other hand if that were me and someone had just walked into me and I’d hit the road from 20mph then I’d probably be in the frame of mind that I was the victim, and once there’s a crowd of bystanders barging in to help them I’d probably slope off to find my own plasters and patch myself up thinking that the other person was probably no more badly injured than I was, rather than hang around wasting the ambulances time.

Yeah, I’m a bit sympathetic on this.

A few years back had a pedestrian run across a busy multi-lane road, weaving between moving cars, only to stop in front of me, giving me no chance to avoid a collision.
Stopped, obviously. Did all the right things. Three years later she’s suing for injuries and has constructed a fabrication of events to support it including that she was on a pedestrian crossing (she was not), that the light was red for traffic (it didn’t exist), that the cars were stationary (they weren’t, witness statements disagreed), that I was speeding (in a 40 limit).

I’m very thankful for CTC’s third party insurance – although I’m a little bit bitter that they settled.

But yeah – it was a fair amount of hassle caused by an unreasonable individual and I’m sympathetic to those who might wish to avoid it.

What I’m about to write doesn’t in any way make it morally right but……

I don’t disagree with the reality a driver may not have been prosecuted to the same extent in the same situation but…

To me it seems the inference here (and from others on this thread, the one about CA at the time and many other threads) seems to be the cyclist shouldn’t be prosecuted because motorists aren’t, rather than that everyone should be investigated and, where at fault, prosecuted to the fullest extent possible when someone is killed.

People seem to be (rightly imo) up in arms when a cyclist is run over and the driver gets told not to do it again, decrying the leniency of the legal response but, when a cyclist (riding a non road legal bike no less) is the one behind the wheel, it seems people feel they shouldn’t be held to the standards we want for drivers or that we feel they should only be held to those same standards we are adamant aren’t good enough.

Yeah but on here like speeding,derestricting your ebike is seen as a victimless crime. -only yesterday folk were saying 15.5 mph is too slow **** the law I’m going to derestrict my bike.

Stuff like this never happens

And certain forum members have superhuman powers and would have avoided this even at 40mph .

To me it seems the inference here (and from others on this thread, the one about CA at the time and many other threads) seems to be the cyclist shouldn’t be prosecuted because motorists aren’t, rather than that everyone should be investigated and, where at fault, prosecuted to the fullest extent possible when someone is killed.

Yes in a perfect world the motorist would get the same treatment. However they don’t and until they do it is not right for cyclists to get a harder time for equivalent offences.

Try it in an unregistered untaxed uninsured self built car and see how the process goes. That would be a comparable incident.

I’m in two minds on this, on the one hand I agree. On the other hand if that were me and someone had just walked into me and I’d hit the road from 20mph then I’d probably be in the frame of mind that I was the victim, and once there’s a crowd of bystanders barging in to help them I’d probably slope off to find my own plasters and patch myself up thinking that the other person was probably no more badly injured than I was, rather than hang around wasting the ambulances time.

Have a read of this:
https://road.cc/content/blog/228327-involved-crash-heres-modest-proposal

I can’t say I disagree to much of what was written to be honest. I’ve seen how the law treats cyclists. Do anything wrong on one / with one and the full force of the law lands upon you with a jury of drivers desperate to take out all their inner predjudices on you.
Have something happen to you on a bike (ie hit by a driver, brought off by a pothole) and you’ll still be made to blame somehow (look at all the headlines of “the cyclist, who was not wearing a helmet, ….” and so on).

I hit a pedestrian once – she sprinted out across the road in torrential rain, head ducked against the rainfall and right into me. I was knocked flying, left lying in the road bike one way, me another. Computer and light knocked off and broken by the impact. She got up, looked at me lying there and **** off sharpish. Meanwhile the crowd of people rapidly gathering were all glaring at me.

Yes in a perfect world the motorist would get the same treatment. However they don’t and until they do it is not right for cyclists to get a harder time for equivalent offences.

This. This guy should be prosecuted BUT far worse motoring incidents are regularly excused with minimal sanction. This will be Charlie Alliston all over again and that environment makes the roads more dangerous for the rest of us who cycle on them – it increases the ‘outing’ of people cycling.

Try it in an unregistered untaxed uninsured self built car and see how the process goes. That would be a comparable incident.

Would it? There are an awful lot of modified cars out there. In Spain my understanding is that after pretty much any modifications a vehicle has to be re-tested for safety. You see all sort of engine, suspension etc etc mods in the UK – are those cars as safe as when they left the factory?

This thread for general road injustice https://twitter.com/ormondroyd/status/910244326567006211?s=20

A few excerpts for you
Georgia Addy, also 15, was hit on a pavement at 30mph. The driver drove off without alerting emergency services. £500 fine.

Bertie Soanes ran down a cyclist, breaking multiple bones. He lied about dialling 999 and drove off. £266 fine, 6 month ban.

Douglas Kennedy just got 150 hours of community service and a fine for driving at 70mph in a 40mph zone in Lancing, killing Trevor Porter, a grandfather of 59. U

Lauren Johnson, a mother of two very young kids, was killed on the pavement by a driver who mounted it, doing at least 53mph in a 20mph zone. The CPS elected not to prosecute, stating it is not in the public interest to do so. Jesse?

Alexander Fitzgerald killed Dr Jasjot Singhota on a zebra crossing. He didn’t see her because he hadn’t bothered to clear the frost off the windscreen of the car he was illegally driving while uninsured. 10 months in jail, and a driving ban of less than two years.

Sam Harding was killed by a driver who opened his car door into him, knocking him under a bus. The driver had illegally tinted his car windows to 17% transparency and admitted not checking his mirrors, but initially claimed to police that Harding simply lost control. Acquitted

Zaheer Patel had never passed a driving test, and was uninsured, when he rolled his car at 3:30am in Humberstone. His passenger was thrown from the car. He ran off, leaving her “gravely injured” with a brain bleed, a burst lung, and multiple fractures. £120 fine, community order.

A few excerpts for you

I don’t disagree that punishment of drivers is generally wholly insufficient, I don’t however see that, whilst demanding that law be applied more rigorously and punishment more often be towards the higher not lower end of guidelines that I’ve then any reason to complain when it is.

The problem isn’t cyclists being unduly targeted, it’s motorists being unreasonably favoured. I don’t want anyone favoured and pushing for everyone to be treated leniently until nobody is won’t result in anything but more leniency not less.

This will be Charlie Alliston all over again

You mean a road user who ran down and killed a more vulnerable person then seemingly lied to try and get away with it? Yes it’s very much that all over again, possibly with less lying.

that environment makes the roads more dangerous for the rest of us who cycle on them – it increases the ‘outing’ of people cycling.

Maybe I’m at an advantage here in as much as I don’t live in a big city and I generally behave in accordance with things like the highway code (certainly I don’t deliberately break it but I shan’t pretend I’m perfect either) but I’m really not sure how the case of CA made things any worse. I certainly don’t seem to get more close passes, unsafe overtakes or generally driven at than before. If anything over the last 5 years or so, I’ve been treated noticeably better on my commute not worse.

Frankly both CA and the defendant in this case killed someone, through at the very least not bothering to pay attention or consider basic hazards posed by pedestrians. They deserve to be treated like they’ve killed someone regardless of what mode of transport they happen to be using. That others “get away with it” is no reason they should. Hell on that basis no-one should ever get punished for anything because a few folks have literally gotten away with murder in the past.

Try it in an unregistered untaxed uninsured self built car and see how the process goes. That would be a comparable incident.

This, aimed in particular at all the “Well I want MY ebike to go >25kph so I’m chipping it” brigade. He should have had insurance, his lack of insurance could have a significant impact on the victim’s family (or on the victim had the incident been slightly less serious). Had he received sufficient training for such a vehicle, he might not have crashed.

It’s not an e-bike he was on, by the sound of the charges, it’s an unregistered unlicensed moped.

It’s not an e-bike he was on, by the sound of the charges, it’s an unregistered unlicensed moped

Maybe the rider should push this line as it seems like he’ll get treated more leniently as a motorist than a cyclist

Maybe the rider should push this line as it seems like he’ll get treated more leniently as a motorist than a cyclist

I don’t imagine he would, in court, but there would be no media attention given to just another uninsured moped accident.

Given the choice of a charge with a maximum sentence of a £2,500 fine or one with 14 years in prison, I know which one I’d rather face.

E-bikes in “being used as all of us “haters” predicted and ending up as a stick to beat “cyclists” in the DM and Sun”… Shocka!!

Looks like the uber eats deliveroo specials popular around here

Yep I occasionally see a local Deliveroo-ist (Reading) on an shonky home converted “E-bike”;
No lights, a pannier with a battery box zip-tied on, Hub drive motor.
The pedals never move yet he’s on and off pavements accelerating up the inside of moving traffic through junctions, wobbling about with the insulated cube full of food strapped to his back, I can only assume he’s set it up as a twist ‘N’ go to keep to some sort of punishing transfat delivery schedule.
Most deliveroo riders seem to pick up from busy pedestrianised areas in the middle of town so he must have a slightly less frantic mode available, or reverts to pedalling round Ped’s, but I’d be amazed if he’d not had contact with a car or van already…

Yes in a perfect world the motorist would get the same treatment. However they don’t and until they do it is not right for cyclists to get a harder time for equivalent offences.

In my view if he was using a derestricted E-bike He should be treated as a motorist, potentially an unlicensed one, operating an unregistered motor vehicle. In that case he should be tried and sentenced appropriately and Prison time should be and option on the table (no direct knowledge of the case of course) as it would be with a fatality caused by a car driver.
But I doubt anyone will bother to make the distinction in print between a bicycle/legal, limited e-bike and an unlicensed/unregistered motorcycle…

You see all sort of engine, suspension etc etc mods in the UK – are those cars as safe as when they left the factory?

They have this thing called an MOT which annually tests cars to check that they are roadworthy.
I presume there’s something similar in Spain.

They have this thing called an MOT which annually tests cars to check that they are roadworthy.

Somehow cars with dpfs removed, illegally tinted windows, front number plate mounts blanked off and plate in windscreen, illegal fonts and spacing on number plates all seem to be getting through MOTs and that stuff is clearly visible (and dpf should be easy to detect) so I have very little faith in the MOT.

Plus, fo that matter, all the “chipped” cars people talk about on here which have power output considerably different to as sold without upgraded brakes or other parts.

Aside from the DPF issue (which has to be visible, a “replacement” may have no core for all an inspector knows) I’m not sure any of the rest come under an MOT but rather Construction and Use regs which are enforced by the police. Who as we all know are ten a penny out on the roads.