RobF

Sadly for the victims, the offence of death by careless is mundane in legal terms. It's not even regarded as serious enough to automatically go to the crown court. Scary thought that Fred and Edna on your local bench could decide such matters, but they could.

Riese and Muller may still do a couple of bikes with 26" wheels, but they are moving towards 650b.

Stop making unfounded assumptions. I don't believe the legal system is perfect or free from corruption. But wherever that does happen, it's not in relation to a routine death by careless case involving ordinary members of the public.

Why do you want a rear spoke breaker, sorry, hub drive? Your budget would stretch to a quality crank drive with the Bosch or Yamaha motor. The Scott in the link, or similar, would also be well equipped if your ebiking goes beyond commuting. If you are going to stick with the short commute, the Gtech bike would be ideal. It has the rear hub motor you seek, and a belt drive for clean running and low maintenance. You would need to equip it. The bike trade was very sniffy about Gtech when they entered the market, but the bike has proved itself. A mate of mine has been commuting on his for two or three years and thinks it's just the job. https://www.tredz.co.uk/.Scott-Sub-Sport-eRide-SE-2019-Electric-Hybrid-Bike_223237.htm https://www.gtech.co.uk/ebikes/ebike-city.html

I've no idea what Flecc is on about concerning an 'original case' of riding illegally. The only case I know of involving this bloke is the one involving the death of the pedestrian. The suggestion of interference with the prosecution is ludicrous. It's only a scratty death by careless involving two nobodies who have no influence. No shadowy figures in government are the least bit interested in preventing cycling getting negative publicity. The case was prosecuted by an independent contractor - a barrister - so he must have been in on it as well, along with all the CPS lawyers and the police involved in case preparation. Oh, and the judge, who in any event does not return verdicts, the jury does. Perhaps all 12 of the panel were nobbled by MI5. As I said, interference in the case is a ludicrous suggestion.

I'm guessing he's saying that many of the people on here who are calling for severe punishment of the rider will have ridden themselves irresponsibly in the past.

No, it is not enough. There is no evidence for a legal charge of speeding because there is no camera reading to produce a number. There is no charge simply of 'speeding' so a simple statement 'I was speeding' is not enough for a conviction. What the prosecution is entitled to do is to introduce evidence that he was going quickly to support their contention he was riding carelessly. Which is what they did. It is also beyond tin foil hat barmy to suggest there's some high level government interference with the judiciary over proceeding with the case. The case was prosecuted because it passed the two tests. There was a reasonable prospect of a conviction, and it was in the public interest. In any case, the judge doesn't produce a verdict, the jury does.

I'm afraid not. Apart from anything else there is no other evidence of him riding illegally, even though posters on an internet forum will 'know' he was. You cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offence, except in the most exceptional circumstances. Which this is most certainly not.

He cannot be tried or punished for anything else related to this incident. The prosecution get one go, they tried with the three charges. He was acquitted of all three. That is the end of it.

I only managed a minute of that shite, but what has dropping litter got to do with this thread?

He could not be sent down for simply riding an illegal ebike. It's a construction and use offence, punishable only by a fine. Money to fight the case does not come into it, because in any event the case is prosecuted by a CPS lawyer. The victim or their family has no say in that, however much they are worth.

It's a fair jump from 700c to 26". I would be concerned the assistance would stop at a too low real speed, unless you can derestrict the bike. Also bear in mind the motor and pedals will be closer to the ground, and you will under gear the bike. Fine for steady road and cycle path use, but the pedals might ground under hard cornering or on a mountain bike trail. A mate of mine changed a skinny tyred 700c to a podgy tyred 650b. The circumferences were close to identical.

Oo, did someone say rigid forks? The Rambletta looks decent. Very similar design to my AVE, which remains a favourite bike of mine. This style of bike is a lot more capable than people realise. I've done a couple of 80 mile rides on mine. It doesn't roll quite as well as full size wheel bike, but that's less important with a motor. Gearing is slightly limited due to the smaller wheels. Mine bowls along happily enough at about 12mph, but for outright speed a big wheel bike is better. Any lack of speed is more than made up for by the increased fun factor. The smaller wheels and compact frame make the bike great to chuck around in traffic and confined spaces.

He was charged with causing a death while uninsured, and causing a death while riding without a licence. He was found not guilty by the jury of both charges. That is the end of it. The prosecution cannot now go back and lay other charges arising from the same incident. The double jeopardy rule that you cannot be tried twice for the same offence has been changed following the case of an acquitted murderer who confessed to a cell mate years later. But there will only be a second trial in truly exceptional circumstances in which significant new evidence emerges. Realistically, that cannot happen in this case.

The jury acquitted him, not the judge. Tempting to suggest there may have been a hint or two in the judge's summing up of the case. But that is being listened to by both lawyers who will jump on any suggestion of bias in either direction.

There can be no 'follow up' charges. He was acquitted of causing a death while riding uninsured and without a licence. That's it, the criminal case is finished. Following the abolition of double jeopardy, the death by careless charge could in theory be reopened, but only if there is significant new evidence. Realistically, there cannot be any new evidence that is so significant as to warrant reopening the case.

He denied all three charges and was found not guilty of all three charges. The other two, causing a death by while riding unlicensed, and causing a death while riding uninsured. require an element of bad riding to be proved. Since the jury acquitted him of careless in the death by charge, it would have been perverse to find him guilty of the other two. Although they could have done. Juries occasionally come up with a mix of verdicts that look odd.

The fork on the Charger is a Suntour Aion. Since I believe it's pointless on the bike it is fitted to, I'm not very interested in the spec. But here's a review: https://www.bikemag.com/gear/components/suspension/forks/review-suntour-aion-rc-fork/

Hex bolts would generally be in place, but I doubt the holes are big enough to allow water in. Any half-decent bike shop should have some spares knocking about. A bottle cage is handy anyway, even if you don't want to carry water you could use a bottle shaped tool caddy for your spare tube, puncture stuff, and a multi tool. https://www.wiggle.co.uk/lifeline-tool-storage-bottle/

I've explained the marketing rationale behind fitting cheap suspension forks. It's the ultimate victory of style over substance. Not that I especially criticise companies for doing it, they are only responding to buyer preference and they need to sell bikes. My Charger has a higher end Suntour fork, but it's still next to useless particularly as the bike runs balloon tyres.

# Those are the surfaces that a cheapo suspension fork is useless on.

I'm not suggesting cheapo suspension forks do any harm. But they don't provide any benefit over a rigid fork for the use 99.9 percent of hybrid ebikes are put to. In more extreme use, what I would describe as proper mountain biking, a cheap fork also does not do the job. So they really have no use at all, other than propping open the bike shed door.

You ought to try riding a bike with a good quality suspension corrected rigid fork. You would then realise cheapo suspension forks are a waste of space on roads and well made paths. Proper mountain biking is different, but even then a cheapo fork will perform no better than a rigid. The fashion for podgier tyres on hybrids and MTBs has made this even truer than it ever was.

A suspension fork at this price point tends to add weight and very little else. Most bikes you look at will have one because sales are driven by marketing, and inexperienced cyclist buyers assume a suspension fork must be better than a rigid. Not worth worrying about either way - a suspension fork, while next to useless - won't do you any active harm other than some extra weight.

The law accepts there are times when you will be going so fast as to be unable to avoid a collision with a pedestrian. There have been a handful of cases in which someone has tried to run across a motorway and been hit by traffic. The drivers are not prosecuted. Thus it's a judgment call as to whether the driver should be held legally responsible. In this case, the prosecution is alleging the cyclist was careless - his riding was below the standard of a careful and competent driver, or he displayed a momentary lack of attention. Part of that is the speed he was doing, although there is no technical evidence of that in terms of a speed camera reading. What there is is a video which the jury is invited to use to make an assessment of the approximate speed, and the evidence of the other cyclist who describes the defendant passing him very quickly. There may also be technical evidence about the bike, not to prove that it's illegal - there are no charges about that - but to show it is capable of assisting to a high speed. The defendant is claiming he was not riding carelessly, and that he had no chance of avoiding a collision because the pedestrian darted out in front of him. One might think that's an uphill task, but as I've outlined, not all vehicle/pedestrian collisions are deemed to be criminal.