Looks like the precedent has been set at the Old Bailey yesterday!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7597315/Cyclist-appears-Old-Bailey-accused-killing-pedestrian-hitting-electric-bike.html&ved=2ahUKEwjgzraMua_lAhWwVRUIHWpVDKQQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw04mutgRS8PkfCiYb8Tf_7K

Edited October 22, 20196 yr by chris_n

Looks like the precedent has been set at the Old Bailey yesterday!

Interesting, thanks. By the way, there's an error in your URL, this one works OK:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7597315/Cyclist-appears-Old-Bailey-accused-killing-pedestrian-hitting-electric-bike.html

Although a first case, it's not a precedent since riding an e-bike not conforming to pedelec law has always been a driving offence, since such an e-bike is a motor vehicle in law.

.

QUOTE:

 

Nathan Rasiah, prosecuting, said: 'In this case the evidence suggests it was travelling in excess of the road limit and the limit for the bike.

'If they [electric bikes] exceed a certain speed or power you do need a licence.'

 

does that comment suggest that he had a dongle on his bike?

QUOTE:

 

Nathan Rasiah, prosecuting, said: 'In this case the evidence suggests it was travelling in excess of the road limit and the limit for the bike.

'If they [electric bikes] exceed a certain speed or power you do need a licence.'

 

does that comment suggest that he had a dongle on his bike?

The press are useless at reporting anything remotely technical or scientific, the report says

"

Electric-powered bikes do not require the driver to own a licence and have a legal power-assisted speed of up to 15.5mph.

But Nathan Rasiah, prosecuting, said: 'In this case the evidence suggests it was travelling in excess of the road limit and the limit for the bike.

'If they [electric bikes] exceed a certain speed or power you do need a licence.'

"

I suspect the "[electric bikes]" in the last sentence referred to something like "assistance available from an electric bike" and the reporter misquoted. This is coming from the Daily Fail after all.

 

Let's hope the prosecutor is a bit more switched on than the Daily Fail reporter.

I was wondering exactly what Woosh asked. Clearly the rule is really 'If they [electric bikes] exceed a certain assisted speed or power you do need a licence.'

 

The assisted is mentioned just above in the article; it isn't clear what the prosecutor really said and whether the bike really was illegal. Whatever, the cyclist was clearly reckless.

Let's hope the prosecutor is a bit more switched on than the Daily Fail reporter.

If the bike really was legal the defence lawyer and the judge would be even more responsible than the prosecutor .

I was wondering exactly what Woosh asked. Clearly the rule is really 'If they [electric bikes] exceed a certain assisted speed or power you do need a licence.'

 

The assisted is mentioned just above in the article; it isn't clear what the prosecutor really said and whether the bike really was illegal. Whatever, the cyclist was clearly reckless.

I watched the youtube video, it was not clear to me that he was travelling at above 16mph.

If he did, then his apparent speed on the video did not appear particularly fast, easily achievable on pedalling alone because the road was pretty flat. He wouldn't need a dongle for that sort of speed.

If the bike was not dongled then it was not illegal.

I wonder if the police found a dongle on his bike.

I watched the youtube video, it was not clear to me that he was travelling at above 16mph.

If he did, then his apparent speed on the video did not appear particularly fast, easily achievable on pedalling alone because the road was pretty flat. He wouldn't need a dongle for that sort of speed.

If the bike was not dongled then it was not illegal.

I wonder if the police found a dongle on his bike.

 

The prosecutor said he was travelling at above the road limit as well, which could have been 20 or 30 mph in town these days. If he was guilty will depend on whether the bike was legal.

.

Kingsland road is the A10. It is a busy shopping road and sections have a speed limit of 20mph.

Kingsland road is the A10. It is a busy shopping road and sections have a speed limit of 20mph.

As crazy as it might sound, speed limits don't apply to cycles.

As crazy as it might sound, speed limits don't apply to cycles.

 

But do to illegal e-bikes of course, as I posted in this link.

.

As crazy as it might sound, speed limits don't apply to cycles.

Interesting, I didn't realise this. I suppose that it is going to be very subjective (if that's the right word) in court as to what is a dangerous speed. I wonder if judges always thing that the fastest party is always to blame.

But do to illegal e-bikes of course, as I posted in this link.

.

I'm not quite with you there flecc, are you saying that ebikes with the 15.5mph assistance cutoff don't have to obey speed limits but ebikes with a higher assistance cutoff do have to obey them (which I presume is correct)?

I'm not quite with you there flecc, are you saying that ebikes with the 15.5mph assistance cutoff don't have to obey speed limits but ebikes with a higher assistance cutoff do have to obey them (which I presume is correct)?

That is correct. Higher cutoff means it is not a pedalec but a motor vehicle, so the limit applies. By an oddity of the law speed limits have never applied to bicycles (which I only very recently learned), and legal pedalecs have inherited this oddity.

If he was guilty will depend on whether the bike was legal.

That is, whether he is guilty of any of the (motor) driving offences depends on the legality of the bike. He is still almost certainly guilty of some cycling offences if the bike was legal.

I'm not quite with you there flecc, are you saying that ebikes with the 15.5mph assistance cutoff don't have to obey speed limits but ebikes with a higher assistance cutoff do have to obey them (which I presume is correct)?

 

Yes.

 

Legal pedelecs remain bicycles in law so are not subject to RTA speed limits.

 

Any e-bike not conforming to the EAPC pedelec law limits is a motor vehicle in law, this stated by the 1983 EAPC legislation and underlined by the two and three wheel motor vehicle type approval law 168/2013.

 

So as motor vehicles the latter are subject to RTA speed limits.

.

We must of course wait for the final decision from the court case, but most of the comments here make good sense to me, and the case will hinge on the point of that maximum speed, assisted, that the bike can reach!

It appears that the prosecution has done their homework with regard to the present laws.

I have long deplored the Cavalier attitude of some e-bikers with regard to exceeding the legal assisted speeds with high powered, dongled, or whatever bikes....

Maybe this case will bring both clarity and a big dose of common sense to any e-bikers riding illegally.

I would like to thank the OP for bringing this to our attention.

Andy

PS. This was the only video I could find, if you know of a better one, please post the link here. Thanks.

Edited October 22, 20196 yr by Andy-Mat

I have long deplored the Cavalier attitude of some e-bikers with regard to exceeding the legal assisted speeds with high powered, dongled, or whatever bikes....

and I deplore those who assist with their expertise.

Not specific to this case, but ... It's odd in a way that the law can apply harsher penalties on (a) somebody riding under 15mph on a bike that could be assisted to over 15mph than it does on (b) somebody on a legal bike (electric or otherwise) travelling recklessly at 25mph in a 20mph zone (the 'recklessly' is more important than the 25mph there) . However, no law can ever define precise boundaries that make sense.

 

Also, in case (a) there was premeditated breaking of the law irrespective of any incident. (Or maybe not actually premeditated, just ignorance of the law?)

 

p.s. where's [uSER=13916]soundwave?[/uSER]

Either way it was a hit and run, which in itself is an offence.

It says in that video that he was cleared of manslaughter and not charged with dangerous driving. Instead, he was charged with furious cycling, which means he was dealt with as a cyclist, not a motor vehicle. I guess that the court decided that his bike complied with pedelec law.

PS. This was the only video I could find, if you know of a better one, please post the link here. Thanks.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/video/news/cctv-of-dalston-hit-and-run-bike-crash-shows-moment-woman-crossing-road-gets-struck-by-cyclist-on-electric-bicycle/

It says in that video that he was cleared of manslaughter and not charged with dangerous driving. Instead, he was charged with furious cycling, which means he was dealt with as a cyclist, not a motor vehicle. I guess that the court decided that his bike complied with pedelec law.

according to the Mail, he's bailed until next year.

 

Hanlon is charged with one count of causing death by careless driving, one of causing death while uninsured and one of causing death while unlicensed.

Hanlon is charged with one count of causing death by careless driving, one of causing death while uninsured and one of causing death while unlicensed

All 3 charges suggest that the bike had been dongled, none of those charges could apply with an ebike with a motor assist cutoff of 15.5mph.