Police in London have appealed for witnesses after a pedestrian was left with critical injuries yesterday following a collision involving a cyclist who subsequently fled the scene and abandoned his bike.
The Metropolitan Police say that the incident happened shortly after 5pm on Kingsland High Street in the London Borough of Hackney.
The pedestrian, a woman who is thought to be aged in her 50s, had been trying to cross the road when the collision happened.
She was taken to hospital with what police described as life-threatening injuries and officers are trying to trace her next-of-kin.
The cyclist came off his bike but remounted and rode off, according to police. The bicycle was later found abandoned in Approach Close, N16 and has been retained by police, who are also reviewing CCTV footage.
Detective Constable Darren Case of the Metropolitan Police’s Serious Collisions Investigations Unit said: “This is a shocking incident as it appears the cyclist involved did not stop to assist the victim or contact the emergency services, instead making off.
“We need to hear from anyone who was in the area at the time. Did you see the cyclist before, during or after the collision? Maybe you are in possession of dashcam footage or filmed the cyclist on your mobile phone as he made off, if you did it is vital that you make contact with us.
“We are also appealing directly to the cyclist along with his friends and family who may know of his whereabouts, the pedestrian has suffered life threatening injuries as a result of this collision and it is important that you do the right thing and make contact with police.”
Anyone who has information is asked to contact the Serious Collisions Investigations Unit at Chadwell Heath on 020 8597 4874 or call 101 quoting CAD 5837/28 August.
The incident comes at a time when the issue of collisions between cyclists and pedestrians is in the spotlight, with the government currently consulting on reforming the law regarding dangerous cycling.
115 thoughts on “London pedestrian sustains life-threatening injuries after hit-and-run collision involving cyclist”
Not a cyclist, just a c*** on
Not a cyclist, just a c*** on a bike. My sympathies to the victim, however the incident was caused.
Unfortunately the Mail and their ilk will jump on this as evidence of widespread dangerous cycling, despite the very fact that the injury of a woman involving a bike is so rare that it is deemed newsworthy. They will of course overlook the five people killed and the 60 seriously injured today by motor vehicles.
jasecd wrote:
However, he most definitely was a cyclist due to his being on a bike.
Surely this should be a wake-up call for there to be a mandatory pedestrian helmet law? Depending on the circumstances, maybe a jaywalking law as well? After all, pedestrians don’t pay road tax.
jasecd wrote:
No, a cyclist.
Duncann wrote:
No. The bike was apparently battery-powered, so he’s an eCyclist.
In fact, if it does turn out that the eBike was de-restricted, he probably wasn’t pedalling at all, so we can label him an anti-cyclist.
srchar wrote:
If it was de-restricted, then, pedalling or not, he was on an (illegal, untaxed, uninsured) motorcycle. So he was a motorcyclist.
Presumably he is therefore potentially guilty of driving while uninsured and causing serious injury by dangerous driving, and could get lots of points on his driving license?
Mark B wrote:
It will be interesting to see if he is prosecuted as a “cyclist” (18 months in clink) or a “motorcyclist” (6 points and a small fine).
Mark B wrote:
Indeed, you might be right. Much to be clarified about this sad incident.
Maria Sutton from Wallingford
Maria Sutton from Wallingford knocked cyclist off 2 years ago hit and run, he was killed. She was drunk. She got sentenced to only 4 years. Now she’s out of prison and still has no remorse! What is wrong with legal system in the UK?
Not a cyclist, just a c*** on a bike. My sympathies to the victim, however the incident was caused.
Unfortunately the Mail and their ilk will jump on this as evidence of widespread dangerous cycling, despite the very fact that the injury of a woman involving a bike is so rare that it is deemed newsworthy. They will of course overlook the five people killed and the 60 seriously injured today by motor vehicles.
— jasecd
Chocoface wrote:
Thank you, I was just wondering how many people are killed/injured by motor vehicles every day, that never makes the news.
burtthebike wrote:
Thank you, I was just wondering how many people are killed/injured by motor vehicles every day, that never makes the news.— Chocoface
Basically, dog bites man isn’t newsworthy, but man bites dog? Now you’ve got a story.
As jasecd says, this is not
As jasecd says, this is not good news for anyone, especially the woman pedestrian, and msm will now be all over the examination of cycling crimes as a result.
The incident, on first inspection with very few details, appears to be eerily similar to the Alliston case, with a pedestrian stepping out into the road in front of the cyclist, at least, that’s the way I read it. She was crossing the road and there is no mention of the cyclist being on the pavement, so it seems she may have walked out in front of the cyclist. A situation which has happened to me a number of times, including being knocked off three times by the pedestrian, fortunately without injury to either party.
I wonder if the current cycle crime investigation will look at the causes of pedestrian deaths, or just blame the cyclists?
First and foremost, I hope
First and foremost, I hope sincerely she makes a full recovery, and the cyclist hands himself in, although given the hounding and manner of the prosecution in the Alliston case, I can understand them being reluctant.
It’s noticeable by it’s ommision that no mention is made on the state of the lights at which this incident occurred. They state simply that she was trying to cross the road. I’m pretty sure if the traffic lights had been red, which the busses that are stopped right beside them would confirm, it would have been clearly reported that she was hit by a cyclist running a red light.
The Standard have now updated their story to include it was an electric bike, with several witnesses mentioning high speeds. This could well be a non EU-spec bike with overpowered motor and no speed restrictor, which would actually make it an illegal electric moped rather than a cycle. They also state there were 2 cyclists had to try to avoid her, which also sounds like she may have been crossing when the traffic was stopped, but had a green light.
StuInNorway wrote:
The Telegraph says that the incident occurred “near a pedestrian crossing” but not on it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/29/dalston-hit-and-run-cyclist-leaves-pedestrian-fighting-life/
ES coverage now quotes a witness who says the lights were red for the road, but eyewitness acounts are notoriously unreliable, but if it’s all you’ve got……
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/woman-fighting-for-her-life-after-cyclist-hit-and-run-in-east-london-a3921976.html
StuInNorway wrote:
Plenty of these being ridden around London now, almost always with sod all concern for anyone else’s safety. A pet hate of mine – in fact I’ve seen so many near misses, I wrote to the police suggesting that they have a bit of a crackdown on derestricted eBikes, rather than focusing entirely on RLJ. I didn’t get a reply.
srchar wrote:
Plenty of these being ridden around London now, almost always with sod all concern for anyone else’s safety. A pet hate of mine – in fact I’ve seen so many near misses, I wrote to the police suggesting that they have a bit of a crackdown on derestricted eBikes, rather than focusing entirely on RLJ. I didn’t get a reply.— StuInNorway
I still think it’s preferable to get as many idiots as possible out of cars and onto e-bikes/bikes. They’re still dangerous, but reducing their kinetic energy helps a lot (and also reduces pollution and road congestion).
srchar wrote:
Not just de-restricted e-bikes, some of our locals have taken to fitting small petrol motors in their frames
just do a web search for “petrol motor bicycle kit”
Paul_C wrote:
I’ve seen a handful of these – always assumed they were 1970s pedal-and-pops rescued from sheds.
Paul_C wrote:
e-bikes, especially illegal e-bikes, and even more bikes with petrol motors added, it seems to me, emphasise the absurdity of dividing everyone up into different ‘types’ of people, each with collective responsibility.
Is a scofflaw ‘yoof’ who sticks a petrol engine on a bicycle a ‘bloody cyclist’ or a moton? Which group is supposed to take responsibility for them?
Really there’s just people, using various kinds of equipment, some of it illegal.
After watching videos of
After watching videos of cycling in London on Youtube anyone could be to blame here. Seems to be twattery everywhere – cyclists being twats, pedestrians being twats, buses being twats and literally everyone being a twat.
This said, the ped could have been walking blindfolded and wearing headphones and it will still be the cyclist’s fault in most people’s eyes.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
I was chatting with someone I see occasionally, who I know is a regular cyclist and lives in London, and asked him if he commuted by bike. He said, “no way” for the reasons above.
“Never in the history of
“Never in the history of London had a pedestrian been prosecuted for being at fault”
Mb747 wrote:
An interesting quote; where is it from?
‘Another witness, who did not
‘Another witness, who did not want to be named, said : “I heard a big bang and saw a guy on a bike on the floor and a lady unresponsive, like she had been knocked out. Someone who saw the incident started talking to him. It looked rather confrontational… next minute he had gone.”
From The Standard report.
From this, you could perhaps imagine the cyclist fled to prevent getting a kicking? Certainly if I were his lawyer, that’s what I would say.
KendalRed wrote:
That wouldn’t explain ditching the e-bike, though. The only reason to ditch the e-bike is to avoid getting caught.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Could the bike have been stolen perhaps?
Grahamd wrote:
Yes, that’s entirely possible. Personally, I’d guess that it was a de-restricted model and the rider didn’t want to do 18 months hard time. I don’t now whether stealing an unrestricted bike would be better or worse than actually owning it in the eyes of the law.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Ditching the e-bike (which aren’t cheap) suggests, to me at least, that the rider had stolen it or knew it was stolen. At the moment however we should not jump to conclusions.
KendalRed wrote:
Also from the Standard (and up to their usual poor standards too) one witness said He added: “I’m sure the lights were red as it happened, so I can only assume she was crossing.” . . not that they were red but he’s “sure the lights were” . . implying it’s an opinion not a fact. If they can only “ASSUME she was crossing” then clearly they didn’t actually see it, and any evidence of the colour of light sequences would have to be disregarded.
There also seems to be differing reports as to the location being “at” the crossing or “near” the crossing. If only the “near” the crossing the lights state has little to do with it.
Let’s face it, none of us
Let’s face it, none of us know what happened. But it is obviously sad to hear of the injured lady. And very bad PR for cycling in the current climate. Let’s hope any witnesses prove to be reliable and who actually witnessed the collision.
Abandoned bike – stolen? Only comment I will make as to possible circumstances.
As above – sincerely hope the
As above – sincerely hope the victim makes a full recovery and the culprit is found.
This may be an unpopular view, but I’m increasingly thinking that the upcoming review of the law is a good thing. Police (and CPS) have difficulty meeting the requirements to charge motorists with ‘dangerous’ driving, so too many offences are downgraded to ‘careless’, and many are simply dropped. There are (of course) only comparatively few instances where a cyclist is at fault for a pedestrian injury, but in those cases there is a definite loophole where the only charges that can be brought are either antiquated or not severe enough.
So let’s review the law. Yes, it might mean that there are new offences that apply to cyclists. But isn’t that correct? If you’ve caused harm to someone, shouldn’t there be a penalty? And shouldn’t there be something to discourage people riding in a way that ignores the (small) potential risks? Isn’t that what responsible cyclists (and, obviously, drivers) should do? I’d have a system where the intention of the driver or rider is immaterial, simply by holding the person in charge of the vehicle objectively accountable for its movements.
Call it ‘operating a vehicle inappropriately’. Can be written to cover speed, inability to see (through dirty or frosted up windows, or by dazzle), operating the vehicle in a place it shouldn’t be (e.g. footpaths) or simply with insufficient consideration for other road users. Causing death by, causing serious injury by, causing injury by. Doesn’t matter what the vehicle is then: the fact that a collision occurred means that the operation of the vehicle was inappropriate. If you run down a granny by cycling at 20mph down a shared space path with no consideration, if you run down a cyclist on an A-road at 60mph, if you pull out of a junction in front of someone, you were driving inappropriately, and the seriousness of the accident determines the scale of the penalty. As a cyclist and driver, I’d be OK with that…
jollygoodvelo wrote:
Seeing as how Alliston got 18 months when a motorist in a similar situation most likely wouldn’t have got any prison time, I fail to see why there is any need for new cycling laws.
I do agree that there should be either clarification or improvement to the existing driving laws as they do not seem to be working as intended. However, to equate driving a 2-ton motor vehicle that requires a license to operate, with someone riding atop a few kilos and powered by their own legs is clearly not right.
jollygoodvelo wrote:
A full review of the dangerous/careless driving laws would be welcome. But including cycling offences under the existing laws (which have proven to be ineffective in many cases) is a misguided exercise driven by populist misconceptions.
In any case, increased punishment for the worst case is a bit after the event. What would make a difference would be enforcement of offences such as riding bikes without adequate brakes or a close pass from a motor vehicle. The police need the resources to do the job properly.
Plenty of the usual biased
Plenty of the usual biased reporting…
Why are the police looking for a hit-and-run cyclist rather than a cyclist with an apparent head injury, potentially caused by a pedestrian?
People don’t tend to make the best decisions when they’ve got a head injury.
Curious to learn the real facts after reading the assumptions of some of the witnesses/police.
https://road.cc/content/blog
https://road.cc/content/blog/228327-involved-crash-heres-modest-proposal
I have one word of advice for you: Leave.
IHateSummer wrote:
That’s what I was going to say. I’m not excusing the cyclist for leaving the scene of an accident but, given the hysteria surrounding the Alliston case, would you want to be the next Charlie Alliston?
Make the punishment too harsh and people will try harder to escape rather than face up to the consequences of their actions.
probably the bigger error in
probably the bigger error in judgement here is leaving the scene, not just for the them but for evryone else who will be tarred with the same brush. Second biggest error was being on what to most looks like a bike. That’s a whole big leap up the naughty steps straight away, people doing wrong on bikes might as well be paedophiles for all the general public/media are concerned and it’s not a whole step different when/if it goes to court, even judges have an inherrent bias as seen in the Alliston case where the judge was in contempt and made several statements that had a bias influence on the jury as well as her summing up which slanted matters even further.
You might as well give yourself up kid, say the sun was in your eyes/momentary lapse (judges love using this to defend/absolve motorists when they kill/maim so it’s a banker excuse) and that you hit your head and was in shock/confused hence why you left the scene. FFS whatever you do, don’t go on social media saying it wasn’t your fault, uphold your right to remain silent until someone has some actual facts/evidence to prove something, do not give plod ammunition because they will tear you a new one even if it’s not your fault. They’re not interested in what/how things really happened (Alliston/Michael Mason cases prove that beyond a doubt) you’re on a bike, they’re only interested in how long the courts can bang you up for.
If you are bang to rights, plead guilty, show remorse and still state you had the sun in your eyes/coughing fit/momentary lapse and you banged your head.
Having been tailgated up to a pedestrian refuge this evening and the silly mare trying to squeeze through the gap that simply wasn’t there (I didn’t cede to her bullying) I fucking hate cycling sometimes. No protection on the one hand and on the other hounding by the media/general public/government/police on the other, no wonder cycling uptake is going nowhere fast!
Hope ped recovers, whomever is at fault, none of us want to see soemone come to harm, oh hang on, there’s a few killers that I would wish extreme harm on frankly, Helen Measures is head of the list.
Fly 12 front, Fly 6 back.
Fly 12 front, Fly 6 back. Garmin on bars. Enough expense of kit to buy a decent commuting bike.
These serious incidents are so very rare and I properly pootle on my London commute, but one of the daily ‘pedestrian-not-looking-step-out-from-nowhere’s is going to be messy one day. Most likely I’ll be the one in an ambulance. Either way I want the proof of who was to blame.
If you can afford it. Do it. A handy by product is filming dickhead road users, but it’s primarily there to cover my butt.
Beecho wrote:
I mentioned this in response to the consultation on new cycling offences. If I still had to cycle in town I’d need video evidence to protect me in the event of a collision with a pedestrian because I guarantee a jury of car drivers will side with the ped.
Keeping all that crap charged and running properly must be a pain when you’re commuting, I always hated charging muddy lights at my desk which is why I ended up going with dyno lights.
kil0ran wrote:
I think the Fly6 and 12 while film while charging, so you could potentially hook them up to your dyno hub.
kraut wrote:
I don’t know if you can charge them or not whilst filming, but I’d be surprised if a dyno hub would provide enough charge for them.
Just been announced on the
Just been announced on the radio that the cyclist has handed himself in to the police.
burtthebike wrote:
I’ve read that
“A man contacted police and was arrested at around 11pm on Wednesday at an address in Islington on suspicion of causing bodily harm, failing to stop and failing to report a collision.
He is currently in police custody.”
From the Sun’s website (sorry – I only read it to laugh at the Dear Deidres, honest…).
brooksby wrote:
‘Fail to stop’ and ‘fail to report’ only apply to (IIRC) ‘motor vehicles’. What a horrible grey area.
zero_trooper wrote:
I’ve read that
“A man contacted police and was arrested at around 11pm on Wednesday at an address in Islington on suspicion of causing bodily harm, failing to stop and failing to report a collision.
He is currently in police custody.”
From the Sun’s website (sorry – I only read it to laugh at the Dear Deidres, honest…).
— brooksby ‘Fail to stop’ and ‘fail to report’ only apply to (IIRC) ‘motor vehicles’. What a horrible grey area.— burtthebike
And yet the Grauniad also reports failing to stop and failing to report – does this mean they’re being dealt with as a motorcycle rather than as a bicycle? Henceforth, then, should we all be thinking of e-bikes as just posh motorcycles? (I knew that they were cheating!
)
brooksby wrote:
That’s an interesting edge case. Presumably, the definition of an e-cycle would include the restrictions, so if you de-restrict it, you’re changing the class of vehicle to be a moped if it can’t go more than 28mph or so. That’d mean that he could get done for lack of insurance, tax (if applicable to an e-moped) and a license.
brooksby wrote:
Technically it is a moped not a motorbike. It has a speed of 45kph or less and no gears. And as every biker knows, posh moped is an oxymoron.
I’m guessing they are treating it as a motor vehicle, with no gray area. They are just picking the easiest charges to bring him in on with no grey area and fill out the rest later, to avoid lawyers picking it to bits. Which means they will probably add whole load of other stuff once the inital interview has been done and experts have had a look at the bike.
burtthebike wrote:
From the cctv photo the police released, it appears to be Bear Grylls.
apparently, the abandoned e
apparently, the abandoned e-bike was made by Specialized. Just googled them and their ‘Turbo’ range can hit 45kph on motor alone.
Paul_C wrote:
Maybe the USA version but any of the ones for sale over here have the usual 25km/h limit and no throttle.
BlodadTand wrote:
https://www.specialized.com/gb/en/shop/bikes/turbo-e-bikes-its-you-only-faster/c/ebikes?q=%3Aprice-desc%3Aarchived%3Afalse&show=All
According to the guardian,
According to the guardian, this person has been “”arrested a 30-year-old man on suspicion of causing actual bodily harm under section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act – “injuring persons by furious driving””
the little onion wrote:
The Guardian quotes a witness who stated that the rider was bloodied and dazed (before remounting and riding off)
the little onion wrote:
So a law already exists for the purpose of the arrest/suspected offence, and it is a suspicion as there’s no hard evidence of wrong doing atm for the offence against the person aspect
I hope police now start arresting motorists on the same basis of someone got injured/harmed by them at all times and using the offence against the persons act, oh wait, they won’t, they’ll use the feeble death by being a little bit careless bullshit if at all.
Can he get a fair trial now?
Can he get a fair trial now?
His picture was widely shared. The Met say we shouldn’t post helmet cam footage as it could compromise proscecutions.
If he can still get a fair trial then surely we can post footage freely.
atgni wrote:
He won’t get a fair trial as he was on a bike.
I think the Met’s position is that a static image of the perp is different to actual footage of the event itself (which could prejudice the jury).
hawkinspeter wrote:
He won’t get a fair trial as he was on a bike.
I think the Met’s position is that a static image of the perp is different to actual footage of the event itself (which could prejudice the jury).— atgni
Yet cctv from outside a nightclub that featured in a recent prominent assault case,and was key evidence, was widely shared by the press and even on national tv, I don’t think at any stage that aspect was cited as impacting the possibility of a fair trial
The answer to the question
The answer to the question raised earlier asking how many people are killed on the road each day by motor traffic is 5, almost 1800 people each year which should put incidents such as this, however bad for those involved, into perspective.
jonathanfmcgarry wrote:
What is this “perspective” thing of which you talk? Doesn’t apply to cyclists, only drivers.
This will be reported as an evil cyclist riding a dangerous illegal bike and a totally innocent pedestrian cruelly cut down in the prime of life; just like all the ones killed by drivers aren’t. And it will be reported 24/7 for the next week at least; just like the ones killed by drivers aren’t.
“The incident comes at a time when the issue of collisions between cyclists and pedestrians is in the spotlight”
Is it not collisions between cycles and pedestrians, as in “a cyclist was killed after a collision with a CAR”
Hang on – charged with
Hang on – charged with Failure to Stop?
Uh, that means they are explicitly treating it as a motor vehicle – due to the wording of the act, cyclists [I]have no requirement to stop [/I]. Road Traffic Act 1988, section 170.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170
Interestingly, Invalid Carriages, even when mechanically propelled*, never have to stop..
*mechanically propelled does not mean that there is a mechanical component to the propulsion. It means that the motive force comes from a non-human or non-animal source. E-bikes that are legal do not qualify, as you must pedal to get power.
…oh, I see others have
…oh, I see others have already noticed that.
Teach me for not reading to the bottom of the comments, I guess…
CCTV footage has emerged and
CCTV footage has emerged and he has been released. The footage quite clearly shows that she ran out across his path, he wasn’t riding ‘furiously’ and he had the green light.
Paul_C wrote:
Have you a link to the footage ? If it’s been released… <edit> Nevermind, found it on the Sun even though it pains me to look there. Clearly shows that the pedestrian ran into the cyclist NOT that he hit her. She ran into the side of his front wheel. <end-edit>
I assume he may still face dealing with leaving the scene of an accident even ig he’s no longer in custody.
StuInNorway wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but the charge of leaving a scene of an accident ONLY applies to motorised vehicles. So this to my mind leaves two options:
-he was on a legal e-bike, which legally isn’t a motorised vehicle if the power assist stops at 18 mph, in which case he can’t be charged
-he was on an illegal e-bike, modified so that the power assist doesn’t stop at 18mph, in which case he can be charged
In any case, the usual Alliston comparisons have been widely made, and Matt Briggs has stepped up his witch hunt. Time for a proposal for a “dangerous walking” law to match the Briggs campaign for a ‘dangerous cycling’ law.
the little onion wrote:
This. Absolutely this.
burtthebike wrote:
I get what you’re saying, but you realise that will lead to jaywalking laws: don’t cross any road except on a marked crossing, etc… Isn’t that what we don’t want to happen?
brooksby wrote:
This. Absolutely this.
[/quote]
I get what you’re saying, but you realise that will lead to jaywalking laws: don’t cross any road except on a marked crossing, etc… Isn’t that what we don’t want to happen?
[/quote]
Possibly not, but if I get knocked down by a pedestrian who isn’t looking where they are going again, and injured as a result, I want them to be held to the same standards as if I’d knocked them down. Seems fair to me.
StuInNorway wrote:
Here’s the Sun link :https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7136632/cctv-video-dalston-hit-run-bike-crash/
I imagine the bloke could explain his way out of leaving the scene – a head injury, confusion and an angry mob of people made him fear for his life, so he legged it and dropped his bike when he thought he was being chased etc. Also, he contacted the police himself at around 11pm, so that would likely count in his favour.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Christ the reporting in the Sun article is infuriating (not that I expected anything else) whilst reporting she was ‘running into the road’ ‘while the lights were gree’ it then uses the usual shite like ‘hurtled into her’, ‘hit and run cyclist’ etc.etc. Grrr!
pastyfacepaddy wrote:
This, just this.
pastyfacepaddy wrote:
Even most of the comments support the cyclist, shockingly.
It says he had cuts to his head, so he could well have been in sock, and people do stupid things in shock. It’s interesting the Sun has one comment on how he was injured and then uses other comments from bysanders to make is sound like he ran off “He didn’t even stop”.. Appart from the time he was on the floor bleeding.
Paul_C wrote:
Doesn’t matter. In these circumstances, and with the so-called “safety review” looming, the powers that be can’t just let him get away with it… “Oh, won’t someone think of the daft pensioners…?”
We need Uber or Tesla to make
We need Uber or Tesla to make an autowalk mode for pedestrians. Stare at your phone all day, happily under the control of an automated walking system that stop you walking in front of cars, motorbikes and even furious cyclists.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Autonomous Segways!
autonomous segues – that’s
davel wrote:
I call chipmunk!
I call chipmunk!
davel wrote:
How dare you!
Chipmunks have stripes
Just over his/her/its right
Just over his/her/its right shoulder… Stripeage.
davel wrote:
That’s a shadow.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Dark/light/dark… in the fur…
davel wrote:
Photoshopped.
hawkinspeter]
by the Good Lord himself (not Sir St Chris). When he was making chipmunks
davel wrote:
Just a knock-off cheap copy of the original squirrel. Apparently they come from the same factory and production line, but you can tell that the quality control isn’t there.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Its a squirrel but fitted with an aftermarket, de-restricted set of go-faster stripes. Bloody menace!
CygnusX1 wrote:
Got to dispair at the witness
Got to dispair at the witness statement
“The guy who caused the accident was bleeding from the head, but instead of waiting for the police to come back, he ran off.”
So SHE ran across the road in front of more than one cyclist and it’s still the cyclist that caused the accident.
Got to love the way The Sun words things like ‘ after a number’ when talking about incidents. Well you can number anything. 1 is equivalent to 1000 in Sun terms.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
I watched the CCTV and from what I could see, she ran out straight into just the one (e)cyclist. A cyclist went through the lights before she ran out, so I think that must be the other cyclist that “dodged her”.
Also, why did the witness specify “waiting for the police to come back”? Did the police turn up, then leave and then come back again?
I think the current climate against cyclists makes leaving the scene a sensible, though callous reaction.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
To which you can add
“He added: “I’m sure the lights were red as it happened, so I can only assume she was crossing.” “
Will the ES update it’s story and headline?
No doubt Mr Briggs is campaigning with the london taxi drivers about pedestrians running into the road without care.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Sun readers counting: one, two, three, MANY!
This whole article needs to
This whole article needs to be plastered around the courts of the land alongside the cars that lose control and have unfortunate collisions.
I read the article, every single eye witness talks of the cyclist hitting the pedestrian, talks of him running away (clearly not), states another cycle dodged her (it did not). If she was a full back in rugby it would have been an astonishing covering tackle!
The bike looked to be doing about 10-12mph, the pedestrian is clearly looking left and trying to beat the white car!
If im cycling, hit a
If im cycling, hit a pedestrian because they run out into the road what does the law say?
Do I HAVE to report the accident to police?
Assuming I dont want to make an insurance claim / sue for damage, where I would need an incident number
Asking for a friend
Mb747 wrote:
I think that’s a grey area.
If you’re driving a motorised vehicle, then you would have to exchange details and/or report it to the police. See here for more info: https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q894.htm
If you were to follow the same rules, then it would depend on whether there were injuries/damage caused.
Personally, if no-one’s badly hurt and I didn’t want to take the matter further, then I would be quite comfortable with not reporting it.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Lets not assume motorised vechile.
Also if you dont report you put yourself at risk. I recall someone who was knocked over later realising they were injured enough to need a checkup, the driver was arrested.
Mb747 wrote:
No requirement to stop, and no requirement to report. Sections 170 and….uh… The number slips my mind, but they both specify motorists.
Of course, if it IS deregulated, then the midden hath hit the windmill for the gentleman in question, because it is likely then, legally speaking, a motor vehicle.
Crippledbiker wrote:
–deleted, not sure what i’m talking about–
yourealwaysbe wrote:
I’d guess an e-bike would count as a mechanically propelled vehicle.
“A motor vehicle driven by petrol, oil, steam, or electricity (s 185, Road Traffic Act 1988 or s 136, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984).”
whereas a bicycle is not.
brooksby wrote:
I imagine it currently falls into a legal grey area, and that case law may be incoming, depending on how this case progresses.
brooksby wrote:
Maybe not
The cps link says in the middle ‘Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles that conform to these regulations are considered to be pedal cycles and as such are allowed to use cycle facilities such as cycle lanes on the road and cycle tracks away from the road which other powered vehicles are prohibited from using. ‘
Although what a modified one is, I have no idea.
hirsute wrote:
An ebike can only have a 250W motor which can only power you up to 15.5mph, and only when you’re pedalling, though I think they are allowed to get you moving up to like 6mph without pedalling. If it doesn’t meet those criteria it’s not a bike, it’s something else.
A modified bike would most likely be one with a higher powered motor or without the 15.5mph cap. It would be legal off-road, but that would probably extend to keeping you off shared use paths and so on. Basically it would have to be for mountain biking, I think.
hirsute wrote:
Well, if it was a stock, unmodified ebike then it’s a bicycle and crippledbiker is right that there’s no obligation to stop. Doesn’t stop it from being a bit sh!tty (not stopping), but there’s been some good arguments about that and in any event some accounts have the cyclist as concussed so I’d guess they get some mitigation.
hirsute wrote:
You’re correct.
So long as;
The motor cannot achieve more than 250w continuous output;
The motor does not provide assistance above that necessary to achieve and maintain 15.5mph;
Does not provide assistance above a low speed ( sometimes referred to as walk assist, about 6mph) without pedalling;
It is explicitly not mechanically propelled, but mechanically assisted. That last point is only the case since the EAPC 2015, and only applies to pedal cycles because everybody forgets that handcycles exist, so handcycles are actually still OK to have manual throttles on.
Oh, and there is also a weight limit, but I don’t know that off the top of my head.
A modified one is, in UK context, either retrofitted with a manual throttle not restricted to walk assist, or has had the speed limit raised or removed.
My cougar weighs almost 30kg and has a 250W, 36V motor. On the flat, it uses about 100-130W to get to 15.5 (not precise numbers. Worked out with a voltmeter and knowledge of the battery performance curve). That’s about 1/3 a BHP.
Now, it’s not a linear curve because Physics, but that same motor with no restriction would probably achieve 20mph on mine, and maybe 23mph on a normal bike.
I know from the manufacturer tests that the 46v easily gets to 30mph, and they won’t disclose the final speed of the 72v (partly because they’ve never actually hit the top of it!), but have admitted that it’s easily in excess of 40mph. At these speeds, however, the fact that the back is a mostly normal wheelchair starts to become somewhat of an issue…
I really hope for his sake it
I really hope for his sake it wasn’t a deregulated bike or he can probably expect the same sentence as Alliston got.
Couldn’t help but contrast
Couldn’t help but contrast this with the following
http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/16832006.elderly-woman-fractures-face-after-mobility-scooter-hit-and-run-in-mersea-road-colchester/
Clearly we need a new ‘dangerous mobility’ law to bring these mobility riders to justice.
BTW what is happening with the cyclist?
Somewhat amazingly the
Somewhat amazingly the comments on the Sun article are pretty much all pointing out that it was her fault.
Sad to read the lady has died
Sad to read the lady has died but BBC bias is ridiculous
‘Woman struck by hit-and-run cyclist in Dalston dies’
No she ran into him and injured him
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45497026
hirsute wrote:
BBC says “A pedestrian who was knocked down by a cyclist in a suspected hit-and-run last month has died. Sakine Cihan, 56, was crossing Kingsland High Street in Dalston, east London, at about 17:00 BST on 28 August, when she was struck.” …which isn’t exactly how it looks on the video.
The article later says “Department for Transport figures for 2016 show that 448 pedestrians were killed on Britain’s roads, but only three cases involved bicycles.” so clearly we definiteley need that dengerous cycling law, don’t we?
hirsute wrote:
A sad conclusion.
In fairness to the BBC, they do point out that only 3/448 pedestrian deaths on the roads in 2016 involved bikes.
Nevertheless, it would have been good to also know what % of those deaths they reported on at similar length to this (or the Alliston) case.
I don’t think there’s a deliberate anti-cyclist bias – but the media should (but won’t) be careful that their “man bites dog” coverage isn’t supporting a false public perception.
Duncann wrote:
The BBC coverage is simply outrageously biased!
They say that she “was crossing…when she was struck” which might be technically true, but it would be more accurate to say that she blindly ran from the pavement straight into the path of a cyclist causing him to fall off and suffer concussion.
hawkinspeter wrote:
As there’s a police investigation and possibly further legal process to follow, any media outlet would be unwise to say that. Sticking to what’s “technically true” is sensible.
Duncann wrote:
As there’s a police investigation and possibly further legal process to follow, any media outlet would be unwise to say that. Sticking to what’s “technically true” is sensible.
— hawkinspeter“Technically true” is that she ran into him – we can see that on the video.
Saying he hit her is not “technically true”.
“Woman in collision with…..in an incident…..” would be neutral.
hirsute wrote:
And, it would be woman in collision with a bicycle, not with a cyclist.
brooksby wrote:
Better, a woman in a collision with a person riding a bike, or even better: A person riding a bike in a collision with somebody walking.
madcarew wrote:
From the cctv footage released, she was definitely running.
I’ve made a complaint to the
I’ve made a complaint to the BBC and to OFCOM, they are a fucking disgusting government mouth-piece that time and again are bias in their reporting and deliberately leave out facts that are easy to obtain or simply write whatever the fuck they want to suit their agenda.
Cunts