[Sriracha]

A video story on BBC this morning purports to show “the moment an e-bike rider collided with a pedestrian before tumbling from his bike.”

The BBC are being mischievous by using the term ebike for something which is clearly not a legal EAPC, thereby associating both together.

But also, looking closely at the video, it seems that the innocent pedestrian in fact outstretched his arm to deliberately catch the handlebar of the motorbike, thereby causing the rider to crash heavily. So not exactly how the BBC presents things.

I’ll attache two clips below.

Topic

[hawkinspeter]

HoarseMann wrote:

It’s an interesting one this. I do think there are ‘shades of Auriol Grey’ to it.

The location looks to be here:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/dSssfk6dZMtivTfm7

It’s a pedestrianised street that allows motorised vehicles for loading and disabled access, overnight between 5pm and 10:30am. The timestamp on the video is 16:55, so a pedestrian might expect vehicles to be using that street around the time of the incident.

Now, clearly this is an illegal motorbike being driven carelessly (if not dangerously), due to the excessive speed. The risks are orders of magnitude greater than a cyclist riding carefully on a shared pavement (or regular pavement). There is a line where force can be used to prevent a crime from occuring, but it’s questionable whether this meets that bar.

If this pedestrian did deliberately knock the rider off their bike and the rider was very seriously injured or killed, then was that use of force proportionate? We would only find out if it had gone to court, but I suspect the pedestrian could have been in a whole heap of trouble.

There’s a clear difference between this and Auriol Grey though in that Auriol moved towards her victim in order to remonstrate/assault, whereas this instance doesn’t show that kind of deliberate aggression.

Personally, I think that if someone is close enough that merely lifting your hand up causes contact, then they’re within your personal space and shouldn’t be travelling at speed as that’s clearly dangerous (to themselves by the look of things).

[HoarseMann]

It’s an interesting one this.

It’s an interesting one this. I do think there are ‘shades of Auriol Grey’ to it.

The location looks to be here:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/dSssfk6dZMtivTfm7

It’s a pedestrianised street that allows motorised vehicles for loading and disabled access, overnight between 5pm and 10:30am. The timestamp on the video is 16:55, so a pedestrian might expect vehicles to be using that street around the time of the incident.

Now, clearly this is an illegal motorbike being driven carelessly (if not dangerously), due to the excessive speed. The risks are orders of magnitude greater than a cyclist riding carefully on a shared pavement (or regular pavement). There is a line where force can be used to prevent a crime from occuring, but it’s questionable whether this meets that bar.

If this pedestrian did deliberately knock the rider off their bike and the rider was very seriously injured or killed, then was that use of force proportionate? We would only find out if it had gone to court, but I suspect the pedestrian could have been in a whole heap of trouble.

[mitsky]

Whilst I do not condone

Whilst I do not condone violence…

The rider was riding at excessive speed on an area which is evidently not meant for motor vehicles.
The rider rode towards and exceptionally close to the pedestrian, probably in an attempt to intimidate/scare him and thus feel “empowered” when it had plenty of space to pass more safely (which is debatable anyway given the speed etc).

I’m glad the pedestrian didn’t appear to be significantly hurt by the impact, regardless of whether he intended the rider to fall off by extending his arm/hand.

Basically, the rider was an idiot.
It F-ed about and found out the results of its actions.

[Sriracha]

EK Spinner wrote:

EK Spinner wrote:

good to see he has been on a dangerous driving charge.

But I was also intrigued with this “he was also handed a 19-month riding ban”, Does this mean he is permitted to drive when released? can he be banned from riding a bike?

I think that is just another facet of the BBC bias. It was not a “riding ban”, though of course that phrase keeps up with the cyclist narrative. Walesonline reports it thus:

He was disqualified from[b] driving[/b] for 19 months and must pass an extended test before he can get a[b] licence[/b].

So, [i]nothing[/i] to do with cycling or cyclists.

The walesonline version has the ring of truth about it, since we know what “disqualified from driving” is, whereas I don’t think “riding ban” is a thing in law.

But of course “driving” ban and loss of his licence – that speaks of a motoring offence, which conflicts with the BBC lens.

[Sriracha]

And now changed to “Watch as
And now changed to “Watch as biker crashes into pedestrian.”

I’d love to know the sequence of events behind the original and the changes. Is it simply a case of starting with the BBC’s own anti-cyclist agenda position and seeing if they get away with it, if no one complains, and then backing down bit by bit to see how much of the agenda they can maintain? Seems that way – they still report he had a “riding ban”, whereas the truth is he was disqualified from driving and must take an extended retest to regain his driving licence. This story comes on the back of a recent story (with HYS comments to follow) about the menace of ebike/scooter hire trials.

[brooksby]

Dnnnnnn wrote:

I don’t think there’s compelling evidence to say it was the pedestrian’s intention to cause the rider to fall. In that scenario, a momentary gesture, or even the perception of one by the rider travelling towards the pedestrian at pace – a twitch, a look, a drop of the shoulder – could easily have triggered a reflexive reaction. In contrast, the rider’s behaviour seems clearly calculated aggression.

So are you saying it was a bit like the Auriol Grey scenario…? That the pedestrian was scared and reflexively lashed out at the person on two wheels but definitely never intended or envisioned that they might fall off…?

[Sriracha]

The rider was too close, no
The rider was too close, no doubt about it. But the BBC says he collided with/crashes into the pedestrian. That part was engineered by the pedestrian.

[hawkinspeter]

Sriracha wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

Walesonline reports: [Quote]when the pedestrian saw him coming towards him he held out his hands in a “slow down type gesture”. The court heard that as Stanciu raced past the man he struck his victim’s hand before losing control of his bike, falling off, and sliding along the wet road.

That has a “he ran into my fist” sort of ring to it. I can fully empathise with the pedestrian, I’ve had exactly the same impulse in similar circumstances. But I do believe he deliberately caused the crash. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/teenage-biker-hits-pedestrian-races-29733329%5B/quote%5D

It’s like when cars close pass – if you can touch them, then they’re too close. I must admit to not having any sympathy for the bike rider and hopefully they’ve learnt an important lesson.

[Dnnnnnn]

I don’t think there’s

I don’t think there’s compelling evidence to say it was the pedestrian’s intention to cause the rider to fall. In that scenario, a momentary gesture, or even the perception of one by the rider travelling towards the pedestrian at pace – a twitch, a look, a drop of the shoulder – could easily have triggered a reflexive reaction. In contrast, the rider’s behaviour seems clearly calculated aggression.

[Sriracha]

On another website, the
Walesonline reports:

when the pedestrian saw him coming towards him he held out his hands in a “slow down type gesture”. The court heard that as Stanciu raced past the man he struck his victim’s hand before losing control of his bike, falling off, and sliding along the wet road.

That has a “he ran into my fist” sort of ring to it. I can fully empathise with the pedestrian, I’ve had exactly the same impulse in similar circumstances. But I do believe he deliberately caused the crash.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/teenage-biker-hits-pedestrian-races-29733329

[bikes]

It looks like the pedestrian
It looks like the pedestrian caused the crash to me. I don’t know where that leaves them legally if they had injured themselves, the rider, or the rider had ended up sliding into someone else and injuring them.

[Sriracha]

That’s good – I did email
That’s good – I did email them, maybe they took note? Originally it said:
“This was the moment an e-bike rider collided with a pedestrian before tumbling from his bike.”

Edit: looking closely, it seems the rider did not collide with the pedestrian; the pedestrian reached out his arm to catch the handlebar, throwing the rider from the bike. Understandable, but not how it is being presented. See frame shots below.

[Sriracha]

After
Compare with the frame shown above…

The pedestrian appears to deliberately reach out to catch the handlebar to make the rider come off. I’ve been tempted to do the same myself a few times. I’m not condoning the rider by any means, but I don’t think this video shows what we are being led to believe – that he crashed into the pedestrian and fell off as a result. It seems pretty clear that the pedestrian played a more active and calculated role.

[chrisonabike]

Yup – this is where the

Yup – this is where the government’s (the last one, this one…) “intense relaxation” on the subject of regulating these * is unhelpful in multiple ways.

The silver lining is that it turns out that the majority of people just aren’t comfortable riding bikes – motorbikes (electric or not), EAPCs or just pedal cycles – around our current roads and car-filled streets.

The flip side of that is exactly those who are less likely to ride responsibly are now getting much heavier and faster two-wheeled vehicles.

* Regulating either that yes – these are allowed but the following restrictions apply (a new class, effectively) or (my preference) no – we’re not going to create a new class for these things.  We don’t need or want one so we will make it really clear they’re not legal to ride almost anywhere, discourage businesses from supplying them and encourage and further empower police to stop their use.

Why shouldn’t we have nice new toys?  Because our infra and rules are not set up for their safe use, other road users aren’t expecting them etc.  Most people aren’t calling for these (motorbikes are a minority interest, even motor scooters) – but (as we’ve seen in lots of other places) LOTS of people will use proper cycle routes and infra if that’s made safe and attractive.  Having to share it with electric motorbikes going twice your speed (or more)? Not safe or attractive.

Who is calling for this?  Companies who want a bite of the less regulated micro-mobility market and want a greater sale than a bicycle or an ordinary EAPC (electrically assisted pedal cycle), online marketplaces etc.

[wtjs]

some people certainly know

some people certainly know they are illegal to use in public

Unfortunately, ‘some people’ does not appear to include the police- at least in Lancashire

[Author]

Replies