-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Woman dies following hit and run by cyclist
- Thread starter pemma
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Citation needed. Find the law please.
This cycle wasn’t a motorised vehicle under the law.
Last edited:
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Why is a cyclist going the same speed as a car “unacceptably” fast? A cycle is a much less dangerous vehicle in general to pedestrians than a car, is more manoeuvrable, and will brake more quickly.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Delete
I've already mentioned this - but he was arrested for leaving the scene of an accident. That law only applies to motorists (s 170, RTA 88), so either the police screwed up, or they know something we don't (e.g., the bike was illegally modified).Citation needed. Find the law please.
I don't think that's really true - it may be fairly close in the dry, but maybe not in the wet. (there is also a limit to how much a cyclist can brake without going over the handlebars. )
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Electric bikes are not classed as motorised vehicles under the law - has the bike been recovered?
The Telegraph says “the 30-year-old was held on suspicion of causing bodily harm under Section 35 of the Offence Against Person Act, which covers incidents injuring persons by furious driving”
bramling
Veteran Member
The braking distance is definitely affected in the wet. In the dry I’d say it’s very slightly more than a car, however I’d say this is probably compensated by the cyclist generally having a better awareness of what’s going on around them so the reaction time should generally be marginally quicker.
Geezertronic
Established Member
From what I can see, the wording was amended to "mechanically propelled vehicle" in 1991 so if that was the case, it would apply in this case as well wouldn't it?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170 said:
They are if they have been modified and no longer meet the criteria for electric bikes. The bike was recovered the same day.
The very next sentence...
No, "mechanically propelled" is taken to mean powered by some mechanism, not by a person.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Who cares what law it was? Clearly a law applied to the situation - so why go creating new ones just so they have "cycling" in them?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
A bicycle is not legally a mechanically-propelled vehicle, it is human propelled with mechanical assistance from the drivetrain.
An electric bicycle...I'm not sure. I suspect it may be classed the same because the motor assists, it does not propel.
If it has been modified, it definitely is.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
That's odd, I didn't see that at all! Whoops. I'm wondering if the police have taken legal advice on what constitutes "mechanically propelled", or perhaps even hope to set a precedent.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
A car will brake more quickly from 30mph than a bicycle, its greater weight and servo-assisted brakes will ensure that.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
By itself, a cyclist going at the same speed as a car is clearly not "unacceptably" fast. The issue is that, it would be illegal if the cyclist was going at more than 15.5mph with electric propulsion. That's (roughly speaking) because an electric bike with a motor capable of going faster would be classed as a moped and should be subject to tax/insurance etc. No legal problems with the cyclist going as fast as he is safely able to if he's entirely using his own legs to push the bike, but it's breaking the law if he was using electric propulsion.
The argument has been made here that the cyclist's actions in dumping his (probably, very expensive) bike, are suggestive that maybe there was something illegal about the bike, which the cyclist didn't want linked to him. Combine that with the observation that he was going much faster than the other cyclist on the video, and some people are wondering whether it was a bike that had been illegally modified to go at more than 15.5mph under electric propulsion. To my mind, that is very speculative, and we certainly shouldn't be assuming that's the case, even though it's a possibility.
(On the other hand, if you don't want a bike to be found, dumping it in London seems a bit stupid... under the circumstances, that's practically guaranteeing that it'll be found and investigated by the police, even if they don't know who owns it. But perhaps someone acting in a state of panic might not think that rationally?)
It unlikely to be the first time it has ever come up...
https://www.bikelawyer.co.uk/site/mcn-law-columns/charged-for-having-no-insurance-on-bike
There are other cases around what is a 'motor vehicle'...
https://swarb.co.uk/director-of-pub...-police-v-michael-saddington-Admn-1-Nov-2000/
https://swarb.co.uk/coates-v-crown-prosecution-service-Admn-29-Jul-2011/
Maybe, but we don't really know yet. It is also possible that the police made a mistake.
Because a bike is not a wild animal with a cart on the back. I would expect the maximum sentence for a horse and cart offence to be more lenient than it should be for a cyclist due to a horse having a mind of its' own but a bike being under the complete control of the rider.
SWTCommuter
Member
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 352
Getting a wild horse to tow a cart would be quite an achievement!
Last edited:
OneOffDave
Member
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2015
- Messages
- 453
Dumping a bike in certain parts of London means that it'll be gone fairly quickly, especially if it's not locked and looks semi decent
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
So? The punishment sounded a sensible level.
You're doing the "it's not fair" argument, that's not what the law is about.
Getting a wild horse to tow a cart would be quite an achievement!
Whether or not you consider the horse to be wild doesn't change the fact it's an animal with a mind of it's own and can do unpredictable things.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I'm sure the judge will take this into account when determining the exact sentence.
If the law includes a maximum penalty then the judge can't exceed that. For example, failing to stop at the scene of an accident carries a maximum 6 month penalty but has no limit on a fine imposed. If the law is a couple hundred years old a maximum financial penalty may not be appropriate and it could include a permitted punishment which is now banned under another law.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Is there a specific issue with this particular offence, though? If so, please give examples of case law explaining where you believe the punishment was not adequate.
Teflon Lettuce
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2013
- Messages
- 1,750
One thing that is puzzling me...
There's been a lot of debate on here whether or not cycling laws should be reviewed... with some people arguing that changing the laws on this matter would be either futile, unneccessary or a waste of tax payers money....
now, correct me if I'm wrong... but aren't the laws on just about everything else regularly reviewed/ amended?
So what's so special about cyclists/ cycling that this area should be immune from such a review or amendment?
There's been a lot of debate on here whether or not cycling laws should be reviewed... with some people arguing that changing the laws on this matter would be either futile, unneccessary or a waste of tax payers money....
now, correct me if I'm wrong... but aren't the laws on just about everything else regularly reviewed/ amended?
So what's so special about cyclists/ cycling that this area should be immune from such a review or amendment?
Given it was reported the law a cyclist was charged under was not intended for cyclists, I don't get why anyone should be against an update to the law to make it more appropriate for the type of vehicles on the roads in 2018. How often does the Data Protection Act get updated? And yet we're arguing about whether it's worth the effort to update a law intended for horse and carts.
I would say much more quickly. If the average cyclist slams the brakes on at 30MPH they will simply loose control and come off the bike.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It doesn't matter what it was or wasn't intended for, there is no point wasting Parliamentary time changing a law that appears to have been effective. Do you have that case law to quote where it wasn't again?
Teflon Lettuce
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2013
- Messages
- 1,750
wasn't the debate surrounding that case at the time about the fact that, as the cyclist had to be charged under archaic law he got what many considered a lenient sentence for killing someone due to his own negligence by riding a bike that was unroadworthy ie he'd disabled the braking system... whereas if he had been driving a car the judge would've been able to pass a much stiffer {though still inadequate} sentence for the same crime? IIRC even the judge passed comment on the ludicrousness of the situation.
As I said in an earlier post... laws and sentencing are reviewed all the time concerning all activities.. why should cyclists be immune from the same scrutiny from our law makers? Remember it was only 50 yrs or so ago that drink/ driving was made illegal and was done so against strong opposition from some quarters {probably mostly from those that like a few pints and can't be bothered to walk home!} would you suggest that it was wrong to pass those laws? or to review on a regular basis whether or not they are/ are not adequate for the task in hand?
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
The law is absolutely vast and not all of it is reviewed all the time. If I steal something I’ll be charged under a law from 1968, for example. (Can you think why that law hasn’t been updated?)
Do you have any evidence that cyclists are “immune” from legislative scrutiny? That questions haven’t been asked in parliament?
- Status