London pedestrian sustains life-threatening injuries after hit-and-run collision involving cyclist

hirsute wrote:

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

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:

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

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:

hirsute wrote:

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

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.

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:

she blindly ran from the pavement straight into the path of a cyclist causing him to fall off and suffer concussion

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:

hawkinspeter wrote:

she blindly ran from the pavement straight into the path of a cyclist causing him to fall off and suffer concussion

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.

"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:

Duncann wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

she blindly ran from the pavement straight into the path of a cyclist causing him to fall off and suffer concussion

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.

"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.

And, it would be woman in collision with a bicycle, not with a cyclist.

brooksby wrote:

hirsute wrote:

Duncann wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

she blindly ran from the pavement straight into the path of a cyclist causing him to fall off and suffer concussion

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.

"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.

And, it would be woman in collision with a bicycle, not with a cyclist.

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:

brooksby wrote:

hirsute wrote:

Duncann wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

she blindly ran from the pavement straight into the path of a cyclist causing him to fall off and suffer concussion

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.

"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.

And, it would be woman in collision with a bicycle, not with a cyclist.

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. 

From the cctv footage released, she was definitely running.

Mb747 wrote:

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

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:

Mb747 wrote:

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

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.

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:

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

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.

--deleted, not sure what i'm talking about--

yourealwaysbe wrote:

Crippledbiker wrote:

No requirement to stop, and no requirement to report. Sections 170 and....uh... The number slips my mind, but they both specify motorists..

Turns out Section 170 requires drivers of "Mechanically Propelled Vehicle"s to stop, which is apparently up to the courts to define.

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:

yourealwaysbe wrote:

Crippledbiker wrote:

No requirement to stop, and no requirement to report. Sections 170 and....uh... The number slips my mind, but they both specify motorists..

Turns out Section 170 requires drivers of "Mechanically Propelled Vehicle"s to stop, which is apparently up to the courts to define.

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.

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:

yourealwaysbe wrote:

Crippledbiker wrote:

No requirement to stop, and no requirement to report. Sections 170 and....uh... The number slips my mind, but they both specify motorists..

Turns out Section 170 requires drivers of "Mechanically Propelled Vehicle"s to stop, which is apparently up to the courts to define.

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.

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:

brooksby wrote:

yourealwaysbe wrote:

Crippledbiker wrote:

No requirement to stop, and no requirement to report. Sections 170 and....uh... The number slips my mind, but they both specify motorists..

Turns out Section 170 requires drivers of "Mechanically Propelled Vehicle"s to stop, which is apparently up to the courts to define.

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.

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.

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:

brooksby wrote:

yourealwaysbe wrote:

Crippledbiker wrote:

No requirement to stop, and no requirement to report. Sections 170 and....uh... The number slips my mind, but they both specify motorists..

Turns out Section 170 requires drivers of "Mechanically Propelled Vehicle"s to stop, which is apparently up to the courts to define.

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.

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.

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:

brooksby wrote:

yourealwaysbe wrote:

Crippledbiker wrote:

No requirement to stop, and no requirement to report. Sections 170 and....uh... The number slips my mind, but they both specify motorists..

Turns out Section 170 requires drivers of "Mechanically Propelled Vehicle"s to stop, which is apparently up to the courts to define.

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.

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.

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...

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

Sun readers counting: one, two, three, MANY!