E-bike rider cleared of causing London pedestrian's death by careless driving

Roubaixcobbles wrote:

No, the RTA says only the driver of a "mechanically propelled vehicle" has to stop. Which is a bit daft. About time this country had a "Good Samaritan" law like France where it is an offence not to offer assistance to a fellow citizen who needs it.

Surely a bicycle is a "mechanically propelled vehicle", though? That mechanism just happens to be human-powered rather than combustion-powered.

The term 'motor vehicle' is defined in section 185(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and section 136(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as "a mechanically propelled vehicle, intended or adapted for use on roads".

Although this is the legal definition, ultimately it is a matter of fact and degree for a court to interpret as to whether or not a vehicle is a motor vehicle at the time of the incident.

The term "mechanically propelled vehicle" is not defined in the Road Traffic Acts. It is ultimately a matter of fact and degree for the court to decide. At its most basic level it is a vehicle which can be propelled by mechanical means. It can include both electrically and steam powered vehicles.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-summary-offences

A bike is manually propelled.

You are required to give your name and address to anyone who reasonably asks for it if you have rode your bike in a careless or inconsiderate or dangerous manner. Although there is no legal requirement to stop as there is for motorists if you make off whilst being asked to stay and give your name you commit an offence. 
I think new legislation is in the planning stages, although I'm not sure what and when.

He's been found not guilty on the death by driving, on the licence/modified bike he may have claimed he was unaware the spec was illegal, which could be true.

That is a) unlikely and b) absolutely no defence in law.

Roubaixcobbles wrote:

He's been found not guilty on the death by driving, on the licence/modified bike he may have claimed he was unaware the spec was illegal, which could be true.

That is a) unlikely and b) absolutely no defence in law.

I thought he had already pleaded guilty to the no insurance, no MoT etc. My guess is that he was found not guilty on the licence issue because he has a car licence that might cover him to ride a moped but the law is unclear how an electric motorbike is classified - 50cc? 125cc? or full motorbike licence? At least it created enough doubt for a not guilty decision?

No, legally ignorance of the law is no defence. Unless an ebike has a motor of below 250w and is limited to 25kph it is a moped and needs reg plates and insurance. Saying I didn't know that shouldn't make any difference. Imagine if I knocked someone down by riding on the pavement (which I don't - hypothetical!), I wouldn't get away with it by saying I thought it was OK to ride on the pavement.

Hootsy wrote:

I thought he had already pleaded guilty to the no insurance, no MoT etc. My guess is that he was found not guilty on the licence issue because he has a car licence that might cover him to ride a moped but the law is unclear how an electric motorbike is classified - 50cc? 125cc? or full motorbike licence? At least it created enough doubt for a not guilty decision?

Many years ago, having a car licence used to include entitlement to ride mopeds up to 50cc as default and provisional entitlement for motorbikes up to 125cc, but there have been some changes in the law and everyone needs a CBT certificate with the 125cc and younger riders need it with the moped - if born before 1st Feb 2001, you don't "need" it with the moped, but it is strongly advised.

It's £1000 fine and 6 points if you need it and don't have one.

You don't need CBT once you have passed a full test, but you'll usually do it on day 1 of the course, so you can ride on the road while learning.

Although it doesn't state e-motorbikes specifically, it would apply on bikes up to 125cc and with power output up to 11kW - after that, you need a full licence anyway.

StuInNorway wrote:

He's been found not guilty on the death by driving, on the licence/modified bike he may have claimed he was unaware the spec was illegal, which could be true.
I fairness I think it partly comes down to the fact that the video clearly showed that the pedestrian ran into him, and he had done what he could to avoid the collision. Had there been video of the Charlie Anniston case the outcome there might have been different too.

There was a video in the Alliston case, but it wasn't made public. I think the difference is that Alliston just shouted a warning, but made no attempt to stop. This guy did what he could to stop.

Where was it reported with those details Hirsute? And whilst it might give mitigating circumstances for the accident, I also can't believe he has got away with all charges. Illergally modified enought to be classed as an unregistered moped essentially yet doesn't even get done for that. I expect it is because the jury was asked to judge him as a driver and not a cyclist...

Video footage from a security camera was released (leaked?) to the press and as Hirsute states, it showed the pedestrian running into the ebike rider.

The Sun has the video - https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7238430/woman-killed-dalston-kingsland-road-electric-bike/