E-bike cyclist cleared of killing Hackney pedestrian

63
Posted 2nd Mar
How can someone have right of way when they are breaking the law? Right of way or not, if he had not been breaking the law the woman would have lived . A real travesty of justice, and a terrible precedent to set.
Article here. .

E-bike cyclist cleared of killing Hackney pedestrian

I can't wait till they let kids ride their e scooters or the new electric car you can drive from 15 years old. Who needs a virus?
Community Updates
Misc

Groups

Top comments
The major point to consider is the charges, which the article doesn’t really focus on.

He had right of way, the lights were green and she stepped off of the pavement into the road and was sadly killed.

He would likely have been convicted of speeding, had the police and CPS charged him with that, but instead they went for death by careless driving and no insurance, hoping to get a precedent for modified bikes that can go that speed.

I’ve cycled on that road, and the amount of people that step out without looking is shocking. It’s a main north / south road, with a significant amount of people on the pavement, and more shops than anywhere really needs!

Whilst he was going at significant speed, no one has stated that the motor was powering the bike at the time, 30mph is tough to get to, but certainly not outside the realm of possibility. That would also have affected the juries decision.
So if I kill a pedestrian in my car doing 30mph in a 20 zone, I wouldn't face a charge of death by careless driving as its my right of way?
63 Comments
The major point to consider is the charges, which the article doesn’t really focus on.

He had right of way, the lights were green and she stepped off of the pavement into the road and was sadly killed.

He would likely have been convicted of speeding, had the police and CPS charged him with that, but instead they went for death by careless driving and no insurance, hoping to get a precedent for modified bikes that can go that speed.

I’ve cycled on that road, and the amount of people that step out without looking is shocking. It’s a main north / south road, with a significant amount of people on the pavement, and more shops than anywhere really needs!

Whilst he was going at significant speed, no one has stated that the motor was powering the bike at the time, 30mph is tough to get to, but certainly not outside the realm of possibility. That would also have affected the juries decision.
Kbramman02/03/2020 23:53

but instead they went for death by careless driving and no insurance, …but instead they went for death by careless driving and no insurance, hoping to get a precedent for modified bikes


Totally agree. This was a deliberate action by the Government, CPS & Police to create case law on electric bikes. Nothing to do with right or wrong. All about potential revenue generated from electric bikes.
Edited by: "Willy_Wonka" 3rd Mar
Kbramman02/03/2020 23:53

He would likely have been convicted of speeding, had the police and CPS …He would likely have been convicted of speeding, had the police and CPS charged him with that, but instead they went for death by careless driving and no insurance, hoping to get a precedent for modified bikes that can go that speed.


Excuse my ignorance, but couldn't they have charged him with both? I mean, they're not mutually exclusive, are they?
dufflecoat_moon_turkey03/03/2020 00:03

Comment deleted



Oh I had a lady with 5 year in tow step right in front of me today on a T-Junction near a school today & she never even looked.
In honesty, it was probably the right decision to go for death by careless driving. 10mph above the speed limit, on a bike that isn’t technically legal - if being used in that way.

The speeding charge wouldn’t have gone to court though, the police charge and fine on that directly and it wasn’t fast enough to worry the courts.

There aren’t many instances where this type of bike is involved in an accident, and so getting case law out there has to be attempted at the times you can - for example FGM. Very few successful cases prosecuted.
I think trouble is people's perception of looking out for traffic is with cars & anything smaller gets missed. Similarly many car drivers jump onto junctions not seeing a cyclist or motorbike. It's almost as if the brain has got into the habit of looking for cars/trucks.
Trouble now is I'm sure plenty of cyclists hit pedestrians before. However the cycle would have been traveling at a much lower speed
I understand this chappy had a small engine or electric motor attached to his bike .
Hence he was going at 30mph.
@Ringfinger Unless you read a better source, I would never trust such a casual news article to determine "injustice" in a legal case. That casual article didn't even have a reporter's name anyway, so, could not be held to account for mistakes.

Usually, after such a landmark case, you will find some leading law firms' lawyers make good summaries of the judgment and case. Additionally, you may be able to access the judgment online in full text.

You said, "How can someone have right of way when they are breaking the law?" Let me have a try without any knowledge of the specific regulations (readable from the full judgment text) and have a stab in the dark. There is a regulation for the "right of way" for the pedestrian crossing for careless driving (not paying attention to the traffic lights and/or the pedestrians). Another regulation is for the licensing. An offence is under each specific regulation. But, one of the regulations, does not say, there is no right of way when a vehicle is not licensed or illegally modified. As it was, the charge was careless driving and driving without a licence at the Old Bailey. But, the jury saw the facts as presented by the prosecution, he was not careless. Which I think, is consistent with the law for a car, an unlicensed car, may be driven carefully. However, in spite of this, one can pray for a possibility of a judicial review.


Like they say, a picture tells a thousand words, these may indicate something in case you are not aware:
40030691-jOSF6.jpg
Edited by: "splender" 3rd Mar
splender03/03/2020 00:33

@Ringfinger Unless you read a better source, I would never trust such a …@Ringfinger Unless you read a better source, I would never trust such a casual news article to determine "injustice" in a legal case. That casual article didn't even have a reporter's name anyway, so, could not be held to account for mistakes. Usually, after such a landmark case, you will find some leading law firms' lawyers make good summaries of the judgment and case. Additionally, you may be able to access the judgment online in full text.You said, "How can someone have right of way when they are breaking the law?" Let me have a try without any knowledge of the specific regulations (readable from the full judgment text) and have a stab in the dark. There is a regulation for the "right of way" for the pedestrian crossing for careless driving (not paying attention to the traffic lights and/or the pedestrians). Another regulation is for the licensing. An offence is under each specific regulation. But, one of the regulations, does not say, there is no right of way when a vehicle is not licensed or illegally modified. As it was, the charge was careless driving and driving without a licence at the Old Bailey. But, the jury saw the facts as presented by the prosecution, he was not careless. Which I think, is consistent with the law for a car, an unlicensed car, may be driven carefully. However, in spite of this, one can pray for a possibility of a judicial review.Like they say, a picture tells a thousand words, these may indicate something in case you are not aware:[Image]


Wasn't he doing 30mph in a 20 zone.
splender03/03/2020 00:33

@Ringfinger Unless you read a better source, I would never trust such a …@Ringfinger Unless you read a better source, I would never trust such a casual news article to determine "injustice" in a legal case. That casual article didn't even have a reporter's name anyway, so, could not be held to account for mistakes. Usually, after such a landmark case, you will find some leading law firms' lawyers make good summaries of the judgment and case. Additionally, you may be able to access the judgment online in full text.You said, "How can someone have right of way when they are breaking the law?" Let me have a try without any knowledge of the specific regulations (readable from the full judgment text) and have a stab in the dark. There is a regulation for the "right of way" for the pedestrian crossing for careless driving (not paying attention to the traffic lights and/or the pedestrians). Another regulation is for the licensing. An offence is under each specific regulation. But, one of the regulations, does not say, there is no right of way when a vehicle is not licensed or illegally modified. As it was, the charge was careless driving and driving without a licence at the Old Bailey. But, the jury saw the facts as presented by the prosecution, he was not careless. Which I think, is consistent with the law for a car, an unlicensed car, may be driven carefully. However, in spite of this, one can pray for a possibility of a judicial review.Like they say, a picture tells a thousand words, these may indicate something in case you are not aware:[Image]


A thousand words, almost.
splender03/03/2020 00:33

@Ringfinger Unless you read a better source, I would never trust such a …@Ringfinger Unless you read a better source, I would never trust such a casual news article to determine "injustice" in a legal case. That casual article didn't even have a reporter's name anyway, so, could not be held to account for mistakes. Usually, after such a landmark case, you will find some leading law firms' lawyers make good summaries of the judgment and case. Additionally, you may be able to access the judgment online in full text.You said, "How can someone have right of way when they are breaking the law?" Let me have a try without any knowledge of the specific regulations (readable from the full judgment text) and have a stab in the dark. There is a regulation for the "right of way" for the pedestrian crossing for careless driving (not paying attention to the traffic lights and/or the pedestrians). Another regulation is for the licensing. An offence is under each specific regulation. But, one of the regulations, does not say, there is no right of way when a vehicle is not licensed or illegally modified. As it was, the charge was careless driving and driving without a licence at the Old Bailey. But, the jury saw the facts as presented by the prosecution, he was not careless. Which I think, is consistent with the law for a car, an unlicensed car, may be driven carefully. However, in spite of this, one can pray for a possibility of a judicial review.Like they say, a picture tells a thousand words, these may indicate something in case you are not aware:[Image]


Highway code extract...

"look well ahead for obstructions in the road, such as drains, pot-holes and parked vehicles so that you do not have to swerve suddenly to avoid them. Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path"

The picture, as you say, does tell a thousand words. It appears the woman stepped out on a crossing. When you drive a car do you not take extra care around crossings and pedestrians or do you blithely stream through because 'the lights are green and the speed limit is 30mph and if I kill someone it won't be my fault?' Well, that's the precedent that had been set now.

As for a better source..a national tv service... what better source, a free paper handed out in the buses and underground, or fakebook Facebook? It is covered by all the major newspapers, and the details remain the same. Before making a blanket statement perhaps you should do some very basic research. (Also, many of the other sources don't print the reports name - this includes the Telegraph).
Edited by: "Ringfinger" 3rd Mar
So if I kill a pedestrian in my car doing 30mph in a 20 zone, I wouldn't face a charge of death by careless driving as its my right of way?
Willy_Wonka03/03/2020 00:05

Oh I had a lady with 5 year in tow step right in front of me today on a …Oh I had a lady with 5 year in tow step right in front of me today on a T-Junction near a school today & she never even looked.


And that is why you are supposed to drive very slowly around schools. Doesn't help with all the lazy idiots parked everywhere.
I read about this yesterday on the BBC website, wasn’t the gist of it that he was cleared because the woman stepped out suddenly in front of him whilst there was a green light for traffic to go? Even though he was going faster than he should have been it seems that there was little he could have done seeing as a pedestrian decided to unfortunately launch out in front of him.
dufflecoat_moon_turkey03/03/2020 00:03

Comment deleted


Cyclists are just as bad, the amount I see flying through red lights even at crossings weaving few people. Need forced registration and insurance like cars.
Shocking that you can get away with killing someone whilst travelling at 30 miles an hour on a silent vehicle. I mean lets be honest who is looking for cycles travelling at 30 miles an hour whilst crossing the road. Don't see how he didn't get done for due care, you are supposed to be able to predict and react to pedestrians, i assume she didn't jump in to the road?
Haircut_10003/03/2020 09:18

I read about this yesterday on the BBC website, wasn’t the gist of it that …I read about this yesterday on the BBC website, wasn’t the gist of it that he was cleared because the woman stepped out suddenly in front of him whilst there was a green light for traffic to go? Even though he was going faster than he should have been it seems that there was little he could have done seeing as a pedestrian decided to unfortunately launch out in front of him.


Even if she had seen the bike she wouldn't have thought it would hit her, bikes do not usually travel at such ridiculous speeds.
This old chestnut.
*Some* cyclists are shocking and flout all the rules.
*Some* drivers are shocking and flout all the rules.
*Some* pedestrians are shocking and pay no attention to what is a road / cycle path / pavement.

Issues happen when 2 of the 3 collide.
In this case, somebody going over the limit meets somebody who doesn't think it is wise to look before walking across a crossing when the red man is displayed.

As a cyclist and driver and motorcyclist I usually feel I get all aspects of the argument, where as many seem to side with one or the other irregardless of the facts.

If the cyclist had registered his ebike (or ridden an electric motorbike, or been Chris Froome) the outcome would have been the same. The illegality of the bike itself is not particularly an issue. However, going over a crossing at 30 in a 20 zone obviously is a big issue and I don't know where the law lies regarding such an issue that results in death, even if the pedestrian steps out unexpectedly.
That said, the majority of roads are 30mph zones (even outside lots of schools) so in those areas the blame would probably lie almost completely with the pedestrian. In Australia (and probably here) the pedestrian has right of way if they walk out in front of you, though you cannot be expected to avoid them if they don't give you time to react. Allegedly the case showed that the cyclist was aware but couldn't avoid the pedestrian which suggests that he didn't have much option (though clearly going over the limit should also be seen as a big factor - going slower reduces the impact aside from reducing your stopping distance, increasing reaction options etc).

Aside from all of that..we regularly see clear cut murders dropped right down to manslaughter etc so unsure if this is a surprise...
Azwipe03/03/2020 09:20

Shocking that you can get away with killing someone whilst travelling at …Shocking that you can get away with killing someone whilst travelling at 30 miles an hour on a silent vehicle. I mean lets be honest who is looking for cycles travelling at 30 miles an hour whilst crossing the road. Don't see how he didn't get done for due care, you are supposed to be able to predict and react to pedestrians, i assume she didn't jump in to the road?


The court case suggests she very much did jump out into the road though. And if he had gone through the process he could legally ride an electric bike at 30mph (with a helmet etc) provided it was in a 30mph zone (which this wasn't).

The outcome would have been much better if he had been cycling at 20mph. We don't know the facts from court and what was unsubstantiated etc so perhaps he got away with this as an unknown. The jurors have seen the video...we haven't.
Ok, so the DailyMail report has more info. dailymail.co.uk/new…tml

The bike was not an official ebike, but instead a standard mountain bike which must have had a heavy duty conversion (e..g it wasn't an ebike that had the speed restriction removed).
He also left the scene of the incident and turned himself in on appeal.

I wouldn't be happy if I was related to the deceased. His speeding was surely a significant factor as it would give him nowhere to go. If somebody walked out 16M from me I would seriously hope that it wouldn't end in death. Presumably she fell and hit her head (like a one punch crime that often ends in somebody dying).

----

An electric bicycle rider has been cleared at the Old Bailey of killing a pedestrian by careless driving in what is believed to be the first prosecution of its kind.

Thomas Hanlon, 32, was said to have smashed into Sakine Cihan, 56, when he was 10mph above the 20mph speed limit as she crossed Kingsland Road in Dalston, east London in August 2018.

During his trial it was alleged Mr Hanlon's red 'Hardrock' mountain model from cycle company Specialized had been fitted with a highly-powered battery motor capable of travelling at double the legal 15.5mph speed limit for E-bikes.

Mrs Cihan collapsed bleeding and had suffered multiple fractured ribs in the crash.

She died in hospital the next day as a result of a 'catastrophic' head injury, in what is believed to be the first death of a pedestrian after a collision with an E-bike in the UK.

An Old Bailey jury deliberated for more than an hour on Monday to find him not guilty of all charges, including an alternative charge of careless driving.

Mr Hanlon held his head in his hands and sobbed as the foreman of the jury announced the verdicts.

The court had heard how Mr Hanlon was travelling around 30mph but had slowed down before he crashed into Mrs Cihan who had suddenly walked into Kingsland High Street.

Ms Cihan had tried to cross the road despite the lights being green for traffic, jurors were told.

One witness recalled seeing Mr Hanlon and thinking 'Jesus that's fast' just before he 'suddenly saw arms and legs everywhere, flying in the air'.

Another said in a statement read to court that heads collided before the rider got up 'dazed and confused', leaving the pedestrian motionless on the road.

The court heard it was not possible to tell from CCTV footage whether Ms Cihan had looked both ways before stepping off the curb.

Ms Cihan had walked 2.8 metres into the road in 1.4 seconds to the point of collision, jurors were told.

Summing up the evidence, Judge Mark Dennis QC told jurors: 'It is not possible to tell whether she looked to her right or left when doing so - as one should.

'Had she looked to her right she would have seen the defendant 16.5 metres away in the middle of the oncoming lane.

'It may be she assumed the lane was clear because of the absence of any traffic passing from her right to left. As it happened there was some traffic passing from her left to right in the far lane.

'It is, you may think, entirely possible that she was distracted by seeing a gap across the road and did not check to her right.'

Hanlon told police on arrest that he knew he had crashed into Mrs Cihan but left without checking on the victim, the court heard last Thursday.

He claimed he bought the bike a year earlier on Gumtree for £850 and had recently fitted it with hydraulic brakes which worked 'as good as gold.'

A full transcript of the police interview was read to jurors in which Hanlon said: 'I just wanted to go home, I was confused...I just wanted to sleep, I just wanted my mum...'

The interviewing police officer asked: 'How [do] the brakes work?'

'Good as gold. I changed the front brakes to a hydraulic brake which is in now,' Hanlon said.

'The lights were green so you carried on - did you try and apply the brakes at all?' the officer asked.

'I did but it was just way too late,' Hanlon said. 'She just went out into the road. I tried to pull both brakes, no time to swerve or nothing she didn't even look at me.'

The officer asked: 'Were you aware that you hit her?'

'Yeah,' Hanlon said.

He told police a witness had asked him to stay at the scene but he was 'in no fit state' to check on the wellbeing of Mrs Cihan.

According to Hanlon, the witness said: 'There's a cut above your head, you should stay, you should get checked out.'

Mr Hanlon turned himself in after a media appeal for the suspect was sent out by the Metropolitan police.

He told officers in his police interview: 'She rushed out in front of me to cross and she didn't even look at me, she didn't look left or right... basically I could do nothing.'

It was accepted at the trial that the traffic lights were green when he rode, and he did not run a red light.

Mr Hanlon, who declined to give evidence, accepted he did not have a licence or insurance but disputed there had been a fault in the driving which contributed in a more than a minimal way to the death.
Badly worded headline from the BBC IMO.

How about "Speeding E-bike cyclist who killed Hackney pedestrian cleared of charges"

Am sure someone on here can do better than my quick effort, but you get the idea....
Another case of criminals having more rights than the victims etc.
The issue here is both were in the wrong.
At 30mph the cyclist had 2.25x more Kinetic energy that had they been travelling at 20mph.

So 2 Factors came into play.
Had the victim not stepped out, they would have been safe.
Had the cyclist have been travelling slower. 2.25x less force would have hit the victim had they stepped out. Possibly resulting in less severe injuries. Additionally they may have been more likely to avoid each other.
smashed03/03/2020 09:41

The court case suggests she very much did jump out into the road though. …The court case suggests she very much did jump out into the road though. And if he had gone through the process he could legally ride an electric bike at 30mph (with a helmet etc) provided it was in a 30mph zone (which this wasn't).The outcome would have been much better if he had been cycling at 20mph. We don't know the facts from court and what was unsubstantiated etc so perhaps he got away with this as an unknown. The jurors have seen the video...we haven't.


Here's the CCTV (Sun link) - having cycled down that road many times I'm not sure he looks like he's going 30 mph.

The evidence was based on him passing another cyclist who new his speed. Not accurate.
Oneday7703/03/2020 10:09

The issue here is both were in the wrong. At 30mph the cyclist had 2.25x …The issue here is both were in the wrong. At 30mph the cyclist had 2.25x more Kinetic energy that had they been travelling at 20mph. So 2 Factors came into play. Had the victim not stepped out, they would have been safe. Had the cyclist have been travelling slower. 2.25x less force would have hit the victim had they stepped out. Possibly resulting in less severe injuries. Additionally they may have been more likely to avoid each other.


That is a succinct version.

He was 16M away when she walked out and hit her 1.4 seconds later. That would be an average of 25mph. Assuming a relatively flat deceleration and that he spotted her instantaneously then that would be a 20mph impact. Given that he wouldn't react instantly, the impact speed would be less.
However, if he had been travelling 20mph he would have 2.3 seconds and would surely have had time to avoid her. (all other things being equal).
mogsog03/03/2020 10:19

Here's the CCTV (Sun link) - having cycled down that road many times I'm …Here's the CCTV (Sun link) - having cycled down that road many times I'm not sure he looks like he's going 30 mph.The evidence was based on him passing another cyclist who new his speed. Not accurate.


Cheers. That video REALLY shows a different picture.
The pedestrian crossed on a crossing when she should have waited. The traffic lights were green for cars for seconds leading up to the incident. The pedestrian failed to look.
The cyclist was in the middle of the road (not obscured by other pedestrians waiting to cross), and didn't appear to be riding irresponsibly to me.
People get very agitated with cyclists and jump on anything said about them.. but lets paint a different story.
Imagine a car was doing 25mph in that zone and a cyclist had tried to ride across in front of them. ALL the car drivers would blame the cyclist for crossing on a green traffic light without looking.
Didn't he flee the scene?
Guilty as far as I am concerned.
The video almost makes it look like the pedestrian deliberately runs out in front of the cycle.
Uranus03/03/2020 10:28

Didn't he flee the scene?Guilty as far as I am concerned.


Fleeing the scene should automatically get you some kind of charge (probably because he knew his bike would get him in trouble).

Personally I think anybody who pleads not guilty for any crime should automatically get at least 80% of the max sentence if found guilty. It is effectively perjury amongst other things.
Ringfinger03/03/2020 05:26

Highway code extract..."look well ahead for obstructions in the road, such …Highway code extract..."look well ahead for obstructions in the road, such as drains, pot-holes and parked vehicles so that you do not have to swerve suddenly to avoid them. Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path"The picture, as you say, does tell a thousand words. It appears the woman stepped out on a crossing. When you drive a car do you not take extra care around crossings and pedestrians or do you blithely stream through because 'the lights are green and the speed limit is 30mph and if I kill someone it won't be my fault?' Well, that's the precedent that had been set now.As for a better source..a national tv service... what better source, a free paper handed out in the buses and underground, or fakebook Facebook? It is covered by all the major newspapers, and the details remain the same. Before making a blanket statement perhaps you should do some very basic research. (Also, many of the other sources don't print the reports name - this includes the Telegraph).


You asked me, "As for a better source..a national tv service... what better source, a free paper handed out in the buses and underground, or fakebook Facebook? It is covered by all the major newspapers, and the details remain the same. Before making a blanket statement perhaps you should do some very basic research."

I have already typed this in my comment above, "Usually, after such a landmark case, you will find some leading law firms' lawyers make good summaries of the judgment and case. Additionally, you may be able to access the judgment online in full text."

Which part of my statement do you not understand? Newspaper report the facts (supposedly). You formed a personal opinion contrary to the jury. And you ignored my sound advice and then accuse me of making a blanket statement! Right, you continue to believe what you want to believe then and ignore my advice to read the full transcript from the judgement or abstracts from lawyers so as to explore if the injustice is really as you believed, reading the judge's guidance to the jury in conjunction with the video and photographic evidence, "A real travesty of justice, and a terrible precedent to set."
Edited by: "splender" 3rd Mar
I think a next step is to to sue the guy for civil damage, I would.
Edited by: "splender" 3rd Mar
Uranus03/03/2020 10:28

Didn't he flee the scene?Guilty as far as I am concerned.



heartless, anyone know what the rider's name (probably not allowed to name)?
splender03/03/2020 10:54

I think a next step is to to sue the guy for civil damage, I would.


If that happened to me I would counter sue her estate for damages to myself to be honest.
Uranus03/03/2020 10:28

Didn't he flee the scene?Guilty as far as I am concerned.


He also turned himself in.
splender03/03/2020 11:01

heartless, anyone know what the rider's name (probably not allowed to …heartless, anyone know what the rider's name (probably not allowed to name)?


It's in every single report, just read one. He's a 32 year old man not a minor.
smashed03/03/2020 11:02

If that happened to me I would counter sue her estate for damages to …If that happened to me I would counter sue her estate for damages to myself to be honest.



Yes, a countersuit is possible, but a big gain to the deceased's estate, surely?!
smashed03/03/2020 11:02

If that happened to me I would counter sue her estate for damages to …If that happened to me I would counter sue her estate for damages to myself to be honest.


And this is why I’m glad I live in the UK and not America.

She stepped out into a road with no evidence to show she looked.
The bike wasn’t weaving in traffic or obscured by cars.
Yes he was going too fast, but there is still personal responsibility to keep yourself safe. Stepping into a road without looking will get you hurt if you do it enough times
mogsog03/03/2020 11:05

It's in every single report, just read one. He's a 32 year old man not a …It's in every single report, just read one. He's a 32 year old man not a minor.



A minor's name is protected by another set of court procedures for minors. I was not sure if the name could not be published because he was found not guilty or was it ruled and granted after the defenfant applied for anonimity.
Edited by: "splender" 3rd Mar
splender03/03/2020 11:10

A minor's name is protected by another set of court procedures.


He's not a minor nor is his name protected, it's in the article.

If you read at least one of the articles you could find his name.
Edited by: "mogsog" 3rd Mar
mogsog03/03/2020 11:11

He's not a minor nor is his name protected, it's in the article.



See it now, Thomas...
Surprised , appeared to be familiar with British social norms, that he walked away from the scene, dastard, disgusting, no compassion...
Edited by: "splender" 3rd Mar
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text

    Discussions

    Discussions

    Top Merchants