E-bike fatality UK

[Gasmantle]

Whilst not directly about EUC's I thought this item may be of interest to some readers.

It certainly doesn't strengthen our case for legalising EUS's 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51647068

[RetroThruster]

Tragic and inexcusable, hope he gets prosecuted to the fullest.  I hope they don't base the law on one isolated case, I know in my town, stand up scooters are banned because people ride like idiots.

[LanghamP]

4 hours ago, Gasmantle said:

Whilst not directly about EUC's I thought this item may be of interest to some readers.

It certainly doesn't strengthen our case for legalising EUS's 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51647068

You did notice that the pedestrian crossed against the pedestrian light? That is, the moped had the traffic light while the pedestrian had a red.

[Skecys]

I hate cases like this. He should be prosecuted for the fact his bike went too fast and not having a licence. Not for causing death. The pedestrian crossed the road without looking and ignoring a red light. Cases like this will still make us look bad while in fact they are about two totally unrelated problems. The guy had a crash coming, riding at those speeds in congested areas. And she had it coming being careless. Sad they they crossed paths that day and collided. It's not like they are going to ban walking...

[MeepLaw]

What speed was he actually going though? Only info it gives was the legal limit was 15 and the bike "was capable of going twice that", and that he was described as going "way too fast". Is that like 30+ or 20? Not saying it excuses the accident, but it seems like fairly important information. The fact that he left the scene after causing something like this is inexcusable, I don't understand how you could leave another human on the ground. I don't think he should be fully charged with the accident, since the pedestrian/jaywalker "had a red light" (maybe 50/50 or 75/25, speed dependent? I don't know), but he should definitely be charged with leaving the scene

[meepmeepmayer]

4 hours ago, Skecys said:

I hate cases like this. He should be prosecuted for the fact his bike went too fast and not having a licence. Not for causing death. The pedestrian crossed the road without looking and ignoring a red light. Cases like this will still make us look bad while in fact they are about two totally unrelated problems. The guy had a crash coming, riding at those speeds in congested areas. And she had it coming being careless. Sad they they crossed paths that day and collided. It's not like they are going to ban walking...

Couldn't have said it better.

[LanghamP]

6 hours ago, Skecys said:

I hate cases like this. He should be prosecuted for the fact his bike went too fast and not having a licence. Not for causing death. The pedestrian crossed the road without looking and ignoring a red light. Cases like this will still make us look bad while in fact they are about two totally unrelated problems. The guy had a crash coming, riding at those speeds in congested areas. And she had it coming being careless. Sad they they crossed paths that day and collided. It's not like they are going to ban walking...

I disagree. The environment is too dangerous for pedestrians regardless if they follow rules that make it more convenient for people on wheels to get somewhere faster. The result is our modern urban environment is entirely too dangerous.

Let me give you two specific examples. 

Exhibit 1: pictures and documentary movies of NYC at the turn of the previous century show unsupervised children using streets.

Specifically, look at the kids at 1:51. Streets are used for all, for all purposes (not just getting from one place to another).

Exhibit B: memoirs of Western rural living circa 1880-1920. Children were sent out of the house, because there were rarely things that killed you instantly.

If you can't let your five year old roam around in your city with minimal supervision, then that means your city has entirely too many "sudden death" dangers around it (see exhibit A).

Was the bicyclist going the same speed as the drivers around him? Of course he was, so why is he being singled out? Would you prefer to be hit by a driver going the same speed?

I'd take my chances as a pedestrian with being hit by a bicyclist. At least the bicyclist stands an equal chance of going down in a painful heap.

Want to make London streets safer for all? Just take out red lights and walk lights, throw in some slippery and bumpy cobblestone sections, and maybe a couple of couches in the middle of the intersections, and, presto, you have people riding cautiously. You want people to crash at low speeds so they don't crash at high speeds. Ridiculous we make our roads smooth and safe, and then people use them at higher speeds. The ironic action of making our roads safer makes them less safe due to overconfidence and higher speeds.