BBC Breakfast item today on illegally modded ebikes

[Mike_P]

The legal / illegal "ebike" confusion in press coverage would be simplified if legal "ebikes" were to correctly referred to by everyone as pedelecs leaving ebike solely to the illegal ones

 

[Drago]

Its slightly disturbing that an ill informed media refers to Sur-ron high performance elefrric motorcycles as "ebikes." Politicians with their knee jerk statements seem incapable of understanding the difference.

We're being tarred with someone else's brush, and legal users run and increasing risk of further onerous legislation through the behaviour people completely unrelated to their group.

 

[Binky]

Not really they aren't.

They are rowing back on taking action over operation snap submissions. Some of which are close passes, others aren't, but it isn't because they are close passes that they are not being dealt with, it is because they haven't got the resources to handle all the submissions.

Wrong.
I spoke to a police officer who specifically deals with Op Snap submissions he told me they are not taking action on "mere" close passes as the police have been deemed insufficiently qualified to judge distance of how close car is to cyclist.
If there are further aggrievating circumstances, eg a close pass on a blind bend or a vehicle coming in opposite direction which causes overtaking vehicle to swerve in then they will take action but for a vehicle just overtaking too close they are not.
There's a whole thread on all this on this forum.

 

[Drago]

Indeed. Unless specifically trained and qualified, the only two things upon which an officer give a valid opinion of in court is drunkenness and identifying cannabis.

I expect some clever dick defence solicitors have challenged the perception of distances involved based on pure judgement (although a magistrate always has the discretion to view footage and decide for themselves, but rarely do) and technical analysis of footage is a couple of grand a time since the government abolished the Forensic Sceince Service.

So as above, without aggravating circumstances or an inarguable means of assessing distances involved its pointless wasting resources putting them before a court.

Trust me, immsure the dibble would very much like to, but you gotta know when to hold and when to fold.

 

[Binky]

Indeed. Unless specifically trained and qualified, the only two things upon which an officer give a valid opinion of in court is drunkenness and identifying cannabis.

I expect some clever dick defence solicitors have challenged the perception of distances involved based on pure judgement (although a magistrate always has the discretion to view footage and decide for themselves, but rarely do) and technical analysis of footage is a couple of grand a time since the government abolished the Forensic Sceince Service.

So as above, without aggravating circumstances or an inarguable means of assessing distances involved its pointless wasting resources putting them before a court.

Trust me, immsure the dibble would very much like to, but you gotta know when to hold and when to fold.

I was told it's all down to the Forensic Regulator, the sergeant I spoke to(he contacted me about a case I'd reported) he suspected what had happened is someone had taken an expert in as defence and so because of that Op Snap have been told to not take action on mere close passes as they are not sufficiently qualifed to judge distances from a video. Seems ridiculous as the width of a road is a known figure, the width of a car also is so it should be easy to say if road is 3.0m wide from centre line to inside line and a car is 2.0m wide and the cyclist is 0.5m to right of inside line then said overtaking car is 0.5m from cyclist. But apparently not!

 

[Drago]

Yep. Its efen more ridiculous that the magistrate so rarely makes their own judgement from visual evidence. Its easy to see ifmits a close pass, or if the suspect in the dock is the same one from the photo, and with three of them theres ample scope for veto, but they so rarely choose to decide for themselves.

As usual the system is ready to subvert to favour the criminal.

 

[N0bodyOfTheGoat]

This ebike was "advertised" as a deal on hotukdeals over the weekend.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0F1Y6N1YJ

Except, it looks like it has a full power throttle mode option.

 

[Binky]

Yep. Its efen more ridiculous that the magistrate so rarely makes their own judgement from visual evidence. Its easy to see ifmits a close pass, or if the suspect in the dock is the same one from the photo, and with three of them theres ample scope for veto, but they so rarely choose to decide for themselves.

As usual the system is ready to subvert to favour the criminal.

As it happens tomorrow is the day I'm in court as a witness to a close overtake I reported. The defendant pleaded not guilty to first hearing so this time I have to go in and give evidence. I'm still puzzled as to what defence they will have as the video is very clear and shows car very close to me with another coming in opposite direction.

 

[Drago]

They're trying to play the system hoping you or a key investigator etc wont turn up. Solicitor love that besause they get another payday.

Best of luck. Let us know how it turns out.

 

[classic33]

He didn't say anything about "legal ebikes being seized", just that it is only people who stop willingly whose bikes are being seized.

However, a few posts above your reply(Which I'm quoting) is proof that not all riders that get caught, even want to stop.

 

[Alex321]

The legal / illegal "ebike" confusion in press coverage would be simplified if legal "ebikes" were to correctly referred to by everyone as pedelecs leaving ebike solely to the illegal ones

Except that would confuse even more people, who would have no idea what a "pedelec" might be.

I'm also not quite sure why you think they would be "correctly" referred to as that, implying that e-bike is somehow incorrect?