More than 250 cyclists fined in Oxford police blitz on riding without lights

McDuff73 wrote:

it is something available under Scots law but a similar charge would be manslaughter in England and Wales, I do wonder why motorists who kill never seem to be charged with mansalughter very often.

To be blunt, society accepts collateral loses on the roads. What are a few deaths? Imagine an employer that allowed staff to die day in day out, and did precious little to enforce the rules, to improve safety?

But drive a car, kill someone, shit happens....

tom_w wrote:

I live, ride and drive in Oxford and have resorted to shouting "LIGHTS" at people at times.

Sounds like a wonderful contribution.

smcc1879 wrote:

Perhaps the nay sayers should have a read of this.

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/local/abington-cyclist-died-after...

yet another driver gets away with killing someone because 'it wasn't my fault'. It seems yet more proof that lawyers have given up expecting drivers to obey the Highway Code, because blaming the victim is easier.

So yes, it does seem we have to be as brightly lit as possible to avoid giving the killers an excuse, since the law has given up. Just hope they can restrain the moaning about being dazzled.

oldstrath wrote:

smcc1879 wrote:

Perhaps the nay sayers should have a read of this.

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/local/abington-cyclist-died-after...

yet another driver gets away with killing someone because 'it wasn't my fault'. It seems yet more proof that lawyers have given up expecting drivers to obey the Highway Code, because blaming the victim is easier.

So yes, it does seem we have to be as brightly lit as possible to avoid giving the killers an excuse, since the law has given up. Just hope they can restrain the moaning about being dazzled.

Er, tthat is actually an argument AGAINST emphasising cyclists having lights, and on shifting the burden of responsibility back to the driver. otherwise we will get more and more acceptance of SMIDSY.

ChairRDRF wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

smcc1879 wrote:

Perhaps the nay sayers should have a read of this.

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/local/abington-cyclist-died-after...

yet another driver gets away with killing someone because 'it wasn't my fault'. It seems yet more proof that lawyers have given up expecting drivers to obey the Highway Code, because blaming the victim is easier.

So yes, it does seem we have to be as brightly lit as possible to avoid giving the killers an excuse, since the law has given up. Just hope they can restrain the moaning about being dazzled.

Er, tthat is actually an argument AGAINST emphasising cyclists having lights, and on shifting the burden of responsibility back to the driver. otherwise we will get more and more acceptance of SMIDSY.

If we're trying to improve conditions for everyone, of course it is. If I'm just thinking self preservation and avoiding offering excuses for reduced compensation it pushes me more towards brightness. To be honest, without changes in the law I lean towards local optimisation rather than global.

oldstrath wrote:

it does seem we have to be as brightly lit as possible to avoid giving the killers an excuse, since the law has given up.

Priorities all mixed up here! Surely you would want to be as visible as possible on the road to be as safe as possible and minimise the risk of being involved in a collision?

We don't know all the facts of the particular case of the 'unlit' cyclist who was tragically killed, but clearly drivers have a responsibility to drive safely - this is not in dispute.

I accept that articles like this which seem to lay the blame on the cyclist are incredibly frustrating, but surely a sense of self-preservation should motivate you to be visible, over and above the righteous indignation you may feel about sharing the road with cars, who present a greater danger to you than you do to them.

I do wish debates would stop being polarized on here about cyclists vs motorists. 'Police crackdown on unlit cyclists' is the story. That's great, it's illegal and irresponsible. They are not victims. The fact that police should also crack down on unsafe drivers is not in dispute.

700c wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

it does seem we have to be as brightly lit as possible to avoid giving the killers an excuse, since the law has given up.

Priorities all mixed up here! Surely you would want to be as visible as possible on the road to be as safe as possible and minimise the risk of being involved in a collision?

We don't know all the facts of the particular case of the 'unlit' cyclist who was tragically killed, but clearly drivers have a responsibility to drive safely - this is not in dispute.

I accept that articles like this which seem to lay the blame on the cyclist are incredibly frustrating, but surely a sense of self-preservation should motivate you to be visible, over and above the righteous indignation you may feel about sharing the road with cars, who present a greater danger to you than you do to them.

I do wish debates would stop being polarized on here about cyclists vs motorists. 'Police crackdown on unlit cyclists' is the story. That's great, it's illegal and irresponsible. They are not victims. The fact that police should also crack down on unsafe drivers is not in dispute.

In a world where drivers have no apparent responsibility, and lawyers can reduce punishment and compensation with the flimsiest of excuses, yes I do want to be 'as visible as possible'. And yes, I agree that cyclists who break the law should be punished (although following the lighting regulations fully is an interesting challenge all of its own).

But there is not the equivalence you seem to seek between a cyclist having inadequate lighting, and a driver killing someone because they failed to ensure the road ahead was actually clear. The failure to punish that does annoy me, and I think does also drive thr current 'lighting arms race' that many drivers complain of.

oldstrath wrote:

700c wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

it does seem we have to be as brightly lit as possible to avoid giving the killers an excuse, since the law has given up.

Priorities all mixed up here! Surely you would want to be as visible as possible on the road to be as safe as possible and minimise the risk of being involved in a collision?

We don't know all the facts of the particular case of the 'unlit' cyclist who was tragically killed, but clearly drivers have a responsibility to drive safely - this is not in dispute.

I accept that articles like this which seem to lay the blame on the cyclist are incredibly frustrating, but surely a sense of self-preservation should motivate you to be visible, over and above the righteous indignation you may feel about sharing the road with cars, who present a greater danger to you than you do to them.

I do wish debates would stop being polarized on here about cyclists vs motorists. 'Police crackdown on unlit cyclists' is the story. That's great, it's illegal and irresponsible. They are not victims. The fact that police should also crack down on unsafe drivers is not in dispute.

In a world where drivers have no apparent responsibility, and lawyers can reduce punishment and compensation with the flimsiest of excuses, yes I do want to be 'as visible as possible'. And yes, I agree that cyclists who break the law should be punished (although following the lighting regulations fully is an interesting challenge all of its own).

But there is not the equivalence you seem to seek between a cyclist having inadequate lighting, and a driver killing someone because they failed to ensure the road ahead was actually clear. The failure to punish that does annoy me, and I think does also drive thr current 'lighting arms race' that many drivers complain of.

There is absolutely no equivalence between a cyclist having inadequate lighting and a driver killing someone because they failed to ensure the road ahead was actually clear. I certainly did not suggest that.

Back to the original topic, the police targeting cyclists without lights is, I believe, fair and proportionate, particularly as they have the opportunity to equip themselves with lights within x days and can avoid the fine. I also think they should target drivers with defective lights/ driving with mobiles/ speeding etc and issue the appropriate penalty, which, in addition to a fine, could also be points on licence.

I completely agree with you, that apparent lack of punishment for drivers who kill, particularly the failure to convict using 'death by dangerous driving' (as opposed to careless, which they often choose) is incredibly frustrating.

700c wrote:

[Priorities all mixed up here! Surely you would want to be as visible as possible on the road to be as safe as possible and minimise the risk of being involved in a collision?

So you also wear high vis and lights as a pedestrian, walking from a car/bus to a restaurant, say?

Cycling on county roads in lycra is one thing. If I'm using my bike for local transport, which is my main use, I want to wear ordinary clothes, and have the experience of being prepared to ride my bike be as fuss-free and normal as possible.

If I wanted to be as visible as possible I'd probably ride around in fancy-dress with disco balls draped off my bike, wrapped in fairy lights, as well as all the legal requirements.

There are limits. And I am genuinely worried that we are heading down the path of requiring even pedestrians to wear high vis, because apparently we can't hold drivers responsible for not being able to see things in urban areas with enormous headlights.

I absolutely do not accept that, so long as I am legally compliant, there is any responsibility on me to do more, versus a driver to actually look where the fuck they're going. If they can't see me, they can't see pedestrians, animals, parked cars, bollards, walls... and shouldn't be driving.

HKCambridge wrote:

700c wrote:

[Priorities all mixed up here! Surely you would want to be as visible as possible on the road to be as safe as possible and minimise the risk of being involved in a collision?

So you also wear high vis and lights as a pedestrian, walking from a car/bus to a restaurant, say?

I have a neighbour that does this, with a special LED armband once it turns to winter. It seems obvious to me that this will turn into an arms race: drivers will get used to seeing only people with lights on the sidewalk. Upon running them down the judge will mention (and then retract from consideration) the pedestrian's absence of safe walking attire. And on it goes.

HKCambridge wrote:

700c wrote:

[Priorities all mixed up here! Surely you would want to be as visible as possible on the road to be as safe as possible and minimise the risk of being involved in a collision?

So you also wear high vis and lights as a pedestrian, walking from a car/bus to a restaurant, say?

Cycling on county roads in lycra is one thing. If I'm using my bike for local transport, which is my main use, I want to wear ordinary clothes, and have the experience of being prepared to ride my bike be as fuss-free and normal as possible.

If I wanted to be as visible as possible I'd probably ride around in fancy-dress with disco balls draped off my bike, wrapped in fairy lights, as well as all the legal requirements.

There are limits. And I am genuinely worried that we are heading down the path of requiring even pedestrians to wear high vis, because apparently we can't hold drivers responsible for not being able to see things in urban areas with enormous headlights.

I absolutely do not accept that, so long as I am legally compliant, there is any responsibility on me to do more, versus a driver to actually look where the fuck they're going. If they can't see me, they can't see pedestrians, animals, parked cars, bollards, walls... and shouldn't be driving.

You are missing the point. Pedestrians, animals, bollards, walls all should not be in the road. Therefore a car driver shouldn't have to constantly be on the look out for them. If a pedestrian (or animal) walks in the road it is them who take the risk as to if it is safe or not.

Bikes are different. They have a right to be in the road, so as a bike rider you should ensure you are fulfilling your legal requirement to be seen. Wearing hi viz is not part of this and never should be.

If you turned across the path of an oncoming car that didn't have its lights on, the other driver is at fault. If their lights are on then you are at fault. The colour of the car doesn't make any difference. Similarly, the colour of the clothes a cyclist is wearing makes no difference (from a blame perspective). Some riders choose to try to protect themselves more by making them self more visible. That's their choice.

Oh, and the parked car is your example, does have a right to be on the road but a car driver is less likely to hit this as it sticks out into the road much more than a bike does so is in their line of vision. It is also stationary making it easier to see anyway. Thus the need for the bike to have lights on.

In summary, if you drive any sort of vehicle on the road without lights on in the dark and get in an accident then it is your own fault.

tomsener wrote:

You are missing the point. Pedestrians, animals, bollards, walls all should not be in the road. .

thats not quite true pedestrians cross the road all the time or if there are no paths at the side of the road have to walk on the carriageway, animals are always wandering across the road, they are not barred from it.

tomsener wrote:

You are missing the point. Pedestrians, animals, bollards, walls all should not be in the road. Therefore a car driver shouldn't have to constantly be on the look out for them. If a pedestrian (or animal) walks in the road it is them who take the risk as to if it is safe or not.

Near me, most of the country lanes have no pavement. So where should people walk if they need to use one of those roads? Or should they just accept that they're taking a risk that a blameless motorist, not looking out for any pedestrians, might hit them and dent his car?

Quote:

thats not quite true pedestrians cross the road all the time or if there are no paths at the side of the road have to walk on the carriageway, animals are always wandering across the road, they are not barred from it.

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

tomsener wrote:

You are missing the point. Pedestrians, animals, bollards, walls all should not be in the road. Therefore a car driver shouldn't have to constantly be on the look out for them. If a pedestrian (or animal) walks in the road it is them who take the risk as to if it is safe or not.

Near me, most of the country lanes have no pavement. So where should people walk if they need to use one of those roads? Or should they just accept that they're taking a risk that a blameless motorist, not looking out for any pedestrians, might hit them and dent his car?

First off, yes if a pedestrian crosses the road without looking and gets hit then yes it's their fault (on the assumption that everyone else is following the rules of the road). Equally, if an animal runs out into the road and gets hit then the animal is at fault. I remember a thread on here about riders crashing into animals. I'm fairly sure none of those people would say they should be depending slower in case a rabbit runs out of the hedge.

As this article is specifically about riding in urban areas then the point about country roads is moot, however, if someone has the need to walk along a road due to no pavement then they need to take the necessary steps to make sure they can be seen (as per the highway code).

Don't get me wrong, drivers of cars need to take responsibility for their own actions and if they are driving dangerously and harm another road user then they need to face the consequences of their actions. But by the same token, anyone travelling on a road who doesn't take the necessary steps to make sure they can be seen is responsible should anything happen.

HKCambridge wrote:

700c wrote:

[Priorities all mixed up here! Surely you would want to be as visible as possible on the road to be as safe as possible and minimise the risk of being involved in a collision?

So you also wear high vis and lights as a pedestrian, walking from a car/bus to a restaurant, say?

Cycling on county roads in lycra is one thing. If I'm using my bike for local transport, which is my main use, I want to wear ordinary clothes, and have the experience of being prepared to ride my bike be as fuss-free and normal as possible.

If I wanted to be as visible as possible I'd probably ride around in fancy-dress with disco balls draped off my bike, wrapped in fairy lights, as well as all the legal requirements.

There are limits. And I am genuinely worried that we are heading down the path of requiring even pedestrians to wear high vis, because apparently we can't hold drivers responsible for not being able to see things in urban areas with enormous headlights.

I absolutely do not accept that, so long as I am legally compliant, there is any responsibility on me to do more, versus a driver to actually look where the fuck they're going. If they can't see me, they can't see pedestrians, animals, parked cars, bollards, walls... and shouldn't be driving.

Exactly!

HKCambridge wrote:

700c wrote:

[Priorities all mixed up here! Surely you would want to be as visible as possible on the road to be as safe as possible and minimise the risk of being involved in a collision?

So you also wear high vis and lights as a pedestrian, walking from a car/bus to a restaurant, say?

Cycling on county roads in lycra is one thing. If I'm using my bike for local transport, which is my main use, I want to wear ordinary clothes, and have the experience of being prepared to ride my bike be as fuss-free and normal as possible.

If I wanted to be as visible as possible I'd probably ride around in fancy-dress with disco balls draped off my bike, wrapped in fairy lights, as well as all the legal requirements.

There are limits. And I am genuinely worried that we are heading down the path of requiring even pedestrians to wear high vis, because apparently we can't hold drivers responsible for not being able to see things in urban areas with enormous headlights.

I absolutely do not accept that, so long as I am legally compliant, there is any responsibility on me to do more, versus a driver to actually look where the fuck they're going. If they can't see me, they can't see pedestrians, animals, parked cars, bollards, walls... and shouldn't be driving.

In the sentence of mine you've quoted, I simply was pointing out the absurdity of the cyclist who begrudgingly makes himself visible, not because he wants to be as safe as possible, but because he wants to ensure a motorist who may hit him, is held to account

Yes I want to make myself visible to motorists when I cycle. It does not follow that pedestrians, in your example, walking from a bus to a restaurant, crossing the road or whatever, should also have lights and hi viz. However, the chap I came across walking on my side of the road the other night on a bending, narrow country lane near my home as I was driving back, could sure as hell have done with some reflective material or lights, over and above his dark top and jeans - I only saw at the last minute he was there.

Its about wearing appropriate clothing & equipping yourself responsibly for the conditions. You shouldn't need 1000w floodlights and a dayglow reflective boiler suit for cycling in an urban area which has decent ambient lighting and traffic is at 30mph.

regarding legal compliance - drivers and cyclists have a legal requirement to have lights in the dark. They also both have a legal duty to 'look where the f* they are going' - of course - otherwise it's driving without due care and attention.

All road users are fallible. They make mistakes and bad decisions. If, by wearing reflective clothing and using decent lights at night, over and above the legal minimum, could help reduce the risk of such a mistake happening and a potential fatal accident, then I, for one, am happy to equip myself with decent clothing and lighting.