Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Fewer Oxford cyclists riding without lights following police blitz

But councillor says police are being ‘too reasonable’ and more should be done

A recent Oxford crackdown on cyclists riding without lights appears to be having an impact. An Oxford Mail survey on Wednesday found 128 of 700 cyclists travelling out of the city across Magdalen Bridge were without lights versus 280 out of 485 in a similar exercise undertaken four days before the police blitz.

We reported how 267 cyclists were given £50 fixed penalty notices in the space of a three-hour police operation on Monday 27th October. However, those stopped could avoid paying if they presented a receipt to police within seven days, proving that they had purchased a set of lights for their bike since being fined.

Oxford City Council board member for transport, John Tanner, was largely unimpressed by the reduction in the number of people cycling without lights and suggested police were being ‘too reasonable’.

“The cyclists who do not use lights or wear reflective clothing are a danger to themselves and others on the roads.

“I think the police are being very reasonable with their scheme allowing people to prove they have bought lights rather than being fined. But that seems to be too reasonable and we should perhaps be tougher on cyclists who do not have lights.”

However, Simon Hunt, chairman of Oxford cycling group, Cyclox, was happy to see police action having an impact.

“I am delighted to see that enforcement seems to be having such a dramatic effect. Perhaps we will have another police blitz and everybody will end up having lights."

Hunt says that those cycling without lights give cyclists a bad name, but warns: “Some people like to think they are untouchable or immortal – but we know that is not always true.”

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

14 comments

Avatar
Al__S | 9 years ago
0 likes

Presumably the councillor would like drivers with defective lights fined there and then, rather than given seven days to fix the fault?

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 9 years ago
0 likes

I'd have thought during a Blitz was the one time when you shouldn't have lights on.

Avatar
Awavey | 9 years ago
0 likes

but I thought it had been highlighted earlier the police are just following the same procedure on this, as they do for motorists with broken lights who are given 14 days to rectify and avoid a fine once its proven its been fixed. So the cyclists arent being given any special treatment or treated more leniently in any way. so its slightly troubling  39 their council representive for transport, either doesnt know that, or would prefer to see cyclists treated more harshly than motorists in similar circumstances.

Avatar
hampstead_bandit | 9 years ago
0 likes

@don simon

By powerful flashing lights I mean £25 giant rechargeable units, not off-road MTB lights.

And the guy with the umbrella was riding like that before I was within his path

Avatar
parksey | 9 years ago
0 likes

The timing of these exercises is relevant, the police having been out (I guess intentionally so) on the first working day after the clocks went back, so I suspect a number of people were simply caught out by thatin having forgotten their lights. It's reasonable to then expect to see an increase in the number of people using lights as they adjust to the nights drawing in sooner.

Be interested to understand more about exactly what sort of lights you had to buy to escape the fine though. A typical £5 supermarket set does nothing to help visibility in the average urban setting where there is already lots of other light "noise". Were those caught expected to pay at least £50 on lights to avoid paying the balance of the fine?

Avatar
hampstead_bandit | 9 years ago
0 likes

Rode home tonight in dark, around 5.30pm from London Docklands through central London into nw London. In a very heavy rain storm, with resulting poor visibility.

I am using powerful flashing lights and reflective clothing.

Idiots riding bikes without any lights everywhere, some on cycle paths (especially scary as the paths are poorly lit, if at all), many on busy roads mixing it with heavy traffic, 1 particular idiot riding near caledonian road, one handed holding a black umbrella nearly rode into me (he was drifting into other side of road as umbrella blocked his view).

Surprised we don't see more entries for annual Darwin Awards?

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to hampstead_bandit | 9 years ago
0 likes
hampstead_bandit wrote:

Rode home tonight in dark, around 5.30pm from London Docklands through central London into nw London. In a very heavy rain storm, with resulting poor visibility.

I am using powerful flashing lights and reflective clothing.

Idiots riding bikes without any lights everywhere, some on cycle paths (especially scary as the paths are poorly lit, if at all), many on busy roads mixing it with heavy traffic, 1 particular idiot riding near caledonian road, one handed holding a black umbrella nearly rode into me (he was drifting into other side of road as umbrella blocked his view).

Surprised we don't see more entries for annual Darwin Awards?

I wonder if they'd brought the umbrella down to protect their eyes from being dazzled by your powerful flashing light..  39

Avatar
brooksby | 9 years ago
0 likes

Riding along a shared-use path here (Bristol) last week, over to my left as is my wont. Bloke coming up behind me overtakes. As he does so, ninja cyclist appears out of the darkness about twenty feet ahead (no lights, no reflectors, normal dark-coloured street clothes) and starts waving and shouting at me and my overtaker, "What do you think you're doing? Get out of the way!".

I don't feel any responsbility for other cyclists who don't use lights after dark, certainly no "they're dragging our good name through the mud" stuff, but I do think they are being prats.

Even if you intend to stay on shared-use paths and not go on the road with cars, at least buy a supermarket £2.99 set - its better than nothing.

IMO.

Avatar
HoldTheWheel | 9 years ago
0 likes

Punishing people for every bit of wrongdoing may solve a problem, but it also creates a lot of resentment. This scheme is good, it gives the Police an opportunity to educate those who are in the wrong but does not punish them if they sort the issue out.

I'd compare it to speeding, drivers can either be punished with points on their license or take a speed awareness course. I know a few people who have attended those courses, and they've changed their driving because of that. If they'd got points, it would probably be a case of being more aware of speed cameras to avoid being caught again.

The burned hand (wallet) doesn't always teach best.

Avatar
oldstrath | 9 years ago
0 likes

Dream on, what he is actually quoted as saying on the Oxford Mail website is

"It also gives cyclists a bad name if we are not seen to be obeying the law.”

I await Edmund King saying that uninsured drivers give motorists a bad name.

Avatar
TimC340 replied to oldstrath | 9 years ago
0 likes
oldstrath wrote:

Dream on, what he is actually quoted as saying on the Oxford Mail website is

"It also gives cyclists a bad name if we are not seen to be obeying the law.”

I await Edmund King saying that uninsured drivers give motorists a bad name.

Uninsured motorists quite rightly give uninsured motorists a bad name. Unlit cyclists quite rightly give unlit cyclists a bad name. I am fully lit (and insured), and my name is fine.

Avatar
oldstrath | 9 years ago
0 likes

"Hunt says that those cycling without lights give cyclists a bad name"

Dear gods, even the guys who is supposedly representing the interests of cyclists parrots this crap. When did you last hear the AA saying "people who drive without insurance give motorists a bad name"?

Avatar
Edgeley replied to oldstrath | 9 years ago
0 likes

That bit of what Simon Hunt said isn't in quotation marks. He quite possibly didn't say it. He is normally very careful about not saying silling things!

Avatar
pedalpowerDC | 9 years ago
0 likes

It would seem that the goal of the enforcement effort is to get people using lights, not to generate income, so, while I can agree that the light-less idiots eventually should be paying a fine for their stupidity, it seems like a much better outcome if people spend the money on actually getting lights rather than paying the fine at the expense of getting lights.

Latest Comments