Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Cyclists without lights "a danger for motorists" claims newspaper

Comment accompanies police in Peterborough clamping down on unlit cyclists and those with lights fitted incorrectly

Cyclists in Peterborough riding without lights, or with red lights attached to the front rather than the rear of their bicycles, are “causing a danger for motorists,” according to the Evening Telegraph’s website, Peterborough Today.

The claim is made in an article highlighting a police campaign running over the next fortnight to make bike riders aware of the need to be visible after dark. From next month, cyclists failing to display lights will receive a £30 on the spot fine.

While ensuring that all cyclists display lights is an objective we fully support, a study published two years ago based on an analysis of Department for Transport road casualty statistics and the police reports that provide the raw data found that cyclists riding without lights was a factor in just 2 per cent of incidents resulting in serious injury to bike riders; it also found that cyclists were not to blame in 93 per cent of the incidents analysed.

Nevertheless, the newspaper’s message that it’s the occupants of cars that need protecting is a theme sadly picked up in some of the comments, with predictable calls for cyclists to be licensed and pay ‘road tax.’

Police, too, seem to be highlighting the danger posed to car drivers by unlit cyclists, rather than expressing any concern for the safety of bike riders themselves.

PC Steve Godfrey, described in the article as a keen cyclist, said: “It is definitely getting worse. The biggest problem is people not riding with any lights, but the issue of putting them on the wrong way round is one of our biggest concerns.

“If you are driving a car and see a white light in front of you, you think it is a cyclist coming towards you. That is particularly dangerous at junctions.

“The driver could misjudge the space and it could end up being very dangerous,” he continued.

“Up until the end of the month we are giving advice to cyclists about what they should do, because a lot of it is that they just don’t know the law.

“A lot of people say ‘it’s all right, I’m just on the pavement’, but that is still illegal.

“After that we will be giving them £30 on-the-spot fines. Of course, if their lack of appropriate lighting causes an accident the punishment could be a lot worse.” PC Godfrey added.

The newspaper adds that cyclists in Peterborough who purchase bike lights at certain local bike shops during November will receive a 10 per cent discount upon mentioning the words, ‘Cambridgeshire Police.”

Those shops are Bristows (Orton Longueville), Marstons (Whittlesey), Greenwheel Cycles (Fengate), Woodston Cycles (Oundle Road), On Yer Bike (Lincoln Rd) and Richardsons (Queensgate).

PC Godfrey added: “All the shops tell people how to properly fit the lights, and some even do it for them at no extra cost.”

Clair George, road safety officer for the SaferPeterborough partnership, commented: “All road users are at risk of not being seen as the dark nights draw in. People are often hurt in crashes simply because they are not easily visible.

“The problem is worse in winter, as heavy rain and fog and shorter daylight hours cause poor visibility.”

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

34 comments

Avatar
a.jumper replied to dave atkinson | 12 years ago
0 likes
dave_atkinson wrote:
Vikeonabike wrote:

The police, at a local level are driven by what the public want

Therein lies the real issue, as i'm sure we've said before. ask the people what they want and invariably they'll moan about pavement cyclists and riding without lights and hoodies and noisy neighbours and such. police resources shouldn't be allocated on the basis of who's grumpiest and most vocal, like they currently are. That's the system we're stuck with right now though.

No we're blooming well not! PACT is meant to be Police And Communities Together, which includes the Police telling the Community when they're being silly about something that they know is minor (unlit bicycles) and trying to steer it to something wider (unlit vehicles of all types?). It sounds like the Inspector who goes to their PACT meetings in Peterborough (or maybe they've dumped the job on a lower rank, showing their conempt for the scheme) is just agreeing to everything for a quiet life, not doing their job properly.

The flip side is: Cyclists! Find out when+where your local PACT meeting is, go along and have a grumble about defectively-lit cars! Like others above, I've lost count. It's very dangerous if other road users think something with one headlamp is a motorbike when it's actually about 2 metres of metal wide. And do other people find that one-light cars often put it on full beam, maybe trying to compensate?

The system is broken, but let's exploit it.

Avatar
robbieC | 12 years ago
0 likes

I got drawn into a conversation in a local newspaper where they were spinning something like 200 road casualties a year as a drop and a good thing. I set these figures against casualties from our recent wars - much much lower. Interesting article in the Guardian today deserves wider publicity...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/nov/18/road-cas...

Avatar
dave atkinson | 12 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

The flip side is: Cyclists! Find out when+where your local PACT meeting is, go along and have a grumble about defectively-lit cars!

So in what way is that not 'police resources allocated on the basis of who's grumpiest and most vocal' then?

I go to local PACT meetings but the fact is, there's more people moaning about hoodies and pavement cyclists and i'm in the minority and always will be.

Avatar
a.jumper replied to dave atkinson | 12 years ago
0 likes
dave_atkinson wrote:
Quote:

The flip side is: Cyclists! Find out when+where your local PACT meeting is, go along and have a grumble about defectively-lit cars!

So in what way is that not 'police resources allocated on the basis of who's grumpiest and most vocal' then?

I go to local PACT meetings but the fact is, there's more people moaning about hoodies and pavement cyclists and i'm in the minority and always will be.

Oh yes, this is exactly that! I wrote this was the flip side. The PACT system is broken in many places, so I'm saying cyclists should exploit it where it's broken.

I go to local PACT meetings too and there's very rarely any other members of the public at ours. (Of course, the fact that the police sometimes fail to show up doesn't help encourage them!) So if any cyclists show up and get vocal about the dodgy drivers, it will have a disproportionate effect.

Pages

Latest Comments