Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

PCSOs to get power to fine unlit cyclists

Riding without lights? Look out for PCSOs.

If you’re silly enough to ride at night without lights, it’s not just regular police you’ll have to look out for (not that you’ll be able to see them, of course): under a bill currently before Parliament, Police Community Support Officers are to get the power to stop unlit cyclists too.

Part 11 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill would give PCSOs the power to issue fixed penalty notices to cyclists riding without lights. In fact, since the bill refers to cyclists “contravening or failing to comply with a construction or use requirement about lighting equipment or reflectors for cycles” you might even get nabbed for having taken off your pedal reflectors.

Dr Julian Huppert MP, the chair of the All-party Parliamentary Committee for Cycling spoke in support of this clause of the bill, saying that law-breaking cyclists were “one of the banes of my life.”

Dr Huppert said: “It is right to extend powers to PCSOs, allowing them to issue fixed penalty notices to cyclists riding without lights. I am a huge champion of cycling. I was delighted when the House passed a motion to get Britain cycling.

“One of the banes of my life in that context is cyclists who do not obey the rules of the road. Anything that we can do to get people to cycle safely and legally will make it easier for those of us who want to extend facilities for cyclists.

“There are sensible ways forward. In Cambridge we have been using a “lights instead of tickets” campaign to make sure that people get their lights. I welcome the new clause as a sensible step forward.”

The powers of PCSOs to issue fixed penalty notices are limited to minor offences such as pavement cycling, littering and dog fouling. They have no powers to deal with similar but far more dangerous motoring offences such as driving on the pavement. According to DfT figures, 27 pedestrians were killed on pavements in 2012. We can find no reports of pedestrian fatalities involving pavement cyclists in 2012.

John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.

He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.

Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.

John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.

He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.

Add new comment

53 comments

Avatar
McDuff73 | 10 years ago
0 likes

this is part of the slow erosion of police duties that was predicted when PCSO's were introduced, and labelled as plastic bobbies policing on the cheap, surrogate police eventually with all the powers afforded police officers but with a fraction of the training.

Avatar
msfergus | 10 years ago
0 likes

That's fair enough. I cycle and drive. I'm amazed by the number of unlit cyclists I see and yes, I've nearly hit a couple, and that has left me shaken and angry. The law aspect is irrelevant. No sane person wants to injure another person. Just use lights when it's dark/dusk if you're a cyclist, car driver, pedestrian on a road with no footpath and aside from the law, we all get home and live to enjoy another day. If it takes a fine to achieve it, then so be it.

Avatar
Rouboy | 10 years ago
0 likes

As there appears to be considerably less police officers on the street I am guessing the PCSO's will be doing the work of police officers? On that basis when will they have time to use their new far reaching powers????

Avatar
Bob's Bikes | 10 years ago
0 likes

MRMO wrote in reply to FATBEGGARONABIKE.

Slighty OT, to the main, but anyway.

Pavement parking is a problem, but in a lot of different ways. I live in a victorian terrace the road is approximately 3 cars wide, but houses on both sides and lots of cars. If residents park on the road, then you can not drive down the road? If you park on the pavement then you block the pavement. Can't win really.

mrmo

Yes you can! you scrap the CAR and buy a BIKE  4

Avatar
mrmo replied to Bob's Bikes | 10 years ago
0 likes

need the car once in a while... so not really an option. As it is i have 2 bikes, and 2 spare frames, assorted wheels etc. Bikes get far more use than the car, 3k miles in the car and 8.5k on the bike in the last 12 months.

Avatar
Bob's Bikes replied to mrmo | 10 years ago
0 likes

MRMO perhaps I should have said "the residents" instead of "you", which is what I meant.

Avatar
Tradescant | 10 years ago
0 likes

So if one is unwise enough to be sans lights in the hours of darkness, what will the PCSO do if you refuse to give personal details? Arrest you? Oh no wait...

Avatar
dp24 | 10 years ago
0 likes

Don't have any problem whatsoever with this. Just last night whilst driving I encountered a complete moron cycling down an unlit road with no lights, no reflectors, dressed all in black. He was more than old enough to know better too.

Avatar
a.jumper | 10 years ago
0 likes

Helmets aren't required and surely would only increase the injury of any pedestrian she hits?

As for narrow roads, if it's not wide enough to park on without parking on the pavement, go park somewhere else. You don't own the street as a parking space (no matter what one former terraced- street neighbour of mine claimed).

Avatar
philbo | 10 years ago
0 likes

Good use of a PCSOs time IMO. Just what they should be used for. Looking out for minor offences and educating people on laws that my save them and others from harm.
I have an employee who rides her BMX on the pavement, with no lights and no helmet. It winds me right up and is incredibly irresponsible. A fine from the local PCSO who patrols our high street would sort her right out.

Avatar
Bob's Bikes | 10 years ago
0 likes

Having read the comments I've noticed an awfull lot of people refering to "pavement parking" and police not doing anything about it, (the police)using the excuse that parking is now upto the local authorities/council and not a police matter.
To park half on and half off the PEDESTRIANS RIGHT OF WAY means that the vehicle has driven on the ped's ROW which is illegal under the road traffic act/regulations so therefore the police can prosecute them, they just chose not to. Giving pcso's extra powers isn't such a bad thing, just wish they could add that one to their list.

Avatar
mrmo replied to Bob's Bikes | 10 years ago
0 likes
FATBEGGARONABIKE wrote:

Having read the comments I've noticed an awfull lot of people refering to "pavement parking" and police not doing anything about it, (the police)using the excuse that parking is now upto the local authorities/council and not a police matter.

Slighty OT, to the main, but anyway.

Pavement parking is a problem, but in a lot of different ways. I live in a victorian terrace the road is approximately 3 cars wide, but houses on both sides and lots of cars. If residents park on the road, then you can not drive down the road? If you park on the pavement then you block the pavement. Can't win really.

Avatar
a.jumper replied to Bob's Bikes | 10 years ago
0 likes
FATBEGGARONABIKE wrote:

To park half on and half off the PEDESTRIANS RIGHT OF WAY means that the vehicle has driven on the ped's ROW which is illegal under the road traffic act/regulations so therefore the police can prosecute them, they just chose not to.

I've been told that because driving is the offence, they have to see them drive on the pavement and not only draw the logical most common conclusion from it being parked there. I don't know if there's case law on that or if the police or CPS are being over cautious.

Avatar
a.jumper | 10 years ago
0 likes

Parking is currently the responsibility of councils in much of the country and if you ask a policeman, they'll regret that they can only act when it's clearly dangerous like blocking junctions and crossings. I think this bill should give police and PCSOs power to fine parking and especially pavement parking, even if the local council has adopted the power.

Yes, its right to enforce the lighting laws a bit more but there are buffet problems which should come first like parking.

Its also disappointing to see Julian Huppert go all uncle Tom.

Avatar
bendertherobot | 10 years ago
0 likes

I was about to jump on the slating band wagon. But Huppert seems to be one of the best.

This isn't a bad thing to have. If I were asked then I'd say that non lit, RLJ and plain deadly cyclists are the bane of my life as well. Or, to explain properly, one of the banes of my cycling life. The others being what motorists and peds do.

So this is fine. It's sensible.

Also, there is a context to the Anti Social Behaviour Bill. It's broadly as it says. The most common situation where a PCSO will come into contact with a non lit "cyclist" is your hoody wearing on the pavement bmx'er. So this is fine.

Avatar
stever | 10 years ago
0 likes

I once saw two PCSOs cycling along together in Runcorn in fading evening light, on the pavement, without lights. It's a good job these powers weren't in then, there'd have been a warp in the space-time continuum. Or something.

Avatar
oozaveared | 10 years ago
0 likes

When I was a kid (early paleolithic era) a policeman stopped me cycling when I had no lights. I'd been out at the park was late going home it was dusk.

He asked me where I lived, which was a couple of miles away. It was getting dark and he could see it would take me a good while if I walked. Then he said "Look here, there's no one on the pavements so ride nice and carefully, and get off if you meet anyone walking. And don't tell anyone I said so."

Good sensible policing.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 10 years ago
0 likes

A number of times I've seen cyclists with white lights on the back. Perhaps they were planning on going in for this backwards-cycling speed-record thing?

Avatar
oozaveared replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 10 years ago
0 likes

"A number of times?"

Well I have been cycling on the road in the UK since at least 1970. Club cycling, racing, now a commuter, a clubby, and leisure cyclist.

I have never, even once, in all that time seen a cyclist with a white light on the back. I have seen them with no lights. I've seen them with lights that are so dim they were pointless. I have seen innumerable crazy set ups and get ups over that time. I even recently bought a light for time trialling on a dual carriageway that has a setting so when the sun is in the motorists eyes the light can be set to flash bright red with a a counter flash of green which scientifically speaking will enhance the red.

But white lights on the back. Never. You've been lucky to see two.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to oozaveared | 10 years ago
0 likes

@ oozaveared
at least three times in the last couple of years. Once I thought it was that, but then it turned out he was just cycling the wrong way down the wrong side of the road!
The other oddity is cyclists in pairs where one has lights and the other doesn't. Don't know what that is about.

Avatar
alexwheeler0 replied to oozaveared | 10 years ago
0 likes

,

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 10 years ago
0 likes

Oh, and the other reason for thinking cyclists _should_ be obliged to have lights after dark is that it affects pedestrians also. Risking your own life with regard to cars is one thing, but pedestrians have the absolute right to be able to see you coming.

Avatar
classicuk | 10 years ago
0 likes

I have heard that the law has changed, you can have a flashing rear light, but are advised to have a static one as well.
I have two rear static ones, one each side of the wheel, a flashing one under the saddle and a flashing one on my helmet. I also have a fluorescent band with 4 flashing LEDs as a cycle clip on my calf and I still got forced into the kerb. On my cycle to work/home there is only 250 metres of cycle path in 2 miles.

Avatar
freespirit1 | 10 years ago
0 likes

Since approx 2009 all new motorcycles have to have a standardised mounting for the rear number plate, this also includes a rear reflector.

They also shovelled under the radar the requirement for lights to be on at all times.

Avatar
Brooess | 10 years ago
0 likes

Whilst riding in low light or darkness without lights and reflective clothing is simply stupid, is there any evidence this has led to significant death or injury?

I'd rather Parliament and the Police spent their time and resources dealing with the daily harassment and abuse cyclists receive - and start getting proper penalties when cyclists are killed and seriously injured - surely that's a bigger issue?

Avatar
JonD replied to Brooess | 10 years ago
0 likes
Brooess wrote:

Whilst riding in low light or darkness without lights and reflective clothing is simply stupid, is there any evidence this has led to significant death or injury?

Aha ! - found it:
http://road.cc/content/news/12065-dft-research-reckless-riding-accounts-...

"Meanwhile, according to police reports studied as part of the research, wearing dark clothing at night was thought to be a possible cause of just 2.5% of accidents resulting in serious injury to the cyclist, with not using lights or jumping red lights each blamed in 2% of cases"

- ie the total is ~6.5% (presumably those with dark clothing had lights ?)

Avatar
jarredscycling | 10 years ago
0 likes

A PCSO sounds a bit like a jumped up meter attendant. Why would they be allowed to ticket cyclists for certain offenses but not vehicles? The whole idea of a PCSO sounds silly

Avatar
pauldmorgan | 10 years ago
0 likes

The pedal reflectors requirement does seem odd: motorcyclists don't have to have reflective foot pegs... Maybe a throwback to very poor bike lights? LEDs are now very bright: I got seriously abused by a motorcyclist the other night because my (bog standard cateye) rear light was "too bright". Tough!

The law / highway code needs to be changed to reflect (do you see what I did there?) the reality of rider and bike as one "system".

e.g. if there are no pedal reflectors then reflective bands or reflectors on shoes should be allowable substitutions. Likewise for front and rear reflectors vs a gilet with loads of reflective patches and also helmet mounted lights.

The BS maybe needs updating to include Scotchlite etc garments and accessories as appropriate substitutions.

My 500 lumens front light should trump a daft plastic reflector.

Avatar
notfastenough | 10 years ago
0 likes

Great move, except for the reflectors thingy. They take up real estate on the bike that can be better used by lights.

My shoes are reflective at the back, my rucksack cover is, I've got good lights, but no reflectors on the bike. I could fit them to the bars/seatpost, but that's where my lights are.

Oh, and will my speedplays become illegal?

Avatar
Initialised replied to notfastenough | 10 years ago
0 likes
notfastenough wrote:

Great move, except for the reflectors thingy. They take up real estate on the bike that can be better used by lights.

My shoes are reflective at the back, my rucksack cover is, I've got good lights, but no reflectors on the bike. I could fit them to the bars/seatpost, but that's where my lights are.

Oh, and will my speedplays become illegal?

Only applies in the dark and foot or ankle mounted reflectors are a suitable replacement.

Pages

Latest Comments