Police officers in York will later today be stopping cyclists and educating them about the need to be seen as the nights draw, with people who ride without lights during the hours of darkness potentially facing a fine of £50.
That won’t happen this afternoon, however, when officers will be deployed between 16:30 and 18:00hrs in York city centre, because under the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations, cyclists are not required to display lights until sunset, which falls at 18:41hrs tonight.
We contacted North Yorkshire Police for clarification after a road.cc reader sent us an email he had received yesterday via the force’s community messaging system about Operation Shimmer, which read:
The hours of darkness are now coming earlier, if you are cyclist please remember to make yourself visible not just with lights but high visibility clothing and bags. On the 1st of October 2018 from 16:30 until 18:00hrs officers will be at strategic locations around York City centre checking cyclists for illuminated lights as you cycle around the city.
Given that the force announced last week that over the coming months it would be targeting people riding at night without lights, we were concerned that some people might be fined even though they would be riding their bikes at a time when it was perfectly legal to do so without them.
In response, a North Yorkshire Police spokesman told road.cc: “Op Shimmer – in which North Yorkshire Police will be educating cyclists about the use of bike lights and enforcing illegal riding – will run throughout autumn and winter.
“By the end of this month, the sun will set at around 4.30pm. However, for the first few days of the month officers may be out and about during daylight hours.
“In this case, the emphasis will be on engaging with and educating cyclists about being seen. This is an important aspect of our work. It also gives cyclists a chance to understand what they need to do to ensure they are safe and legal before the dark nights draw in.”
Last year, Cycling UK issued updated guidance on the legal situation regarding when lights and reflectors need to be displayed on bicycles as well as the standards they need to comply with.
“Besides issues related to lighting, the Highway Code also recommends that cyclists “should wear reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.”
The North Yorkshire Police spokesman added: “City of York Council has provided 100 sets of bike lights and rucksack covers, which we’ll be handing out. There will be further initiatives throughout the year.
“From the outset of this initiative, regardless of whether it’s light or dark, we’ll also be enforcing red-light running and inappropriate cycling on pavements as this poses a significant safety risk to cyclists and other road users.”
York has one of the highest levels of cycling in the UK, and is not the only city where police in recent years have targeted unlit cyclists as the nights draw in.
Oxford and Cambridge in recent years have both seen initiatives where people stopped for riding in the dark without lights can avoid a fine if within seven days they can provide a receipt to police proving that that they have subsequently bought a set of lights for their bike.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
37 thoughts on “Police in York launch crackdown on cyclists without lights”
If I don’t have my lights on
If I don’t have my lights on at 1630 they are going to stop me???
Have I read that right?
Wouldn’t it better to wait until it is actually dark and perhaps show people some footage of their lack of visibility?
How will they even see a
How will they even see a cyclist without lights to stop them? If Daily-fail reading motorists are to be believed, not having lights on makes you COMPLETELY INVISIBLE.
Guanajuato wrote:
I’m continually amazed at the lack of self-awareness of people commenting about how many COMPLETELY INVISIBLE cyclists they see every day.
I’d love ot see those stats
I’d love ot see those stats on the “significant safety risk to cyclists and other road users” again please, we keep being told there’s not enough police yet they’re ignoring the thousands of two tonne objects being driven irresponsibly…
I’ll have one of those free reflective covers though please!
alansmurphy wrote:
Just listen to the traffic news at peak morning and pm lots and lots of collisions caused by invisible cyclists that “nearly caused a collision” Would be a good thing for all cyclists to use lights as required but a poor priority compared to driver distraction and urban speeding
Better engaging with the
Better engaging with the cycling community now armed with some free lights and advice rather than appearing unannounced on the streets in November armed with £50 fixed penalty fines.
Hopefully come the dark evenings enough cyclists will have got the message so that unlit cycles are not perceived to be an issue and then the Police can organise their limited resources and maybe go concentrate on the set of road users who actually kill and injure others.
Dear North Yorks Police
Dear North Yorks Police
I’ve been run over once….I was wearing a white reflective gillet and had 6 lights on my bike (2 front, 2 back and 2 on helmet).
I must have been doing something wrong. Please advise.
To be fair muppets without
To be fair muppets without lights are a problem for fellow cyclists whether people like to admit it or not. Not remotely the same as problems in general caused by motorists but still.
We’re about to enter the period where it’s dark on the commute home…and a significant number of muppets will ride in cycle lanes with no lights and dark clothing…doing the sort of things that these muppets are notorious for. Which is anything they can get away with. Weaving across the lanes without looking. Not stopping at ped crossings. Not looking before overtaking…on the phone…so on and so forth. All made worse in the dark with no lights on a narrow cyclepath.
It’s not fair and it’s not right. Serious disrespect for the fellow cyclist/pedestrian they interact with. Fuck ’em in other words.
StoopidUserName wrote:
People without lights … wel if you were obeying the HC (as the operator of any vehicle bike, car, van, bus HGV etc) then that’s never a problem is it. This is the very reason the then CTC objected vehemently to government when they introduced compulsary rear lights. People who are driving OR cycling at a speed they can stop well within the distance they can see to be clear AND are observing others whom they may cause harm to will see unlit objects or people, you know, pedestrians, fallen trees, animals in the carriageway OTHER CYCLISTS!. Cyclists are piss easy to see even unlit, IF you are actually abiding by the rules and bothering to look!
But passing the responsibility onto the vulnerable has worked a treat hasn’t it over the last 90 years, to the point where the likes of Michael Mason, Mike Hall and others are being blamed for being smashed into the back of and killed.
People like you think they know best, it’s not fair or right that we push the responsibility for not being killed onto those being killed or seriously injured, that’s an unjust and uncivilised society that does that, and despite playing the game still get killed/injured and still get blamed.
Just fuck off with your muppetry!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Er… wow!
Stoopid, my take on this is that if these bell ends are behaving in this way then they are doing it all year. I’d prefer them to be called out on their shitty behaviour regardless of the day of the year!
alansmurphy wrote:
The trouble is people can get pretty agressive when called out. I just want a peaceful, chilled and event free ride home. Totally know what you’re saying though.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
This is about cyclists being dicks to other cyclists…and it seems you’re one of them. I’ve nearly been knocked into a 70mph dual carriageway in rush hour due to anti social cyclists not giving a fuck. You must take some responsibility for your actions and you must ride with consideration for others – in this case, other cyclists. I ride defensively as hell but seriously, you can’t predict everything.
StoopidUserName wrote:
Antisocial cycling is bang out of order. Shouldn’t be accepted.
But let’s be rational – and proportionate. You know, like the police have to be in this time of austerity. ‘Oh, you’ve been burgled? Yeah, that’s awful, but you’re at the bottom of the pile and you’re unlikely to see an Actual Police Officer because we have to throw resources at Actual Crime’.
And you know what the measurable impacts of antisocial cycling are? Pretty much nothing. It might make Daily Fail readers moan and pensioners tut, but in the not-too-distant past, so did seeing interracial relationships and people being ‘out and proud’. This isn’t a ‘broken windows’ situation, so conservative arseholes being offended cannot be trusted as a metric.
And while we have antisocial driving (both deliberate and a consequence of incompetence) causing Actual Deaths and huge pollution, throwing any resources at stopping cyclists at dusk for lack of lights comes across as a fucking sick joke.
davel wrote:
Yeah I mostly agree with you. So much better use of police time out there that would make a far, far bigger difference to the world than what they are doing here. Just mouthing off because the anti social lot get on my tits sometimes (like when almost or actually taking me and others out through their selfishness and ignorance)
I strongly suspect part of
I strongly suspect part of the reason the police often do these operations, is that it’s easy. You stand there and wave at people to make them stop.
Stopping drivers is a whole lot more hassle, probably involving two police cars. Then, you need somewhere for the cars to go so they don’t block the traffic, and there probably isn’t a lot of space in York City Centre.
I wouldn’t mind this operation if there was actually enforcement of genuine road dangers – drivers using mobiles at the wheel, and drivers putting my life in danger routinely, because they prioritise keeping momentum, and getting to the next set of red lights 3s sooner, over passing me safely when I’m on a bike.
It’s possible they are going
It’s possible they are going to stand around and try and talk to cyclists with a stall near major bike parking, as BTP did recently at my local station.
Well that escalated…
Well that escalated…
I don’t agree that cyclists are piss easy to see. Do you drive BTBS ?
If they’ve got reflectives – and IF your headlights are pointing at them – then that helps – but lights are a big help. If they’re all in black without lights and reflectives then I don’t see its contentious to say they’re harder to see.
Otherwise ninjas ? Why do they bother ?
I’ve no idea why people value their life so cheaply when for £20 you can get a set of flashing lights
fenix wrote:
But cyclists are really easy to see, even those without lights and certainly those without reflectives. If a driver can’t see them the reasons are most likely to be inadequate eye sight (which is of course a disqualifier), dirty windscreen (which is of course against HC), distraction (like illegal use of phones), dirty glasses or just not looking properly (which are both just stupid).
I don’t advocate riding without lights in darkness and poor visibility and I’m happy to use reflectives. BUT, and it is a big BUT, drivers are responsible for driving within the limitations of what they can see and an unlit cyclist is not really very different from an unlit pedestrian, an unlit animal, a big hole in the road or an inanimate object on the road – all of which the driver should be able to see and avoid running into – that is why motor vehicles have headlights that actually project a beam.
We should never do, or accept, anything that puts the responsibility anywhere other than with the driver.
In case anyone asks yes I am a driver, and a cyclist and a pedestrian.
shay cycles wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that cyclists are never to blame?
freespirit1 wrote:
Of course there are many factors, and it’s a bit more nuanced than this, but in the interests of brevity, let’s generalise a bit.
Cyclists are never to blame for where a motorist puts their vehicle, and motorists have no business driving their vehicles into a piece of road they can’t see clearly.
Put it this way – if you’re barrelling along a shared-use path on your bike and knock over a pedestrian, is it a) the pedestrian’s fault for just being there, b) the pedestrian’s fault for not being lit up like a Christmas tree, or c) your fault for not anticipating that there might be pedestrians and not paying sufficient attention?
freespirit1 wrote:
A cyclist could have poured petrol over a group of nuns and set them alight and some people on here would be saying it needed to be put into context.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
I’m not saying that setting nuns on fire is the best solution, but we do have a real problem with not enough penguins, so maybe some of those nuns can be put into service in zoos?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-45712690
shay cycles wrote:
I think there’s a valid case for cyclists to use lights at night if only so that pedestrians can easily see them/us. The same way that motorists should bear the responsibility for seeing and not hitting smaller road users, cyclists should bear the same responsibility towards pedestrians.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Strict liability: yes please.
Just as it’s pretty stupid
Just as it’s pretty stupid not to use lights at night, there’s the other extreme of completely overdoing it. Was on a 30mph urban road in the car and a cyclist came the other way with a ‘mega lumen’ night MTB light strapped onto his helmet; had to slow to a crawl as I couldn’t see a thing. Perhaps some guidance on the optimal mix of lighting and reflectives would be better (for dark or (lit) urban roads). One of my lights has a steady beam with a really bright double flash every few seconds setting; good for daytime but possibly a bit ‘antagonistic’ at night (no point in winding some arsy motorist up unnecessarily). Potentially, overdoing the lighting could be as dangerous as not having any at all.
“engaging with and educating
“engaging with and educating cyclists about being seen”
So why not also engage with and educate drivers about seeing; not just cyclists but peds and other vehicles. After all, they are the ones flinging 2 tonnes of steel around the streets. A quick eyesight test might flag up a few people with defective vision. Or is that not important enough?
If as a driver you’re paying attention, driving to the conditions (and below the speed limit) then unlit cyclists, like pedestrians, are not that difficult to spot in streetlit areas.
I suspect those light sets they’re handing out may well be as sh*t as the ones my daughter won in a competition then they’re barely any better than having no lights at all.
Simon E wrote:
Absolutely right. Which is why I resent the cycling muppets who don’t carry lights after dark, which let us not forget is a legal requirement, and who’s stupidity causes enough pressure on whoever makes decisions on how to deploy limited resources to focus on them rather than the people we would like to see being hauled up for their behaviour.
Oi North Yorkshire Police!
Oi, North Yorkshire Police! THIS is what you should be doing.
West Midlands Road Harm Protection Team on twitter today:
https://mobile.twitter.com/WMPRHRT/status/1046784923208753153
This is following on from a tweet on 19 September:
https://mobile.twitter.com/WMPRHRT/status/1042485107611914240I’m not saying people should ride around at night with no lights or RLJ but let’s put these misdemeanours in perspective.
I would be interested to know
I would be interested to know if the lights they are giving out conform to British Standards, if so which lights are they? I’d love to know, cheap lights very rarely do. If not, is that really good enough?
Plod wrote:
Oi, sunshine! Off the road and ride on the pavement! And don’t let me catch you stopping for a red light or you’ll be spending a night in the cells, sonny Jim.
I was stopped last year by a
I was stopped last year by a council worker in Portsmouth to be educated on their cycle illumination initiative. It was a bright, crisp autumn morning and they were stopping cyclists with members of Hampshire Constabulary for a chat. They told me about the need to make myself as visible as possible during the hours of darkness so that other road users could easily see me, so I showed them my reflective Sugoi Zapp jacket (cherry red), my reflective Castelli Reflex overshoes and my relective Hype rucksack. Still they offered me a yellow rucksack cover and headover, so I took them. They then proceeded to educate me on the use of lights and reflectives.I pointed out the rear reflector on my bike and the 300 lumen rear light and 400 lumen front light, that incidentally were both on in the daytime flash mode. I wasn’t given the option of free lights even though they were available. I bid the council worker good morning and continued with my commute.
That evening I was close passed four times and and involved in a close dooring incident. Moral of the story? If you cannot teach drivers to look out for well illuminated cyclists, let alone poorly illuminated ones, why bother to educate the cyclist?
Even in well lit urban
Even in well lit urban environments there are areas of darkness. There seems to be an assumption by some posters that cyclists are being forced to carry lights after dusk purely to make up for the shortcomings of drivers*. Lit cycles are also of benefit to other cyclists and pedestrians.
*Personally I find the idea that you are relying on drivers ability to come to an emergency stop within the distance of their own headlights as ‘Plan A’ is somewhat terrifying. I’ll be sticking with some basic lights and reflectives which studies show make you effectively visible at up to 3 times the distance should anyone care to look.
Mungecrundle wrote:
No, simply discussing the degree of responsibility.
A driver is the only person responsible for the speed and direction of their vehicle and, while using lights while cycling is a good idea*, it is not the most important factor in whether a driver can see and avoid other road users. Does anyone park their vehicle in those unlit areas you mention? Are they visible?
I have driven on unlit country roads a great deal over the years and I would never rely solely on a cyclist or pedestrian having lights or reflectives – as a driver it’s my job to anticipate and avoid anyone or anything in my path.
* no-one here is arguing otherwise, I’d advise you to go back and read the comments properly.
Simon E wrote:
Yes, usually first by the reflectors which cars have at each corner as part of the headlight / tailight clusters. In most jurisdictions cars must park in the direction of traffic in order to make the rear reflectives more noticeable.
Also in the same bracket – there is a good reason why skips left in the roadway must be lit properly.
To state what I said another way, emergency stop in the distance you can see to be clear is the 0% margin of error option bordering on sheer luck and the tiny statistical chance of being in the wrong place at the wrong time at the end of an improbable chain of events or circumstance. You should be able to do that (stop within the distance you can see to be clear), but there are plenty of scenarios I can imagine where you would also need to factor in the approaching speed of an oncoming cyclist where a collision could occur due to road width restrictions such as parked vehicles.
Simon E wrote:
I hope so
248
You MUST NOT park on a road at night facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless in a recognised parking space. Laws CUR reg 101 & RVLR reg 24
249
All vehicles MUST display parking lights when parked on a road or a lay-by on a road with a speed limit greater than 30 mph (48 km/h).
Law RVLR reg 24
From experience, the problem
From experience, the problem cyclists in York aren’t people, the likes of whom would read this website.
They are generally equipped with a BSO, a student union card or a need for smack.
I try to avoid riding into York but when I do it always gets on my tits as half the cyclists are clueless or reckless.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
…but at least they’re not guiding 2 tonnes of metal towards you.