A cyclist in Oldham has been fined £220 by magistrates for cycling without a front light on his bike.
Manchester Magistrates’ Court also ordered 18-year-old Jack Holt, of Roundthorn Road in Oldham, to pay £124 in costs, the Oldham Times reports.
The teenager was stopped by police while cycling with no front light on the Whetstone Hill Road in Oldham in August 2021.
It is illegal to ride a bike without lights and reflectors between sunset and sunrise, under the Roads Vehicles Lighting Regulations Act 1989, which was last amended in 2009.
Holt was sentenced in his absence on Wednesday 16 March, and has been ordered to pay the full fine of £344 by the middle of April.
> Cyclists could face £1,000 fine if caught riding in pedestrianised zones
Normally, fixed penalty notices of £50 would be handed out to anyone caught cycling without lights or reflectors. In some areas, those fines can even be waived if the cyclist can prove that they subsequently purchased lights.
However, as with driving offences, it is likely that the fine was higher in this case because it went to court.
> Essex cyclist fined £225 for riding without lights
In 2015 an Essex cyclist was fined £225 for failing to have lights and reflectors on his bike. That case went to court as the cyclist failed to complete an online cycling education course, which Essex Police offers to those who have been caught failing to comply with road traffic signs, or riding on the footpath or without lights.
Costing £19.50, the course takes approximately half an hour and police say that if the offender fails to complete it, action will then be taken through the courts.
38 thoughts on “Teenager fined £220 for cycling without a front light”
Glad the police and the CPS
Glad the police and the CPS are really prioritising these major crimes.
I have no problem with the
I have no problem with the police chasing minor misdemeanours. There is evidence that to have an impact at the top of the triangle you need to start at the bottom. Besides, unless there were aggravating circumstances then I assume the perp only ended up at the thick end of the process by failing to get off sooner with an online course etc.
Now, if they are looking for other quick prosecutions, how about all the cars with no front plate or with obscured plates? That’s a￡1000 fine, and confiscation of a cherished number.
There’s a £60K Range Rover
There’s a £60K Range Rover Vogue near me, parks on the road as they don’t have a drive. Tax expired December 2020, according to a disgruntled neighbour it’s been reported to the police and DVLA numerous times, but it’s still parked outside their house, and still hasn’t been taxed.
Hmm, gosh, so does that mean
Hmm, gosh, so does that mean their insurance would not cover them in the event of a loss?
Had the MOT expired too? Then
Had the MOT expired too? Then the vehicle is almost certainly not insured.
So in reality teenage ignored
So in reality teenage ignored summons and paid the price. Would have happened with any offence. The nature of the offence was incidental.
Perhaps he’s a notorious
Perhaps he’s a notorious local gang leader but the only offence the Feds can pin on him is, er, ‘cycling at night without lights’. You know, like Al Capone being done for tax evasion.
A gang leader brought to
A gang leader brought to justice and a criminal empire collapsed via a £344 fine….
Can’t help thinking that any
Can’t help thinking that any cost/benefit analysis would come out in favour of a box of cheap LED lamps in the boot of the panda car.
Still, gotta keep those conviction numbers up (for some crimes!?).
I don’t understand your
I don’t understand your reasoning. What makes you think being given a cheap led light would prevent a reoccurrence?
It would certainly be less of
It would certainly be less of a burden on the Police and the Courts. It would remove any excuse for him to do it again. It might not prevent a reoccurrence, ( I didn’t say it would) but it might make one less likely. If he were caught again ( if the Police can join the dots)then fine away.
From reading this website, it seems plenty of people get let off with a warning for putting people at risk way beyond riding a bike without a front light, with Police resources often cited as a reason. No reason why they can’t give out a FPN AND a free LED at the same time if they see fit.
pockstone wrote:
Or maybe the £50 FPN would include the lights?
I think you misunderstand the
I think you misunderstand the purposes of prosecution. It is not just to secure compliance with the law, which is one, or to obtain sustained compliance, which is another, but also to penalise those who are found not complying with the law. Telling the offender off and letting them buy lights is always an option, but that might be not appropriate depending on factors. That’s why it’s always, always, a good idea to eat humble pie when you are caught offending by the police, you’d be amazed how often they will let you off with a stern lecture!
I don’t misunderstand the
I don’t misunderstand the purpose of prosecution, or think it doesn’t serve a purpose. (I was fuming earlier at the derisory sentences handed out to a gang of local County Lines merchants.) What I do think is that riding a bike without a front light is the kind of offence that might be committed through stupidity, laziness, bad planning (guilty as charged), parsimony, ignorance, you name it. It’s very unlikely to be committed out of a premeditated desire to do harm or cause loss (not saying either might not be a result, or that there weren’t aggravating factors.) Not knowing the details of the case, or the response/attitude of the cyclist I’m not saying that a FPN shouldn’t have been served, and if it was ignored then hard lines, but in 99 out of 100 similar cases I suspect that a satisfactory outcome might be achieved , with less cost to the public purse with a ‘stern lecture’ and the offer of a light at taxpayer’s expense. A warning (or less) seems to suffice in lots of cases involving motor vehicles featured on this website.
I agree. Maybe a stern
I agree. Maybe a stern lecture would suffice for you or I but we don’t know the circumstances or possibly the abuse given to the police trying to do their job. The only information we have for sure was that the person didn’t bother trying to defend them self when it got to court.
Regarding pre-meditation. Flat batteries maybe, but many I see riding without lights in ninja black clothing have no intention of ever owning lights and I suspect if they were given to them by the police, they would never be fitted.
My bike has 2 front and 3
My bike has 2 front and 3 rear lights fitted; don’t rely on just 1 light.
Bike lights are dirt cheap
Bike lights are cheap and easily available for purchase; however, if you are a scrote that rides a nicked bike for example, you are less inclined to obey laws and more inclined to act unsociably, even if it’s to your own health and safety detriment..
Spring wrote:
Yup; all he had to do was say that it had been stolen and he’d have been on his way.
I know several forces do
I know several forces do campaigns in uni areas where they give out cheap lights.
People regularly complain about the idea of police giving student cyclists lights when they catch them not using them at the start of term (normally by running checks for a few hours on the main route between halls and uni), while ignoring that issuing a fixed penalty costs significantly more (even after payment) than giving out a cheap light and if it lasts 3-6 months that covers winter…
Of course the same people often expect to get warnings for driving offences that IMHO are vastly worse than cycling without lights at night.
I expect that said teenager probably did something to annoy the officer/make their lives difficult, because otherwise they generally wouldn’t want to deal with the paperwork etc for such a minor offence… (As well as ignoring fixed penalties given it went to court).
What if said teenager told
What if said teenager told plod to go and procreate at the time? just a thought for people that like to presume why plod don’t give warnings..
I understand the argument
I understand the argument that he got hammered because it went to court and he didn’t bother to turn up. That being said, if this is usually a FPN then why did the matter go to court?
Does this mean that Lancs police will be cracking down on all those other “little” matters we hear about? Cough, cough, red light jumping at wtjs favourite set of lights… 😉
It doesn’t actually say he
It doesn’t actually say he didn’t get an FPN. He may have ignored it or chosen to go to court – which you can always do if you wish.
Given his record on turning
Given his record on turning up to court I’d say it was a certainty he ignored a FPN.
Wow. That seems fair,
Wow. That seems fair, especially when you can get fined half of that for driving a vehicle without a license and whilst over the drink drive limit.
Don’t know if this is Lancs plod, I suspect it’ll be GMP as I don’t think Oldham is part of Lancashire any more regarding police boundaries.
I bet he didn’t see that
I bet he didn’t see that coming
To be fair if he was hit by a
To be fair if he was hit by a driver and most younger riders like to wear all black too (night time camo ?) then the fault wouldn’t be on the driver though where it happened is a favourite area for driving instructors in the day and racers after dark. Either way someone was getting a fine.
Born_peddling wrote:
I can understand that dark clothes at night without lights can make you harder to spot at distance, but surely drivers are expected to use their headlights and not randomly hit things that aren’t lit up. e.g. a fallen tree would be dark and not using lights, so why would a driver not be at fault for hitting one – a fundamental rule is that you should be able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear ahead.
Similarly, if a driver hit a pedestrian that was wearing dark clothes, the driver would still be at fault (possibly reduced from 100% depending on whether the pedestrian ran into the road or similar).
You don’t generally find
You don’t generally find trees in the road, so if a driver hit a tree, I’d suspend their licence until their eyesight was checked.
speculatrix wrote:
It’s rare, but does happen during storms.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2022/feb/18/storm-eunice-london-added-to-red-weather-warning-as-met-office-urges-millions-to-stay-indoors-live-news-updates?page=with:block-620fa7268f0866a40a9d8c22
I’m always suprised this isn
I’m always suprised this isn’t made more prominent, but Rule 126 of the Highway Code includes “Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.”
Fallen trees might be rare (albeit evidently do occur from time to time) but there are many other potentially unlit things that could be on or in the vicinty of roads, including pedestrians, broken down or parked vehicles, wildlife, livestock, wheelie bins, flytipping, other debris that has been blown or intentionally or unintentionally deposited on the road, corners, walls, buildings etc.
The CTC (now Cycling UK) in fact campaigned against mandatory rear lights for cyclists, precisely because drivers ought to be driving at a speed that they can see and avoid unlit objects in their path: https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/chris-peck/archive-times-1st-august-1934 (the argument extends that if drivers come to assume everything on the road is lit, this will encourage them to drive faster at the detriment of the safety of unlit pedestrians).
speculatrix wrote:
Given that motor vehicles have (extremely bright) headlights, I’d suggest that should be the case if they drive into anything on the road…
really? this truck hit a tree
really? this truck hit a tree and it was in bright daylight..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dFVlgdByjU
A driver can pull out from a
A driver can pull out from a side street or driveway at night and not see a cyclist riding along without lights; the cyclist would be at fault for a collision in that circumstance.
Broke the law, likely ignored
Broke the law, likely ignored a FPN, didn’t turn up at court and bore the consequences of those actions. This isn’t news.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Or maybe he lost the original FPN and moved house – or maybe someone else knew enough of his details to mislead the officer issuing the FPN – or any number of other things, but yes, not really news.
Apologies I forgot to apply
Apologies I forgot to apply benefit of doubt since it was a cyclist rather than a motorist.
‘maybe he lost the original
‘maybe he lost the original FPN and moved house – or maybe someone else knew enough of his details to mislead the officer issuing the FPN’.. first, it’s the responsibility of the individual to keep their address current and deal with an FPN as required; second, if an individual receives a court notice for a matter that he knows nothing about, surely that individual would contact police to resolve the matter, not just ignore it?
While the costs are
While the costs are disproportionate to the offence, they no doubt are related to a failure to follow the process and therefore minimise them, but not everyone understands the court process as they’ve generally had no involvement (it’s why parking scam ticketing systems are so lucrative, because people don’t know that however ludicrous a parking ticket charge, undefended the courts are more or less obliged to rubber stamp the claim and the costs of unravelling it all are high).
What I would say is that I think plenty of cyclists believe that a rear light is good enough for a casual journey, but I saw a really good example of what I think was a JLR employee commuting to work in Solihull down a bike lane on a lit road in dark clothes. I passed him in the cycle lane – needing to give extra space as he only had a foot or so of road courtesy of a poor traffic light layout and noticed that he had no front light. I thought at the time he thinks he only needs to worry about cars from behind. Shortly afterwards had to avoid a car turning across me to enter a school drive with a couple more waiting to follow – “If a motorist treats a well-lit car with distain, are they even going to notice the following bike?” I thought.
https://goo.gl/maps/H54RWAfyR7dCq3Kf8
Note how very narrow bike lane is simply abandoned when the road narrows further, just when the cyclist needs protection. School entrance is just behind that view, barely visible.