Oxford’s latest annual blitz on people riding bikes without lights has resulted in nearly 100 more riders being fined than was the case 12 months ago. In all, 267 cyclists given £50 fixed penalty notices in the space of three hours on Monday evening – a rate of one every 40 seconds or so.
The operation took place on the High Street and on Abingdon Road, reports The Oxford Times, and riders can avoid having to pay the fine if they produce a receipt to police within seven days showing that they have purchased a set of lights for their bike after being fined.
That scheme has operated in previous years, including 12 months ago when 171 cyclists were given fines in what was also a three-hour operation.
This week’s clampdown happened the day after the clocks went back, meaning that dusk now falls an hour earlier than it did under British Summer Time.
It also comes shortly after the start of the new academic year and the annual influx of new students from the UK and abroad to the city’s two universities, many of whom may not have ridden a bike since childhood, if at all.
Rule 60 of the Highway Code says:
At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.
PC Mark Piling of Thames Valley Police’s roads policing department said: “This campaign is aimed at educating cyclists about how important it is that they are fully visible to all other road users.
“Just because a cyclist can see where they are going on a well-lit street does not necessarily mean that they are fully visible to motorists approaching with their headlights on.
“We stopped a significant number of cyclists so I would encourage others to get lights for their safety and to avoid any fines.
“We will be carrying out further checks during the coming months,” he added.
Similar operations take place in a number of towns and cities across the UK at this time of year, and Cambridgeshire Police have warned that riders without lights will face fines.
PCSO Shiralee George, quoted by Cambridge News, said: "For cyclists and parents that have children who cycle to and from school.
"As the nights are drawing in please make yourself visible by way of turning on your bike lights and maybe a high visibility waist coat. The more visible you are the safer you are.
She added: "Can I also remind you that failing to have lights turn on or even not having any at all while in the hours of darkness could result in you being issued with a £30 fixed penalty notice. Our main concern is the safety of all cyclists.”
86 thoughts on “More than 250 cyclists fined in Oxford police blitz on riding without lights”
I can never get my head
I can never get my head around cycling in the dark without lights. I wish the police would be as proactive with motorised vehicles as well though as regrds safety but I can’t complain. I am an advocate of much more police presence and activity in regard to road policing. Lots more. If done fairly and properly that would result in many more errant motorists feeling the pressure. I am not therefore in a position to complain in this instance.
Quite right, get some lights or get a fine.
Nothing much those fined have
Nothing much those fined have to complain about – a set of visibility lights are dirt cheap and vital for everyones safety. I cannot comprehend anyone riding on the road without them after dark.
How are you meant to get the
How are you meant to get the amber reflectors on your clip on pedals???
@fuel – I think you can
@fuel – I think you can generally get around it if your shoes have reflective strips on them, or if you wear one of those reflective ankle thingies. What I don’t understand is the need for a red rear reflector as well as a red rear light.
agree, there’s not much space
agree, there’s not much space on my Speedplays for reflectors…
SPD-SL pedals (105, at least)
SPD-SL pedals (105, at least) come with amber reflectors that can be attached to the bottom of the pedal. Not that anyone uses them, of course.
fuel wrote:How are you meant
I’d be very surprised if police were checking for that.
fuel wrote:How are you meant
Buy pedals with them fitted, or else don’t ride that bike with them on when it’s dark… 😉
fuel wrote:How are you meant
To be honest I don’t think the police are that bothered about the little amber reflectors if you are generally well lit and visible (there will always be an exception) Just like anything else like cars you get done for the piddly bits because you failed an attitude test on something more major which got you pulled over in the first place.
ie
No lights. Cops stops you
pleasant attitude
warns you about the lights and
sends you on your way with a new set or a producer
or
No lights. Cop stops you.
gets a shitty attitude
throws the book
Have them on your shoes?
Have them on your shoes?
fuel wrote:How are you meant
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Shimano-Road-SPD-SL-Bike-Cycling-Pedal-Light-Reflectors-SM-PD58-/300829483220
I’ve never, ever seen these being used in real life.
fuel wrote:How are you meant
factor1 mentioned the ones for SPD-SL pedals.
For Shimano SPD pedals you can get SM-PD22s. I have a pair fitted to the M520s (like these) on my winter bike. As well as the reflectors, they allow the pedal to hang at the ideal angle to stamp-and-go at junctions and lights. You can buy the PD22s separately.
Did the fuzz or the council not release any publicity before the clocks went back?
My 105 pedals came with amber
My 105 pedals came with amber reflectors which i have attached.
fuel wrote:How are you meant
Shimano sell an SPD pedal clip-on plate with reflectors – they work just fine. Reference number SM-PD22.
Decathlon sell them for £10
http://www.decathlon.co.uk/smpd22-auto-bike-pedals-adaptor-id_5626992.html
My question exactly. Amber
My question exactly. Amber reflectors on my clipless pedals? That’s a law that needs changing; you could legally be “at fault” if someone hits you at night while lit up like a Christmas tree all because you were using a pair of Looks.
Funny this, on Monday I
Funny this, on Monday I passed 5 cars coming in the opposite direction each with a headlight out, all passed a parked and occupied police car but not one was stopped. Obviously not yet time for the annual stop & warn for defective headlamps. It would be interesting to see how many cars etc were stopped for defective lights at the same time.
Gus T wrote:Funny this, on
Yes they should have been stopped. So should the cyclists.
And there’s a motorist on a blog somewhere also moaning that the police don’t stop any cyclists.
enough of this whataboutery. You want the police to get tough on bad drivers, then also support them getting tough on bad cyclists. And that goes vice versa for motorists (I am one as well) You want dangerous inconsiderate cyclists dealt with, well then also support the police cracking down on bad drivers.
cos otherwise you could be accused of hypocrisy.
oozaveared wrote:Gus T
Sorry, should have read “I
Sorry, should have read “I agree completely, my comment was intended to point that out that targeting cyclists on their own for poor lighting whilst ignoring other modes of transport because they are not the target of the day is bad policing, all vehicles should be targeted at the same time. Saying that this is a safety issue is irrelevant if only one group is targeted.
I would also add that I am lit up like a christmas tree including a built in light on my hi-viz helmet plus hi-viz jacket to ensure I’m seen during winter months and have no truck with unlit bike riders.”
I firmly believe that bike riders who don’t adhere to the law deserve all they get when caught by the Police but also believe that policing is an ongoing process & not a series of special events to be targeted at set times of the year.
Most Shimano SPD pedals have
Most Shimano SPD pedals have a reflector kit available. Seems random when I buy them. Some come with reflectors, some don’t.
whilst I wouldnt advocate
whilst I wouldnt advocate cycling without lights I wonder how many cyclists involved in accidents in the dark did in fact have lights on their cycles?
Its a bit like the arguement about wearing helmets and hi-viz we are deemed more safe when wearing both but how many are hit or killed whilst wearing both?
McDuff73 wrote:whilst I
Lack of lights and hiviz does not seem to be a major cause of accidents to cyclists.
“A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility clothing and use lights, a government-commissioned study has discovered.
The study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found that in 2% of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was a likely contributing factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time.”
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study
What a ridiculous position to
What a ridiculous position to take. I think that being safe and seen is a basic requirement of being on the highway. If you want to ride with no lights then ride off road where you won’t get run over. There are enough accidents occurring in broad daylight and if there are idiots out there want to get run over by a car due to not being seen then they should be stopped and fined.
One avoided accident would be enough to make this campaign worth while…….. Only one!!!
upinthehills wrote:What a
Many more could be avoided if it were made clear to drivers that they must only proceed if they can see the road is clear, and that anyone who causes a collision by breaking this rule will never again be permitted to drive. Blame the peopke with the real responsibility, not the victims.
McDuff73 wrote:whilst I
Lack of lights and hiviz does not seem to be a major cause of accidents to cyclists.
“A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility clothing and use lights, a government-commissioned study has discovered.
The study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found that in 2% of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was a likely contributing factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time.”
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study
I remember a conversation I
I remember a conversation I had some years back with a commuting friend of mine who had a nasty near miss on a roundabout.
He was well lit and had his usual hi-viz jacket on but was nearly hit (and would likely have been killed) by a car that entered the roundabout from his left at speed and went straight across the front of him.
He kept on and on at me that he was very visible to which I replied that if someone isn’t looking it doesn’t matter how visible you are, you will not be seen. We never managed to agree on this.
So, lights are mandatory and sensible but they won’t stop you from being hit.
I believe something like 80%
I believe something like 80% or more cycling accidents actually happen in daylight anyway.
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figures.aspx
its 90% for kids!
McDuff73 wrote:I believe
How many of the collisions really are accidents? I’d wager none. Not one. So 80% of eff all is, er, eff all.
It’s about we all stopped calling collisions/crashes etc “accidents”. They are not.
climber wrote:McDuff73
How many of the collisions really are accidents? I’d wager none. Not one. So 80% of eff all is, er, eff all.
It’s about we all stopped calling collisions/crashes etc “accidents”. They are not.— McDuff73
After my collision I now have 50,000 reasons to remember the right words to use.
climber wrote:McDuff73
How many of the collisions really are accidents? I’d wager none. Not one. So 80% of eff all is, er, eff all.
It’s about we all stopped calling collisions/crashes etc “accidents”. They are not.— McDuff73
What, they’re *deliberate*? Bollocks. They’re (mostly) accidents, caused by (usually) inattention or (sometimes) stupidity. They’re still accidental.
andyp wrote:climber
How many of the collisions really are accidents? I’d wager none. Not one. So 80% of eff all is, er, eff all.
It’s about we all stopped calling collisions/crashes etc “accidents”. They are not.— climber
What, they’re *deliberate*? Bollocks. They’re (mostly) accidents, caused by (usually) inattention or (sometimes) stupidity. They’re still accidental.— McDuff73
depends on what the cause was, if your fannying about with your phone then your deliberately not paying attention that isnt an accident
McDuff73 wrote:andyp
How many of the collisions really are accidents? I’d wager none. Not one. So 80% of eff all is, er, eff all.
It’s about we all stopped calling collisions/crashes etc “accidents”. They are not.— andyp
What, they’re *deliberate*? Bollocks. They’re (mostly) accidents, caused by (usually) inattention or (sometimes) stupidity. They’re still accidental.— climber
depends on what the cause was, if your fannying about with your phone then your deliberately not paying attention that isnt an accident— McDuff73
The fannying about bit is deliberate. The hitting a cyclist as a result is not. Still an accident.
andyp wrote:
The fannying
In the same manner that bleeding to death is the result of being stabbed…..
McDuff73 wrote:andyp
In the same manner that bleeding to death is the result of being stabbed…..— andyp
You’re back to people *deliberately* trying to kill/maim each other again. It’s really not difficult to get it right. This is more like a ‘running with scissors’ thing than a stabbing. Silly, and with terrible consequences, but not the intended outcome.
andyp wrote:
You’re back to
People don’t, usually, deliberately kill people by driving, however it is usually the drivers negligence that causes the death. Accidents do happen, but they are very rare. More often an incident could easily have been avoided by the driver acting differently.
driver overtaking on a blind bend, driver driving too fast into a low sun, driver failing to give enough clearance, driver turning left, etc. The driver never intended to kill, the driver because they were negligent did.
the amazing thing is all the
the amazing thing is all the cyclists drivers see with no lights….
Fair play to the police, not using lights is really, for the money involved, idiotic.
But even if every cyclist followed every law, there are motorists who would still be complaining, tax, lights, helmets are all just excuses.
As stated above, I assume the police will be doing a similar thing to motorists, sometimes I think I missed a memo that all cars must have only one working headlight.
While I don’t have much
While I don’t have much sympathy for people who are caught breaking the law, this is a bit of a pointless side-show.
In Cambridge the police do this as well: I expect we’ll be seeing our own one soon. They do it in the centre of the city, so the best lit area, and also the ones full of students, who are easy targets and very unlikely to vote for the Tory Police and Crime Commissioner, who loves getting a quote in about cracking down on anti-social cycling. They never touch the actually poorly-lit suburbs.
It’s entirely a cynical response to complaints to prove that they’ve done something, and it takes police time away from more serious activities.
And since the STATS19 data shows 1% of collisions in Cambridge city had lack of lights cited as a contributory factor, it’s a bit of a farce in terms of actually improving safety.
How about tackling the nearly half of collisions which include ‘failed to look properly’? Crack-down on mobile phone use behind the wheel might be a start on that one.
HKCambridge wrote:While I
Doesn’t Jeremy Clarkson et al spin this sort of line when the cops stop speeders. you know, the speed doesn’t kill people it’s hitting them at any speed that does. It’s the same theme. It amounts to the old “never mind me – look over there”.
Simple proposition. I drive and rise btw.
As a cyclist I am vulnerable road user
vulnerable road users should be in favour of calmer and more regulated roads.
the traffic laws and the police are there to ensure calmer and more regulated roads.
We need more rules and more rules enforced.
We need the police to actively enforce regulations.
We should support the police when they do this and then urge them to do even more.
oozaveared wrote:HKCambridge
Doesn’t Jeremy Clarkson et al spin this sort of line when the cops stop speeders. you know, the speed doesn’t kill people it’s hitting them at any speed that does. It’s the same theme. It amounts to the old “never mind me – look over there”.
Simple proposition. I drive and rise btw.
As a cyclist I am vulnerable road user
vulnerable road users should be in favour of calmer and more regulated roads.
the traffic laws and the police are there to ensure calmer and more regulated roads.
We need more rules and more rules enforced.
We need the police to actively enforce regulations.
We should support the police when they do this and then urge them to do even more.— HKCambridge
The problem with the Jeremy Clarkson thing is it’s bollocks: speed clearly does contribute to every single collision, because it increases the force and the stopping distance. Since nobody is planning to get into a collision, they can’t chose not to do so at speed, except by never speeding. Once they’re in a collision, it’s too late to adjust behaviour.
Thing is, other cyclists not using lights doesn’t affect me. It doesn’t make me more or less safe. Drivers not paying attention at the wheel does.
So while police are out fining students in brightly-lit areas doing something which has very little effect on safety, and that very, very little affects the people that they are fining themselves, they are not doing anything about people who are likely to harm others.
So yes, do look over there. Do look at the more damaging behaviour, and the behaviour that impacts victims, rather the perpetrators.
As I say, I’m not going offer any sympathy to anyone who gets caught breaking the law. That doesn’t mean I can’t criticise the police for spending resources on something of almost complete irrelevance to safety, and which specifically doesn’t protect anybody who isn’t breaking the law.
HKCambridge wrote:oozaveared
Doesn’t Jeremy Clarkson et al spin this sort of line when the cops stop speeders. you know, the speed doesn’t kill people it’s hitting them at any speed that does. It’s the same theme. It amounts to the old “never mind me – look over there”.
Simple proposition. I drive and rise btw.
As a cyclist I am vulnerable road user
vulnerable road users should be in favour of calmer and more regulated roads.
the traffic laws and the police are there to ensure calmer and more regulated roads.
We need more rules and more rules enforced.
We need the police to actively enforce regulations.
We should support the police when they do this and then urge them to do even more.— oozaveared
The problem with the Jeremy Clarkson thing is it’s bollocks: speed clearly does contribute to every single collision, because it increases the force and the stopping distance. Since nobody is planning to get into a collision, they can’t chose not to do so at speed, except by never speeding. Once they’re in a collision, it’s too late to adjust behaviour.
Thing is, other cyclists not using lights doesn’t affect me. It doesn’t make me more or less safe. Drivers not paying attention at the wheel does.
So while police are out fining students in brightly-lit areas doing something which has very little effect on safety, and that very, very little affects the people that they are fining themselves, they are not doing anything about people who are likely to harm others.
So yes, do look over there. Do look at the more damaging behaviour, and the behaviour that impacts victims, rather the perpetrators.
As I say, I’m not going offer any sympathy to anyone who gets caught breaking the law. That doesn’t mean I can’t criticise the police for spending resources on something of almost complete irrelevance to safety, and which specifically doesn’t protect anybody who isn’t breaking the law.— HKCambridge
A long winded way of saying that you do adopt the same attitude as Jeremy Clarkson because you too think the police shouldn’t spend any time policing people like you but should spend their time policing all the other road users.
Same meat different gravy.
Cars with one headlight out
Cars with one headlight out are winkers.
I bought some red reflective
I bought some red reflective tape off of ebay and stuck it on the back of my Look pedals – alright it might not be amber but it’s better than nothing.
The other morning on the way
The other morning on the way back from the railway station in the dark I encountered a bicycle without lights going the wrong way down the road in a bicycle lane. Be safe out there.
I’d not obsess over
I’d not obsess over reflectors – they’re very much secondary and can only help you at the right angle.
But get lights fitted for gods sake. I’ve no sympathy for any fools riding at night without them.
And if you’ve any sense then look for some decent reflective kit to back up the lights. Reflective tape is cheap and a lot of bike kit has decent reflective trim too.
Nice to see they are still
Nice to see they are still attempting to distract from the real issue on the public highways…
*yawns*
I don’t agree with fixed
I don’t agree with fixed penalty notices, however these (all too common) idiots need some encouragement to become quicker to spot, so become less of a hazard to themselves and others, including to other cyclists :S and pedestrians!
I have already seen several cars driven in the dark with only one working front light, even no lights :O, so they need encouragement too!
The bicycle regulations are really just a bare minimum, so people should try to do better, especially given how vulnerable cyclists are. Germany is apparently far stricter!
I have reflector side tires, a visible helmet, £300 of Exposure lights which are visible in overcast conditions and fog, so I doubt that some tiny reflectors on my prior cheap pedals were of any value under my shoes. I have reflective rain gear, but reject fugly day-glo clothing.
If you can’t get reflector side tires, I suggest getting some spoke reflectors, to make good use of the large wheel areas for much improved side visibility, for crossing and turning at night.
Lights should be used, but
Lights should be used, but there is precious little evidence that their non-use is a factor in crashes, particularly on the well-lit streets the PC refers to (How can drivers see unlit pedestrians if they can’t see unlit cyclists?).
See http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/11/17/do-bicycle-lights-make-any-difference-to-cyclist-safety/
basically this sia ritual to get some numbers for the press as part of an approach which equates cyclist rule/law breaking witht hat of drivers. It feeds into SMIDSY attitudes.
When the Police properly police those who drive in such a way that they cannot stop within visible distance, not to mention the 2% who are visually impaired, then I won’t be so sceptical about such activities.
“is a ritual”
“with that of
“is a ritual”
“with that of drivers”
Lazy me.
BTW, Note the figures quoted for Cambridge. And the LA I worked for had under 1% with not having lights as contributory factory in cyclist casualties.
Much as I agree with stopping
Much as I agree with stopping people for not having lights on their bike (Boston in Lincolnshire is terrible for it and it really annoys me), it does seem that they have chosen to do it on the day that the most people could have an understandable excuse, as in they may have been cycling to and from work/uni at the same time of day for months and suddenly it is dark on the way home, seeing as it is the day after the clocks go back. The showing a receipt thing is fine if you don’t already own a set of lights, but if you do, and have simply forgotten to put them on your bike prior to this, quite possibly the first day of the year you have had any need for them, it seems a little harsh.
Don’t get me wrong, one day later and I’m all for it, but I think just a warning on that particular day would be more reasonable.
It just smacks of policing to get results rather than policing to reduce crime to me.
patto583 wrote:Much as I
What you’re saying sounds reasonable, but I’d raise the point that what they are doing IS effectively giving people a warning by waiving the fine if they buy some lights. Who’s going to pay a £50 fine when they can buy some cheap lights for £10?
I was thinking about people
I was thinking about people who have already got a set of lights, but haven’t attached them to their bike yet through being a bit disorganised (as I imagine most people who weren’t aware that the clocks went back are) effectively being forced to buy another set of lights, whether they need them or not. A day later and they have had ample chance to recognise their error and rectify it.
Regardless of enforcement. ,
Regardless of enforcement. , riding on unlit roads with no illumination or reflective clothing is moronic. I nearly had a close accident with a rider who was completely unlit until he was covered by my lights, Quick braking was needed, phew!
Completely agree.
Completely agree.
CXR94Di2 wrote:Regardless of
There are many who would argue that riding on roads which are not special segregated bicycle paths is moronic. I don’t agree with them.
As some others have pointed out on this thread, the shifting of the responsibility for visibility off the operator of the dangerous vehicle and onto the potential victim is a problem. I’d suggest your own post is a version of that. Like most other motorists you’re travelling at speeds which put you in situations in which your reaction times are barely sufficient. (I’m not saying you’re especially bad or anything b.t.w., I think it’s entirely usual, normal and typical behaviour). EDIT: just realized that you could just as easily be talking about cycling in the situation you describe :). But the point still applies, and double for motoring IMO.
How are you going to be able to stop when some diabetic with low blood sugar or someone with senile dementia stumbles out into the darkened road way? Or the apocryphal small child chasing a ball, or whatever?
Motoring is inherently a dangerous, anti-social activity which needs to be drastically reduced and restricted for many reasons.
I ride with lights in the dark, but I find the tenor of this “crackdown” irritating and question the “two sides to every story” insinuation that comes along with it. The police, whom we are always being told are understaffed, should be concentrating their resources on removing the people doing the killing, not those being killed.
Regardless of enforcement. ,
Regardless of enforcement. , riding on unlit roads with no illumination or reflective clothing is moronic. I nearly had a close accident with a rider who was completely unlit until he was covered by my lights, Quick braking was needed, phew!
Perhaps the nay sayers should
Perhaps the nay sayers should have a read of this.
http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/local/abington-cyclist-died-after-colliding-with-a-van-as-he-rode-along-in-the-dark-with-no-lights-in-northampton-1-6359774
smcc1879 wrote:Perhaps the
yet another driver gets away with killing someone because ‘it wasn’t my fault’. It seems yet more proof that lawyers have given up expecting drivers to obey the Highway Code, because blaming the victim is easier.
So yes, it does seem we have to be as brightly lit as possible to avoid giving the killers an excuse, since the law has given up. Just hope they can restrain the moaning about being dazzled.
oldstrath wrote:smcc1879
yet another driver gets away with killing someone because ‘it wasn’t my fault’. It seems yet more proof that lawyers have given up expecting drivers to obey the Highway Code, because blaming the victim is easier.
So yes, it does seem we have to be as brightly lit as possible to avoid giving the killers an excuse, since the law has given up. Just hope they can restrain the moaning about being dazzled.— smcc1879
Er, tthat is actually an argument AGAINST emphasising cyclists having lights, and on shifting the burden of responsibility back to the driver. otherwise we will get more and more acceptance of SMIDSY.
ChairRDRF wrote:oldstrath
yet another driver gets away with killing someone because ‘it wasn’t my fault’. It seems yet more proof that lawyers have given up expecting drivers to obey the Highway Code, because blaming the victim is easier.
So yes, it does seem we have to be as brightly lit as possible to avoid giving the killers an excuse, since the law has given up. Just hope they can restrain the moaning about being dazzled.— oldstrath
Er, tthat is actually an argument AGAINST emphasising cyclists having lights, and on shifting the burden of responsibility back to the driver. otherwise we will get more and more acceptance of SMIDSY.— smcc1879
If we’re trying to improve conditions for everyone, of course it is. If I’m just thinking self preservation and avoiding offering excuses for reduced compensation it pushes me more towards brightness. To be honest, without changes in the law I lean towards local optimisation rather than global.
oldstrath wrote: it does seem
~X(
Priorities all mixed up here! Surely you would want to be as visible as possible on the road to be as safe as possible and minimise the risk of being involved in a collision?
We don’t know all the facts of the particular case of the ‘unlit’ cyclist who was tragically killed, but clearly drivers have a responsibility to drive safely – this is not in dispute.
I accept that articles like this which seem to lay the blame on the cyclist are incredibly frustrating, but surely a sense of self-preservation should motivate you to be visible, over and above the righteous indignation you may feel about sharing the road with cars, who present a greater danger to you than you do to them.
I do wish debates would stop being polarized on here about cyclists vs motorists. ‘Police crackdown on unlit cyclists’ is the story. That’s great, it’s illegal and irresponsible. They are not victims. The fact that police should also crack down on unsafe drivers is not in dispute.
700c wrote:oldstrath wrote:
In a world where drivers have no apparent responsibility, and lawyers can reduce punishment and compensation with the flimsiest of excuses, yes I do want to be ‘as visible as possible’. And yes, I agree that cyclists who break the law should be punished (although following the lighting regulations fully is an interesting challenge all of its own).
But there is not the equivalence you seem to seek between a cyclist having inadequate lighting, and a driver killing someone because they failed to ensure the road ahead was actually clear. The failure to punish that does annoy me, and I think does also drive thr current ‘lighting arms race’ that many drivers complain of.
oldstrath wrote:700c
In a world where drivers have no apparent responsibility, and lawyers can reduce punishment and compensation with the flimsiest of excuses, yes I do want to be ‘as visible as possible’. And yes, I agree that cyclists who break the law should be punished (although following the lighting regulations fully is an interesting challenge all of its own).
But there is not the equivalence you seem to seek between a cyclist having inadequate lighting, and a driver killing someone because they failed to ensure the road ahead was actually clear. The failure to punish that does annoy me, and I think does also drive thr current ‘lighting arms race’ that many drivers complain of.— oldstrath
There is absolutely no equivalence between a cyclist having inadequate lighting and a driver killing someone because they failed to ensure the road ahead was actually clear. I certainly did not suggest that.
Back to the original topic, the police targeting cyclists without lights is, I believe, fair and proportionate, particularly as they have the opportunity to equip themselves with lights within x days and can avoid the fine. I also think they should target drivers with defective lights/ driving with mobiles/ speeding etc and issue the appropriate penalty, which, in addition to a fine, could also be points on licence.
I completely agree with you, that apparent lack of punishment for drivers who kill, particularly the failure to convict using ‘death by dangerous driving’ (as opposed to careless, which they often choose) is incredibly frustrating.
700c wrote:[Priorities all
So you also wear high vis and lights as a pedestrian, walking from a car/bus to a restaurant, say?
Cycling on county roads in lycra is one thing. If I’m using my bike for local transport, which is my main use, I want to wear ordinary clothes, and have the experience of being prepared to ride my bike be as fuss-free and normal as possible.
If I wanted to be as visible as possible I’d probably ride around in fancy-dress with disco balls draped off my bike, wrapped in fairy lights, as well as all the legal requirements.
There are limits. And I am genuinely worried that we are heading down the path of requiring even pedestrians to wear high vis, because apparently we can’t hold drivers responsible for not being able to see things in urban areas with enormous headlights.
I absolutely do not accept that, so long as I am legally compliant, there is any responsibility on me to do more, versus a driver to actually look where the fuck they’re going. If they can’t see me, they can’t see pedestrians, animals, parked cars, bollards, walls… and shouldn’t be driving.
HKCambridge wrote:700c
I have a neighbour that does this, with a special LED armband once it turns to winter. It seems obvious to me that this will turn into an arms race: drivers will get used to seeing only people with lights on the sidewalk. Upon running them down the judge will mention (and then retract from consideration) the pedestrian’s absence of safe walking attire. And on it goes.
HKCambridge wrote:700c
You are missing the point. Pedestrians, animals, bollards, walls all should not be in the road. Therefore a car driver shouldn’t have to constantly be on the look out for them. If a pedestrian (or animal) walks in the road it is them who take the risk as to if it is safe or not.
Bikes are different. They have a right to be in the road, so as a bike rider you should ensure you are fulfilling your legal requirement to be seen. Wearing hi viz is not part of this and never should be.
If you turned across the path of an oncoming car that didn’t have its lights on, the other driver is at fault. If their lights are on then you are at fault. The colour of the car doesn’t make any difference. Similarly, the colour of the clothes a cyclist is wearing makes no difference (from a blame perspective). Some riders choose to try to protect themselves more by making them self more visible. That’s their choice.
Oh, and the parked car is your example, does have a right to be on the road but a car driver is less likely to hit this as it sticks out into the road much more than a bike does so is in their line of vision. It is also stationary making it easier to see anyway. Thus the need for the bike to have lights on.
In summary, if you drive any sort of vehicle on the road without lights on in the dark and get in an accident then it is your own fault.
tomsener wrote:You are
thats not quite true pedestrians cross the road all the time or if there are no paths at the side of the road have to walk on the carriageway, animals are always wandering across the road, they are not barred from it.
tomsener wrote:You are
Near me, most of the country lanes have no pavement. So where should people walk if they need to use one of those roads? Or should they just accept that they’re taking a risk that a blameless motorist, not looking out for any pedestrians, might hit them and dent his car?
Quote:thats not quite true
First off, yes if a pedestrian crosses the road without looking and gets hit then yes it’s their fault (on the assumption that everyone else is following the rules of the road). Equally, if an animal runs out into the road and gets hit then the animal is at fault. I remember a thread on here about riders crashing into animals. I’m fairly sure none of those people would say they should be depending slower in case a rabbit runs out of the hedge.
As this article is specifically about riding in urban areas then the point about country roads is moot, however, if someone has the need to walk along a road due to no pavement then they need to take the necessary steps to make sure they can be seen (as per the highway code).
Don’t get me wrong, drivers of cars need to take responsibility for their own actions and if they are driving dangerously and harm another road user then they need to face the consequences of their actions. But by the same token, anyone travelling on a road who doesn’t take the necessary steps to make sure they can be seen is responsible should anything happen.
HKCambridge wrote:700c
Exactly!
HKCambridge wrote:700c
In the sentence of mine you’ve quoted, I simply was pointing out the absurdity of the cyclist who begrudgingly makes himself visible, not because he wants to be as safe as possible, but because he wants to ensure a motorist who may hit him, is held to account
Yes I want to make myself visible to motorists when I cycle. It does not follow that pedestrians, in your example, walking from a bus to a restaurant, crossing the road or whatever, should also have lights and hi viz. However, the chap I came across walking on my side of the road the other night on a bending, narrow country lane near my home as I was driving back, could sure as hell have done with some reflective material or lights, over and above his dark top and jeans – I only saw at the last minute he was there.
Its about wearing appropriate clothing & equipping yourself responsibly for the conditions. You shouldn’t need 1000w floodlights and a dayglow reflective boiler suit for cycling in an urban area which has decent ambient lighting and traffic is at 30mph.
regarding legal compliance – drivers and cyclists have a legal requirement to have lights in the dark. They also both have a legal duty to ‘look where the f* they are going’ – of course – otherwise it’s driving without due care and attention.
All road users are fallible. They make mistakes and bad decisions. If, by wearing reflective clothing and using decent lights at night, over and above the legal minimum, could help reduce the risk of such a mistake happening and a potential fatal accident, then I, for one, am happy to equip myself with decent clothing and lighting.
*time
*time
Quote: Our main concern is
This makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I look forward to all the other proactive policing that is going to make the safety of cyclists their main concern.
Its all about education, and
Its all about education, and thats what counts. How anyone can seriously think its ok to cycle around at night without lights clearly deserves to become a statistic of one description or another.
If you’re wearing SPDs then
If you’re wearing SPDs then you’re also wearing cycling shoes. And if you’re wearing those, then it’s probably better to put retro-reflective tape around the heels than it is to put a lo-tech amber reflector around the pedal.
I live, ride and drive in
I live, ride and drive in Oxford and have resorted to shouting “LIGHTS” at people at times. Oxford is not that well lit in fact, and it is terrifyingly easy to not see a cyclist without lights in the dark. And as a cyclist first and foremost I’m really looking for other cyclists, which is more than can be said for a lot of the other car and bus drivers in town.
Reflectors only help if there is some light to reflect, which is fine when you are approaching from ahead or behind, but of no use when pulling out of a 90 degree side turning as your lights aren’t pointing to the left/right, so to be seen we need lights on our bikes.. surely nobody is really disputing that?
tom_w wrote:I live, ride and
Sounds like a wonderful contribution.
Early this morning on the A30
Early this morning on the A30 dual carriage way approaching camberley, unlit road with cars going past at 70mph and there is a complete tit riding without front or back lights, some people are just asking for it.
In an urban setting lights do
In an urban setting lights do flip all. The only reason to have them is to stop compensation being reduced if you’re hit. These exercises are pointless PR fluff to stop motorists moaning.
make all motorised vehicles
make all motorised vehicles travel at no more than 20 mph unless on a motorway or dual carriageway.
Exactly. Negligence does not
Exactly. Negligence does not = deliberate intent. Thus, an accident. Caused by negligence.
Time for a change in the law
Time for a change in the law and definition of what constitutes and accident when in charge of a motor vehicle then, negligence simply doesnt cut it when you kill someone because you were not paying attention or didnt see them or were blinded by the sun or any of the other ridiculous excuses motorists have used to avoid serious prosecution for killing someone on a bike.
“Culpable homicide is a specific offence in various jurisdictions within the Commonwealth of Nations which involves the illegal killing of a person either with or without an intention to kill depending upon how a particular jurisdiction has defined the offence.”
it is something available
it is something available under Scots law but a similar charge would be manslaughter in England and Wales, I do wonder why motorists who kill never seem to be charged with mansalughter very often.
McDuff73 wrote:it is
To be blunt, society accepts collateral loses on the roads. What are a few deaths? Imagine an employer that allowed staff to die day in day out, and did precious little to enforce the rules, to improve safety?
But drive a car, kill someone, shit happens….
it would seem to me there
it would seem to me there needs to be a shift in the way prosecutions are carried out, how is it acceptable if you have a fight in a pub whilst drunk and punch someone they fall hit their head and die your done for manslaughter, but you dont look properly or are arsing about on a phone or drive too fast etc and hit and kill someone your done for being reckless?
Seems to me that the “
Seems to me that the ” Driving Test ” is a WASTE of time ! Why bother with a test , since WE ALL know that very quickly a ” Newbie ” will decide to run with the herd ! Better to take the prospective driver to the local Jail , where they can observe the inmates and conditions there for a few hours , tell them that this is what they can expect for ” Breaking the rules laid down in the Highway Code “!
Oh WAIT ! The courts don’t even send you to Jail for KILLING Cyclists , let alone running red lights ! Even when you ” Hit & Run ” , they don’t try to catch you :
http://road.cc/content/news/134456-almost-900-cyclists-were-victims-hit-and-runs-london-last-year
Guess , the only reason for the ” Driving Test ” , is to provide work for some people better employed elsewhere ?
As for Compo for Victims , even the Lawyers , supposedly working for you , are busy trying to curry favour with those like “TFL ” who the Police treat as a ” No Go Area ” when it comes to levying Penalties ! Why Fine / Jail a Bus driver of TFL , when they can go out and create more Mayhem ?
A Day Off for sending 2 Charity Cycle Riders to Hospital , guess that sends a message to other Bus/Truck drivers ?
So far NOBODY bothered to reply to my request in respect of this ” Day Off lark ” , instead of Penalties & Points , so even HERE , readers are HAPPY to accept the status Quo ?
Blather on , it is only entertainment , reading of the GRIEF forced on others !
2 hour driving test, every 5
2 hour driving test, every 5 years.
Simple.