Teenager fined £220 for cycling without a front light

Adam Sutton wrote:

Broke the law, likely ignored a FPN, didn't turn up at court and bore the consequences of those actions. This isn't news.

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 benefit of doubt since it was a cyclist rather than a motorist.

'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? 

Born_peddling wrote:

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.

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 trees in the road, so if a driver hit a tree, I'd suspend their licence until their eyesight was checked.

speculatrix wrote:

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.

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

Quote:

Ali was driving along the A34 in Hampshire, at about 1130 this morning, when a tree fell across the road, just north of the M3 and the A33 junction. She says though there were no serious accidents, the white van hit the tree and smashed a radiator.

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:

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.

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 and it was in bright daylight..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dFVlgdByjU

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.

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 up to court I'd say it was a certainty he ignored a FPN. 

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 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:

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!?).

Or maybe the £50 FPN would include the lights?

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 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 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 rear lights fitted; don't rely on just 1 light.

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:

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! 

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 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 plod to go and procreate at the time?  just a thought for people that like to presume why plod don't give warnings..