£30 fine for no lights

[classic33]

how far is you're visibility in the dark?

434 light years, Polaris
Approx 2,263,270,768,675,688.976378 Miles
But then the human eye can make out a match being struck at just over two miles in the dark.

 

[classic33]

it is a legal requirement to use lights on your bike when it's dark..for your own safety and for the safety of others around you..that is the law..and the law has to be enforced.that answers all of your questions.there is no argument

Its a legal requirement for their use to be employed anytime the sun is below the horizon.

 

[classic33]

When I was a police officer stopping cars and cyclists was just the start of it.
The Black Panther was caught by a simple bike check.

Not quite true
"In December 1975, two police officers, Tony White and Stuart Mackenzie, were in a panda car in a side road keeping a watch on the main A60 trunk road leading out of Mansfield in North Nottinghamshire when they spotted a small wiry man scurrying by carrying a holdall. As he passed the police car he averted his face, drawing Mackenzie's attention. As a matter of routine, they called him over to question him. The man said he was on his way home from work, then produced a sawn-off shotgun from the holdall. He ordered White into the back of the car. The policeman opened the car door but the gunman snapped,"No time for that, climb the seat"! The officer did so with alacrity and the gunman settled himself in the passenger seat, jamming the gun into Mackenzie's armpit.[citation needed]

He ordered them to drive to Rainworth, six miles away and told them not to look at him. This presented PC Mackenzie with a problem. Gently he explained to the gunman that they were going the wrong way and he would have to turn the car round. The gunman agreed but warned both officers if there were any tricks they would both be dead. As they were driving along Southwell Road the gunman asked if they had any rope. As White pretended to look, Mackenzie reached a junction in the road. Turning the steering wheel violently one way then the other, he asked,"which way, left or right"? causing the gunman to look toward the road ahead. White saw the gun drop a few inches and realised this was his chance; he pushed the gun forwards and Mackenzie stamped on the brake. They screeched to a halt outside The Junction Chip Shop in Rainworth. The gun went off, grazing White's hand. MacKenzie fell out of the driver's seat, banging his head on the road. He staggered to his feet and ran towards the fish and chip shop screaming for help. Two men, Roy Morris and Keith Wood, ran from the queue outside the chip shop and helped overpower Neilson. Wood subdued the gunman with a karate chop to the neck before Morris grabbed his wrists and held them for White to snap on the handcuffs. The locals attacked him so severely that in the end the police had to protect him. They hauled Neilson to iron railings at the side of a bus stop and handcuffed him there before calling for back-up, and when they found two panther hoods on him, they realised that they had probably caught the most wanted man in the UK. In the subsequent investigation, Neilson's fingerprints were found to match one of those in the drain shaft. In the interview at Kidsgrove police station when he confessed to the kidnap of Whittle, Neilson gave an 18-page statement to DCS Harold Wright, head of Staffordshire CID, and Commander Morrison of Scotland Yard, with the statement handwritten by DCI Walter Boreham.[8]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Neilson#Capture_and_arrest
http://murderpedia.org/male.N/n/neilson-donald.htm

 

[classic33]

Seem pretty clear to me. Makes you more visible and stops small bumps on your head from hurting too much. I'm happy to keep wearing it.

But I've got no interest in opening THAT can of worms. At least the law doesn't care about your helmet and clothing, so if you want to dress the same colour as tarmac and slap your skull against said tarmac instead of a giant egg-box - GO FOR IT!!!!!

Contrasting works better than Hi-Vis. Its one reason for the dual colour Hi-Vis in the railways over here. Saturn Yellow gets lost amongst the daylight and the UV light required for them to be visible at night isn't available in moonlight, street light or car head light.

 

[Richard A Thackeray]

I was amazed to see tonight Police dishing out £30 fines outside the university campus for cyclists with no lights. Although there is a saftey issue here, I thought the government was A. trying to get more people cycling, and B. cutting spending on police - surely the remaining police have much more serious crimes to focus on!

Erm.. such as scraping unseen (unlit) riders off the roads?

Good on them, the sooner the no lights / jump red light brigade get dealt with the sooner our image will improve to the average cage driver

'Ditto'

Have no sympathy for them what so ever.....

+1

 

[benb]

as a car driver as well, I can't help but see other little ones from further away if they are wearing the hi-viz rubbish, and you might be surprised to hear that it gives me more time to make a decision that will leave them with plenty of space to enjoy riding safely on the road

If a cyclist wearing high-vis means the difference between you giving them "plenty of space" and not then you are a terrible driver, and need to stop immediately before you kill someone.

 

[davidallenxyz]

If a cyclist wearing high-vis means the difference between you giving them "plenty of space" and not then you are a terrible driver, and need to stop immediately before you kill someone.

Which is a preposterous response and clearly not what I said.

 

[benb]

Which is a preposterous response and clearly not what I said.

It is what you implied.

as a car driver, I can't help but see [cyclists] from further away if they are wearing hi-viz, and it gives me more time to make a decision that will leave them with plenty of space

What you are saying above is that if they are not wearing high vis, you might not leave them enough space.

If that's not what you meant, then what did you mean?

 

[CopperCyclist]

Uh. I really need to explain this to you?: Cyclists pose infinitesimally little danger to anyone but themselves. Motorists kill people. The polis have their priorities wrong. Capeesh?

I haven't read the following seven pages, so apologies if this had already been said.

We still have the neighbourhood policing system in the UK at the moment. As Cubist said, targets and priorities are set by the public - not the police.

If you believe those priorities are wrong (and FWIW I agree with you) and feel strongly enough, then you can get it changed by attending the meetings, putting your point across - and hoping enough agree with you.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

What you are saying above is that if they are not wearing high vis, you might not leave them enough space.

That's not what I took from his sentence. My interpretation was that he would have more time to react to someone in hi-vis than without. That doesn't mean that without the hi-vis he wouldn't have had enough time to react their presence.

It does worry me though that there are road users who believe that the absence of hi-vis on a cyclist or pedestrian is an automatic get out of jail card when they hit one.

GC

 

[earlestownflya]

That's not what I took from his sentence. My interpretation was that he would have more time to react to someone in hi-vis than without. That doesn't mean that without the hi-vis he wouldn't have had enough time to react their presence.

It does worry me though that there are road users who believe that the absence of hi-vis on a cyclist or pedestrian is an automatic get out of jail card when they hit one.

GC

i don't think any road uses take that view..you'd have to be pretty heartless ,i think the majority of people would be concerned for person hit,regardless of whether they had a high vis on or not

 

[mcshroom]

i don't think any road uses take that view..you'd have to be pretty heartless ,i think the majority of people would be concerned for person hit,regardless of whether they had a high vis on or not

Have a look through the defences put forward by drivers who kill cyclists, and even the MET's approach to the Michael Mason case.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

i don't think any road uses take that view..you'd have to be pretty heartless ,i think the majority of people would be concerned for person hit,regardless of whether they had a high vis on or not

Faced with loss of a licence and possible jail time, a driver will latch on to any aspect of the victim's visibility or behaviour (even if it is irrelevant to the accused's manner of driving) that will lessen the likelihood of conviction.

It happens so frequently that it has a name: victim blaming.


GC

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Either way though it illustrates perfectly well the incremental passing of responsibility from the person who poses the threat to the potential victim.

Agreed.

GC

 

[benb]

That's not what I took from his sentence. My interpretation was that he would have more time to react to someone in hi-vis than without. That doesn't mean that without the hi-vis he wouldn't have had enough time to react their presence.

It does worry me though that there are road users who believe that the absence of hi-vis on a cyclist or pedestrian is an automatic get out of jail card when they hit one.

GC

Well maybe that is indeed what he meant, but any driver who thinks that lack of high vis is a reason or excuse for not seeing a cyclist in time to give them enough space needs to hand their licence back.