£30 fine for no lights

[earlestownflya]

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.

agreed

 

[Dan B]

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

As I recall It wasn't the absence of hi-viz in that case, it was the presence of a rear light that was used as an excuse not to pass to CPS. Because there were too many other red lights on the road for anyone to be expected to spot a mere cyclist

 

[mcshroom]

As I recall It wasn't the absence of hi-viz in that case, it was the presence of a rear light that was used as an excuse not to pass to CPS. Because there were too many other red lights on the road for anyone to be expected to spot a mere cyclist

In addition to this the Metropolitan Police have now sought to justify their earlier decision not to refer the case to the CPS by reference to (amongst other immaterial matters), and I quote:

“• Mr MASON (Deceased) was wearing dark clothing, the collision having taken place during hours of darkness.

• Mr MASON was not wearing a cycle helmet, the cause of death being head injury.”

It seems the police do not expect a lit cyclist travelling in compliance with all legal requirements at night to remain alive if he is not wearing a helmet and high viz.

http://road.cc/content/news/146173-...t-slammed-michael-mason’s-family-plan-private

 

[CopperCyclist]

The problem with that is that priorities are set for poor reasons. In the context of this subject, lots of motorists may notice a very small number of unlit cyclists and think they are an issue that needs to be dealt with. What they won't notice is that the overwhelming majority of them will be routinely exceeding speed limits but have no concern whatsoever about the much greater impact this has on road safety. One gets made a priority to be policed, the other is seldom dealt with at all.

No disagreement here. However, that's the system we have. If people don't like it, moaning about it on t'internet won't help. Enough people complaining to MPs might... But I doubt it.

The only thing that bugs me is when police get the blame as if we set these targets/initiatives because people think it's what we want to do or think is best...

 

[winjim]

​

As I recall It wasn't the absence of hi-viz in that case, it was the presence of a rear light that was used as an excuse not to pass to CPS. Because there were too many other red lights on the road for anyone to be expected to spot a mere cyclist

That rather puts the last four years and fifteen pages in context. I've always worried that red lights just blend into the background. That's why I'm a fan of reflectors, they change as a headlight beam passes over them so stand out a bit more imho. You don't happen to know if the cyclist in this case had pedal reflectors?

ETA: just read the report in the road.cc link. No mention of reflectors.

 

[mcshroom]

​

That rather puts the last four years and fifteen pages in context. I've always worried that red lights just blend into the background. That's why I'm a fan of reflectors, they change as a headlight beam passes over them so stand out a bit more imho. You don't happen to know if the cyclist in this case had pedal reflectors?

ETA: just read the report in the road.cc link. No mention of reflectors.

According to the lawyer Mr Mason met the road lighting regulations. Assuming he is correct, this would mean Michael Mason had reflectors.

 

[Shut Up Legs]

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

The sooner people stop thinking that individual cyclists somehow represent ALL cyclists, the better off all cyclists will be.

 

[Milkfloat]

As I recall It wasn't the absence of hi-viz in that case, it was the presence of a rear light that was used as an excuse not to pass to CPS. Because there were too many other red lights on the road for anyone to be expected to spot a mere cyclist

You lost me there - I would have thought it would be very prudent to avoid anything with a red light on, no matter if it was a cyclist, car, horse, lamp post etc. The fact that there are a lot of red lights just means there is more to avoid and perhaps slowing down would be a good thing. The CPS confuses me on an alarmingly regular basis.

 

[MartinQ]

I have a friend who was hit by a car. He told me that the police definitely assurred themselves that he had hi-viz, lights, and helmet before they were prepared to act against the driver. Whether this was both completely accurate and, if so, recorded for stats purposes I don't know.

When I got knocked off earlier this year, one of the things the PC said later in hospital was that I was wearing a helmet and hi viz so that was good. I took it as meaning it was easier to directly apportion blame to the driver (who'd already fessed up it was all her fault ...).

 

[benb]

As an analogy, can you imagine the furore if the police said to a rape victim "You were wearing a short skirt and gave him a come-on, so we're not proceeding"

 

[MontyVeda]

A better one would be a stab victim being held partly responsible for not wearing a stab-proof vest.

 

[Dan B]

You lost me there - I would have thought it would be very prudent to avoid anything with a red light on, no matter if it was a cyclist, car, horse, lamp post etc. The fact that there are a lot of red lights just means there is more to avoid and perhaps slowing down would be a good thing. The CPS confuses me on an alarmingly regular basis.

Turns out I misremembered the details quite badly, and lack of hi-viz/helmet figured largely in the reported reasons for not prosecuting. http://road.cc/content/news/146173-...t-slammed-michael-mason’s-family-plan-private

Showing a red light did also factor, however:

• An independent witness at the scene (Neil TREVITHICK) stated that with the sea of brake lights, flashing lights and movement it would be difficult for a driver to pick out anything.

Obviously, in the minds of the Met, being unable to tell what's going on in front of your vehicle is permission to drive into it, not an indication that you should slow down to avoid it.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

An independent witness at the scene (Neil TREVITHICK) stated that with the sea of brake lights, flashing lights and movement it would be difficult for a driver to pick out anything.

You know, when it's put like that it's a wonder the poor motorist made it home alive.

GC

 

[bianchi1]

As an analogy, can you imagine the furore if the police said to a rape victim "You were wearing a short skirt and gave him a come-on, so we're not proceeding"

A better one would be a stab victim being held partly responsible for not wearing a stab-proof vest.

Both these examples are poor. Rapists and those who stab people are doing it on purpose, often premeditated. This is not the case in traffic collisions......unless a driver is going specifically to kill someone, in which case I guess it would be better to have no light or high viz.... easier to hide.

 

[Dan B]

Both these examples are poor. Rapists and those who stab people are doing it on purpose, often premeditated.

How about blaming someone for not having been wearing a hard hat when walking past some scaffolding which collapses on him?