£30 fine for no lights

[steveindenmark]

[QUOTE="mcshroom, post: 3919027, member: 8852"

While it might improve the safety of the cyclist to be lit, it would make afar better sense to concentrate police enforcement on the road users who the evidence shows are actually doing the killing.

I dont think there is a "might" about it. But you are assuming that the accidents involving unlit bikes and motor vehicles are the fault of the driver. The police should concentrate on anyone who is not upholding the law, whether its cyclists or drivers. I think cyclists without lights are a PIA. Lights are cheap and everyone can afford some kind of lighting. But some people have got away with it for so long they just cannot be bothered to buy them.

If cyclists are coming out of pitch blackness without lights, i dont expect to be blamed if they plough into me as I am manouvering. Or do cyclists carry no responsibility at all?

The bottom Line is, if you get caught without lights you deserve the £30 fine. You cant say you didnt know about it and there is no point in whinging about it. But if you are stupid enough to ride your bike without lights in darkness and have an accident man up and accept your responsibility.

 

[jonny jeez]

The push for evidence is because 'common sense' is a catch all for the prejudices of the person making the comments. Empirical evidence should not be biased in the same way.

Why should it be the responsibility of a person to make it easier for the driver not to hit them? The responsibility should be on the party hitting them, not the victim surely.

As for the 'but people don't' argument; When you apply for a license part of your agreement is that you will abide by the rules of the road. There is no 'right' to drive. If you don't fancy abiding by those rules, then you are perfectly able to hand your license back in to the DVLA.

While it might improve the safety of the cyclist to be lit, it would make afar better sense to concentrate police enforcement on the road users who the evidence shows are actually doing the killing.

Yebbut, the problem with that mac (can I call you mac?) is that the "evidence" is nothing of the sort, its just data produced from sterile assessments or experiments ir whatever.

Forming,sometimes counterintuitive decisions based purely on some other fellas ability to capture data has proven...time and time...to be wrong.

And sure we don't want to remove responsibility from the driver but what is wrong with everyone taking responsibility, sharing the issue and taking as many steps as possible to ensure their own safety. pushing it onto a third party who could be a total dunce, driving a car...is a very risky strategy

 

[earlestownflya]

If you're going to answer a question with a question this is not likely to get very far.
Could you have a go at answering my earlier questions?

GC

this is'nt judge judy..

 

[earlestownflya]

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

 

[MontyVeda]

When the law for cycle lights came in the CTC protested, saying that it shifted responsibility for 'seeing' away from drivers and placed the onus on being seen on the victim of the danger posed by drivers.

The same could be said for fitting rear lights and brake lights to motor vehicles. The responsibility for 'seeing' has been removed from the driver of the car behind and the car in front is responsible for being seen.

 

[Milkfloat]

I often quote that I would rather be in the right and delayed by a few seconds, rather than be in the right but dead when run over by a car. In this case I would rather be in the right and use lights than be in the wrong and dead.

I don't see why anyone would think that riding without lights on the road in the dark is a good idea - it is not a helmet debate.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

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.

It doesn't.

But since you seem as keen to duck the issue of responsibility as drivers are to displace it to others, I shall press you no further.

GC

 

[Milkfloat]

No one does.

Then why the insistence from some that cyclists without lights are being picked on by the police? They are breaking the law and it is a damn sight easier to tell one cyclist to get lights than warn the thousands of motorists that may pass them that there is an idiot about with no lights.

 

[MontyVeda]

None of the questions have been about whether or not the cyclist should have lights. They are all about whether or not the driver should be responsible for looking where they are going.

Maybe this discussion should be on a driver's forum instead of a cyclist's one.

 

[mcshroom]

Maybe this discussion should be on a driver's forum instead of a cyclist's one.

Enabling drivers to drive more quickly and with less attention to the road around them is definitley something to discus on a cycling forum, as it makes the roads less safe for other more vulnerable road users like us.

 

[Milkfloat]

At the risk of going round and round in circles here, cyclists without lights are not a great source of danger on our roads. Yes they are a source of danger and yes it would be better if they had lights but in the overall scheme of things they are a trivial danger.
There are many many greater dangers to which resource could and should be devoted in order to make our roads safer. If this were being done as well, then fair enough. As it stands we tolerate appalling standards of behavior on our roads.

I think it depends how you define the danger - they are a massive source of danger to themselves, very little to others.
The resources required to catch a cyclist riding without lights are tiny and it is a fairly boolean process to define if they are breaking the law. Once stopped the sanction varies from an 'Oi dickhead, get some lights' to a simple £30 fixed fine - hardly using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Contrast that to other road safety measures such as prosecuting dangerous driving, road infrastructure improvements and driver education, a massive difference in cost and resources.

 

[Milkfloat]

Exactly, addressing the serious bringers of risk is getting to be too difficult. It is an accumulative and circular failure on the part of the police, CPS, courts, and juries to enforce the law.

Or a reasonable use of meager resources?

 

[Milkfloat]

Deal with the least important first is reasonable? Hardly.

I believe it is called 'Low Hanging Fruit' (shudder). Although I think it is a little bit unfair to describe a KSI as 'least important' to those involved in dealing the mess.

 

[Dogtrousers]

It all depends whether the actions of the police were a part of a co-ordinated approach to various perceived dangers. Maybe they decided to have a few evenings pinging unlit cyclists with fines "pour encourager les autres" in the hope that word would get round, and were simultaneously addressing other things like drivers using mobile phones as part of a holistic approach. On the other hand, maybe they had decided that fining unlit cyclists was going to be their one and only traffic safety measure.

As we have no way of knowing how the police priorities in this instance were set, or what other activities were being undertaken, we can't know whether the police response to unlit cyclists in the OP was proportionate.

But that shouldn't stop us having a jolly old CC slanging match.

 

[steveindenmark]

Dont think that this is only about stopping cyclists about lights.

When I was a police officer stopping cars and cyclists was just the start of it. Stopping these people is an excellent source of discovering unrelated offences and information, so it is not a waste of time.

Just as an example. I stopped a car in Reading because I could see the wires in his tyres when driving behind him. He kicked off and I arrested him. Later in the day I re arrested him for the murder of 2 girls on the south coast, for which he was convicted. Stopping anyone is never a waste of ressources because you have no idea what turns up.

The Black Panther was caught by a simple bike check.

The police in Copenhagen had a couple of blitzes on bike without lights last year. They ticketed a couple of hundred cyclists in one morning and the word got round like Wildfire which helped the situation.