£30 fine for no lights

[winjim]

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.

Lots of students, bringing bikes from home but not used to using them as their primary mode of transport, need a quick reminder on the importance of being lit up at night as winter draws in? Seems reasonable. Probably took minimal police resources, a couple of constables and a few PCSOs for an evening or two.

But we're beyond discussing the OP and into a bunfight so carry on...

 

[mickle]

Please lets not...what is this pre-occupation with the production of empirical "evidence" which is so vague and sterilised as to be often irrelevant anyhow.

What's wrong with using intuitive learning, in the old days we used to call it common sense.

If its dark, its common sense to use lights, suggesting that we shouldn't because some Oxbridge graduate has het to spent a few million of central government funds taking a look at it...is just daft.

I don't care if recent studies suggest that the use of lights defers responsibility to the rider...riders should be responsible for themselves, again...common sense.

sorry, bit ranty...no offence

I wear lights. What I'm questioning is the police's priorities. And I'm questioning the notion that unlit cyclists are a danger, either to themselves or other RUs. And my stomach is turned by members of this forum who are talking about 'ninja' cyclists as some kind of out group of 'dangerous' 'idiots'. This is exactly how 'they' treat 'us'. It's one small step from suggesting that ninjas deserve to get squished for nor having lights - to suggesting that cyclists deserve to get squished foer choosing to ride on the road. I'm not the only cyclist whose light(s) have failed half way through a journey to have drivers swerve dangerously at them by way of 'teaching a lesson'.

 

[jonny jeez]

I wear lights. What I'm questioning is the police's priorities. And I'm questioning the notion that unlit cyclists are a danger, either to themselves or other RUs. And my stomach is turned by members of this forum who are talking about 'ninja' cyclists as some kind of out group of 'dangerous' 'idiots'. This is exactly how 'they' treat 'us'. It's one small step from suggesting that ninjas deserve to get squished for nor having lights - to suggesting that cyclists deserve to get squished foer choosing to ride on the road. I'm not the only cyclist whose light(s) have failed half way through a journey to have drivers swerve dangerously at them by way of 'teaching a lesson'.

I think that these are all reasonable questions to ask. And I don't pretend to have an answer for the issue of tribalism and separation. But to answer the first point, yes, cyclist not using lights in the dark are a danger to themselves. This doesn't mean that this is the only danger they face, or even the most significant...but it is, In my view, irresponsible to ride in the dark without light and simply increases risk.

If your lights run out, then that's bad news and can happen but it doesn't remove the fact that you "fully intended" to use them and accept some responsibility for your own safety.

I think, in general we eye to eye on this but I get increasingly frustrated with the general acceptance that, unless proven by hard data, some really obvious stuff is ignored, or worse still resisted.

 

[Smurfy]

Not much excuse for no lights nowadays. Modern LED lights are really cheap, and the batteries last for ages.

 

[MontyVeda]

..I'm not the only cyclist whose light(s) have failed half way through a journey...

Which is why i always have two rear lights and two front lights, plus spare batteries in the saddlebag.

This topic always goes down the same route... It's up to the driver to see the cyclist, regardless of whether they have working lights or not. ...I wonder if it'd go down the same route if the OP was about motor vehicles not using their lights after dark?

 

[mcshroom]

Yes it would. It is still up to the person who would be hitting the p[erson/animal/thing to makesure they don't hit the person/animal/thing.

Simple enough to understand.

Btw, I wonder how many here actually have legal lighting on their bikes?

 

[winjim]

If you search, you can see that this is an annual discussion that occurs every autumn. It will always stray beyond the OP because the OP always starts "I saw unlit cyclists" without consideration of the wider issues about road safety.

I thought this one was about allocation of police resources. And while I would be very happy to see the road safety laws relating to motorists much more strictly enforced, I don't think that the level of resources required is comparable to that needed to remind a few students to put some lights on their bikes.

Not to mention the political will of course. I don't know who exactly decides where the police are to concentrate their efforts, but the war against motorists ain't exactly a vote winner .

 

[jonny jeez]

Yes it would. It is still up to the person who would be hitting the p[erson/animal/thing to makesure they don't hit the person/animal/thing.

Its not though.

Sure..."legally" it is

But we live in an unperfect world where idiots are allowed to drive cars.

So forget the law, the data, the legislation or whether we have legal lights or not...lets all just deploy some common sense.

 

[Dan B]

Btw, I wonder how many here actually have legal lighting on their bikes?

I believe my lights are legal by virtue of conforming to the German regs. No pedal reflectors, though

 

[Dan B]

i hope you're more intelligent than a deer dan...if that's you in the profile pic...maybe not

I extend the same hope towards you, but if that's you in the quoted post, maybe not.

 

[Vikeonabike]

Don't they normally do that thing where its a £30 fine or produce a set of lights and a receipt instead? And if they hit the students at this time of year then they might have lights for the darkest part of the winter.

Not all do. Cambridgeshire operates a Lights Instead of Tickets Scheme!

 

[Pale Rider]

Not all do. Cambridgeshire operates a Lights Instead of Tickets Scheme!

Or LITS for short.

They should do a scheme with tyres as well...

 

[Dan B]

I wonder if it'd go down the same route if the OP was about motor vehicles not using their lights after dark?

I don't know, but I would certainly hold myself to blame if I rode into an unlit motor car. There are hundreds of them round where I live, often stopped at the side of the road

 

[Dan B]

The peds dont come out of pitch blackness at 30kph

Nor do the cyclists if you're driving in the same direction as they are, which was the scenario that earlestownfyla put forward for our "delectation". In fact you have even more time to see a cyclist in front of you and cycling away from you at 30kph than you would do a pedestrian ambling along.

 

[MontyVeda]

I don't know, but I would certainly hold myself to blame if I rode into an unlit motor car. There are hundreds of them round where I live, often stopped at the side of the road

Yeah but... it should have been quite clear that i wasn't talking about parked cars. Or should i have specified that for you?