Cyclists gets a finger wag !

[Markymark]

1. Cyclists should have a light to be seen.
2. Drivers should drive so they don't smash into things, even things without lights by driving at a speed they can stop int he distance they can see.

Police should deal with offenders 1 and 2 in proportion to the danger they pose to themselves and others.
2 kills many per year. 1 kills feckall per year.

2 should have lots of police attention. 1 should have feckall.

 

[LCpl Boiled Egg]

He did stop her ,
And was off his M bike ,

So he did, my apologies.

 

[Bimble]

I agree regarding the policing of bad driving and the danger to others that unlit cyclists pose (or don't), but on the basis that it is illegal to cycle unlit during the hours of darkness why would anyone (especially on a cycling forum) advocate or defend the opposite? Or attempt to excuse the stopping and warning of an unlit cyclist on the basis that drivers do more harm? Surely the two things are entirely separate?

 

[Bimble]

No-one is. HTH.

Really?

1. Cyclists should have a light to be seen.
2. Drivers should drive so they don't smash into things, even things without lights by driving at a speed they can stop int he distance they can see.

Police should deal with offenders 1 and 2 in proportion to the danger they pose to themselves and others.
2 kills many per year. 1 kills feckall per year.

2 should have lots of police attention. 1 should have feckall.

HTH.

 

[Bimble]

Or attempt[ing] to excuse the stopping and warning of an unlit cyclist on the basis that drivers do more harm".

Erm, yes it is - have another read ... and:

Ask a grown up for help with the big words if you're struggling.

 

[ozboz]

Maybe, @osboz, didn't see the whole incident from the beginning, the lady cyclist might have committed a road traffic offence which resulted in the finger wagging.

Quite right , I didnt see the whatever brought the two together, the Officer. could have been there for several other reasons and the lady just happened to ride by ,

 

[mjr]

I don't understand why cyclists wouldn't spend a few pounds to reduce the risk ... of being pulled over by the police; being fined for not having any lights; having no defense if involved in an accident because of being unlit after dark (cycling illegally).

OK, taking that in good faith, here's some possible reasons:

• you seem to be overestimating the risk - maybe they're underestimating it?
• maybe they're the stereotypical hardship case that doesn't have a few pounds to buy them and keep feeding them batteries and replacing them when they fail, as those cheap lights eventually do, with bits going brittle in winter if you keep attach/detaching them - or you can leave them on and take you chance if they get nicked
• maybe their light had failed during the journey (grrr batteries that look fine at first and dim and die quickly once out in the cold) and they decided to chance it getting home rather than freeze their fingers changing batteries because they're sticking to well-lit streets and/or very few people get pulled over for bad lights (see earlier comment about far more deadly motor vehicles driving around unlit)
• maybe they were delayed, didn't expect to be out after dark and didn't have their lights with them and decided to chance it as above
• maybe they actually don't know it's the current law, because of how many other people ride unlit - heck, the police bikes around here aren't legally lit either (torch-like headlights that conform to no standards)
• maybe they decided the risk of attracting undesired attention when they ride through a dodgy part of town was greater than the risk of unlit cycling
• maybe they had lights but had switched them off and were enjoying the beauty of an unlit night (unlikely in the example that started this discussion)

I agree regarding the policing of bad driving and the danger to others that unlit cyclists pose (or don't), but on the basis that it is illegal to cycle unlit during the hours of darkness why would anyone (especially on a cycling forum) advocate or defend the opposite?

To be clear, I'm not advocating or defending this illegal behaviour, but I am seeking to explain it based on the research I've done and read over the years. Only by understanding anything can we hope to change it. It's easy to conclude that all unlit cyclists are stupid, but starting from that easy lie means that nothing will change.

Or attempt to excuse the stopping and warning of an unlit cyclist on the basis that drivers do more harm? Surely the two things are entirely separate?

Surely there aren't two entirely separate traffic police forces for cycling and motoring? So every time a relatively-harmless unlit cyclist is stopped, it probably means less time for stopping a much deadlier motorist - I know where I'd prefer the police to focus, West-Midlands-style. Why wouldn't you? What are the people advocating this waste of police time afraid of? What motoring offences do you all routinely commit?

 

[Bimble]

I didn't say unlit cyclists were stupid, and understand that some people may have hardship that would make buying cheap lights prohibitively expensive - what I don't understand though is the inclusion of motorists and the apparent stance that if an unlit cyclist is committing an offence and (entirely separately) a driver is also committing an offence - the cyclist should be let off / ignored / not stopped or cautioned because they don't pose as big a risk to others as the driver of the vehicle.

If the officer has driven by and seen the woman cycling unlit, then surely, in the absence of any other unlit cyclists or bad driving it is his duty to pull her up and discuss it with her / caution her / fine her, whatever he decides is appropriate - and it is her responsibility to take such a stop into consideration and think about getting some lights fitted to her bike?

Why the hell motorists were dragged into the conversation is beyond me, but justifying cycling illegally on the spurious basis that there are other (more serious) offences that the police could focus on is akin to saying all burglaries should be ignored because, mostly, people aren't hurt in the process.

 

[mjr]

what I don't understand though is the inclusion of motorists and the apparent stance that if an unlit cyclist is committing an offence and (entirely separately) a driver is also committing an offence - the cyclist should be let off / ignored / not stopped or cautioned because they don't pose as big a risk to others as the driver of the vehicle.

It's not entirely separate. If - as in your second hypothetical - there's no offending motorist around, then sure, stop the person on the unlit bike, but if there's an unlit motorist there too, then stop the motorist first. It's like if there's someone juggling a knife next to someone juggling a gun - I want the police to stop the one with the gun first.

Why the hell motorists were dragged into the conversation is beyond me,

@ozboz posted this, which suggested that cyclists are somehow responsible for the eyesight of other road users... and as most of the ones that kill are motorists...

Ok , I must be wrong thinking it would be handy if other road users can actually see you on the road , , dark damp January night in poor visibility , yep , thats ok ,

justifying cycling illegally

Again, no-one is doing that. Please stop attacking Aunt Sallys. It's really rather naughty.

 

[Drago]

a Police Patrol Sarg't once told me , the worst part if his job was informing the families of persons who had been needlessly killed in RTA's , regardless of who was at fault ,
This Officer was doing his job as I see it,

Mrs Smith, bad news I'm afraid. The Jumbo Jet crashed straight into your husband. Had he been wearing a fluorescent he surely wouldn't have been crushed to death...

What little research has been done into the matter shows no correlation at all between the wearing of 'hi-vis' gear and road safety. If people want to wear it, then i've no problem, all power to them. If people don't want to wear it they're statistically no more likely to come a cropper, and at this time it is a perfectly harmless and lawful activity. that being the case I would sincerely hope our badly stretched police service do not waste their time wagging their fingers at people over the matter of hi visness.

Now bike lights is a different matter, even if only because it's unlawful not to have them at night.

 

[Milkfloat]

What is easier - stopping one cyclist who is breaking the law or 10,000 motorists who one day may not pay enough attention and plough into the aforementioned cyclist? I have no problem with the Police going for an easy stop on the illegal cyclist, but if they stop and try the hi-vis / helmet argument then I think they would be better spending their time elsewhere.

 

[Big Andy]

Well I for one think the police man should be applauded, even if he did nothing more than stop her to advise her to make herself more visable he did a good thing.
All cyclists and motorists are human, we make mistakes, as cyclists and as motorists, she may have made a mistake and forgot her lights for all we know so a reminder from the police may help prevent that in future. As motorists we all make mistakes too, we dont always spot everything we should, so as a cyclist I take what i consider reasonable steps to give the motorist every chance of seeing me, so 1 solid and 1 flashing light on the rear, and another flashing red hanging from the back of my jacket, a solid and flashing white on front, and a hi viz harness too.
Some seem to suggest we shouldnt take reasonable steps to be seen because its the motorist thats at fault if they dont see us. Not sure that would make anyone feel and better when laying in a hospital bed.

 

[ozboz]

As said , I fo not know if he stopped her or she was riding and he saw her , hi vis is not mandatory , but , as I drive along esp in the winter months it does help to identify what is ahead ,and from a good distance when there are reflective bands etc , but , there are also pedestrians to consider, and in my opinion , and experience , M'bike Patrol Officers are not out for an easy catch , they will pull any one for anything ,
Regardless

 

[mjr]

What is easier - stopping one cyclist who is breaking the law or 10,000 motorists who one day may not pay enough attention and plough into the aforementioned cyclist?

False dilemma. There are not 10000 killer motorists going to hit that 1 illegal cyclist.

I have no problem with the Police going for an easy stop on the illegal cyclist, but if they stop and try the hi-vis / helmet argument then I think they would be better spending their time elsewhere.

They do and they would but evidence-led traffic policing is disappointingly rare... and probably wouldn't have public support, given that it seems from this discussion that even many cyclists want police to focus on relatively harmless infractions instead of dangerous motoring ones.

 

[mjr]

as a cyclist I take what i consider reasonable steps to give the motorist every chance of seeing me, so 1 solid and 1 flashing light on the rear, and another flashing red hanging from the back of my jacket, a solid and flashing white on front, and a hi viz harness too.
Some seem to suggest we shouldnt take reasonable steps to be seen because its the motorist thats at fault if they dont see us. Not sure that would make anyone feel and better when laying in a hospital bed.

I would rather suggest that your steps are unreasonable and probably mistaken. You seem to focus on number of lights but make no mention whether any are actually legally sufficient and complying with UK or German standards.