# £30 fine for no lights



## e-rider (25 Nov 2011)

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!


----------



## Mike! (25 Nov 2011)

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


----------



## summerdays (25 Nov 2011)

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.


----------



## MattHB (25 Nov 2011)

Damn right. I rode past Bournemouth uni this evening and nearly got flattened by about 10 ninja's in 2 minutes


----------



## Norm (25 Nov 2011)

tundragumski said:


> ... surely the remaining police have much more serious crimes to focus on!




That was irony, wasn't it?


----------



## ianrauk (25 Nov 2011)

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


----------



## Cubist (25 Nov 2011)

They may be trying to get more people cycling, so that they can fine them for riding without lights, which will fund the cops operation to stop them all and fine them.

Or, and far more likely, they will have been given the problem of unlit cyclists near the university as a PACT (Neighbourhood) priority, and will be dealing with it as requested by the people who attend PACT meetings and help them to set the priorities. 

Check the Neighbourhood Policing website for the ward the campus is in and I suspect you will find mention of the initiative, and the reasoning behind it. If you can think of a more pressing priority, and in your opinion a better use of police resources, then you owe it to yourself to attend the next PACT meeting and help them set a more useful agenda. The time and place of the meeting will be on the NPT website.


----------



## jonathanw (25 Nov 2011)

MattHB said:


> Damn right. I rode past Bournemouth uni this evening and nearly got flattened by about 10 ninja's in 2 minutes



+1

I am constantly amazed by the stupidity of ninja's. We need to be seen and act responsibly if we wish to be taken seriously as road users.

700 lumens ( whatever they are) on the front, 2x 1 watts ( again not exactly sure) on the back. That combined with an obscene amount of reflective gear makes me less likely to be a victim of SMIDSY. But, motorists can sometimes be just as stupid as us cyclists.


----------



## growingvegetables (25 Nov 2011)

Mike! said:


> Good on them ...


 
+1


----------



## doog (25 Nov 2011)

tundragumski said:


> 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*!


 

what like preventing road death ?


----------



## 400bhp (25 Nov 2011)

+ another 1.

It seems to be a common theme for "students" to ride without lights.


----------



## dawesome (25 Nov 2011)

doog said:


> what like preventing road death ?


 

Unlit cyclists are not a major proportion of KSI stats.


----------



## Davidc (25 Nov 2011)

Excellent.

Now go and fine the RLJs.

And the pavement cyclists.

Zero sympathy from here for those paying the fines.


----------



## Hacienda71 (25 Nov 2011)

You can get a cheap set of lights for a pound or two. The really is no excuse for not having them. I will quite often leave my rear light on my bike when I plan to be back home well before sunset just in case. In your early twenties though you don't always think of the consequences of your actions so a bit of short sharp shock to get the message across is not a bad idea imho.


----------



## doog (25 Nov 2011)

dawesome said:


> Unlit cyclists are not a major proportion of KSI stats.


 
of course they are not a major proportion, as cyclists only represent a very small percentage of road traffic. However are you denying that cyclists without lights dont get hit and killed / Injured?


----------



## gaz (25 Nov 2011)

tundragumski said:


> Surely the remaining police have much more serious crimes to focus on!


I forgot that traffic police also dealt with burglaries and homicides.
It's kind of similar to expecting the database administrator in your IT department at work to fix the printing issue you have.


----------



## fossyant (25 Nov 2011)

Wish the Manchester lot would get the student's here.


----------



## ComedyPilot (25 Nov 2011)

The fines taken from ninjas should be distrubuted evenly among honest law-abiding cyclists.............nark


----------



## jay clock (25 Nov 2011)

excellent news.


----------



## dawesome (25 Nov 2011)

doog said:


> of course they are not a major proportion, as cyclists only represent a very small percentage of road traffic. However are you denying that cyclists without lights dont get hit and killed / Injured?


 

Got an example?


----------



## potsy (25 Nov 2011)

Make it £60 and 10 lashes


----------



## doog (25 Nov 2011)

dawesome said:


> Got an example?


 

plenty

I will try and get some stats from work next week..


----------



## Nantmor (25 Nov 2011)

"The study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found that in 2% of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was a likely contributing factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time."
This is from http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study. There is a link to the study.
That seems to me to show that no lights is not as serious a problem as you might think.
Perhaps I should make it clear I make sure to have good lighting, and cyclists with no lights piss me off too.


----------



## doog (25 Nov 2011)

Nantmor said:


> "The study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found that in 2% of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was a likely contributing factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time."
> This is from http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study. There is a link to the study.
> That seems to me to show that no lights is not as serious a problem as you might think.
> Perhaps I should make it clear I make sure to have good lighting, and cyclists with no lights piss me off too.


 

dark clothing and no lights appear to go hand in hand. In 2009 (the year of your link) there were over 17,000 cycling casualties...equates to 700 + odd casualties for no lighting / dark clothing.

I dont know how many were road deaths at the moment but this current Initiative is national, so clearly home office driven.


----------



## darth vadar (26 Nov 2011)

New bikes have to be sold with a bell. 

What a shame that doesn't extend to lights as well.


----------



## CopperCyclist (26 Nov 2011)

People seem to have missed Cubists post which hit the nail on the head. Neighourhood policing means that the community get to choose what they want their local neighbourhood bobbies to spend time doing (to some extent). In reality, this means a very small proportion of the community (the type likely to attend the meetings) get what they believe to be 'issues' addressed.

If you don't like it, then you need to attend said meetings and put your suggestions forward. That said, I'd be very unlikely to attend one of these meetings myself so can't blame you anyway.

It's the whole problem with the Neighbourhood policing concept. It's akin to my boiler breaking down, pipes bursting, house flooding, and have a plumber who turns up and says 'Show me what to do'. You're the expert, you fix it!


----------



## Nebulous (26 Nov 2011)

The neighbourhood policing has had a big positive impact in Aberdeen - although they canvassed opinon for priorities quite widely and not just in a meeting.

Unfortunately its easy to not notice the results despite a positive impact. As an example - the area where I work has been plagued for years with youngsters running around on primarily stolen motorbikes. I would rarely go out for my lunch without seeing two or three youngsters on a motorbike, without helmets. It was a huge dilemma for the police, as chasing them could lead to dangerous situations and potential injuries.

I went to a meeting with the police, where they said it had been a community priority, they had launched an intelligence led campaign and had raided homes, sheds etc and recovered 13 stolen motorbikes. It was only after he explained this that I realised I hadn't actually seen one for weeks, if not months. So although seeing the bikes in public was an irritant, removing them hadn't greatly changed my perception of the problem until I had it explained to me.


----------



## Vigilies (26 Nov 2011)

I agree with this initiative by the Police, as mentioned above by Hacienda a set of lights need not cost much and I think you could be legally lit for the winter for less than the £30 fine.


----------



## Manonabike (26 Nov 2011)

ianrauk said:


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


 
+1


----------



## jdtate101 (26 Nov 2011)

I'd rather they be handing out £30 fines than scraping dead cyclists off the road!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Nov 2011)

potsy said:


> Make it £60 and *10 lashes*


 

I am removing my lights as we speak, and ensuring that a particular WPC arrests me!


----------



## kevin_cambs_uk (26 Nov 2011)

Nick em, sends out the right message.
I am totally in favour of it, and when they have got them, get the rest that cycle down the one way streets the wrong way, jump red lights, cycle on pavements,


----------



## Sore Thumb (26 Nov 2011)

I am surprised that the police could see the cyclists that had no lights. Maybe the police have been issued with night vision goggles........


----------



## Bigsharn (26 Nov 2011)

potsy said:


> Make it £60 and 10 lashes


 
I agree with this. If they increase the amount that you can be fined for having no lights, it might encourage less ninjas.

On the flip side, I've seen dozens of cars in increment weather recently with no lights on at all. They should also be fined IMO


----------



## cloggsy (26 Nov 2011)

No sympathy for 'em, but it's an easy target... Yet another 'Stealth Tax' IMHO


----------



## goo_mason (26 Nov 2011)

No sympathy for those riding in the dark with no lights.

Having said that, I'd like to see the police having a parallel initiative and stopping the growing number of vehicles on the roads with one or more non-working lights (see the separate thread in Commuting).


----------



## BSRU (26 Nov 2011)

If people knowingly break the law they deserve the punishment they receive, if caught.


----------



## Dan B (26 Nov 2011)

1624072 said:


> What on earth does stealth tax mean in this context?


You get taxed £30 for riding too stealthily, I assume


----------



## goo_mason (26 Nov 2011)

Dan B said:


> You get taxed £30 for riding too stealthily, I assume


 
I'd like to see it officially named as the 'ninja' tax!


----------



## Jezston (27 Nov 2011)

We should stop calling lightless cyclists 'ninjas'. The term 'ninja' has too many positive connotations. Ninjas are cool.

Can't think of a better term, unfortunately. Anyone?

I reckon we should call people with inadequate lighting 'dimwits', though.


----------



## Twanger (27 Nov 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> People seem to have missed Cubists post which hit the nail on the head. Neighourhood policing means that the community get to choose what they want their local neighbourhood bobbies to spend time doing (to some extent). In reality, this means a very small proportion of the community (the type likely to attend the meetings) get what they believe to be 'issues' addressed.
> 
> If you don't like it, then you need to attend said meetings and put your suggestions forward. That said, I'd be very unlikely to attend one of these meetings myself so can't blame you anyway.
> 
> It's the whole problem with the Neighbourhood policing concept. It's akin to my boiler breaking down, pipes bursting, house flooding, and have a plumber who turns up and says 'Show me what to do'. You're the expert, you fix it!


 
This worries me, if you are a policeman, as your handle suggests. I may be misunderstanding your post, but you seem to see the local community as a machine, and the police's role to be fixing it when it breaks down - and, moreover, that the police know what the best way to fix a broken community is, and what makes a properly "fixed" community, because they are professionals. I guess the community should then just shut up and be policed uncomplainingly and in its own interests.

FWIW, I like plumbers who come along and say "Hey, I can do this, this or this, and this is what each one will cost...what's your priority?"

Forgive me if I have read things into your post which aren't there, but my son works for the BTPA, and I'm an old hippie (sort of), and we argue this a lot....

Oooops...perhaps too much thread drift...

I have no problem with Old Bill using valuable resources to get ninja's to lighten up.


----------



## Twanger (27 Nov 2011)

Jezston said:


> We should stop calling lightless cyclists 'ninjas'. The term 'ninja' has too many positive connotations. Ninjas are cool.
> 
> Can't think of a better term, unfortunately. Anyone?
> 
> I reckon we should call people with inadequate lighting 'dimwits', though.


 
'Dimwits' is too crude. I like Ninjas. It's more subtle, suggesting they are more into style than intelligence.


----------



## summerdays (27 Nov 2011)

Twanger said:


> > CopperCyclist said:↑
> > People seem to have missed Cubists post which hit the nail on the head. Neighourhood policing means that the community get to choose what they want their local neighbourhood bobbies to spend time doing (to some extent). In reality, this means a very small proportion of the community (the type likely to attend the meetings) get what they believe to be 'issues' addressed.​​If you don't like it, then you need to attend said meetings and put your suggestions forward. That said, I'd be very unlikely to attend one of these meetings myself so can't blame you anyway.​​It's the whole problem with the Neighbourhood policing concept. It's akin to my boiler breaking down, pipes bursting, house flooding, and have a plumber who turns up and says 'Show me what to do'. You're the expert, you fix it!​
> 
> 
> ​This worries me, if you are a policeman, as your handle suggests. I may be misunderstanding your post, but you seem to see the local community as a machine, and the police's role to be fixing it when it breaks down - and, moreover, that the police know what the best way to fix a broken community is, and what makes a properly "fixed" community, because they are professionals. I guess the community should then just shut up and be policed uncomplainingly and in its own interests.


Having attended a couple of PACT meetings I can understand their point of view. It is a very small proportion of the local community that attends these meetings - I would guess somewhere between 20-40 at the ones I've been to, and I doubt anyone there is under 30, and most are double that age. They then discuss what they see as the local priority for the police. I do think they are a useful tool but not by any means perfect. I've gone along on the occasions that I've wanted an input into what they are discussing. (But I can't say I enjoy going and often feel sorry for the various police/councillors/etc that have to sit there fielding questions).


----------



## Twanger (27 Nov 2011)

summerdays said:


> Having attended a couple of PACT meetings I can understand their point of view. It is a very small proportion of the local community that attends these meetings - I would guess somewhere between 20-40 at the ones I've been to, and I doubt anyone there is under 30, and most are double that age. They then discuss what they see as the local priority for the police. I do think they are a useful tool but not by any means perfect. I've gone along on the occasions that I've wanted an input into what they are discussing. (But I can't say I enjoy going and often feel sorry for the various police/councillors/etc that have to sit there fielding questions).


 
Yes, I get that, and agree. My problem is more the plumbing analogy.


----------



## 139NI (27 Nov 2011)

It takes about 15 mins to issue a ticket - what a waste of police time.
There are cyclists out there who genuinely dont realise - i'd rather they be let off so they could go buy some lights. 
Then there are always those with an attitude when talking to police [either cos they do or dont know]- i suggest the police take an inordinate amount of time with these people and give them a fat ticket at the end. Its much about the changing a state of mind.


----------



## chillyuk (27 Nov 2011)

139NI said:


> It takes about 15 mins to issue a ticket - what a waste of police time.
> (Snipped)


 
"15 mins to issue a ticket". I would question that, but even assuming it to be correct have you seen how long it takes to clear up after a road accident, or worse, a fatality. If 15 minutes of a police officers time can get someone to light up it could potentially be a good investment for the cyclist, for motorists and for the taxpayer.


----------



## Alun (27 Nov 2011)

_"There are cyclists out there who genuinely dont realise"_
I find it hard to accept that !


----------



## ianrauk (27 Nov 2011)

chillyuk said:


> "15 mins to issue a ticket". I would question that, but even assuming it to be correct have you seen how long it takes to clear up after a road accident, or worse, a fatality.


 

I would think 139NI would know more then most.


----------



## snorri (27 Nov 2011)

Twanger said:


> Yes, I get that, and agree. My problem is more the plumbing analogy.


Don't worry, I doubt if anyone understood the plumbing analogy.


----------



## Will1985 (27 Nov 2011)

In this particular instance (the OP), I would be more concerned about the cars which travel through a 20 zone in excess of 30mph often passing close to me. Whilst I agree that cyclists should be lit up in the dark, they are an easy target. All road users in that area are as bad as each other though -even pedestrians don't use the designated crossings all the time.

Found this on the UEA site: http://www.uea.ac.uk/estates/news/CyclistsencouragedtoLightUp


----------



## Alun (28 Nov 2011)

[quote="Will1985, post: 1625051, member: 708" -even pedestrians don't use the designated crossings all the time.(Snipped)

[/quote] That's not a legal requirement though, unlike having lights on a bike.


----------



## siadwell (28 Nov 2011)

Alun said:


> _"There are cyclists out there who genuinely dont realise"_
> I find it hard to accept that !


 
There are definately drivers out there who don't realise.
Anything.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (28 Nov 2011)

139NI said:


> There are cyclists out there who genuinely dont realise


Tough titty. They shouldn't be on the road if they don't know the rules.

I'd rather pay for 15 minutes of police time issuing a ticket than the fire engine lifting the car off them, the ambulance collecting them, the police collecting evidence and cleaning up the site, then the A&E crew working hard to keep them alive, then the police spending an hour informing and comforting the parents, then the post mortum and storage of the corpse.

How much is THAT costing the tax payer?

Plus police usually reduce fines if the cyclist agrees to go on a course / get some lights and turn up at the station with them.


----------



## Bicycle (28 Nov 2011)

tundragumski said:


> 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!



The OP clearly feels quite strongly about this, but the above smacks a little of the moan from drivers who are caught speeding and ask whether the Police shouldn't be out catching 'proper criminals'.

I've been caught speeding many times and have always paid with a smile (and paid again when my insurance premium is increased because of the points). My car has a little dial that shows my current speed and the number indicated mustn't be higher than the number in the circular sign beside the road. So easy a child could play!

Still I speed... and still i get fined. Ha ha! That's my own, personal Stupidity Tax.

It's the same with unlit cyclists. It's not a Stealth tax, it's a Stupidity Tax.

Hurrah for the Police! (But please could they avoid doing Speed Checks on the Golden Valley bypass and the road between Glasbury and Brecon).


----------



## Alun (28 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> My car has a little dial that shows my current speed and the number indicated mustn't be higher than the number in the circular sign beside the road. So easy a child could play! (snipped)


 
Haha .

Suggesting the police could be better employed chasing "proper criminals" is a cheap shot, and one that could be could presumably be used for any transgression, unless you're a murderer or armed robber


----------



## ufkacbln (28 Nov 2011)

Twanger said:


> This worries me, if you are a policeman, as your handle suggests. I may be misunderstanding your post, but you seem to see the local community as a machine, and the police's role to be fixing it when it breaks down - and, moreover, that the police know what the best way to fix a broken community is, and what makes a properly "fixed" community, because they are professionals. I guess the community should then just shut up and be policed uncomplainingly and in its own interests.
> 
> FWIW, I like plumbers who come along and say "Hey, I can do this, this or this, and this is what each one will cost...what's your priority?"
> 
> ...


 
It is interesting the way these agendas are driven, very much as CopperCyclist suggests

I was at a meeting when there were a few people who were vociferously complaining about cyclists coming out of the local School on the pavements, and demanding action.... The local Councillor then took this up and the result was that the Police would be formally asked to attend the School and stop the miscreants.

Then someone came up with the silly idea that this could be a combined operation and deal with some of the illegal and dangerous parking at the same School at the same time. The Councillor came up with all sorts of reasons why this would be unacceptable, and we got a clampdown on cyclists, but nothing done about the parking.


----------



## Cubist (28 Nov 2011)

ianrauk said:


> I would think 139NI would know more then most.


Not just me then Ian?


----------



## Norm (28 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> The OP clearly feels quite strongly about this, but the above smacks a little of the moan from drivers who are caught speeding and ask whether the Police shouldn't be out catching 'proper criminals'.





Alun said:


> Haha .
> 
> Suggesting the police could be better employed chasing "proper criminals" is a cheap shot, and one that could be could presumably be used for any transgression, unless you're a murderer or armed robber


This was exactly why I posted...


Norm said:


> tundragumski said:
> 
> 
> > ... surely the remaining police have much more serious crimes to focus on!
> ...


----------



## RoubaixCube (22 Sep 2015)

Ive seen fines being handed out for cycling on the pavement. But i haven't seen a cyclist being stopped for having no lights and since part of my commute means i rollout as soon as night falls. I regularly pass at least 2 or 3 cyclists on my way home that have no lights. No helmet and no hi-vis. These are probably the luckiest people in the world to have not been knocked over, injured or potentially even killed, especially on london roads. The police really need to enforce these laws to keep everybody safe. If a copper stopped and fined me for having no lights or hi-vis id take it on the chin. After all its for my own safety that i be properly equipped


----------



## RoubaixCube (22 Sep 2015)

User said:


> I'd be with you for part of that, and congratulations that is quite some thread resurrection.



I was searching for a post where a member said they passed a group of people with no lights while on a commute - I read it on my tablet while i was on the bog, I was going to reply after i was done but i guess I kinda forgot  Cant find that post so I posted in the thread closest to the topic at hand


----------



## RoubaixCube (22 Sep 2015)

User said:


> You mean this thread?



Looks like it all went a little down hill


----------



## summerdays (22 Sep 2015)

They often have police stopping cyclists without lights around about the time the clocks go back. As far as I know if the cyclist turns up with working lights in the next week the fine is cancelled. Or that could be a made up memory.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Sep 2015)

summerdays said:


> They often have police stopping cyclists without lights around about the time the clocks go back. As far as I know if the cyclist turns up with working lights in the next week the fine is cancelled. Or that could be a made up memory.


made up or not.. it's a sensible approach. Either spend a fiver on some lights or pay a 30 pound fine. I assume the point of the initiative is to encourage more cyclists to use lights... unless they're fund raising to make up the shortfall caused by recent cuts.


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (22 Sep 2015)

They do this in Cambridge when the clocks go back. Sadly they don't do a similar thing for cars with faulty headlights.


----------



## totallyfixed (22 Sep 2015)

RaveInAGrave said:


> Ive seen fines being handed out for cycling on the pavement. But i haven't seen a cyclist being stopped for having no lights and since part of my commute means i rollout as soon as night falls. I regularly pass at least 2 or 3 cyclists on my way home that have no lights. *No helmet *and no hi-vis. These are probably the luckiest people in the world to have not been knocked over, injured or potentially even killed, especially on london roads. *The police really need to enforce these laws* to keep everybody safe. If a copper stopped and fined me for having no lights or hi-vis id take it on the chin. After all its for my own safety that i be properly equipped


Did I miss something? Has the law changed? I sincerely hope not.


----------



## mcshroom (22 Sep 2015)

Is this where we point out that you saw these people with no lights or high viz


----------



## gavintc (22 Sep 2015)

RaveInAGrave said:


> Ive seen fines being handed out for cycling on the pavement. But i haven't seen a cyclist being stopped for having no lights and since part of my commute means i rollout as soon as night falls. I regularly pass at least 2 or 3 cyclists on my way home that have no lights. No helmet and no hi-vis. These are probably the luckiest people in the world to have not been knocked over, injured or potentially even killed, especially on london roads. The police really need to enforce these laws to keep everybody safe. If a copper stopped and fined me for having no lights or hi-vis id take it on the chin. After all its for my own safety that i be properly equipped


About time you learnt what the law says.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Sep 2015)

ABikeCam said:


> They do this in Cambridge when the clocks go back. Sadly they don't do a similar thing for cars with faulty headlights.




I remember a few years ago they were stopping cyclists at the Gosport Ferry

There is a crossing and stopped at the crossing was a muppet on his phone.

Half a dozen cyclists shouting "Oi Constable... this prat's on his phone"

Credit to the PC as he walked across instructed the guy to pull in and dealt with him


----------



## steveindenmark (22 Sep 2015)

cloggsy said:


> No sympathy for 'em, but it's an easy target... Yet another 'Stealth Tax' IMHO



I dont quite understand your reasoning here.

You have no sympathy with them so I assume you agree that they should be fined.

Then you say they are an easy target Stealth tax. Which makes it appear you dont agree with it. You cant have it both ways.

They should be lit up and they can do it for less than a tenner. If they dont get fined they will not be bothered to get lights.

It is not a "Stealth" tax. It has been a well publiced law for donkeys years, that you should have lights on bikes during the hours of darkness. Its no secret. Its just that some people cannot be arsxd to buy them and fit them.

Hard luck to them if they get caught is my opinion.


----------



## Drago (22 Sep 2015)

Exactly Mr Denmark. If you don't want to pay a "stealth tax" then people shouldn't behave like a prat. Ball's in their court.


----------



## Dan B (22 Sep 2015)

RaveInAGrave said:


> If a copper stopped and fined me for having no lights or hi-vis id take it on the chin.


If I got fined for having no hi-vis (ditto helmet, the law regarding which you seem to be equally misinformed about) I'd take it to the Supreme Court, never mind the frigging chin.


----------



## RoubaixCube (22 Sep 2015)

totallyfixed said:


> Did I miss something? Has the law changed? I sincerely hope not.





gavintc said:


> About time you learnt what the law says.





Dan B said:


> If I got fined for having no hi-vis (ditto helmet, the law regarding which you seem to be equally misinformed about) I'd take it to the Supreme Court, never mind the frigging chin.




There's no law regarding hi-vis unless you work on a construction site or in an environment that has a lot of moving vehicles, such as a loading bay or traffic warden etc etc (but i have seen traffic wardens without hi-vis)

I said hi-vis as a loose term for reflectors. policy/regulations states that you have to have reflectors on your bike with lights at night but the reflectors thing is something that is quite often ignored by most cyclists - So long as they have hi-vis and lights, there is no need for reflectors.





​I got reflectors on my wheels and thats about it. Some people dont have any at all.


----------



## glenn forger (22 Sep 2015)

I've seen those blokes on building sites in their reflectors.


----------



## gavintc (22 Sep 2015)

RaveInAGrave said:


> no lights. No helmet and no hi-vis. The police really need to enforce these laws to keep everybody safe.



lights - correct
helmet - nope
hi vis - nope


----------



## Dan B (22 Sep 2015)

RaveInAGrave said:


> So long as they have hi-vis and lights, there is no need for reflectors.


Not sure if I have the wrong end of the stick here, but if you actually believe that's the law, I bet you £20 you're wrong.


----------



## RoubaixCube (22 Sep 2015)

gavintc said:


> lights - correct
> helmet - nope
> hi vis - nope





Dan B said:


> Not sure if I have the wrong end of the stick here, but if you actually believe that's the law, I bet you £20 you're wrong.



read my previous post pls.


----------



## mickle (22 Sep 2015)

Am I the only person who thinks this is out of order? The police in York refuse to enforce the 20mph zone I work on. We have a constant stream of cars hurtling up the road at the most obnoxious speeds. All day long. Less than 100 yards from the actual police station! And it's clear to anyone with the eyes to see that the battle to stop people speeding on motorways has been lost. They've given up trying to stop drivers using their mobile phones, tailgating and running red lights. Nah, let's ignore all the idiots causing the danger and focus instead on those terrible cyclists. Because we all hate cyclists don't we?


----------



## Dan B (22 Sep 2015)

RaveInAGrave said:


> read my previous post pls.


I read it. It said


> So long as they have hi-vis and lights, there is no need for reflectors.


I remain unclear whether this is your actual understanding of the law, or your hypothesis of the thought processes of other (unspecified) cyclists. If the former, I contend that you are wrong and I will pay £40 to the Cyclists Defence Fund (or your choice of charity) if you can cite a law that says otherwise


----------



## Drago (22 Sep 2015)

mickle said:


> Am I the only person who thinks this is out of order? The police in York refuse to enforce the 20mph zone I work on. We have a constant stream of cars hurtling up the road at the most obnoxious speeds. All day long. Less than 100 yards from the actual police station! And it's clear to anyone with the eyes to see that the battle to stop people speeding on motorways has been lost. They've given up trying to stop drivers using their mobile phones, tailgating and running red lights. Nah, let's ignore all the idiots causing the danger and focus instead on those terrible cyclists. Because we all hate cyclists don't we?



Ah, the old "someone somewhere else is being naughty too so it's out of order that I'm getting fingered" routine.

We do occasionally have shoplifters ask us why we're not out hassling motorists.

If you're being a plank and get your thighs smacked for it then it's really irrelevant what someone else may or may not be doing - it'll be someone else's turn next time.


----------



## PeteXXX (22 Sep 2015)

Back to the OP. 
Would it not be better if Plod stopped the unlit UNI cyclists and gave them a friendly warning that they'd be back for the next few evenings and if they're still 'riding without lights', they'd be nicked?


----------



## Dogtrousers (22 Sep 2015)

When the OP was made they were still transporting people for sheep stealing.


----------



## Stonepark (22 Sep 2015)

I thought law required rear red reflector only, with red light at rear, with white at front?

Front reflector and pedal reflectors to be visible only if fitted.


----------



## Dan B (22 Sep 2015)

Drago said:


> it'll be someone else's turn next time.


When exactly might that be? The only thing preventing me from putting a tenner on the Sun going nova first is the logistical problems inherent in collecting on the bet


----------



## earlestownflya (22 Sep 2015)

if you ride a bike in darkness hours..you need lights...hmmm..yeah... sounds about right


----------



## mickle (22 Sep 2015)

Drago said:


> Ah, the old "someone somewhere else is being naughty too so it's out of order that I'm getting fingered" routine.
> 
> We do occasionally have shoplifters ask us why we're not out hassling motorists.
> 
> If you're being a plank and get your thighs smacked for it then it's really irrelevant what someone else may or may not be doing - it'll be someone else's turn next time.



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?


----------



## earlestownflya (22 Sep 2015)

cyclists pose little danger to anyone but themselves?????? what planet are you on?


----------



## mickle (22 Sep 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> cyclists pose little danger to anyone but themselves?????? what planet are you on?



Feel free to introduce some comparative KSI figures into the conversation. How many people did unlit cyclists kill last year?


----------



## mickle (22 Sep 2015)

Wow. This is a really old thread.


----------



## earlestownflya (22 Sep 2015)

if it's 1....it's too many....because they should have had lights on


----------



## mickle (22 Sep 2015)

Is it 1?


----------



## Herbie (22 Sep 2015)

Mike! said:


> 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



Totally in agreement here....cars need lights in the dark and bikes need them too...good on the Polis I say...lights are so inexpensive these days so theres no excuse


----------



## earlestownflya (23 Sep 2015)

we're not talking about deaths and life changing disfigurements...we're talking about the prevention of such events....
a scenario for your delectation......cyclist on an unlit country lane at night ,no lights on the bike,a car travelling on the same lane in the same direction,family in the car,just been out for dinner...kids are playing up...a few distractions....they're bearing down on the cyclist...don't see him till the last second ,car driver swerves erratically..loses control ..hits a stone wall at speed...only 1 passenger survives
..is it sinking in?.......capeesh?


----------



## TheDoctor (23 Sep 2015)

And that happened when?


----------



## mcshroom (23 Sep 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> we're not talking about deaths and life changing disfigurements...we're talking about the prevention of such events....
> a scenario for your delectation......cyclist on an unlit country lane at night ,no lights on the bike,a car travelling on the same lane in the same direction,family in the car,just been out for dinner...kids are playing up...a few distractions....they're bearing down on the cyclist...don't see him till the last second ,car driver swerves erratically..loses control ..hits a stone wall at speed...only 1 passenger survives
> ..is it sinking in?.......capeesh?


Interesting that the car driver not driving slowly enough to be able to stop in the distance they can see to be clear is now the cyclist's fault. You may want to revisit your hypothetical scenario.


----------



## earlestownflya (23 Sep 2015)

could happen today.......get lights on your damn bikes......idiots


----------



## classic33 (23 Sep 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> could happen today.......get lights on your damn bikes......idiots


Might never happen. It might be given as an excuse though.

Who makes "damn" bikes?


----------



## Dan B (23 Sep 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> we're not talking about deaths and life changing disfigurements...we're talking about the prevention of such events....
> a scenario for your delectation......cyclist on an unlit country lane at night ,no lights on the bike,a car travelling on the same lane in the same direction,family in the car,just been out for dinner...kids are playing up...a few distractions....they're bearing down on the cyclist...don't see him till the last second ,car driver swerves erratically..loses control ..hits a stone wall at speed...only 1 passenger survives
> ..is it sinking in?.......capeesh?


Replace "unlit cyclist" with "unlit deer". Are you sinking? Que pische?


----------



## steveindenmark (23 Sep 2015)

mickle said:


> 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?



In relation to injuring other people you have a point. But what about those cases where a driver seriously injuries or kills a cyclist who he hits as they dont have lights and he doesnt see them. The driver may not be physically injured but I know how I would feel if I killed someone on a bike.

I got very close to hitting cyclists in the dark last year ( twice). Pitch black and they had no reflective gear and no lights. I dont even know how they could see to ride. They literally came out of nowhere. So these accidents can and do happen and it is not the drivers fault.

So the police do not have their priorities wrong. They are just enforcing the laws of the land as they should. In my view, as a cyclist. The lights on bike law is a law they should apply at this time of year with vigor, every year, until cyclist take it for granted that if they dont have lights, they will be fined.


----------



## Profpointy (23 Sep 2015)

well if they're enforcing the law, what about pedal and spoke reflectors - which I undertand are a legal requirement?


----------



## steveindenmark (23 Sep 2015)

Profpointy said:


> well if they're enforcing the law, what about pedal and spoke reflectors - which I undertand are a legal requirement?



You are correct. But reflectors are often in place when lights are missing. But if I were the police officer dealing with a bike with no lights, I would check the rest of the bike.


----------



## uclown2002 (23 Sep 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> we're not talking about deaths and life changing disfigurements...we're talking about the prevention of such events....
> a scenario for your delectation......cyclist on an unlit country lane at night ,no lights on the bike,a car travelling on the same lane in the same direction,family in the car,just been out for dinner...kids are playing up...a few distractions....they're bearing down on the cyclist...don't see him till the last second ,car driver swerves erratically..loses control ..hits a stone wall at speed...only 1 passenger survives
> ..is it sinking in?.......capeesh?


*OMFG*


----------



## mickle (23 Sep 2015)

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.


----------



## mickle (23 Sep 2015)

Does anyone have any figures on how much more danger an unlit cyclist poses a. To themselves. b. To other road users?


----------



## Dan B (23 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> I got very close to hitting cyclists in the dark last year ( twice). Pitch black and they had no reflective gear and no lights.


Maybe things are different in Denmark, but do you not have lights on your car? How do you avoid hitting unlit pedestrians who are crossing the road?


----------



## steveindenmark (23 Sep 2015)

The peds dont come out of pitch blackness at 30kph


----------



## benb (23 Sep 2015)

mickle said:


> Does anyone have any figures on how much more danger an unlit cyclist poses a. To themselves. b. To other road users?



This study shows lack of lights as a contributory cause in 2% of cyclist KSIs
I am unaware of a single injury to someone else caused by an unlit cyclist.


----------



## Dogtrousers (23 Sep 2015)

Profpointy said:


> well if they're enforcing the law, what about pedal and spoke reflectors - which I undertand are a legal requirement?


Pedals are, spokes aren't. Bikes manufactured before 1980-something are exempt. Oddly, my old Dawes, which is exempt, is fitted with pedal reflectors, but my newer bike, which isn't, isn't.


----------



## Tail End Charlie (23 Sep 2015)

Dan B said:


> Replace "unlit cyclist" with "unlit deer". Are you sinking? Que pische?


Deer to have lights on!!


----------



## mcshroom (23 Sep 2015)

mickle said:


> 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.


It comes from a mindset of making everything easier for car drivers to go quickly. Same with the idea muted periodically of giving deer, cows, sheep, and in one case chickens 'high-viz'. Another thread on here recently had a story about a section of chevron signage missing, and that being the reason for drivers crashing on that corner. 

We don't seem to think that those (like myself) who choose to pilot over a ton of metal around the roads should take responsiblity to drive with due care and attention, and rather it seems to be everyone else's responsibility to cover for their lack of care.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Sep 2015)

mickle said:


> 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.



I was about to make the very same point.

If people drove within the limits of available visibility, whether by daylight or by headlights alone, there would be no need for cyclists to be lit at the rear. It's because people drive beyond these limits that other road users have had responsibility shifted onto them.

GC


----------



## earlestownflya (23 Sep 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I was about to make the very same point.
> 
> If people drove within the limits of available visibility, whether by daylight or by headlights alone, there would be no need for cyclists to be lit at the rear. It's because people drive beyond these limits that other road users have had responsibility shifted onto them.
> 
> GC


trouble is ...people don't drive within the available visibility...on a pitch black road you assume it to be clear if you don't see any lights..an unlit cyclist is no different to somebody stepping off the kirb right in front of your vehicle. could you avoid them without taking evasive?


----------



## earlestownflya (23 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> In relation to injuring other people you have a point. But what about those cases where a driver seriously injuries or kills a cyclist who he hits as they dont have lights and he doesnt see them. The driver may not be physically injured but I know how I would feel if I killed someone on a bike.
> 
> I got very close to hitting cyclists in the dark last year ( twice). Pitch black and they had no reflective gear and no lights. I dont even know how they could see to ride. They literally came out of nowhere. So these accidents can and do happen and it is not the drivers fault.
> 
> So the police do not have their priorities wrong. They are just enforcing the laws of the land as they should. In my view, as a cyclist. The lights on bike law is a law they should apply at this time of year with vigor, every year, until cyclist take it for granted that if they dont have lights, they will be fined.


you're right on steve


----------



## jonny jeez (23 Sep 2015)

mickle said:


> Does anyone have any figures on how much more danger an unlit cyclist poses a. To themselves. b. To other road users?


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 yet to spend 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


----------



## earlestownflya (23 Sep 2015)

Dan B said:


> Replace "unlit cyclist" with "unlit deer". Are you sinking? Que pische?


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


----------



## raleighnut (23 Sep 2015)

Dan B said:


> Not sure if I have the wrong end of the stick here, but if you actually believe that's the law, I bet you £20 you're wrong.


Depends on the age of the bike.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Sep 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> people don't drive within the available visibility...



Why not? Don't you think they should?



earlestownflya said:


> on a pitch black road you assume it to be clear if you don't see any lights



Why would you do that?

GC


----------



## mcshroom (23 Sep 2015)

jonny jeez said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## earlestownflya (23 Sep 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Why not? Don't you think they should?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


how far is you're visibility in the dark?


----------



## Milkfloat (23 Sep 2015)

It is illegal to cycle in the dark without lights - it is illegal for a driver to crash into someone no matter if they have lights or not. Killing people with or without lights is bad. If the police can prevent someone being killed that is good. It is easier to tell someone off for not using lights than it is to catch someone who may be driving beyond their skill level for the conditions. The police should try and do both.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Sep 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> how far is you're visibility in the dark?



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


----------



## steveindenmark (23 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> [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 (23 Sep 2015)

mcshroom said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (23 Sep 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> 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 (23 Sep 2015)

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 (23 Sep 2015)

mickle said:


> 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 (23 Sep 2015)

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 (23 Sep 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> 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 (23 Sep 2015)

User said:


> 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 (23 Sep 2015)

User said:


> 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 (23 Sep 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> 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 (23 Sep 2015)

User said:


> 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 (23 Sep 2015)

User said:


> 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 (23 Sep 2015)

User said:


> 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 (23 Sep 2015)

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 (23 Sep 2015)

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.


----------



## winjim (23 Sep 2015)

Dogtrousers said:


> 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 (23 Sep 2015)

jonny jeez said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (23 Sep 2015)

mickle said:


> 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 (23 Sep 2015)

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


----------



## MontyVeda (23 Sep 2015)

mickle said:


> ..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 (23 Sep 2015)

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 (23 Sep 2015)

User said:


> 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 (23 Sep 2015)

mcshroom said:


> 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 (23 Sep 2015)

mcshroom said:


> 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 (23 Sep 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> 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 (23 Sep 2015)

summerdays said:


> 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 (23 Sep 2015)

Vikeonabike said:


> 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 (23 Sep 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> 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 (23 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> 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 (23 Sep 2015)

Dan B said:


> 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?


----------



## Dan B (23 Sep 2015)

MontyVeda said:


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


I'm fairly confident that the skills required in seeing and avoiding an unlit car are transferrable between parked cars and moving cars, unless the drivers of the moving cars are acting entirely unpredictably. Which, were that the case, would be the actual problem whether they were lit up or not


----------



## MontyVeda (23 Sep 2015)

Dan B said:


> I'm fairly confident that the skills required in seeing and avoiding an unlit car are transferrable between parked cars and moving cars, unless the drivers of the moving cars are acting entirely unpredictably. Which, were that the case, would be the actual problem whether they were lit up or not


quick question... Do you think cars (being driven on public roads) should turn their lights on after dark?


----------



## Dan B (23 Sep 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> quick question... Do you think cars (being driven on public roads) should turn their lights on after dark?


Slightly slower answer: it's nice when they do, but I can't get too hung up about it. I do tend to assume that drivers who've forgotten to flick the switch are probably dozy pillocks around whom I should ride more defensively, because it's not as though they have to worry about being unexpectedly caught out after dark, or having a rear lamp sproing pop off over a bump, or forgetting to charge the batteries. But in the grand scheme of things I'd much rather the cops focussed their attention more on policing actively bad driving (i.e. the people who are driving into other road users) than on its victims (the people being driven into)


----------



## MontyVeda (23 Sep 2015)

Dan B said:


> Slightly slower answer: it's nice when they do, but I can't get too hung up about it. I do tend to assume that drivers who've forgotten to flick the switch are probably dozy pillocks around whom I should ride more defensively, because it's not as though they have to worry about being unexpectedly caught out after dark, or having a rear lamp sproing pop off over a bump, or forgetting to charge the batteries. But in the grand scheme of things I'd much rather the cops focussed their attention more on policing actively bad driving (i.e. the people who are driving into other road users) than on its victims (the people being driven into)


that'll be a yes then.


----------



## davidallenxyz (23 Sep 2015)

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that cyclists will go to to justify breaking the law - and endangering themselves in the process - even to the extent of condoning the non-use of lights by cars!

Blaming the car for driving without consideration from your hospital bed or your grave is a pretty stupid way of making your point. I'm "lit up like Blackpool" and ride on the assumption that every other road user is an idiot who hasn't seen me. I drive my car in the same way. If a motorist does hit me they, will have no excuse whatsoever.

Cyclists are road users and the law is clear. Aside from that, lights are safe. Just switch them on and be done with it.

On that note, I'm concerned by the number of early morning cycle commuters in Bristol who are not bothering with their lights - sensible, hi-viz wearing, helmeted commuters with lighting already attached to their bike. The cars have their lights on because the sun is low and the light is dim. That's a pretty clear sign that you need to do the same.


----------



## MontyVeda (23 Sep 2015)

User said:


> You were going so well up to then


I wonder if they record the number of 'hit' cyclists wearing hi-viz in the stats?


----------



## MontyVeda (23 Sep 2015)

User said:


> I have a friend who was hit by a car. He told me that* the police definitely assured 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.


Worrying if accurate since only the lights are mandatory after sundown.


----------



## davidallenxyz (23 Sep 2015)

User said:


> You were going so well up to then



So what you are saying is that having lights on the bike alone is good enough reason to not use them? I'm confused.

At the end of the day, if people don't want to employ "secondary safety" when they ride, then go for it. I'd rather not be hit, so I go out of my way to minimise the chances of that happening.

Having ridden past an RTA in Bristol today where a cyclist was on the floor and being attended to by an ambulance crew, I was surprised to see that the cyclist I was following responded by RLJing the next junction. If seeing an accident is not going to change other cyclist's attitudes, I'm damn sure I won't succeed in doing so.

So ride on in darkness my friends, and be brave enough to accept the consequences...


----------



## simongt (23 Sep 2015)

With a basic set of LED lamps being available from many budget outlets for as little as £1, there is NO EXCUSE at all for no lights. But it still never fails to amaze me at the number of numpties who still ride 'Ninja'. Even odder are folk like the bloke on the way to work this early a.m., with a quite tasty flashing front lamp, but NO BACK LAMP - !


----------



## davidallenxyz (23 Sep 2015)

User said:


> As I have already said in this thread, no one is advocating riding without lights.



Then why the sarcastic comment about how well my post was going until I mentioned the lights? Please enlighten me if I have missed a key point. 

If the point is that "it wasn't dark", the real point is "it was hard to see". I couldn't see a sodding thing as I rode up the hill outside my house as it happens to be perfectly angled to catch the rising sun. I was extremely pleased that I had lights on my bike.


----------



## hatler (23 Sep 2015)

Adrian's original comment was about your reference to helmets and hi-viz, not the lights.


----------



## raleighnut (23 Sep 2015)

davidallenxyz said:


> Then why the sarcastic comment about how well my post was going until I mentioned the lights? Please enlighten me if I have missed a key point.
> 
> If the point is that "it wasn't dark", the real point is "it was hard to see". I couldn't see a sodding thing as I rode up the hill outside my house as it happens to be perfectly angled to catch the rising sun. I was extremely pleased that I had lights on my bike.


I get the feeling it was the Hi-viz and helmets being referred to. 

Edit - slow posting due to scoffing my dinner at the time of trying to type.


----------



## davidallenxyz (23 Sep 2015)

User said:


> From the bit of you post i quoted, you have skipped past the words "sensible hi-viz wearing, helmeted". That was the point.



Still don't get it. Oh well.


----------



## uclown2002 (23 Sep 2015)

davidallenxyz said:


> Still don't get it. Oh well.


Because the benefits attributed to high-viz and helmets are questionable.


----------



## davidallenxyz (23 Sep 2015)

uclown2002 said:


> Because the benefits attributed to high-viz and helmets are questionable.



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!!!!!


----------



## davidallenxyz (23 Sep 2015)

User said:


> So you say, but you still feel the need to get this ignorant dig in



Absolutely. I am completely ignorant of the benefits of being seen by motorists and protecting my noggin. Perhaps one day I will make the step to enlightenment and discard the frivolous accessories. In the mean time, I'll stick to the helmet and hi-viz. After all, it's what I ask my kids to wear (it embarrasses me to reveal how narrow-minded I am about it - but 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.).

Anyway - back to the lights. I'm in favour of them. And in favour of any fines if the police choose to apply the law. 'Nuff said.


----------



## mcshroom (23 Sep 2015)

davidallenxyz said:


> Absolutely. I am completely ignorant of the benefits of being seen by motorists and protecting my noggin. Perhaps one day I will make the step to enlightenment and discard the frivolous accessories. In the mean time, I'll stick to the helmet and hi-viz. After all, it's what I ask my kids to wear (it embarrasses me to reveal how narrow-minded I am about it - but 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.).
> 
> Anyway - back to the lights. I'm in favour of them. And in favour of any fines if the police choose to apply the law. 'Nuff said.


... and do your lights meet the legal standard?


----------



## davidallenxyz (23 Sep 2015)

mcshroom said:


> ... and do your lights meet the legal standard?



Yes. And my reflectors too for that matter.


----------



## Dan B (23 Sep 2015)

davidallenxyz said:


> Blaming the car for driving without consideration from your hospital bed or your grave is a pretty stupid way of making your point. I'm "lit up like Blackpool" and ride on the assumption that every other road user is an idiot who hasn't seen me.


I don't blame the car for anything, it's the twat behind the car's steering wheel who's usually at fault, and having the police pull over cyclists is doing approximately the square root of sod all towards fixing _that_ problem. What you as a cyclist do or don't do to mitigate other people's shoot driving is not actually the issue here, the issue is what the people who are tasked with making the roads safer are doing.


----------



## mcshroom (23 Sep 2015)

davidallenxyz said:


> Yes. And my reflectors too for that matter.


So what markings do they carry then?


----------



## davidallenxyz (23 Sep 2015)

mcshroom said:


> So what markings do they carry then?



Would you like me to photograph them for you?

Since I ride 80s/90s Raleigh's to work (when British Standards meant something) I'm sorry to say that you are well off target in your attempt at a cheap shot.


----------



## mcshroom (23 Sep 2015)

davidallenxyz said:


> Would you like me to photograph them for you?
> 
> Since I ride 80s/90s Raleigh's to work (when British Standards meant something) I'm sorry to say that you are well off target in your attempt at a cheap shot.


Might be an idea.


----------



## Dan B (23 Sep 2015)

davidallenxyz said:


> Would you like me to photograph them for you?
> 
> Since I ride 80s/90s Raleigh's to work (when British Standards meant something) I'm sorry to say that you are well off target in your attempt at a cheap shot.


----------



## davidallenxyz (23 Sep 2015)

Congrats - you win the internet!

I have got better things to do with my life than photo the kitemarks on 80s Cateye reflectors. I don't care if you believe me or not. Call the Police if you like - they should find me going under the arches on Gloucester Road at around 7.30am tomorrow if proof is needed.


----------



## davidallenxyz (23 Sep 2015)

Dan B said:


>



Not those - but I remember them well.


----------



## Dan B (23 Sep 2015)

These are the ones I was actually looking for. Memorable mostly for pivoting nicely round the seat stay to which they were clamped, smacking in to the spokes and spewing their C cells (D cells?) right across the road.


----------



## Scoosh (23 Sep 2015)

Mod Note:
Okay, stop with the silly stuff and the Thread can continue, if you so wish.

No more Helmet stuff - you know where that should go - and no deliberately misunderstanding what is being said or clearly implied.

Thank you.


----------



## Dan B (23 Sep 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> Worrying if accurate since only the lights are mandatory after sundown.


I thought the line being proposed here was "never mind what the law says, being right is a poor substitute for being alive". I think you guys proposing that it's all the cyclist's fault when they get hit by someone driving a car should get together and agree your story, it's coming over a bit confused right now


----------



## mcshroom (23 Sep 2015)

Not to mention the confusion of arguments about Police priorities and where the police road safety budget should be prioritised, and some posters' personal opinions on using lights (and assumptions about others non-usage of them)


----------



## MontyVeda (23 Sep 2015)

Dan B said:


> I thought the line being proposed here was "never mind what the law says, being right is a poor substitute for being alive". I think you guys proposing that it's all the cyclist's fault when they get hit by someone driving a car should get together and agree your story, it's coming over a bit confused right now


I advocate the use of lights. I also think that the police spending a few hours each evening issuing fines/warnings/producers for a couple of nights to cyclists not using lights after dark is fine too. I also think that the onus is on drivers to drive with due care and attentions at all times. I don't think we should have to wear day-glow jackets/vests, but i do have day-glo/reflective trouser clips.. and my pedals are illegal due having no reflectors, but i do have the reflecty trouser thingies.


----------



## classic33 (24 Sep 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> 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 (24 Sep 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> 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 (24 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> 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 (24 Sep 2015)

davidallenxyz said:


> 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 (24 Sep 2015)

e-rider said:


> 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?



Mike! said:


> 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'



ianrauk said:


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


+1


----------



## benb (24 Sep 2015)

davidallenxyz said:


> 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 (24 Sep 2015)

benb said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2015)

davidallenxyz said:


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



It is what you implied.


davidallenxyz said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2015)

mickle said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2015)

benb said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2015)

earlestownflya said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2015)

User said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> 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.


----------



## earlestownflya (25 Sep 2015)

benb said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2015)

mcshroom said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2015)

Dan B said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## CopperCyclist (25 Sep 2015)

User said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2015)

​


Dan B said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2015)

winjim said:


> ​
> 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 (25 Sep 2015)

Mike! said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2015)

Dan B said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2015)

User said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2015)

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 (25 Sep 2015)

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


----------



## Dan B (25 Sep 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2015)

> 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 (25 Sep 2015)

benb said:


> 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 said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2015)

bianchi1 said:


> 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?


----------



## MontyVeda (25 Sep 2015)

bianchi1 said:


> 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.


That's the problem with metaphors... and metaphors of metaphors.


----------



## benb (25 Sep 2015)

bianchi1 said:


> 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.



All analogies are imperfect, but they do illustrate the victim-blaming that goes on.

Consider this one: someone is walking along a street holding a knife. They're not paying attention and accidentally stab someone. The police blame the victim for not wearing a stab vest. Better?


----------



## bianchi1 (25 Sep 2015)

benb said:


> All analogies are imperfect, but they do illustrate the victim-blaming that goes on.
> 
> Consider this one: someone is walking along a street holding a knife. They're not paying attention and accidentally stab someone. The police blame the victim for not wearing a stab vest. Better?



Wow....that is one amazing situation! 

If I lived in an area were folk walk around with knives, carelessly stabbing people, I might get one of those stab vests....or move.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (25 Sep 2015)

benb said:


> All analogies are imperfect, but they do illustrate the victim-blaming that goes on.



I favour the scenario of the window cleaner walking around a crowded city centre carrying a ladder on his shoulder. You can guess the rest.


GC


----------



## Profpointy (25 Sep 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I favour the scenario of the window cleaner walking around a crowded city centre carrying a ladder on his shoulder. You can guess the rest.
> 
> 
> GC



i'm sure I saw that in a safety film once. Scruffy looking chap with a Hitler.'tache and a Bowler hat


----------



## glenn forger (25 Sep 2015)

bianchi1 said:


> Wow....that is one amazing situation!
> 
> If I lived in an area were folk walk around with knives, carelessly stabbing people, I might get one of those stab vests....or move.



How many people have been injured or killed by motor vehicles within ten miles of your home? A speeding driver killed a rider at the end of my road and got a £500 fine. Moving house is just a nonsensical suggestion, you combat crime by tackling it, not running away.


----------



## 2WheelsBest (25 Sep 2015)

glenn forger said:


> How many people have been injured or killed by motor vehicles within ten miles of your home? A speeding driver killed a rider at the end of my road and got a £500 fine. Moving house is just a nonsensical suggestion, you combat crime by tackling it, not running away.


At what point does "accidental" drift over into pre-meditated and then deliberate? £500 for a life? Blinkin' flip - what's the cost of a hit-man these days?


----------



## beatlejuice (26 Sep 2015)

Norm said:


> That was irony, wasn't it?


No I didn't get that maybe I am a bit dim.


----------



## Mike! (27 Sep 2015)

Shut Up Legs said:


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


Did I say that? no - read it again


----------



## classic33 (28 Sep 2015)

Mike! said:


> Did I say that? no - read it again


You said


Mike! said:


> 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 response, reasonable, 


Shut Up Legs said:


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


is that a view of a minority, can & does reflect on everyone who uses that mode of transport. From foot to HGV.
All have come in for some stick on here. A minority impacting how the majority are seen & treated by others.


----------



## Dan B (28 Sep 2015)

Yeah, I found out the other day that some of my friends are car drivers so I asked them why they speed everywhere and park illegally


----------



## benb (28 Sep 2015)

Dan B said:


> Yeah, I found out the other day that some of my friends are car drivers so I asked them why they speed everywhere and park illegally



Have they apologised for killing Diana yet?


----------



## markharry66 (29 Sep 2015)

Great news when will they start fining car drivers that dont have their lights on ohh yeah thats not going to happen.


----------



## markharry66 (29 Sep 2015)

More recent experience in semi dark mornings recently of course I am aware cyclist dont always have lights just noticed the amount of cars on the road recently with out lights on which for me is worrying.


----------



## Dan B (29 Sep 2015)

[QUOTE 3928410, member: 45"]Don't be daft. I can't imagine a situation where a police car comes across a driver at night with no lights on[/QUOTE]
... and isn't already on another call. Traffic policing? What decade are you living in, Granddad?


----------



## Sim2003 (29 Sep 2015)

Most of those unlit riders are your everyday people that just pop on bike to get to work, mates house, pub, girlfriends, boyfriends, bit of late shopping, see the dealer whatever. Everyone on here already loves cycling as a hobby/life choice and doesn't need advice etc as we already come looking for it.

Maybe once the country as a whole decides cycling is a effective mode of transport then others will view it and treat it seriously too.

As for the fine part. Maybe it should be more of a fine/heres some lights be on your way sort of thing


----------



## Dan B (29 Sep 2015)

[QUOTE 3928539, member: 45"]So you know of an example then?[/QUOTE]
You're asking me for an example of not having seen something? Sure, I didn't see it this morning.

My point was that all (at least, the vast majority) of police vehicles I see are on their way to somewhere, often with blue lights on, and are - probably quite reasonably - not going to be late to their appointment with a knife fight just so they can stop some hapless driver to tell him to put his lights on. I'm quite sure that if they were just idly driving around then they'd have a word, but when do they have time for that?


----------



## Dan B (29 Sep 2015)

[QUOTE 3928809, member: 45"]I don't think that's an accurate comment.[/quote]
It describes my experience accurately.
[QUOTE 3928809, member: 45"]
I've flagged down police cars. I've been in cars pulled over by the police. I've also seen police on duty to catch bus lane drivers pull in drivers for using a mobile. I've stood with a friend on duty to stop people parking on zigzags outside a school pull over drivers for speeding and using their phone. There are plenty of clips on youtube of passing police getting involved in incidents.[/quote]
from which we can conclude only that your experience and my experience are not the same. When you say "I can't imagine a situation where a police car comes across a driver at night with no lights on and doesn't pull him over" all I'm saying is that I quite easily can imagine that situation.

[QUOTE 3928809, member: 45"]Besides, your argument is null because if it's so then it also applies to cyclists.[/quote]
I don't have an argument. I'm just making an observation counter to your own: the police are very busy and I can quite easily imagine circumstances in which they would not bother to pull a driver with no lights, just as I regularly see them not pulling drivers who are on the phone or road users of all kinds who drive through red lights. No biggie.


----------

