cyclists in Oxford fined for riding without lights...

Jimfrandisco

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfo ... 329619.stm

Dudu

Good

Clever Pun

Dudu wrote:

Good

+1

Here's a thought..
Maybe it's safer to ride without lights when near HGV's? probably some stats on weedlemires site

MonkeyMonster

Clever Pun wrote:

Dudu wrote:

Good

+1

Here's a thought..
Maybe it's safer to ride without lights when near HGV's? probably some stats on weedlemires site

Is that before or after you rlj?

+1 on the good. Saw 3 numpties riding dark bits of london with no lights and little reflective gear last night on way home.

kurako

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Dudu wrote:

Good

+1

Here's a thought..
Maybe it's safer to ride without lights when near HGV's? probably some stats on weedlemires site

Is that before or after you rlj?

+1 on the good. Saw 3 numpties riding dark bits of london with no lights and little reflective gear last night on way home.

After of course. It's not like I've ever seen a jumper passed by traffic or anything.

cee

Interesting that they don't have to pay it if they can show a receipt for lights within the next week.

sounds like they are at least trying to do the education bit....of course....buying lights does not necessarily mean that they will be used!

will3

In cambridge they were fining people and then giving them a set of lights.
Practical.

Wallace1492

Wonder if they will fine drivers who don't have lights on too. Have been quite a few I have seen in last few weeks.

will3

Wallace1492 wrote:

Wonder if they will fine drivers who don't have lights on too. Have been quite a few I have seen in last few weeks.

you must be mistaken, drivers are saints and never break the law

Sailorchick

Not too bad around here for cyclist without lights - although the old boy I passed last night needs new batteries (thought he had no lights on till I overtook and noticed the most pathetic red light)

I work at Soton Uni and they have put notices up this year around the student union area informing students that it is illegal to cycle without lights in the dark, or on the pavement at any time. Whether the students take note is another thing entirely though.

georgee

Wallace1492 wrote:

Wonder if they will fine drivers who don't have lights on too. Have been quite a few I have seen in last few weeks.

I've seen one car, I've seen 100's of cyclists without lights, much a similar argument for people who RLJ who say they see plenty of motorists do it. in reality a daft argument.

secretsam

Dudu wrote:

Good

+1

They give the rest of us a bad name. Saw one last night, virtually invisible. Idiots, the lot of them - lights cost about £10 a set.

wantaway

"Saw 3 numpties riding dark bits of london with no lights and little reflective gear last night on way home"

you saw them? you must have very good eyesight then...


...or nightvision goggles

kurako

wantaway wrote:

...or nightvision goggles

Hmmm, now there's a new one for the christmas list..

The Rookie

SecretSam wrote:

Dudu wrote:

Good

+1

They give the rest of us a bad name. Saw one last night, virtually invisible. Idiots, the lot of them - lights cost about £10 a set.

+2 and my 'emergency' set cost £3.99, RAC branded triple LED's with inbuilt reflector for front and rear, no argumnet, you can afford the bike, you can afford the lights! They aren't great for seeing, but great to be seen!

Had to slow the other night and follow and old boy for his protection as he'd forgotten his lights due to the clocks going forward and catching him out!

Simon

andy83

I went on a long ride today to brothers, i left at 3pm thinking plenty of time to get back before it gets dark, got bout 30 minutes from home and started to get little gloomy so i panicked and luckily friend is off work this week so went to his to borrow his lights

cant understand people who dont use lights, if said mate werent in i was prepared to stop riding and walk home the rest of the way if it got dark

so glad i bought him some knog lights for his 40th, no horrible brackets need putting on my bike

Notifitsraining

If I'm in my car and I see a cyclist with no lights it really pis*es me off. There is no need for it - PLAN ahead! Most importantly, if it irritates me just think what the ''anti-cycle-get-those-bikes-off our roads'' brigade make of it! Cyclists who are dim enough (no pun) to cycle with no lights deserve a good talking to by the 'Old Bill' at the very least.

'My batteries ran out'; 'my lights were stolen'; 'I didn't think I'd be out this late'; 'I thought it would be safer to use the path' etc etc - so what?! Don't do it! Otherwise in a couple of years suddenly there will be cycle paths everywhere - but they won't be Dutch stylee, with respect afforded by other traffic, they'll be bumpy, flint covered puncture runs like many of those where I live - but piss everyone else off on the road enough and we'll find a stealth law introduced saying we can't cycle on the road any more!

Off to lie down I feel a stress headache coming on again...

redvee

Passed a cyclist the other night and said 'Where are your light?'. Didn't hear a reply.

will3

Notifitsraining wrote:

If I'm in my car and I see a cyclist with no lights
...

then there wasn't a problem was there? You saw them.
[\devils advocate]

(and no I don't ride without lights, but I don't tut at others either, him without sin cast the first stone at the bgger without lights (if you can see him) and all that)

prj45

Thing is, I wear lights for one reason.

There are f8cking idiot people out there in cars and trucks, on motorbikes and pushbikes who are driving/riding way too quickly, the sooner they get to see me the better.

A GOOD driver/rider should be able to manage perfectly if every cyclist wore black all over had a black bike and no lights, this is why cars have headlights, to see by, and you're not supposed to drive/ride at a speed that means you don't get to stop int he distance you can see to be clear.

Plenty of drivers/riders out there who are rubbish though, so that's why it's a good idea to have lights.

Chicane-UK

I work for a university - driving home now at night, it's astonishing to see how many supposedly intelligent students are wobbling along on seriously busy roads in dark clothes, with no freaking lights! It's incredible! The next one I see, I'm going to pull alongside and give them a gobfull - I don't understand how you can have so little regard for your own life, and other people frankly!

Porgy

In all the years I've been driving can't say there's been one incident of me nearly hitting a cyclist becasue s/he didn;t have lights. I've always found it fairly easy to see cyclists riding around the city at night.

Similarly - all the motorists I hear complaining about cyclists without lights - I point out that they saw them - so what's the problem?

anyway - I'll just point out that I do carry lights as I'm not willing to put up with the abuse from self righteous motorists if I don't, not that I think it's necessary.

a woman a couple of years ago drove into my while i was in a cycle lane - at night - with bright lights on the bike - she shouted at me about not having lights until i poitned to them - then she complained that i didn't have enough lights - well one on the back and one on the front are generally considered sufficient - and of course it was nothing to do with her not looking where she was going!

and when i got car doored in mile end and narrowly avoided a kicking to go with it - the bloke was ranting and raving about me not having lights - by then broken and lying in the middle of the road - so in the end you can have lights but you still can't make the bast@rds look!!! :evil:

ride_whenever

The thing is, it's a money making exercise. They do it every year, and it always very successful for them. Probably pays for the Halloween party at the station.

Chicane, do you really think giving a student a gobful will achieve anything, no, you're just spouting off. If you tried you'd end up knocking them off because they cannot cycle in a straight line.

Wrath Rob

prj45 wrote:

A GOOD driver/rider should be able to manage perfectly if every cyclist wore black all over had a black bike and no lights, this is why cars have headlights, to see by, and you're not supposed to drive/ride at a speed that means you don't get to stop int he distance you can see to be clear.

Sorry, but that is an absolute pile of shite. So, you're wearing your ninja outfit on your ninja bike, riding down your ninja dark road and suddenly a motoris pulls out from a side junction into your path because they didn't see you. Who's fault was that? Yours for being an idiot and riding without lights or the motoris for not having thermal imaging glasses on and being able to spot you?

The law states you must have lights, end of. Common sense says get some frikkin lights to make sure you're seen. Some poeple find it hard enough to see us in broad daylight even if we wear dayglo outfits (shudders). Why would you want to make it HARDER to be seen?

Chicane-UK

The law states you must have lights, end of. Common sense says get some frikkin lights to make sure you're seen. Some poeple find it hard enough to see us in broad daylight even if we wear dayglo outfits (shudders). Why would you want to make it HARDER to be seen?

Right on the money IMHO.

Aside from the legal requirements for cyclists to have lights (which makes this moot anyway), as Wrath Rob says, why the hell would you want the responsibility for making yourself be seen to rest purely on the motorist? People get knocked off bikes in broad daylight, on brightly coloured cycles - let alone at night time, and without any kind of lighting.

Frankly as a motorist, my level of remorse would be reduced quite considerably if I simply did not see someone because they were cycling in the dark without lighting and hit them. I think my feelings would turn to anger that their sheer laziness / stupidity / selfishness / carelessness (all apply frankly) for not bothering to buy a set of lights at £20 could potentially cost me a spell in prison, and leave the burden of having seriously injured or killed someone with me for the rest of my life.

I'm a good motorist - never had any points, any fines, any accidents - and have driven across Europe, have done track racing, etc.. I'm confident behind the wheel. But if someone is cycling on the road, in the dark, on a dark bike or in dark clothes, they ARE difficult to see - even with decent headlights. All it takes is a small section of road where street lighting is less than optimal and they can be quite well hidden until it's too late.

It's all moot though - the law says cyclists need lights. But I felt the need to make the point.

Wallace1492

My prime objective when I get on my bike for the commute is to get there alive. If that means wearing garish high viz clothing, great, lots of lights, fine, reflectors, high viz rucksack cover, super.

I do not understand why anyone would put themselves at risk by not being seen.

As far as I am concerned, a helmet is an optional safety extra, lights and being seen are necessities.

FeynmanC

Wallace1492 wrote:

As far as I am concerned, a helmet is an optional safety extra, lights and being seen are necessities.

Wear a helmet and have an extra place to hang another light?

I've also stuck a couple of those Aldi gayglo flashing LED ankle straps together to make a helmet band around the rim (sounding dodgy already :? ). Even the non-cyclists that I work with think it's a good idea and noone has taken the pi$$.

I always get Max Wall comments though when i'm walking to the changing room in my bibtights with safety shoes and work jacket on. To be fair, they are justified

nyanza

The other night I moved into primary to overtake another cyclist with no lights on and who was dressed all in black. I was immediately pulled over by an unmarked police car sitting behind me, as my overtake was apparently "erratic and dangerous cycling". The problem was that they thought I was swerving, rather than overtaking, because they had simply not seen the other bike! Needless to say, the man in black scarpered quick when he saw the blue lights come on.

Wallace1492

FeynmanC wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

As far as I am concerned, a helmet is an optional safety extra, lights and being seen are necessities.

Wear a helmet and have an extra place to hang another light?

I've also stuck a couple of those Aldi gayglo flashing LED ankle straps together to make a helmet band around the rim (sounding dodgy already :? ). Even the non-cyclists that I work with think it's a good idea and noone has taken the pi$$.

I always get Max Wall comments though when i'm walking to the changing room in my bibtights with safety shoes and work jacket on. To be fair, they are justified

I do have a light on my helmet..... but have to admit helmet is not always on my head....
I have flashing ankle straps.... pretty good.

mapleflot

nyanza wrote:

The other night I moved into primary to overtake another cyclist with no lights on and who was dressed all in black. I was immediately pulled over by an unmarked police car sitting behind me, as my overtake was apparently "erratic and dangerous cycling". The problem was that they thought I was swerving, rather than overtaking, because they had simply not seen the other bike! Needless to say, the man in black scarpered quick when he saw the blue lights come on.

Did you give any indication prior to overtaking? I always do now just to leave no doubt even if there is only a possibility of perhaps another bike silently on my tail, let alone a (hybrid?) car..
But sounds like the cops were either having a very slow day or driving too close to you. And if they were that close, to be `affected' by your `erratic swerve', how could they miss another cyclist, lit or unlit?