- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Cree XML lightMore than 250 cyclists fined in Oxford police blitz on riding without lights
Oxford’s latest annual blitz on people riding bikes without lights has resulted in nearly 100 more riders being fined than was the case 12 months ago. In all, 267 cyclists given £50 fixed penalty notices in the space of three hours on Monday evening – a rate of one every 40 seconds or so.
The operation took place on the High Street and on Abingdon Road, reports The Oxford Times, and riders can avoid having to pay the fine if they produce a receipt to police within seven days showing that they have purchased a set of lights for their bike after being fined.
That scheme has operated in previous years, including 12 months ago when 171 cyclists were given fines in what was also a three-hour operation.
This week’s clampdown happened the day after the clocks went back, meaning that dusk now falls an hour earlier than it did under British Summer Time.
It also comes shortly after the start of the new academic year and the annual influx of new students from the UK and abroad to the city’s two universities, many of whom may not have ridden a bike since childhood, if at all.
Rule 60 of the Highway Code says:
At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.
PC Mark Piling of Thames Valley Police’s roads policing department said: “This campaign is aimed at educating cyclists about how important it is that they are fully visible to all other road users.
“Just because a cyclist can see where they are going on a well-lit street does not necessarily mean that they are fully visible to motorists approaching with their headlights on.
“We stopped a significant number of cyclists so I would encourage others to get lights for their safety and to avoid any fines.
“We will be carrying out further checks during the coming months,” he added.
Similar operations take place in a number of towns and cities across the UK at this time of year, and Cambridgeshire Police have warned that riders without lights will face fines.
PCSO Shiralee George, quoted by Cambridge News, said: "For cyclists and parents that have children who cycle to and from school.
"As the nights are drawing in please make yourself visible by way of turning on your bike lights and maybe a high visibility waist coat. The more visible you are the safer you are.
She added: "Can I also remind you that failing to have lights turn on or even not having any at all while in the hours of darkness could result in you being issued with a £30 fixed penalty notice. Our main concern is the safety of all cyclists.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Simon E 1 hour 33 min ago
My 1984 Record Sprint (501 frame, 6 speed, made in Nottingham) cost £180 from the LBS, which would now be £575. I expected it to be more than that...
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 48 min ago
I agree, he had locked up going in and was sliding out along the barriers anyway. There was a slight contact with the spectator but he wasn't ...
- Mr Blackbird 1 hour 48 min ago
Yesterday evening I received a phone call from a woman, who asked me whether I thought more leverage on my pedals would be helpful. She asked me to...
- David9694 3 hours 18 min ago
Imagine writing such a pathetic, victim-ey article in a national newspaper.
- Oldfatgit 8 hours 54 min ago
I got something that'll beat you all .....
- chrisonabike 9 hours 37 min ago
Aggrieved motorists?...
- wtjs 11 hours 35 min ago
The fact that such self driving cars don't BMW/Audi drivers do exist is proof - as if it were needed - that Gods don't exist
- Johnny Rags 12 hours 29 min ago
Wouldn't generalisations about generations be, I don't know, "generationalisations"?
- ErnieC 13 hours 33 min ago
No chance of that ever being a human being.
- Rendel Harris 1 day 9 hours ago
No idea if Cancellara was using a motor or not, I hope not as I greatly enjoyed him as a rider, but the tech was certainly available, I can...
Add new comment
86 comments
Seems to me that the " Driving Test " is a WASTE of time ! Why bother with a test , since WE ALL know that very quickly a " Newbie " will decide to run with the herd ! Better to take the prospective driver to the local Jail , where they can observe the inmates and conditions there for a few hours , tell them that this is what they can expect for " Breaking the rules laid down in the Highway Code "!
Oh WAIT ! The courts don't even send you to Jail for KILLING Cyclists , let alone running red lights ! Even when you " Hit & Run " , they don't try to catch you :
http://road.cc/content/news/134456-almost-900-cyclists-were-victims-hit-...
Guess , the only reason for the " Driving Test " , is to provide work for some people better employed elsewhere ?
As for Compo for Victims , even the Lawyers , supposedly working for you , are busy trying to curry favour with those like "TFL " who the Police treat as a " No Go Area " when it comes to levying Penalties ! Why Fine / Jail a Bus driver of TFL , when they can go out and create more Mayhem ?
A Day Off for sending 2 Charity Cycle Riders to Hospital , guess that sends a message to other Bus/Truck drivers ?
So far NOBODY bothered to reply to my request in respect of this " Day Off lark " , instead of Penalties & Points , so even HERE , readers are HAPPY to accept the status Quo ?
Blather on , it is only entertainment , reading of the GRIEF forced on others !
2 hour driving test, every 5 years.
Simple.
it would seem to me there needs to be a shift in the way prosecutions are carried out, how is it acceptable if you have a fight in a pub whilst drunk and punch someone they fall hit their head and die your done for manslaughter, but you dont look properly or are arsing about on a phone or drive too fast etc and hit and kill someone your done for being reckless?
it is something available under Scots law but a similar charge would be manslaughter in England and Wales, I do wonder why motorists who kill never seem to be charged with mansalughter very often.
To be blunt, society accepts collateral loses on the roads. What are a few deaths? Imagine an employer that allowed staff to die day in day out, and did precious little to enforce the rules, to improve safety?
But drive a car, kill someone, shit happens....
Time for a change in the law and definition of what constitutes and accident when in charge of a motor vehicle then, negligence simply doesnt cut it when you kill someone because you were not paying attention or didnt see them or were blinded by the sun or any of the other ridiculous excuses motorists have used to avoid serious prosecution for killing someone on a bike.
"Culpable homicide is a specific offence in various jurisdictions within the Commonwealth of Nations which involves the illegal killing of a person either with or without an intention to kill depending upon how a particular jurisdiction has defined the offence."
Exactly. Negligence does not = deliberate intent. Thus, an accident. Caused by negligence.
make all motorised vehicles travel at no more than 20 mph unless on a motorway or dual carriageway.
In an urban setting lights do flip all. The only reason to have them is to stop compensation being reduced if you're hit. These exercises are pointless PR fluff to stop motorists moaning.
Early this morning on the A30 dual carriage way approaching camberley, unlit road with cars going past at 70mph and there is a complete tit riding without front or back lights, some people are just asking for it.
I live, ride and drive in Oxford and have resorted to shouting "LIGHTS" at people at times. Oxford is not that well lit in fact, and it is terrifyingly easy to not see a cyclist without lights in the dark. And as a cyclist first and foremost I'm really looking for other cyclists, which is more than can be said for a lot of the other car and bus drivers in town.
Reflectors only help if there is some light to reflect, which is fine when you are approaching from ahead or behind, but of no use when pulling out of a 90 degree side turning as your lights aren't pointing to the left/right, so to be seen we need lights on our bikes.. surely nobody is really disputing that?
Sounds like a wonderful contribution.
If you're wearing SPDs then you're also wearing cycling shoes. And if you're wearing those, then it's probably better to put retro-reflective tape around the heels than it is to put a lo-tech amber reflector around the pedal.
Its all about education, and thats what counts. How anyone can seriously think its ok to cycle around at night without lights clearly deserves to become a statistic of one description or another.
*time
Perhaps the nay sayers should have a read of this.
http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/local/abington-cyclist-died-after...
yet another driver gets away with killing someone because 'it wasn't my fault'. It seems yet more proof that lawyers have given up expecting drivers to obey the Highway Code, because blaming the victim is easier.
So yes, it does seem we have to be as brightly lit as possible to avoid giving the killers an excuse, since the law has given up. Just hope they can restrain the moaning about being dazzled.
Er, tthat is actually an argument AGAINST emphasising cyclists having lights, and on shifting the burden of responsibility back to the driver. otherwise we will get more and more acceptance of SMIDSY.
If we're trying to improve conditions for everyone, of course it is. If I'm just thinking self preservation and avoiding offering excuses for reduced compensation it pushes me more towards brightness. To be honest, without changes in the law I lean towards local optimisation rather than global.
Priorities all mixed up here! Surely you would want to be as visible as possible on the road to be as safe as possible and minimise the risk of being involved in a collision?
We don't know all the facts of the particular case of the 'unlit' cyclist who was tragically killed, but clearly drivers have a responsibility to drive safely - this is not in dispute.
I accept that articles like this which seem to lay the blame on the cyclist are incredibly frustrating, but surely a sense of self-preservation should motivate you to be visible, over and above the righteous indignation you may feel about sharing the road with cars, who present a greater danger to you than you do to them.
I do wish debates would stop being polarized on here about cyclists vs motorists. 'Police crackdown on unlit cyclists' is the story. That's great, it's illegal and irresponsible. They are not victims. The fact that police should also crack down on unsafe drivers is not in dispute.
In a world where drivers have no apparent responsibility, and lawyers can reduce punishment and compensation with the flimsiest of excuses, yes I do want to be 'as visible as possible'. And yes, I agree that cyclists who break the law should be punished (although following the lighting regulations fully is an interesting challenge all of its own).
But there is not the equivalence you seem to seek between a cyclist having inadequate lighting, and a driver killing someone because they failed to ensure the road ahead was actually clear. The failure to punish that does annoy me, and I think does also drive thr current 'lighting arms race' that many drivers complain of.
There is absolutely no equivalence between a cyclist having inadequate lighting and a driver killing someone because they failed to ensure the road ahead was actually clear. I certainly did not suggest that.
Back to the original topic, the police targeting cyclists without lights is, I believe, fair and proportionate, particularly as they have the opportunity to equip themselves with lights within x days and can avoid the fine. I also think they should target drivers with defective lights/ driving with mobiles/ speeding etc and issue the appropriate penalty, which, in addition to a fine, could also be points on licence.
I completely agree with you, that apparent lack of punishment for drivers who kill, particularly the failure to convict using 'death by dangerous driving' (as opposed to careless, which they often choose) is incredibly frustrating.
So you also wear high vis and lights as a pedestrian, walking from a car/bus to a restaurant, say?
Cycling on county roads in lycra is one thing. If I'm using my bike for local transport, which is my main use, I want to wear ordinary clothes, and have the experience of being prepared to ride my bike be as fuss-free and normal as possible.
If I wanted to be as visible as possible I'd probably ride around in fancy-dress with disco balls draped off my bike, wrapped in fairy lights, as well as all the legal requirements.
There are limits. And I am genuinely worried that we are heading down the path of requiring even pedestrians to wear high vis, because apparently we can't hold drivers responsible for not being able to see things in urban areas with enormous headlights.
I absolutely do not accept that, so long as I am legally compliant, there is any responsibility on me to do more, versus a driver to actually look where the fuck they're going. If they can't see me, they can't see pedestrians, animals, parked cars, bollards, walls... and shouldn't be driving.
I have a neighbour that does this, with a special LED armband once it turns to winter. It seems obvious to me that this will turn into an arms race: drivers will get used to seeing only people with lights on the sidewalk. Upon running them down the judge will mention (and then retract from consideration) the pedestrian's absence of safe walking attire. And on it goes.
You are missing the point. Pedestrians, animals, bollards, walls all should not be in the road. Therefore a car driver shouldn't have to constantly be on the look out for them. If a pedestrian (or animal) walks in the road it is them who take the risk as to if it is safe or not.
Bikes are different. They have a right to be in the road, so as a bike rider you should ensure you are fulfilling your legal requirement to be seen. Wearing hi viz is not part of this and never should be.
If you turned across the path of an oncoming car that didn't have its lights on, the other driver is at fault. If their lights are on then you are at fault. The colour of the car doesn't make any difference. Similarly, the colour of the clothes a cyclist is wearing makes no difference (from a blame perspective). Some riders choose to try to protect themselves more by making them self more visible. That's their choice.
Oh, and the parked car is your example, does have a right to be on the road but a car driver is less likely to hit this as it sticks out into the road much more than a bike does so is in their line of vision. It is also stationary making it easier to see anyway. Thus the need for the bike to have lights on.
In summary, if you drive any sort of vehicle on the road without lights on in the dark and get in an accident then it is your own fault.
thats not quite true pedestrians cross the road all the time or if there are no paths at the side of the road have to walk on the carriageway, animals are always wandering across the road, they are not barred from it.
Near me, most of the country lanes have no pavement. So where should people walk if they need to use one of those roads? Or should they just accept that they're taking a risk that a blameless motorist, not looking out for any pedestrians, might hit them and dent his car?
First off, yes if a pedestrian crosses the road without looking and gets hit then yes it's their fault (on the assumption that everyone else is following the rules of the road). Equally, if an animal runs out into the road and gets hit then the animal is at fault. I remember a thread on here about riders crashing into animals. I'm fairly sure none of those people would say they should be depending slower in case a rabbit runs out of the hedge.
As this article is specifically about riding in urban areas then the point about country roads is moot, however, if someone has the need to walk along a road due to no pavement then they need to take the necessary steps to make sure they can be seen (as per the highway code).
Don't get me wrong, drivers of cars need to take responsibility for their own actions and if they are driving dangerously and harm another road user then they need to face the consequences of their actions. But by the same token, anyone travelling on a road who doesn't take the necessary steps to make sure they can be seen is responsible should anything happen.
Exactly!
In the sentence of mine you've quoted, I simply was pointing out the absurdity of the cyclist who begrudgingly makes himself visible, not because he wants to be as safe as possible, but because he wants to ensure a motorist who may hit him, is held to account
Yes I want to make myself visible to motorists when I cycle. It does not follow that pedestrians, in your example, walking from a bus to a restaurant, crossing the road or whatever, should also have lights and hi viz. However, the chap I came across walking on my side of the road the other night on a bending, narrow country lane near my home as I was driving back, could sure as hell have done with some reflective material or lights, over and above his dark top and jeans - I only saw at the last minute he was there.
Its about wearing appropriate clothing & equipping yourself responsibly for the conditions. You shouldn't need 1000w floodlights and a dayglow reflective boiler suit for cycling in an urban area which has decent ambient lighting and traffic is at 30mph.
regarding legal compliance - drivers and cyclists have a legal requirement to have lights in the dark. They also both have a legal duty to 'look where the f* they are going' - of course - otherwise it's driving without due care and attention.
All road users are fallible. They make mistakes and bad decisions. If, by wearing reflective clothing and using decent lights at night, over and above the legal minimum, could help reduce the risk of such a mistake happening and a potential fatal accident, then I, for one, am happy to equip myself with decent clothing and lighting.
Pages