More than 250 cyclists fined in Oxford police blitz on riding without lights

Completely agree.

CXR94Di2 wrote:

Regardless of enforcement. , riding on unlit roads with no illumination or reflective clothing is moronic. I nearly had a close accident with a rider who was completely unlit until he was covered by my lights, Quick braking was needed, phew!

There are many who would argue that riding on roads which are not special segregated bicycle paths is moronic. I don't agree with them.

As some others have pointed out on this thread, the shifting of the responsibility for visibility off the operator of the dangerous vehicle and onto the potential victim is a problem. I'd suggest your own post is a version of that. Like most other motorists you're travelling at speeds which put you in situations in which your reaction times are barely sufficient. (I'm not saying you're especially bad or anything b.t.w., I think it's entirely usual, normal and typical behaviour). EDIT: just realized that you could just as easily be talking about cycling in the situation you describe :). But the point still applies, and double for motoring IMO.

How are you going to be able to stop when some diabetic with low blood sugar or someone with senile dementia stumbles out into the darkened road way? Or the apocryphal small child chasing a ball, or whatever?

Motoring is inherently a dangerous, anti-social activity which needs to be drastically reduced and restricted for many reasons.

I ride with lights in the dark, but I find the tenor of this "crackdown" irritating and question the "two sides to every story" insinuation that comes along with it. The police, whom we are always being told are understaffed, should be concentrating their resources on removing the people doing the killing, not those being killed.

patto583 wrote:

Much as I agree with stopping people for not having lights on their bike (Boston in Lincolnshire is terrible for it and it really annoys me), it does seem that they have chosen to do it on the day that the most people could have an understandable excuse, as in they may have been cycling to and from work/uni at the same time of day for months and suddenly it is dark on the way home, seeing as it is the day after the clocks go back. The showing a receipt thing is fine if you don't already own a set of lights, but if you do, and have simply forgotten to put them on your bike prior to this, quite possibly the first day of the year you have had any need for them, it seems a little harsh.

Don't get me wrong, one day later and I'm all for it, but I think just a warning on that particular day would be more reasonable.

It just smacks of policing to get results rather than policing to reduce crime to me.

What you're saying sounds reasonable, but I'd raise the point that what they are doing IS effectively giving people a warning by waiving the fine if they buy some lights. Who's going to pay a £50 fine when they can buy some cheap lights for £10?

I was thinking about people who have already got a set of lights, but haven't attached them to their bike yet through being a bit disorganised (as I imagine most people who weren't aware that the clocks went back are) effectively being forced to buy another set of lights, whether they need them or not. A day later and they have had ample chance to recognise their error and rectify it.

HKCambridge wrote:

While I don't have much sympathy for people who are caught breaking the law, this is a bit of a pointless side-show.

In Cambridge the police do this as well: I expect we'll be seeing our own one soon. They do it in the centre of the city, so the best lit area, and also the ones full of students, who are easy targets and very unlikely to vote for the Tory Police and Crime Commissioner, who loves getting a quote in about cracking down on anti-social cycling. They never touch the actually poorly-lit suburbs.

It's entirely a cynical response to complaints to prove that they've done something, and it takes police time away from more serious activities.

And since the STATS19 data shows 1% of collisions in Cambridge city had lack of lights cited as a contributory factor, it's a bit of a farce in terms of actually improving safety.

How about tackling the nearly half of collisions which include 'failed to look properly'? Crack-down on mobile phone use behind the wheel might be a start on that one.

Doesn't Jeremy Clarkson et al spin this sort of line when the cops stop speeders. you know, the speed doesn't kill people it's hitting them at any speed that does. It's the same theme. It amounts to the old "never mind me - look over there".

Simple proposition. I drive and rise btw.

As a cyclist I am vulnerable road user
vulnerable road users should be in favour of calmer and more regulated roads.
the traffic laws and the police are there to ensure calmer and more regulated roads.
We need more rules and more rules enforced.
We need the police to actively enforce regulations.
We should support the police when they do this and then urge them to do even more.

oozaveared wrote:

HKCambridge wrote:

While I don't have much sympathy for people who are caught breaking the law, this is a bit of a pointless side-show.

In Cambridge the police do this as well: I expect we'll be seeing our own one soon. They do it in the centre of the city, so the best lit area, and also the ones full of students, who are easy targets and very unlikely to vote for the Tory Police and Crime Commissioner, who loves getting a quote in about cracking down on anti-social cycling. They never touch the actually poorly-lit suburbs.

It's entirely a cynical response to complaints to prove that they've done something, and it takes police time away from more serious activities.

And since the STATS19 data shows 1% of collisions in Cambridge city had lack of lights cited as a contributory factor, it's a bit of a farce in terms of actually improving safety.

How about tackling the nearly half of collisions which include 'failed to look properly'? Crack-down on mobile phone use behind the wheel might be a start on that one.

Doesn't Jeremy Clarkson et al spin this sort of line when the cops stop speeders. you know, the speed doesn't kill people it's hitting them at any speed that does. It's the same theme. It amounts to the old "never mind me - look over there".

Simple proposition. I drive and rise btw.

As a cyclist I am vulnerable road user
vulnerable road users should be in favour of calmer and more regulated roads.
the traffic laws and the police are there to ensure calmer and more regulated roads.
We need more rules and more rules enforced.
We need the police to actively enforce regulations.
We should support the police when they do this and then urge them to do even more.

The problem with the Jeremy Clarkson thing is it's bollocks: speed clearly does contribute to every single collision, because it increases the force and the stopping distance. Since nobody is planning to get into a collision, they can't chose not to do so at speed, except by never speeding. Once they're in a collision, it's too late to adjust behaviour.

Thing is, other cyclists not using lights doesn't affect me. It doesn't make me more or less safe. Drivers not paying attention at the wheel does.

So while police are out fining students in brightly-lit areas doing something which has very little effect on safety, and that very, very little affects the people that they are fining themselves, they are not doing anything about people who are likely to harm others.

So yes, do look over there. Do look at the more damaging behaviour, and the behaviour that impacts victims, rather the perpetrators.

As I say, I'm not going offer any sympathy to anyone who gets caught breaking the law. That doesn't mean I can't criticise the police for spending resources on something of almost complete irrelevance to safety, and which specifically doesn't protect anybody who isn't breaking the law.

HKCambridge wrote:

oozaveared wrote:

HKCambridge wrote:

While I don't have much sympathy for people who are caught breaking the law, this is a bit of a pointless side-show.

In Cambridge the police do this as well: I expect we'll be seeing our own one soon. They do it in the centre of the city, so the best lit area, and also the ones full of students, who are easy targets and very unlikely to vote for the Tory Police and Crime Commissioner, who loves getting a quote in about cracking down on anti-social cycling. They never touch the actually poorly-lit suburbs.

It's entirely a cynical response to complaints to prove that they've done something, and it takes police time away from more serious activities.

And since the STATS19 data shows 1% of collisions in Cambridge city had lack of lights cited as a contributory factor, it's a bit of a farce in terms of actually improving safety.

How about tackling the nearly half of collisions which include 'failed to look properly'? Crack-down on mobile phone use behind the wheel might be a start on that one.

Doesn't Jeremy Clarkson et al spin this sort of line when the cops stop speeders. you know, the speed doesn't kill people it's hitting them at any speed that does. It's the same theme. It amounts to the old "never mind me - look over there".

Simple proposition. I drive and rise btw.

As a cyclist I am vulnerable road user
vulnerable road users should be in favour of calmer and more regulated roads.
the traffic laws and the police are there to ensure calmer and more regulated roads.
We need more rules and more rules enforced.
We need the police to actively enforce regulations.
We should support the police when they do this and then urge them to do even more.

The problem with the Jeremy Clarkson thing is it's bollocks: speed clearly does contribute to every single collision, because it increases the force and the stopping distance. Since nobody is planning to get into a collision, they can't chose not to do so at speed, except by never speeding. Once they're in a collision, it's too late to adjust behaviour.

Thing is, other cyclists not using lights doesn't affect me. It doesn't make me more or less safe. Drivers not paying attention at the wheel does.

So while police are out fining students in brightly-lit areas doing something which has very little effect on safety, and that very, very little affects the people that they are fining themselves, they are not doing anything about people who are likely to harm others.

So yes, do look over there. Do look at the more damaging behaviour, and the behaviour that impacts victims, rather the perpetrators.

As I say, I'm not going offer any sympathy to anyone who gets caught breaking the law. That doesn't mean I can't criticise the police for spending resources on something of almost complete irrelevance to safety, and which specifically doesn't protect anybody who isn't breaking the law.

A long winded way of saying that you do adopt the same attitude as Jeremy Clarkson because you too think the police shouldn't spend any time policing people like you but should spend their time policing all the other road users.

Same meat different gravy.

McDuff73 wrote:

I believe something like 80% or more cycling accidents actually happen in daylight anyway.

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figur...

its 90% for kids!

How many of the collisions really are accidents? I'd wager none. Not one. So 80% of eff all is, er, eff all.

It's about we all stopped calling collisions/crashes etc "accidents". They are not.

climber wrote:

McDuff73 wrote:

I believe something like 80% or more cycling accidents actually happen in daylight anyway.

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figur...

its 90% for kids!

How many of the collisions really are accidents? I'd wager none. Not one. So 80% of eff all is, er, eff all.

It's about we all stopped calling collisions/crashes etc "accidents". They are not.

After my collision I now have 50,000 reasons to remember the right words to use.

climber wrote:

McDuff73 wrote:

I believe something like 80% or more cycling accidents actually happen in daylight anyway.

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figur...

its 90% for kids!

How many of the collisions really are accidents? I'd wager none. Not one. So 80% of eff all is, er, eff all.

It's about we all stopped calling collisions/crashes etc "accidents". They are not.

What, they're *deliberate*? Bollocks. They're (mostly) accidents, caused by (usually) inattention or (sometimes) stupidity. They're still accidental.

andyp wrote:

climber wrote:

McDuff73 wrote:

I believe something like 80% or more cycling accidents actually happen in daylight anyway.

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figur...

its 90% for kids!

How many of the collisions really are accidents? I'd wager none. Not one. So 80% of eff all is, er, eff all.

It's about we all stopped calling collisions/crashes etc "accidents". They are not.

What, they're *deliberate*? Bollocks. They're (mostly) accidents, caused by (usually) inattention or (sometimes) stupidity. They're still accidental.

depends on what the cause was, if your fannying about with your phone then your deliberately not paying attention that isnt an accident

McDuff73 wrote:

andyp wrote:

climber wrote:

McDuff73 wrote:

I believe something like 80% or more cycling accidents actually happen in daylight anyway.

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figur...

its 90% for kids!

How many of the collisions really are accidents? I'd wager none. Not one. So 80% of eff all is, er, eff all.

It's about we all stopped calling collisions/crashes etc "accidents". They are not.

What, they're *deliberate*? Bollocks. They're (mostly) accidents, caused by (usually) inattention or (sometimes) stupidity. They're still accidental.

depends on what the cause was, if your fannying about with your phone then your deliberately not paying attention that isnt an accident

The fannying about bit is deliberate. The hitting a cyclist as a result is not. Still an accident.

andyp wrote:

The fannying about bit is deliberate. The hitting a cyclist as a result is not. Still an accident.

In the same manner that bleeding to death is the result of being stabbed.....

McDuff73 wrote:

andyp wrote:

The fannying about bit is deliberate. The hitting a cyclist as a result is not. Still an accident.

In the same manner that bleeding to death is the result of being stabbed.....

You're back to people *deliberately* trying to kill/maim each other again. It's really not difficult to get it right. This is more like a 'running with scissors' thing than a stabbing. Silly, and with terrible consequences, but not the intended outcome.

andyp wrote:

You're back to people *deliberately* trying to kill/maim each other again. It's really not difficult to get it right. This is more like a 'running with scissors' thing than a stabbing. Silly, and with terrible consequences, but not the intended outcome.

People don't, usually, deliberately kill people by driving, however it is usually the drivers negligence that causes the death. Accidents do happen, but they are very rare. More often an incident could easily have been avoided by the driver acting differently.

driver overtaking on a blind bend, driver driving too fast into a low sun, driver failing to give enough clearance, driver turning left, etc. The driver never intended to kill, the driver because they were negligent did.