Fewer Oxford cyclists riding without lights following police blitz

Presumably the councillor would like drivers with defective lights fined there and then, rather than given seven days to fix the fault?

I'd have thought during a Blitz was the one time when you shouldn't have lights on.

but I thought it had been highlighted earlier the police are just following the same procedure on this, as they do for motorists with broken lights who are given 14 days to rectify and avoid a fine once its proven its been fixed. So the cyclists arent being given any special treatment or treated more leniently in any way. so its slightly troubling their council representive for transport, either doesnt know that, or would prefer to see cyclists treated more harshly than motorists in similar circumstances.

@don simon

By powerful flashing lights I mean £25 giant rechargeable units, not off-road MTB lights.

And the guy with the umbrella was riding like that before I was within his path

The timing of these exercises is relevant, the police having been out (I guess intentionally so) on the first working day after the clocks went back, so I suspect a number of people were simply caught out by thatin having forgotten their lights. It's reasonable to then expect to see an increase in the number of people using lights as they adjust to the nights drawing in sooner.

Be interested to understand more about exactly what sort of lights you had to buy to escape the fine though. A typical £5 supermarket set does nothing to help visibility in the average urban setting where there is already lots of other light "noise". Were those caught expected to pay at least £50 on lights to avoid paying the balance of the fine?

Rode home tonight in dark, around 5.30pm from London Docklands through central London into nw London. In a very heavy rain storm, with resulting poor visibility.

I am using powerful flashing lights and reflective clothing.

Idiots riding bikes without any lights everywhere, some on cycle paths (especially scary as the paths are poorly lit, if at all), many on busy roads mixing it with heavy traffic, 1 particular idiot riding near caledonian road, one handed holding a black umbrella nearly rode into me (he was drifting into other side of road as umbrella blocked his view).

Surprised we don't see more entries for annual Darwin Awards?

Riding along a shared-use path here (Bristol) last week, over to my left as is my wont. Bloke coming up behind me overtakes. As he does so, ninja cyclist appears out of the darkness about twenty feet ahead (no lights, no reflectors, normal dark-coloured street clothes) and starts waving and shouting at me and my overtaker, "What do you think you're doing? Get out of the way!".

I don't feel any responsbility for other cyclists who don't use lights after dark, certainly no "they're dragging our good name through the mud" stuff, but I do think they are being prats.

Even if you intend to stay on shared-use paths and not go on the road with cars, at least buy a supermarket £2.99 set - its better than nothing.

IMO.

Punishing people for every bit of wrongdoing may solve a problem, but it also creates a lot of resentment. This scheme is good, it gives the Police an opportunity to educate those who are in the wrong but does not punish them if they sort the issue out.

I'd compare it to speeding, drivers can either be punished with points on their license or take a speed awareness course. I know a few people who have attended those courses, and they've changed their driving because of that. If they'd got points, it would probably be a case of being more aware of speed cameras to avoid being caught again.

The burned hand (wallet) doesn't always teach best.

Dream on, what he is actually quoted as saying on the Oxford Mail website is

"It also gives cyclists a bad name if we are not seen to be obeying the law.”

I await Edmund King saying that uninsured drivers give motorists a bad name.

"Hunt says that those cycling without lights give cyclists a bad name"

Dear gods, even the guys who is supposedly representing the interests of cyclists parrots this crap. When did you last hear the AA saying "people who drive without insurance give motorists a bad name"?

It would seem that the goal of the enforcement effort is to get people using lights, not to generate income, so, while I can agree that the light-less idiots eventually should be paying a fine for their stupidity, it seems like a much better outcome if people spend the money on actually getting lights rather than paying the fine at the expense of getting lights.