Oxford bike lights crackdown sees almost 170 cyclists fined

tatsky wrote:

This argument people have along the lines "Why are police focussing on cyclists without lights, they should focus on drivers on mobiles etc".  Well, they do.  Police do stop and charge people who they see using mobiles.  They do stop people they see speeding, they do stop people they see driving dangerously.

Look, driving without lights is illegal, just as using a mobile while driving is.  The police do crack down on these things, but they can't be everywhere, all the time.

The argument about "they should be stopping real crime" reminds me of a recent episode of Police Interceptors where 2 incidents involved drivers doing something wrong, but felt the police should be investigating "Real Crime"

1) And old boy who had been to the shops.  He was 70+ years old.  Car wasn't MOT'd, insured and he hadn't reapplied for his license.  So essentially he had no license, no MOT and no insurance.  But this guys view was he was doing nothing wrong, is a careful driver, and the Police shouldn't be stopping him, they should be tackling real criminals.  In the end, the old fella just didn't get it.

2) Lad driving car on provisional, mother in passenger seat.  Turns out mother also only had provisional, and the lad wasn't insured to drive the car.  They thought police should not be stopping them, but should be going after real criminals.  After all, he had his mother on the car, and she is responsible.... who cares if she hasn't actually passed a test?

So as a cyclist, if I am riding without lights and I get stopped, then I can't turn around and say "But you should be stopping dangerous drivers" because I've actually broken the law.

Also, we all know out Police Force is stretched far too thin, with a recent story about a particular police force only investigating burgularys at even numbered houses as they can't afford to investigate all of them.

So at the end of the day I can't do a great deal about the dickhead on his phone, or reaching over to his passenger seat to retrieve a CD, all I can do is stick some lights on my bike, wear some sort of contrasting clothing and try and make myself stand out.  But if someone isn't looking at the road, or paying attention, then unfortunately my fait is in the lap of the gods.

Your rant is all well and good, except the examples you've given are potentially dangerous to other road users. A cyclist without lights isn't. They don't compare.

danthomascyclist wrote:

Your rant is all well and good, except the examples you've given are potentially dangerous to other road users. A cyclist without lights isn't. They don't compare.

My rant?  I wasn't ranting.

You have successfully confirmed my argument though, as your opinion is "breaking the law about lights on bike doesn't affect anyone else, therefore Police should investigate real crime"

So thanks for your agreement.

theloststarfighter wrote:

I wonder, has anyone with acceptable lights ever been fined for not having a rear red reflector or amber strips on the pedals?

Not fined but I was pulled over for it in London last winter and given a long lecture that I think was made longer because I complained there were cars going past with no lights at all.

peted76 wrote:

I've seen too many commuters riding without lights. On fast winding roads out of town it is VERY dangerous.

As a cyclist and a father it angers me that people put themselves and others in such danger.

If a campaign once or twice a year giving people seven day slips to produce lights, raises awareness of the dangers and stops even one accident or death it's a good thing.

Banning from driving (for ever) anyone caught speeding, using a mobile device, talking to a back seat passenger, ignoring an ASL or left-hooking a cyclist would save more than one life. Would this be a good thing?

oldstrath wrote:

Banning from driving (for ever) anyone caught speeding, using a mobile device, talking to a back seat passenger, ignoring an ASL or left-hooking a cyclist would save more than one life. Would this be a good thing?

This is an article about Oxfordshire Police raising awareness about cycling safely. What's your point Sergeant Detritus?

peted76 wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

Banning from driving (for ever) anyone caught speeding, using a mobile device, talking to a back seat passenger, ignoring an ASL or left-hooking a cyclist would save more than one life. Would this be a good thing?

This is an article about Oxfordshire Police raising awareness about cycling safely. What's your point Sergeant Detritus?

That you claim TVP bullying cyclists might be good because it 'could save a life'. Fine. It could, but many more could be saved by preventing shit driving. So why focus on the trivial instead of the effective? Because cyclists are an easier target? 

If this were really about 'cyclist safety' it would be directed at the real cause. But hey, clearly being illegal is pretty much the same as being a dangerous monster if you're on a bike. 

oldstrath wrote:

peted76 wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

Banning from driving (for ever) anyone caught speeding, using a mobile device, talking to a back seat passenger, ignoring an ASL or left-hooking a cyclist would save more than one life. Would this be a good thing?

This is an article about Oxfordshire Police raising awareness about cycling safely. What's your point Sergeant Detritus?

 

That you claim TVP bullying cyclists might be good because it 'could save a life'. Fine. It could, but many more could be saved by preventing shit driving. So why focus on the trivial instead of the effective? Because cyclists are an easier target? 

If this were really about 'cyclist safety' it would be directed at the real cause. But hey, clearly being illegal is pretty much the same as being a dangerous monster if you're on a bike. 

FFS who says they are focussing on cyclists?  1 day out of 365 they have a campaign on lights, which is quite fair I think.  see my comments about police.  They do stop speeding motorists, they do stop people driving whilst on mobiles, they do prosecute dangerous drivers.  OK, they don't get them all.  But you would need a Police Officer at every location to do that.

Do you have lights on your bike? You do?  Great, you're not breaking the law.  Move along.

Mungecrundle wrote:

I understand the 'slippery slope' arguments about appearing to pass too much responsibility from the operators of potentially dangerous machinery to the cyclist / pedestrian / vulnerable road user and about the apparently skewed priority of chasing unlit cyclistys when those resources should be tackling the poor driving, use of mobile phones, speeding, drink driving and other stupidity in motor vehicles that are absolutely proven to increase traffic incidents, injury and death.

But I  reject the notion that all aspects of my personal safety should be delegated to strangers based on the vehicle they are using. Humans make mistakes, we all make bad decisions, we are fallible, our sense organs evolved for life in a cave and picking berries. Some of us are older and don't react as quickly as we once did, some of us are younger and lack experience. I'd sooner put my trust in a google car, equipped with radar, lidar laser scanning and an algorithm that doesn't get angry, frustrated, distracted or just has a bad day.  Many cars would pass an MOT but maybe aren't as maintained as they should be, smeary windscreens in the rain, demisters that don't clear every window, tyres approaching their legal limit.

Being lit at night, wearing clothing that is hi viz in the environment, not wearing headphones in traffic, or dark glasses after dark and riding defensively, which might sometimes mean avoiding certain roads at certain times. It's really not that difficult or expensive. If you feel that taking these simple precautions impinge too much on your right to be a bit of a fuckwit without consequences, then maybe the road is not a good place for you to be. You either don't understand the dangers or have a poor attitude to your personal responsibility for safety that is as likely to harm someone else as yourself.

If nothing else, if every cyclist carried lights after dark, then the police wouldn't be wasting their time handing out fixed penalty notices when they could be doing something more useful with their road safety budget.

For whatever it's worth, I agree about wanting to do all I can to protect myself. But that's not the same as believing that TVP should be spending their effort enforcing such behaviour. I quite like to protect my property as well, but I'd still be upset if the Police forced me to do so in preference to catching criminals.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Being lit at night, wearing clothing that is hi viz in the environment, not wearing headphones in traffic, or dark glasses after dark and riding defensively, which might sometimes mean avoiding certain roads at certain times.

Is a cyclist a fuckwit simply for wanting to ride on 'certain roads'? If we are legally allowed to use them then why should we have to dodge round the backstreets to get to and from work in one piece? The roads to my work are busy A-roads. There is no nearby cyclepath (or, for that matter, even a pavement for most of the route). A significant part of it is out of town. Where am I supposed to ride?

And why are people expected to wear hi-viz all the time? Should it be standard issue for all pedestrians too? Do you consider them to also be fuckwits for wanting to cross these roads when getting from A to B?

I agree that cyclists should use lights at night as that is what the law requires. But I disagree with the premise that hi-viz, 800 lumen front lights, a helmet and a neon yellow rucksack cover with flashing lights should be a prerequisite for venturing onto or across a road at night.

Since Oxford has a large number of people on bikes I'd like to think that this brief 'blitz' by TVP does not cost much but manages to raise awareness about the need to use bike lights after dark. But, as I've said previously, why is there no awareness campaign BEFORE the clocks go back? Also, if the pathetic 0.5 lumen pimples qualify as a satisfactory light for riding at night then it's pointless.

tatsky wrote:

... I worry that there is a bit of an arms race with lights, brighter lights, more lights and it's getting a bit out of hand.

True.  My car is a 'historic vehicle' (yes, that's a thing).  And I can tell you, 45 year old car headlights do not stand up well against the modern 200-gazillion lumen LED headlights.  I am always worried that my *car* has faded into the background.

Thing is - no-one is "invisible" at night, you just see them later.  If your own headlights are working properly, and you are looking and concentrating on the task at hand (ie. driving) then nothing will ever "come out of nowhere".  If you're not sure you can see properly or far enough ahead, drive slower, m'kay?

Das wrote:

I just never understand why the fine is quashed after they buy lights? Its dark, you need lights, its not rocket science. 

A similar thing is done for motorists who have defective lights, the Police give you a 'producer' ticket where you have seven days to fix the defect and provide evidence of having done so such as a signed garage receipt...

jasecd wrote:

danthomascyclist wrote:

I long for the day I see a crackdown on near passes - they're the real danger to cyclists.

Come on Dan, I also long for a crackdown on near passes and dangerous driving but amongst all the victim blaming, this is one area in which I think the law have it pretty much correct - there are times when you are almost invisible at night and it's a legal requirement to have lights.

In fact I think most of the law is actually correct, it's just that ASL's, safe passing distances, driving with a mobile phone etc. aren't sadly not enforced. It's unacceptable that this is the case but lights make a huge difference and we are all somewhat (but not completely) responsible for our safety - the way that this scheme is set up is pretty decent in encouraging people to go and buy lights, which will undoubtedly make them safer. 

 

So you're happy to see Oxford police ignoring the motons, who actually cause the danger, in favour of punishing the cyclists. Who generally aren't actually the dangerous ones. Would you be equally happy if they fined householders for leaving their burglar alarms turned off, while cheerfully waving at the burglars? Because that's about what they are doing.

"encouraging people to go and buy lights, which will undoubtedly make them safer. "

If they'd fixed all the bigger problems I'd agree with you. But they haven't. They've ignored them. Stupidly non cost-effective way to proceed.

oldstrath wrote:

So you're happy to see Oxford police ignoring the motons, who actually cause the danger, in favour of punishing the cyclists. Who generally aren't actually the dangerous ones. Would you be equally happy if they fined householders for leaving their burglar alarms turned off, while cheerfully waving at the burglars? Because that's about what they are doing.

 

"encouraging people to go and buy lights, which will undoubtedly make them safer. "

 

If they'd fixed all the bigger problems I'd agree with you. But they haven't. They've ignored them. Stupidly non cost-effective way to proceed.

No I'm not happy about it at all - I thought that was pretty clear from my comment that the lack of enforcement of this was unacceptable. I do think however that this is a completely valid measure, which will make these cyclists safer. Wearing lights doesn't condone poor or dangerous driving.

jasecd wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

So you're happy to see Oxford police ignoring the motons, who actually cause the danger, in favour of punishing the cyclists. Who generally aren't actually the dangerous ones. Would you be equally happy if they fined householders for leaving their burglar alarms turned off, while cheerfully waving at the burglars? Because that's about what they are doing.

 

"encouraging people to go and buy lights, which will undoubtedly make them safer. "

 

If they'd fixed all the bigger problems I'd agree with you. But they haven't. They've ignored them. Stupidly non cost-effective way to proceed.

 

No I'm not happy about it at all - I thought that was pretty clear from my comment that the lack of enforcement of this was unacceptable. I do think however that this is a completely valid measure, which will make these cyclists safer. Wearing lights doesn't condone poor or dangerous driving.

It says that, so far as Oxford police are concerned, cyclists  without lights are more  dangerous than motorists speeding, texting, or otherwise behaving in a unsafe manner. Which is completely the reverse of the truth.

oldstrath wrote:

It says that, so far as Oxford police are concerned, cyclists  without lights are more  dangerous than motorists speeding, texting, or otherwise behaving in a unsafe manner. Which is completely the reverse of the truth.

No it doesn't - it says that riding without lights is an unsafe and illegal practice. Once again, to be clear: I'm not for a moment condoning the lack of enforcement of poor and dangerous driving but this is valid and will make cyclists safer.

jasecd wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

It says that, so far as Oxford police are concerned, cyclists  without lights are more  dangerous than motorists speeding, texting, or otherwise behaving in a unsafe manner. Which is completely the reverse of the truth.

 

No it doesn't - it says that riding without lights is an unsafe and illegal practice. Once again, to be clear: I'm not for a moment condoning the lack of enforcement of poor and dangerous driving but this is valid and will make cyclists safer.

OK, I give up. But just to be clear

i) I agree that riding without lights is illegal, so I don't.

ii) I agree it may be less safe than riding with lights. In well-lit streets this is less clear-cut than point (i), and I don't find the 'evidence' all that convincing, whatever common sense may say.

iii) What angers me (and angers probably is the right word) is that TVP choose to give this issue priority ahead of dealing with law-breaking motorists. Most of us try to get the big wins first, then the smaller stuff. This is exactly not what TVP are doing - they are dealing with the minor issue first, probably because of the 'oh look at all the nasty illegal cyclists' brigade. 

iv) Yes, it may make some cyclists slightly safer. Dealing with motorists instead would make them all a lot safer.

oldstrath wrote:

iii) What angers me (and angers probably is the right word) is that TVP choose to give this issue priority ahead of dealing with law-breaking motorists. Most of us try to get the big wins first, then the smaller stuff. This is exactly not what TVP are doing - they are dealing with the minor issue first, probably because of the 'oh look at all the nasty illegal cyclists' brigade. 

iv) Yes, it may make some cyclists slightly safer. Dealing with motorists instead would make them all a lot safer.

I think this is the problem, isn't it.  The police don't have the resources to enforce all the dangerous driving practices (some of which are even illegal) that we all see every day, and yet it seems that every force *can* gather resources for this sort of get-on-the-front-page-of-the-local-paper crackdown.

If the police have the resources to gather in all these ninja cyclists, how come they can't also address mobile phone use, tablet use (yes, apparently you can read a k***le in stationary(-ish) traffic), close/dangerous passes, etc etc?  Because they don't.

The only get-on-the-front-page-of-the-local-paper crackdown that ever seems to be aimed at motorists is the anti drink driving one just before Christmas each year.

(Incidentally, and off topic, but did everyone notice how badly so many people seemed to be driving, the first couple of days after the clocks change, and especially since it was also raining...?)