PCSOs to get power to fine unlit cyclists

this is part of the slow erosion of police duties that was predicted when PCSO's were introduced, and labelled as plastic bobbies policing on the cheap, surrogate police eventually with all the powers afforded police officers but with a fraction of the training.

That's fair enough. I cycle and drive. I'm amazed by the number of unlit cyclists I see and yes, I've nearly hit a couple, and that has left me shaken and angry. The law aspect is irrelevant. No sane person wants to injure another person. Just use lights when it's dark/dusk if you're a cyclist, car driver, pedestrian on a road with no footpath and aside from the law, we all get home and live to enjoy another day. If it takes a fine to achieve it, then so be it.

As there appears to be considerably less police officers on the street I am guessing the PCSO's will be doing the work of police officers? On that basis when will they have time to use their new far reaching powers????

MRMO wrote in reply to FATBEGGARONABIKE.

Slighty OT, to the main, but anyway.

Pavement parking is a problem, but in a lot of different ways. I live in a victorian terrace the road is approximately 3 cars wide, but houses on both sides and lots of cars. If residents park on the road, then you can not drive down the road? If you park on the pavement then you block the pavement. Can't win really.

mrmo

Yes you can! you scrap the CAR and buy a BIKE

So if one is unwise enough to be sans lights in the hours of darkness, what will the PCSO do if you refuse to give personal details? Arrest you? Oh no wait...

Don't have any problem whatsoever with this. Just last night whilst driving I encountered a complete moron cycling down an unlit road with no lights, no reflectors, dressed all in black. He was more than old enough to know better too.

Helmets aren't required and surely would only increase the injury of any pedestrian she hits?

As for narrow roads, if it's not wide enough to park on without parking on the pavement, go park somewhere else. You don't own the street as a parking space (no matter what one former terraced- street neighbour of mine claimed).

Good use of a PCSOs time IMO. Just what they should be used for. Looking out for minor offences and educating people on laws that my save them and others from harm.
I have an employee who rides her BMX on the pavement, with no lights and no helmet. It winds me right up and is incredibly irresponsible. A fine from the local PCSO who patrols our high street would sort her right out.

Having read the comments I've noticed an awfull lot of people refering to "pavement parking" and police not doing anything about it, (the police)using the excuse that parking is now upto the local authorities/council and not a police matter.
To park half on and half off the PEDESTRIANS RIGHT OF WAY means that the vehicle has driven on the ped's ROW which is illegal under the road traffic act/regulations so therefore the police can prosecute them, they just chose not to. Giving pcso's extra powers isn't such a bad thing, just wish they could add that one to their list.

Parking is currently the responsibility of councils in much of the country and if you ask a policeman, they'll regret that they can only act when it's clearly dangerous like blocking junctions and crossings. I think this bill should give police and PCSOs power to fine parking and especially pavement parking, even if the local council has adopted the power.

Yes, its right to enforce the lighting laws a bit more but there are buffet problems which should come first like parking.

Its also disappointing to see Julian Huppert go all uncle Tom.

I was about to jump on the slating band wagon. But Huppert seems to be one of the best.

This isn't a bad thing to have. If I were asked then I'd say that non lit, RLJ and plain deadly cyclists are the bane of my life as well. Or, to explain properly, one of the banes of my cycling life. The others being what motorists and peds do.

So this is fine. It's sensible.

Also, there is a context to the Anti Social Behaviour Bill. It's broadly as it says. The most common situation where a PCSO will come into contact with a non lit "cyclist" is your hoody wearing on the pavement bmx'er. So this is fine.

I once saw two PCSOs cycling along together in Runcorn in fading evening light, on the pavement, without lights. It's a good job these powers weren't in then, there'd have been a warp in the space-time continuum. Or something.

When I was a kid (early paleolithic era) a policeman stopped me cycling when I had no lights. I'd been out at the park was late going home it was dusk.

He asked me where I lived, which was a couple of miles away. It was getting dark and he could see it would take me a good while if I walked. Then he said "Look here, there's no one on the pavements so ride nice and carefully, and get off if you meet anyone walking. And don't tell anyone I said so."

Good sensible policing.

A number of times I've seen cyclists with white lights on the back. Perhaps they were planning on going in for this backwards-cycling speed-record thing?

Oh, and the other reason for thinking cyclists _should_ be obliged to have lights after dark is that it affects pedestrians also. Risking your own life with regard to cars is one thing, but pedestrians have the absolute right to be able to see you coming.

I have heard that the law has changed, you can have a flashing rear light, but are advised to have a static one as well.
I have two rear static ones, one each side of the wheel, a flashing one under the saddle and a flashing one on my helmet. I also have a fluorescent band with 4 flashing LEDs as a cycle clip on my calf and I still got forced into the kerb. On my cycle to work/home there is only 250 metres of cycle path in 2 miles.

Since approx 2009 all new motorcycles have to have a standardised mounting for the rear number plate, this also includes a rear reflector.

They also shovelled under the radar the requirement for lights to be on at all times.

Whilst riding in low light or darkness without lights and reflective clothing is simply stupid, is there any evidence this has led to significant death or injury?

I'd rather Parliament and the Police spent their time and resources dealing with the daily harassment and abuse cyclists receive - and start getting proper penalties when cyclists are killed and seriously injured - surely that's a bigger issue?

A PCSO sounds a bit like a jumped up meter attendant. Why would they be allowed to ticket cyclists for certain offenses but not vehicles? The whole idea of a PCSO sounds silly

The pedal reflectors requirement does seem odd: motorcyclists don't have to have reflective foot pegs... Maybe a throwback to very poor bike lights? LEDs are now very bright: I got seriously abused by a motorcyclist the other night because my (bog standard cateye) rear light was "too bright". Tough!

The law / highway code needs to be changed to reflect (do you see what I did there?) the reality of rider and bike as one "system".

e.g. if there are no pedal reflectors then reflective bands or reflectors on shoes should be allowable substitutions. Likewise for front and rear reflectors vs a gilet with loads of reflective patches and also helmet mounted lights.

The BS maybe needs updating to include Scotchlite etc garments and accessories as appropriate substitutions.

My 500 lumens front light should trump a daft plastic reflector.

Great move, except for the reflectors thingy. They take up real estate on the bike that can be better used by lights.

My shoes are reflective at the back, my rucksack cover is, I've got good lights, but no reflectors on the bike. I could fit them to the bars/seatpost, but that's where my lights are.

Oh, and will my speedplays become illegal?