- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Cyclist in London at night in winter clothing - copyright Simon MacMichaelCyclist handed six-month conditional discharge and fined £26 for riding on pavement with no lights under 1835 Highway Act, as lawyer slams “strange” case
A cyclist stopped by police for riding his bike on a pavement without lights has been handed a six-month conditional discharge and fined £26, after being charged under the 1835 Highway Act, as his “incredulous” solicitor argued that he should have simply been told to dismount and stop cycling – and that the officers had in fact helped him back on his bike after initially stopping him.
36-year-old Jack Robson was riding his bike on Sunderland’s Vilette Road between 2am and 2.30am on Tuesday 30 April, when police officers, who were dealing with another incident at the time, observed him cycling on the pavement on three occasions.
“He was observed not to have his lights on despite the hours of darkness. That’s the set of circumstances in a nutshell,” Prosecutor Paul Coulson told South Tyneside Magistrates’ Court this week.
“I think you’re looking at a nominal fine at best,” Coulson added, the Sunderland Echo reports.
> “Why pick on a lone female cyclist?” Cyclist slapped with £100 fine – for riding on a cycle path
Robson was stopped by the officers and charged, under the Highway Act 1835, with “causing common danger” by cycling with no illumination in the “hours of darkness”, which applies to the period between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise, and with “committing nuisances by riding on footpaths”.
The 36-year-old was also charged with using a pedal cycle without front and rear lights on a road at night, this time under the comparatively modern 1988 Road Traffic Offenders Act.
Robson, who has 18 previous convictions from 34 offences, the last taking place in 2010, pleaded guilty to all three charges.
> Police stop cyclist at night during long-distance ride… to give him hi-vis vest and bag (and motorists aren’t happy)
However, defending the cyclist, Ben Hurst told the court that Robson should have simply been told to “get off his bike” and sent on his way without punishment by the police.
An “incredulous” Hurst also claimed that the officers had even helped Robson back onto his bike after initially stopping him.
“This is somewhat unique, potentially, and strange the way he appears before the court. He has pleaded guilty,” the lawyer said.
“He was on a bike at night and without lights on. It was dark but there were lights on in the street.
“Unfortunately for Mr Robson, officers were there, and they took his name. Officers didn’t take any action for 18 days. If the police had told him to get off his bike that night, he would have.”
Robson was sentenced to a six-month conditional discharge, with a £26 victim surcharge, with magistrates telling him that he had committed an “unusual offence”, which “we don’t usually get at this court”.
Of course, this isn’t the first time the often archaic laws governing cycling in the UK have attracted attention.
In July, a cyclist was found not guilty of the offence – dating from 1861 – of causing bodily harm by “wanton or furious driving”, in relation to an incident which saw him collide with a pensioner as he cycled on a towpath, the 81-year-old woman falling to the ground and dying in hospital 12 days later.
As with the recent coroner’s inquest into the death of an elderly pedestrian in a collision with a cyclist in London’s Regent’s Park, the criminal trial at Oxford Crown Court was subject to national media attention, and once again prompted some to suggest the need for new, updated ‘dangerous cycling’ laws, that were postponed due to the general election, but which Labour has said it would introduce once it formed a government.
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- Cugel 2 sec ago
A local councillor for the Grenoside ward told The Star the trap is a "really dangerous act" and the person responsible "needs to think again about...
- Clem Fandango 13 min 48 sec ago
Ride on the road by getting a car.....? Like this you mean? I fail to see how that would help.
- eburtthebike 21 min 38 sec ago
The Daily Mail, Telegraph and GB News.........
- Tass Whitby 30 min 10 sec ago
Still available on Amazon if anyone's keen - link is in the review.
- Benthic 34 min 36 sec ago
Not AB specifically, but that sort of thing. Focus Pocus is the most entertaining.
- Benthic 41 min 11 sec ago
That question would send Daily Mail readers into turmoil.
- Benthic 44 min 39 sec ago
Will pedesrains have to remove their shoes?
- Dnnnnnn 1 hour 3 min ago
Was that Marchmont? I remember a £975 Claris bike there a few years ago.
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 21 min ago
It is for four months, TrainingPeaks offers a free basic athlete account and TrainingPeaks Virtual is currently free for all users until March 2025...
- Cyclo1964 3 hours 14 min ago
It's not vindictive and the council should crack down on it. There is an application process they should follow but in general it means you have to...
Add new comment
65 comments
It's about time that cyclists be held accountable for their total disregard for their safety. Personally I think the fine was too light...no pun intended. I don't know how many cyclists I've seen running in the dark on streets with no lights, it's dangerous for them. And as part of the fine, the ticketed rider needs to bring in proof they bought a light and mounted it to their bikes.
They should walk not run really, but I'm not sure it's legal or fair to fine them 😏
I'm OK with the current rules but per my other comment this makes much more sense when we've sustainable safety, proper cycle infra and mass cycling. Before we get to that state as we know cyclists are apparently invisible in a certain proportion of interactions. Whether lit up like a Christmas tree, in a well-lit street, indeed on a straight road in broad daylight somehow those who are "there to be seen" aren't.
I suspect a large proportion of those are a case of *not looking for* or not expecting cyclists. Obviously there are also a fair number of "simply didn't look at all" because humans - but lights don't fix that...
In a better transport environment - you would get a fine for being on the pavement and also for not having lights - could be more expensive than here.
https://www.iamexpat.nl/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/things-will-get-you-fin...
... I'd say that was fair and sensible, BUT in that country you will find plenty of routes to ride your bike on which are safer and more pleasant than the UK. And it's very easy to find bikes "with all the bits" (eg. Sold with lights just like cars are - indeed often with dynamo lights so you never have to think about charging batteries).
I think some tutting and finger waving was in order in the UK for this chap, even in the UK it's not too hard to equip yourself with the means to see and be seen. Roads are less safe for cycling after dark - you should consider this before setting out though.
Police seem to have gone overboard here though, did one set say "mind how you go" and didn't explain he shouldn't be doing this and he was stopped by another lot? Story is unclear.
The UK is regarded as having one of the most toxic highway cultures in the world. It's a country that allows 2 tonne SUV drivers to block the pavements so that everyone has to walk/wheel in the road, yet cycling on the pavement at 2:30am without lights - not on the road - gets a fine and conditional discharge. Mind you, this is Tyneside which has an exceptional toxic-to-cyclists council. I'm really amazed there were any police at all at this time of night. I never see policing around hundreds of illegal and dangerous parking drivers, close-passing aggressive 'teaching cyclists a lesson' drivers, or drivers not stopping to let pedestrians cross the roads on minor side roads. It's as though the UK has a dire anti-cycling bias in the public, media, policy, budgets, policing and judges.....
This is definitely NOT Tyneside.
The road in question is South of The River Wear.
But you have forgotten that, according to the Roger Whittaker song 'Durham Town', the river that goes through Durham is the Tyne
It's a long time ago, but I remember the local newspaper had an article on exactly this at the time. The headline was something like, "It seems rather queer, but it's perfectly clear, Roger Whittaker couldn't find anything to rhyme with Wear!"
Whittaker made that particular point himself!
Thanks! It's quite possible then that the newspaper article had some input from him. As I said, it was quite some time ago!
Roger Whittaker song may well have been sitting on the banks of the Tyne watching the ships comin' in an gannin' oot agin, but that would have been in Newcastle or Gateshead. The river flowing through Durham is the Wear, which of course then heads on to Sunderland.
Not many ships on the Wear either, as I recall, at least not as it passes through Durham "town".
Hmm, you might want to look at the US for a start. About 4x as many people/head of population are killed on the roads in the US and cyclists are definitely unloved there. And if you start looking at the road fatality rate for Africa, you'll get a shock.
"Robson, who has 18 previous convictions from 34 offences..."
Exactly the sort of record that doesn't seem to sway courts into taking action against bad drivers. 🙄
As for the actual case, definitely a lack of background information here. I sometimes cycle overnight - generally quiet roads, senses challenged (and 'entertained') in different ways, but I certainly have several lights on. But I've occasionally hopped onto the footpath if I see my main light showing low power, just as a precaution. I'd like to think the Quality Polis (hey, I love 'Burnistoun'! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8AsxgTtDpI) would accept that Cycling slowly on the footpath is better than riding on the road with insufficient lighting.
Not for pedestrians!
ThEY shOuLD Be cATChiN ReEl kRImiNAlS
If that had been a motorist, then it would have gone beyond the 14 day cut-off for issuing a NIP and there would have been 'no further action'.
When will this war on the cyclists end!
Person charged at the time. No need for a NIP.
What was he doing at 2am and what were the 18 previous convictions for? More questions than answers here.
He hadn't had a conviction in 14 years, maybe he'd turned his life around and was cycling home from his night shift when his lights failed and he decided it was safest to ride home on the pavement? Maybe not, but no harm in thinking the best of people in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
It was more a criticism of the journalist, than the cyclist. Why was the case pursued, which on the face of it, does seem a waste of everyone's time. But I do take your point.
"when police officers, who were dealing with another incident at the time, observed him cycling on the pavement on three occasions"
Did he get ost on the way home, or was he riding up and down the same stretch of pavement where the police were dealing with something else and simply observing them quietly whilst asking politly if he could do his civic duty & assist them.
Maybe: he went to the corner shop, realised he'd forgotten his wallet/phone so went home, then went back to the corner shop?
Or perhaps the police had been touring the neighbourhood before the incident with which they were dealing arose and had seen him a couple of times but decided not to act (as, certainly in London, would almost certainly have been their choice) but then were annoyed that he cycled past them when they were out of their car, deeming it provocative?
Yeah… Actually, that one seems more likely, Rendel
2:30am?
Is there something special about 2 am? Or does being up and about at that time of night suggest you are up to no good?
I watch some of that PoliceTrafficMotorwayInterceptorTrafficPoliceLive! type programming.
And that is actually a very common opinion among the police on those programmes - I've seen them pull a car over simply (and explicitly) because the only people driving around in the early hours are Wrong Uns (TM).
So if you're driving home from work late at night, and you notice a car following you, what are you supposed to conclude?
That the pair of you are wrong 'uns.
Passing the same spot around 2am three times?
I did report two lads (& their car) dressed all in black who parked up around midnight & then walked down the road looking over gates. I, on the other hand, whilst dressed all in black, was walking the dog. lol
Pages