Lights on segregated cycle path legally required?

[mikeymo]

Public access refers to anywhere the public has access, law changes in the 90s determined this , can’t remember the year, but I’d did fall foul of it in 93, with motorbike and a failure to display a tax disc. I had removed it at BMF rally. The police ticketed, my solicitor said it was correct as it was public access, fortunately the case was dropped after I sent a receipt showing I did have tax purchased the day before.

Thanks.

[thirdcrank]

I fear that vehicle excise duty is a red herring here in that it's needed on mechanically propelled vehicles on roads maintained at the public expense. (Inevitably subject to exemptions.) AFAIK, that dates back to the introduction of the road fund licence. That link ended many years ago.

Talking of history, the road traffic acts originally dealt only with road traffic. IIRC, the first bit of modern traffic legislation to include public places was the Road Safety Act, 1967 which introduced breath testing. There were initially all sorts of defences put forward including those involving public place. eg It was claimed that a pub car park stopped being a public place when the place was closed. Eventually, most of the defences were tested in the House of Lords and dismissed. When the RTA 1960 was replaced by the RTA 1988, the breathalyser offences were included, with some tidying up.

The RTA 1988 extended dangerous and careless driving offences to include "other public place" probably the most obvious being car parks.

[cycle tramp]

Is it a legal requirement for a cyclist to use lights when cycling on that sort of cycle path?

Yes, during the hours of darkness.

Thanks. Do you have a link to the legislation or case-law?

On another thread - I think it was entitled cycling and laws, I covered this. There are there several previous case laws, in the first two it was found that a private road to a farm and a car park to a hotel were both considered public spaces and as such vehicles in those areas should have lights to the relevant specifications... however there were two other case laws where it was argued that access to a set of council houses and an area between a pavement and a shop (without fencing) but with an unsealed surface was equally found not to be public spaces...
...what is and isn't a public space seems to rest with the court, given the cost of lawyers, you'll probably be financially better off just buying and fitting lights rather than hiring a lawyer.

[cycle tramp]

Public access refers to anywhere the public has access, law changes in the 90s determined this , can’t remember the year, but I’d did fall foul of it in 93, with motorbike and a failure to display a tax disc. I had removed it at BMF rally. The police ticketed, my solicitor said it was correct as it was public access, fortunately the case was dropped after I sent a receipt showing I did have tax purchased the day before.

Really? I hope you didn't pay your solicitor too much for that one. If the police advised you of a failure to display a tax disc was at a BMF rally (and as such was a ticketed event) - then technically it wasn't public area as the area was invite only for those who had paid

[mikeymo]

Yes, during the hours of darkness.

Thanks. Do you have a link to the legislation or case-law?

On another thread - I think it was entitled cycling and laws, I covered this. There are there several previous case laws, in the first two it was found that a private road to a farm and a car park to a hotel were both considered public spaces and as such vehicles in those areas should have lights to the relevant specifications... however there were two other case laws where it was argued that access to a set of council houses and an area between a pavement and a shop (without fencing) but with an unsealed surface was equally found not to be public spaces...
...what is and isn't a public space seems to rest with the court, given the cost of lawyers, you'll probably be financially better off just buying and fitting lights rather than hiring a lawyer.

Thanks. So it's arguable, it seems.

When I posted my questions I was sort of "thinking out loud". Won't make that mistake again.

Yes, I've got lights thanks, but it was partly the confusing effect (very occasionally) of lights off the side of the road, as far as some motor vehicle drivers are concerned, that I was thinking of. Given that this cycle path is fairly distinct from the road:



(you can't really see, but that isn't a soft verge, there are standard 4 inch 15 deg kerbs on the roadside), I'm not the least concerned about being rear ended by a motor vehicle.

But somebody else made the point about other cyclists, which is a good point. Though on a 2.5 miles journey on cycle path like this, and 2.5 miles back, I encountered a grand total of one other cyclist going in the opposite direction, and none going the same way as I. But it's new cycle path, and hopefully "build it and they will come".

Anyway, I'll just have to cope with the crippling cost of leaving the lights on for 15 minutes. And if I ever forget, or they're going flat and I want to save the battery, I think it's highly unlikely the police would take much interest.

[thirdcrank]

Almost anything is arguable, either on the interpretation of the law or the "facts" of a case.

A highway extends across its width from "fence to fence." There may not be a fence at all in the popular usage of the word: it's just the word for the boundary.

In the image above, the highway includes everything: footway, cycle track and carriageway. ie it's a "road" for the purposes of the RTA 1988

[tim-b]

Hi
Your image shows that cyclepath to be part a road, building line to building line (or fence to hedgerow).
A legal explanation here (link)
EDIT crossed with TC
Regards
tim-b

[mikeymo]

Almost anything is arguable, either on the interpretation of the law or the "facts" of a case.

A highway extends across its width from "fence to fence." There may not be a fence at all in the popular usage of the word: it's just the word for the boundary.

In the image above, the highway includes everything: footway, cycle track and carriageway. ie it's a "road" for the purposes of the RTA 1988

That's nice and clear, thanks.

[PDQ Mobile]

^^
OP.

I think you answered your own question when you say you had been, as a driver, a little confused.
Drivers that are a little confused slow down.
And especially those drivers that have seen "something".

So my view (no pun etc) is that keeping one's lights on at night is a win/win situation.


Certainly in other places an essential life preserver and legal requirement.

You might be right. Though I'm not sure I'd agree with the notion "drivers that are a little confused slow down". That's missing the word "some".

Actually I think the missing word is "most".

[NUKe]

Public access refers to anywhere the public has access, law changes in the 90s determined this , can’t remember the year, but I’d did fall foul of it in 93, with motorbike and a failure to display a tax disc. I had removed it at BMF rally. The police ticketed, my solicitor said it was correct as it was public access, fortunately the case was dropped after I sent a receipt showing I did have tax purchased the day before.

Really? I hope you didn't pay your solicitor too much for that one. If the police advised you of a failure to display a tax disc was at a BMF rally (and as such was a ticketed event) - then technically it wasn't public area as the area was invite only for those who had paid

Cost me nothing for the advice I went to school with her, The car park was outside the actual Rally area, so was a public access. However the law, did apply inside we know this as it affected the Motorcycle Rallies we used organise, I remember the change coming as we were worried the police would use it to strong arm, there way into the motorcycle rallies that were prevalent in the 90s, however it all came to nothing.

[spikesoton]

On a practical point, I sometimes use an on pavement cycle route on the right hand side of the road. I either turn off my front light or point it at the ground to avoid confusing drivers.

[mikeymo]

On a practical point, I sometimes use an on pavement cycle route on the right hand side of the road. I either turn off my front light or point it at the ground to avoid confusing drivers.

Which is exactly the layout in the photo a few posts up. I've not ridden it in the dark yet, but if I do, I'll follow your example.

[rjb]

If I remember correctly there was an inquest not long ago into a cyclist with lights on a cycle path who collided with a car that had veered onto the cycle path when the driver was confused by the cyclists lights, thinking he was on the wrong side of the road.

Anyone else remember the details.

[mjr]

On a practical point, I sometimes use an on pavement cycle route on the right hand side of the road. I either turn off my front light or point it at the ground to avoid confusing drivers.

Which is exactly the layout in the photo a few posts up. I've not ridden it in the dark yet, but if I do, I'll follow your example.

I hope you get fined before an oncoming rider crashes as a result.

[mjr]

If I remember correctly there was an inquest not long ago into a cyclist with lights on a cycle path who collided with a car that had veered onto the cycle path when the driver was confused by the cyclists lights, thinking he was on the wrong side of the road.

Anyone else remember the details.

No. I hope he didn't get away with that. Correct behaviour if on wrong side would be to get to the correct side, not drive into the oncoming traffic.