Cycling UK Forum

reohn2 wrote:

T wrote:

cycle cat wrote:What can we do?

I believe some fire brigades can provide you with free smoke alarms (with free fitting service). I wonder if some relevant body could, as part of some sort of safety campaign, provide free bike lights, while at the same time making people aware that they should be using them.

Thats already happening where I live,IMO its ridiculous.The offenders should be fined £20 and their bike impounded until they turn up to collect it with a pair of decent lights.
Then see how quick the word gets around,I'll guarentee that every cyclist would have lights PDQ!
Its a weird system that provides law breakers with lights so they can sell them and then collect another pair next time they're stopped

And if the bike is worth less than £20?
I don't agree, there are better things the police can use their time on and the cost of doing the paperwork exceeeds the fine several times over for little benefit(it still doesn't get a light on the bike). As I've said in previous threads, if the powers that be are going to lie in wait for cyclists and fine them for no lights it would be far more cost effective for them to hand out a cheap set of lights to the person there & then & send them on there way. If they're handed out to everyone their intrinsic value is worthless so no point trying to sell them on when the set at bulk cost price is less than a couple of quid anyway.
In all my time driving I've only ever seen one lot of policing on car lights. Motorists were been pulled over for general bits n bobs, I was pulled over for leaving my front fogs on from earlier in the morning when it had been a pea souper, I got a warning and that was it. Why should the law behave differently if it's a cyclist? I also don't see the old bill pulling over vehicles with obvious dangerous defects, they just drive past and ignore it. For the most part I see it as pandering to certain sections of society who just don't want cyclists on the road full stop.

So a lad gets knocked off his bike because he's no lights on and breaks his leg.
He spends time hospital = cost
Loses time of school = cost
Police have to investigate = cost

Lad is stopped bike is impounded,parent pays,fine and produces lights, lad gets thick ear and makes sure that doesn't do it again.

The problem is:-
a) there aren't enough police
b) we're too soft on lawbreakers.
c) police spend too much time filling in forms.
d) people get the idea its a free world.

PS, the same goes for motorists too

but how many of these so called ninja cyclists are actually injured compared to those lit up? I'm not for one second advocating riding with no lights, far from it. I just think that there's a better solution than handing out on the spot fines which still doesn't force them to have a light on any subsequent bike they may ride anyhow.

Tonyf33 wrote:but how many of these so called ninja cyclists are actually injured compared to those lit up? I'm not for one second advocating riding with no lights, far from it. I just think that there's a better solution than handing out on the spot fines which still doesn't force them to have a light on any subsequent bike they may ride anyhow.

The deterrent to anyone commiting an offence is being caught and then having been caught the punishment hurting(in the pocket in this case),so someone is caught riding without lights and they have to pay £20 and then turn up a policestation with bike lights before being given back their bike its inconvenient for the offender on three counts:-
a) no bike for the intrim period of being without lights and until the fine is paid/lights are produced.
b) inconvenience of paying £20.
c) inconvenience of having to do what they should have done in the first place.
d) a warning that if it happens again,next time its £60
It sinks in PDQ that being stupid and thinking they're clever isn't worth it.
Unlike being stopped and the nice man giving them some lights then being patted on the head and told not to do it again.

snibgo wrote:It seems to me that lightless cycling is a relatively recent phenomenon. Back in the day, lighting was hard because lamps were dim, batteries were expensive and didn't last long, bulbs blew, and the lamps fell off. Despite that, cyclists were (I think) more diligent about having lights.

Or perhaps I'm a BOF.

I wouldn't go so far as that, but my recollection is different.

Before LEDs, lights were heavy and unreliable battery-hungry monstrosities. We called them "Never Ready". Cyclists might have had lights, but the chances of them working were little better than 50/50. The front one jumping off it's bracket was another regular problem. They were so unreliable that cyclists argued for more lenient treatment for cyclists who had lights that didn't work through no fault of the cyclist, than for those who had no lights at all.

LEDs made all of that history. Battery consumption is now so economical, and so many different designs of lamp are available that fit relatively easily and securely to the bike (smaller batteries mean less weight, which makes a lamp easier to hold in place) that it has become infinitely easier and cheaper for a cyclist to use lights, and my observation is that unlit cycling is now much less common than it was in the 70s and 80s.

reohn2 wrote:

Tonyf33 wrote:but how many of these so called ninja cyclists are actually injured compared to those lit up? I'm not for one second advocating riding with no lights, far from it. I just think that there's a better solution than handing out on the spot fines which still doesn't force them to have a light on any subsequent bike they may ride anyhow.

The deterrent to anyone commiting an offence is being caught and then having been caught the punishment hurting(in the pocket in this case),so someone is caught riding without lights and they have to pay £20 and then turn up a policestation with bike lights before being given back their bike its inconvenient for the offender on three counts:-
a) no bike for the intrim period of being without lights and until the fine is paid/lights are produced.
b) inconvenience of paying £20.
c) inconvenience of having to do what they should have done in the first place.
d) a warning that if it happens again,next time its £60
It sinks in PDQ that being stupid and thinking they're clever isn't worth it.
Unlike being stopped and the nice man giving them some lights then being patted on the head and told not to do it again.

There's no need to be so condescending is there? Simply stating your arguement would have sufficed! Nobody gets a pat on the head from any 'nice man' And if lights have been handed out & fitted then there's apretty damn good chance they wont do it again, it'll have cost the tax payer hundreds of pounds less per incident and not wasting the local police authorities time & money they simply don't have.
You appear to advocate the police spend this time & money chasing cyclists without lights rather than addressing more serious crime/problems in towns & cities?

ATEOTD you wont get your car confiscated and given an on the spot fine if your car is running illegally without a particular light & even though the danger from such is many times that than of a cyclist without a light at all, the punishment for cyclists is relatively greater. How is that right or fair?
O

I passed a paperboy doing his round with lights on this evening, I was so suprised I nearly hit the kerb.

I am surprised at the number of school students who bike along the pavements and have no lights. I would have thought schools could do something about this.

I remember that my motorcycles always used to blow the tail light bulbs.
It bothered me so much that I fitted a second light on the mudguards, only the CX500 gave you two bulbs in the light back in those days.
I check my car lights very regularly but there must be a time when I am driving with a light missing before I find out.
I always ride with two lights front and rear on my cycles IFF I know I will be out at night as they too are known to fail even more frequently than on the cars or motorbikes.

Last time I cycled in the dark, I was passed by 5 cars without any lights on and many with one or more of their lights not working. No naughty cyclists at all that night.

So the basic assumption is that if you see an unlit cyclist, they are a naughty boy. However if you see an unlit motorist, it is just an honest mistake.

Unlit cyclist gets hit by car and dies.... cyclist hits unlit car and dies ... there's a theme here is'nt there .... get some lights... 50% of your risk dissappers ...??

Tonyf33 wrote:There's no need to be so condescending is there? Simply stating your arguement would have sufficed!

Sorry,I wasn't meaning to be condesending at all,I was stating my arguement!

Nobody gets a pat on the head from any 'nice man'

That would be the effect of handing out free lights to offenders IMO

And if lights have been handed out & fitted then there's a pretty damn good chance they wont do it again,

But it encourages the nanny state attitude freeloading society we now have.

it'll have cost the tax payer hundreds of pounds less per incident and not wasting the local police authorities time & money they simply don't have.

I'd agree we don't have the money but if there were a fairer taxpaying system we might have!

You appear to advocate the police spend this time & money chasing cyclists without lights rather than addressing more serious crime/problems in towns & cities?

Not at all just that the policeforce,police the country.

ATEOTD you wont get your car confiscated and given an on the spot fine if your car is running illegally without a particular light & even though the danger from such is many times that than of a cyclist without a light at all, the punishment for cyclists is relatively greater. How is that right or fair?

Perhaps it should be law that if the lights on you're car aren't working correctly and you can't fit a new bulb there and then it should be confiscated,it would certainly stop the many drivers I encounter everday with defective lights! Including the chap on the M/way on Friday evening with no lights on at all even though everyone around him was flashing him and sounding there horns to let him know,or the three I counted on Saturday evening with one or both of their headlights pointing skyward dazzling everyone else and one driving on side lights!!!! plus one with one headlight not working at all! All in a twenty mile journey.
There are simply no police about to do the job,that is the problem and even if there were the justice system isn't hard enough on criminals IMO.

We should all be grateful to the 'ninja' cyclists because if the cagers get the idea that all cyclists are going to be well lit and easy to spot, they will probably drive with even less care, increasing the risk for everyone.

reohn2 wrote:So a lad gets knocked off his bike because he's no lights on and breaks his leg.
He spends time hospital = cost
Loses time of school = cost
Police have to investigate = cost

That's pretty much the same argument for helmetless riders.

mark a. wrote:

reohn2 wrote:So a lad gets knocked off his bike because he's no lights on and breaks his leg.
He spends time hospital = cost
Loses time of school = cost
Police have to investigate = cost

That's pretty much the same argument for helmetless riders.

Give him a free one then
PS,The police may as well give him some knee pads,elbow pads,HiViz top,stablisers and a free check over on his bike every week too whilst we're at it
Better still,skip this cycling malarky altogether and just give him a new car

reohn2 wrote:

Tonyf33 wrote:There's no need to be so condescending is there? Simply stating your arguement would have sufficed!

Sorry,I wasn't meaning to be condesending at all,I was stating my arguement!

Nobody gets a pat on the head from any 'nice man'

That would be the effect of handing out free lights to offenders IMO

And if lights have been handed out & fitted then there's a pretty damn good chance they wont do it again,

But it encourages the nanny state attitude freeloading society we now have.

it'll have cost the tax payer hundreds of pounds less per incident and not wasting the local police authorities time & money they simply don't have.

I'd agree we don't have the money but if there were a fairer taxpaying system we might have!

You appear to advocate the police spend this time & money chasing cyclists without lights rather than addressing more serious crime/problems in towns & cities?

Not at all just that the policeforce,police the country.

ATEOTD you wont get your car confiscated and given an on the spot fine if your car is running illegally without a particular light & even though the danger from such is many times that than of a cyclist without a light at all, the punishment for cyclists is relatively greater. How is that right or fair?

Perhaps it should be law that if the lights on you're car aren't working correctly and you can't fit a new bulb there and then it should be confiscated,it would certainly stop the many drivers I encounter everday with defective lights! Including the chap on the M/way on Friday evening with no lights on at all even though everyone around him was flashing him and sounding there horns to let him know,or the three I counted on Saturday evening with one or both of their headlights pointing skyward dazzling everyone else and one driving on side lights!!!! plus one with one headlight not working at all! All in a twenty mile journey.
There are simply no police about to do the job,that is the problem and even if there were the justice system isn't hard enough on criminals IMO.

Are you aware that on a lot of newer cars these days changing a bulb is not possible at the roadside? We'd need a change in the law to make that sort of design illegal first.