sounds stupid to me but I could be way off here.

Ah bless you managed to get a retaliatory ‘stupid’ in. Good effort.

You missed car tyres, motorcycle helmets and bulbs whilst being selective.

I’d disagree it’s actually quite a “Big picture” idea

I’d strongly disagree with that. Its a sticking plaster on the real problem of a lack of infrastructure and a shockingly poor attitude from a significant number of motorists.

right I see your point now Gary.

But one issue at a time eh?

Great idea with one other problem…..

Which LEGAL lights will the Police be carrying / selling?

I can’t walk into a single shop in our town and buy front and rear lights that 100% meet the UK legislation (ANYWHERE – that includes about 15 local bike shops, 3 national chains, supermarkets, Argos etc etc).

Its a sticking plaster on the real problem of a lack of infrastructure and a shockingly poor attitude from a significant number of motorists.

It is?

I thought it was just a means by which the police might address the small percentage of bellends who choose to break the law requiring them to have lights when cycling on the roads at night… Not sure how infrastructure or the de-clarksonification of the UK would be directly affected, but carry on…

It is?

Yes, it is. While it’s a bloke in the local chip shop struggling to see the bigger picture that’s not really a big deal. When the police think this will make significant impact on road safety it’s a bit worrying.

I did manage to get a few sets of those Aldi lights in the sale reduced to £1 each. I kept them in my commuting rucksack and gave them out to people I saw without lights. Some gave me a mouthful of abuse, others were eternally grateful and asked why I did this. Anyone with kids can easily answer that question!

As I understand the actual proposal, it involved giving out lights and not prosecuting. Now, punishing crime is known to deter criminal behaviour in many cases, so not doing so will likely have a negative effect. The question is, will the free lights have an encouraging of non-criminal behaviour effect that outweighs it. The only way to answer that is by carrying out a trial and carefully measuring the outcomes. Evidence based policing is where it’s at, waffling about it is pointless, as is doing it without measuring whether it works or not.

Also, is there more to the protocol? Do repeat offenders get a further set of free lights or a summons? The scheme could easily be taken advantage of by scallywags deliberately riding without lights to get the freebies to sell, it would be worth trying to build in some safeguards.

Could I please ask for a constable to be stationed permanently halfway along “the clunch” just north of Stewarton, Ayrshire please with a decent array of charged lights, I carry a credit card on my bike so make sure they accept visa please.

My solar storms died on me last night and it was a bit of a surprise given it was pitch black windy and raining.

Thank **** for my exposure light….

Tyvm

My solar storms died on me last night and it was a bit of a surprise given it was pitch black windy and raining.

Could have been worse, might have been Wednesday night! Thursday was tame by comparison.

I commute killie to Glasgow and know rate clunch well.

Some interesting (and surprising) opinions. GaryM; you seem really quite opposed to the idea, yet so far I’ve not seen a conclusive argument against it, from you. The police regularly do other kinds of PR type exercises, and the tax/insurance/DSS roadblocks etc. And I’m sure that a box of lights would fit fine in an average panda car. And personally, I think cycling safety awareness campaigns are a bloody good use of police resources. Better than hanging around outside Downing street, for sure! 😀

Now, punishing crime is known to deter criminal behaviour in many cases, so not doing so will likely have a negative effect.

Riding a bike without lights at night is hardly a ‘criminal’ matter,it’s just bloody stupid. And as for fines; I’d be interested to see just how effective issuing fines for this particular offence actually is. I’ve never known anyone who has been fined for this, does anyone else? Do the police even bother with fines? Aren’t such low-level fines more costly overall to actually implement and chase up?

I’m more interested in the safety aspect; the increasing numbers of cyclist mean there are more and more inexperienced/ignorant cyclists out there, posing an increasing risk to their own safety, and that of others. So, we need to be focussing on stuff which can raise awareness and potentially save lives. I’m all for a bit of ‘Darwinism’, but I wouldn’t want any driver to have to go through the trauma of having seriously injured/killed someone, simply because the idiot didn’t have lights on their bike.

Riding a bike without lights at night is hardly a ‘criminal’ matter,it’s just bloody stupid. And as for fines; I’d be interested to see just how effective issuing fines for this particular offence actually is. I’ve never known anyone who has been fined for this, does anyone else? Do the police even bother with fines? Aren’t such low-level fines more costly overall to actually implement and chase up?

Your logic evades me. How does the fact that riding at night without lights is “hardly criminal” (although it is “literally criminal”) affect the argument as to whether free lights or a fine work better at deterring no-lights riding? Neither can be discounted as ineffective, the question is, which works best.

I would be interested to see if fines (the status quo) work as well, a well constructed trial would tell us this. Why aren’t you equally interested in finding out if free lights work? You seem to have made up your mind in advance that free lights work and fines don’t. Why? Where’s your evidence? The way to find out if fines work is to propose an alternative intervention, say free lights or something, conduct a trial and see if light usage goes up or down…

As to fines not being used, the police in the area the OP talked about clearly do punish offenders as they say the free lights were an option, the other option being a fine. And even if they do not fine, if it turns out that fining people is a good way of modifying their behaviour, then they should be fining.

As to the fines being “more costly”, more costly than what? Each fine may be more costly to administer than a free light, but as you say it is all about road safety. If it turns out that either measure improves road safety appreciably better, then the extra benefit may well be worth the cost. And how do we find out if either measure improves road safety…

Romantic idea, but the fact is it’s not within the police remit, not even close and it’s simply not practical, those same police who should be out prosecuting dangerous drivers and other criminals will be wasting time ordering, dealing with suppliers, stock taking, handling cash, dealing with faulty returns and irate customers and lugging sacks of lights round with them everywhere, the overheads would be, frankly ridiculous.

Romantic idea, but the fact is it’s not within the police remit, not even close and it’s simply not practical, those same police who should be out prosecuting dangerous drivers and other criminals will be wasting time ordering, dealing with suppliers, stock taking, handling cash, dealing with faulty returns and irate customers and lugging sacks of lights round with them everywhere, the overheads would be, frankly ridiculous.

But, as someone pointed out before,
a) It’s already been done in Bristol.
b) The precedent would be that motorists get the same sort of option in a speed awareness course. Pay the fine/get points, or pay the same and get some ‘speed awareness’.

It’s hardly a big effort to phone up Madison, setup an account and order a box of cheap lights. In fact they’d might even give them away for the free publicity. The real issue is that police (AFAIK) aren’t stopping unlit bikes so the fine Vs lights is a non issue.