Forum menu
+ another £102 on top of that!
I think that's a good thing!
Approves
Fixed penalty notice rather than court, surely?
It's that time of year. The other night when driving through Edinburgh at about 8pm I saw three people on bikes with no lights.
Would a car driving with no lights on be fined the same amount?
A £22 victim surcharge?
Who's the victim here?
Provided the law is applied fairly, seems perfectly reasonable.
No issue with that at all.
plenty of 'victims' here usually 😉
Would probably be 'without due care & attention' in a car
I know that road. It's used by a lot of HGVs and it's single lane in both directions, the lanes being just wide enough for an HGV.
Having also witnessed several cyclists riding through Greenwich and south London this evening without lights, I'm all for fines like this.
Roman Abramov... Hang on a sec, I think he gave false details too, he just stopped short from giving his full name.
Define light.. Friend of mine has a pin prick 'see me light' which is frankly useless, then got upset when he got doored during late dusk..
[i]Ps David Martin said: "Cycling in the dark without lights is extremely dangerous both for the rider and for other road users. This result shows that illegal behaviour by cyclists will not be tolerated in Essex."[/i]
Big Man!
Sounds like he could have paid £19.50 and done a course rather than gone to court.
They did a campaign round here once where people had the option of paying £25 to buy some lights or getting a £50 fine, always struck me as quite a good idea.
Possibly harsh, but I'm not overly upset by the idea. I'm sure I would have been if it was me and I'd left my lights at home by accident, I often don't take lights out on a mtb and occasionally get held up, but don't often go near Road on an MTB. When that happens I just try to be very very circumspect, aware that I'm a problem. Riding across Greenwich like that this was probably not the scenario though. My commute kit has lights in the bag year round in case.
Tbh, I know many have no rear reflector, but it's strictly a requirement that would be 'construction and use' if a car. My view is that with a decent rear light its loss is mitigated but I'm not the police.
Whole I guess they're better than nothing, I'm not a fan of the low power blinkies you see everywhere. To me, the flashing front light should have remained non Road legal as it's very hard for other users to track. Making it low power is even worse. Let's be honest about Road legal lights though, I bet very few have lights that are actually approved, as they seem universally rubbish.
surcharge?
Who's the victim here?
There doesn't have to be a victim.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_surcharge
I take it he received this fine because he did not complete the course mentioned in the article? That sounds kinda fair, because when I first read the thread I thought it was very excessive considering speeding motorists are often given the opportunity to attend a course for a much lesser sum...
The thing is with cycling and lights. While you are cycling, you are so hyper aware of your surroundings, I genuinely believe that a lot of people simply don't realise. And that if they sat in the car behind, just for a second, squinting past the oncoming headlights, through a filthy windscreen, pelted by rain that several year old wipers are just smearing across the windscreen....That point when they realise they can barely see 10 feet in front of the car. I think they'd get it. Education is the key. Fines will just piss people off.
Tonight flashing light on helmet 2 on handle bars and 2 on rear of bike, passed loads of people who run and obviously cant ride bikes in the middle of pitch dark cycle paths, no reflectives and no lights visible, then we have those doggerists who walk dogs in the dark a and not on a lead, dogs running wildly in the dark is an accident waiting to happen and a huge compo bill for the doggerists who fail to control their dogs.
then near home back on the road , council have installed great new LED lamps so great lighting and an idiot driving along with no lights on at all.
Does seem a bit excessive when the fine for speeding is £100 and no MOT is £60. You don't [i]need[/i] lights in town except to make yourself visible to motorists. Its borderline victim blaming. When on my bike I can clearly see other cyclists, pedestrians, street furniture, etc whether lit or not. From inside a car these things can become much harder to spot. Obviously it is sensible to have good lights, reflectors, reflective clothing etc, it just seems back to front that this is deemed a minimum requirement and you can be punished for not using it.
Maybe he was using a bike because he couldn't afford any other transport, and couldn't do the online course because he doesn't have a computer.
Wrong. Edit:meant for Nickjb
While you are cycling, you are so hyper aware of your surroundings,
Really?!
Where do you ride because nearly every cyclist I see has no interest in what is going on around them, so much so, it is actually frighting to see them cycling in traffic, and its not just the inexperienced ones either!
The fine seems too high, but he clearly decided to ignore the advice/course he was given and paid the price.
We need more done to stop these clueless cyclists riding about without lights at night.
The ironic ones I see are the ones with the bright cycling jacket and sometimes a helmet, and decided they don't need lights because thats enough!
Does seem a bit excessive when the fine for speeding is £100 and no MOT is £60.
Both those are the "on the spot" options.
If you choose not to accept those, as this guy did, it will go to court and the fines/costs/surcharges will be way higher.
Fair enough. But could they consider applying a "producer" - show up at police station within 7 days with working lights? Maybe in conjunction with a smaller fine.
It's arguably complete whataboutery on my part, but I reckon I see on average one car a week in proper darkness with no lights on. Same thing - I don't really want them fined, just somehow make them use their lights...
I always struggle with universal sign language for "please put your lights on" (to drivers - I can just swear directly at cyclists) . Whatever I try ends up looking a bit inappropriate.
But, read the article to the end, and he had the choice of attending a safety course for a minimal fee, he ignored it, and eventually went to Court.
It's his own fault, firstly, no lights, then ignoring the chance to go on the short course, and probably walk away with a free set of lights, a highway code, and maybe a hi-vis vest.
Tbf, if the cops see a driver without lights and aren't on a shout, they'll normally stop them and issue spot fines and producers.
Even on a lit bike in a shared space you're responsible for care and attention, and the usual order of precedence applies, bikes are expected to make allowance for pedestrians, runners etc however annoying that may be. Just like drivers are expected not to drive over bikes because they were in a hurry.
Sounds about right to me if you are on the road obey the rules if not accept the punishment,foreign motorists face higher fines than UK drivers as they dont get points.
TBH there is no excuse I nearly killed someone this morning, cyclist no lights, dark clothing and it was ****ing raining, riding straight across a mini roundabout nearly had him splatted all over the front of my car 😕
vincienup - Member
Tbf, if the cops see a driver without lights and aren't on a shout, they'll normally stop them and issue spot fines and producers.
Good if that is the case. I think it's just the same as lots of other things, it's not practical to enforce all the offences out there (whether cyclists, drivers etc)
I'm usually very self righteous on this issue.
But the shortening nights caught me out. This was me a couple of days ago, 10 miles from home...
[url= https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5750/22068592698_279caa9032_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5750/22068592698_279caa9032_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
I must say I enjoyed the stealth ride home using every back lane, bit of singletrack, and shortcut I could find. The sensation of swooping through the twilight without lights on quiet roads is hard to beat.
But I won't be doing it again...
I'm all for it, but I'd sooner see motorists getting fines and points for causing accidents.
How is it that you can drive along perfectly safely at 4mph over the limit and get a fine and points, yet actually stuff your car into another motorist and there is no punishment?
It's a ****ing ridiculous situation.
Should be mandatory points and fine for [u]any[/u] collision in a car.
Would a car driving with no lights on be fined the same amount?
Of course not, that would be be ridiculous. Cars don't have legal personality. The driver might well be if they chose to take it to court.
I'm not nit picking for the sake of it. I'm sick of reading news articles about all those bad things 'cyclists' do while motorists get nicely depersonalised and the 'car' gets held responsible for their actions.
He got caught and has to pay the fine, just as if you get caught speeding in car you have to pay the fine. No excuses, no sympathy.
BUT, it is still down to luck as many people who cycle with lights don't get caught and if they do may just get a bit of a warning just the same as if a car drives along without it's lights on has the same chances.
an approval from me. good example to be made. I'm sick of seeing cyclists without lights and this time of year it takes a few weeks of darkness before numpties remember, oooh maybe fit some lights.
there is indeed a good awreness when riding a bike in the dark, its the same when youre walking, your eyes adjust to the lack of light, sadly its also true that driving or cycling your eyes also adjust, and cyclists and pedestrians are often obscured by bright street lamps, other car lights and shop lights.
So if you really want to live then fit lights.
I rode past a chap last year and nicely said, hey mate, you might wanna get some lights. the tirade of abuse that came out after that was amazing.
I rode past a chap last year and nicely said, hey mate, you might wanna get some lights. the tirade of abuse that came out after that was amazing.
Yes I probably would have given you a mouthfull too. Not really any of your business was it.
Folks should be allowed to use common sense regarding lights (i.e. none /rear only/ or front and rear) depending on the circumstances (journey length / street lights / volume of traffic / number of cycle paths / quality of eyesight to name a few). Common sense is a valuable asset but people never seem to be able to exercise it these days...and without practice a skill quickly diminishes.
If someone gets knocked off in the dark that's their problem not yours.
Let's be honest about Road legal lights though, I bet very few have lights that are actually approved, as they seem universally rubbish.
Nope. B&M ones I've had are, though not perfect, the best quality road lights I've had. Bright and durable. The old Duracell ones were pretty terrible though (driven by the limitations of batteries and the law at the time).
I have to say, this autumn I've seen loads of cars driving around at dusk (when all street lights are lit) without lights, and no cyclists without lights. Whilst I think it's reasonable that this guy's been prosecuted, I find it interesting that the many cars given fix it notices and/or prosecuted for having non-working lights or not using them don't make the news.
Yes I probably would have given you a mouthfull too. Not really any of your business was it.If someone gets knocked off in the dark that's their problem not yours.
that depends - if I am driving a car and hit a cyclist, maybe kill, because they are not using lights, then that is going to affect me, possibly for the rest of my life.
As a pedestrian I might attempt to cross the road and a cyclist appears 'from nowhere' in the dark because I can't see them approaching.
If a cyclist chooses to not use lights then it is not just themselves it affects...
Driving is too easy and taken for granted. You can legally do it listening to the radio, chatting on the phone while drinking a cup of coffee. If you hit someone then you can just say they should have been easier to see rather than washed out by your sat nav. Drivers need to take some responsibility. If you you are doing something that can and does kill then you need to at least put a bit of effort in, not just avoid the things that are easy to see.
project - Member
then we have those doggerists who walk dogs in the dark a and not on a lead, dogs running wildly in the dark
Or the classic dog running about 20 meters in front of the person attached by a jet black lead on a shared path. Good move.
if I am driving a car and hit a cyclist, maybe kill, because they are not using lights, then that is going to affect me, possibly for the rest of my life.
You should feel guilty as it probably was your fault. Your own powerful headlights will have illuminated the cyclist perfectly adequately for you to avoid him regardless of what lights the cyclist was wearing. Accidents are tend to be caused by drivers getting distracted and not seeing whats right in front of them.
I personally do use lights when appropriate - just saying
When you are pulling out from the side of the road a cyclist without lights against a backdrop of car headlights is pretty much invisible. It's also a reason why a flashing light is a good idea, they really stand out against the car lights. I hardly ever ride on the road but picked up some lights in Aldi the other day as they were so cheap, handy to have in the bag just in case.
Yes I probably would have given you a mouthfull too. Not really any of your business was it.
Ah, the refrain beloved of drivers using phones, among others. As noted above, the lights aren't solely there for the benefit of the rider: they're also to help prevent collisions where pedestrians step in front of a bicycle or where someone is joining a road at a T-junction where the bicycle is approaching from the side.
Besides, where does your "not your business" philosophy stop? If you see someone attempting to burgle a house would you object to anyone intervening on the grounds that it's not their business?
Folks should be allowed to use common sense regarding lights (i.e. none /rear only/ or front and rear) depending on the circumstances (journey length / street lights / volume of traffic / number of cycle paths / quality of eyesight to name a few). Common sense is a valuable asset but people never seem to be able to exercise it these days...and without practice a skill quickly diminishes.
Well, for instance, some people haven't thought about things from others' point of view (see above), so their "common sense" is flawed for a start. "Common sense" is always subjective, and inherently based on a certain perspective. As you point out, many people don't exercise it, whatever it is (because your definition of it will differ from mine and anyone else's). And that's precisely why we have laws for this sort of thing.
Well done you on showing everyone you're Very Good at [your] Common Sense, though: have a biscuit 😉
Bah, I'll just delete my very similar response that Bez beat me to posting!
One point that does get skipped over when people compare cyclists without lights, and drivers without lights is that not having your lights on in a car is normally a result of forgetfullness/lack of attention*, and if you (or a nice Policeman) point it out to the driver it's normally very easily fixed by flicking a switch, you might get a stern talking to, but unlikely to get a fine if you're just bimbling around after dusk under streetlighting, might be different if you're also doing $OTHER_BAD_THINGS, but the same goes when cycling.
The Cycling scenario is much more commonly that they do not have lights [b]fitted[/b], which is very different, that's not normally carelessness or forgetfulness, that's going out on/in a vehicle that you know is not properly equipped (in the eyes of the law, whatever your not-so-common sense says), and if you or that nice Policeman point it out they can't just flick a switch if they are not fitted.
That is a big difference, if you have lights fitted but forgot to turn them on and plod stops you, it'll be a friendly "turn them on please" and no fine, likewise if you go out in a car after dark with no headlamps fitted you'll get more than just a producer!
*In itself something that needs dealing with but one step at a time.
You should feel guilty as it probably was your fault. Your own powerful headlights will have illuminated the cyclist perfectly adequately for you to avoid him regardless of what lights the cyclist was wearing. Accidents are tend to be caused by drivers getting distracted and not seeing whats right in front of them.
You seem to be assuming a "hit from behind" collision.
Your own powerful headlights will have illuminated the cyclist perfectly adequately for you to avoid him regardless of what lights the cyclist was wearing.
what if they are not in front of your lights - coming from a side road for example?
I have had a guy without lights and dark clothing do this to me on a roundabout. Shot across in front of me, then up onto the pavement, then across the sideroad at the next junction without checking for anyone turning into the road.
Not sure I would personally be too bothered about hitting such a cyclist - but my wife for example would be pretty shook up. Me, I would just be getting their household insurance details so I can get the damage to my car repaired. Possibly after I had rung for an ambulance...