[Closed] £220 fine for no lights

Another fun one this morning. The bypass was broken so I drove past Dreghorn Barracks. Guy in full camouflage kit on bike with no lights flashes across in front of me (crossing the road from pavement to the entrance).

Again, he is lucky I am a careful driver and was only doing 30 ! I know these guys get in much bigger trouble than any of us computer mechanics for being late, but that was a brave move.

Driving into a space you can't see is a mistake? Presumably people shouldn't be punished for things which are just mistakes rather than negligence?

I think you are confused. The term 'mistake' does not remove culpability.

Flashing lights.. ooh don't get me started. Slow flashing lights are a damn nuisance to everyone - drivers, cyclists and everyone.

For an extreme example cycle up from Hyde Park Corner into Hyde Park at rush hour. The street lighting is much less and there are dozens of cyclists coming towards you and going with you, almost all of whom have very bright flashing lights front and rear. You cannot see a bloody thing, just a view of loads of flashing lights.

Lezyne need to pull their fingers out. They make these lovely lights that are in loads of bike shops, and then they only give them this slow blink mode which is a disaster for visibility. I have Cateye and Bontrager lights which have a flicker mode, this is far better and uses no more power.

The question we are debating is 'are lights worth using?'

not 'what's the greatest risk to cyclists?'

This guy was seriously risking his life especially given the speed people drive around these back roads.

There's lots of shit drivers out there not looking where they are going so it's probably a good idea to use lights (it's also a legal requirement 🙂 ) but blaming the victim when some ****tard not watching where he is going ploughs into the back of them is not on, accusing someone without lights of darwinism or suicidal tendencies is not on. As has already been mentioned there's other unlit things that are occasionally on the road so tunnel vision only looking out for lights ahead is a stupid way to drive.

Bez - Member
Et voilà: http://singletrackworld.com/columns/2015/02/bez-the-wedge/

Oh and we also get shit about our choice of light,
flashing "nooooo it's too disorientating so I hit you",
powerful "aaaaah my eyes, didn't want to slow down so drove into you while dazzled",
steady low power "not powerful enough and pointing in slightly the wrong direction so I had to run you over, sorry about that*"

I think you are confused. The term 'mistake' does not remove culpability.

*just my little joke, no one apologises

The guy in the original story was clearly an idiot, and deserves the fine.

Having said that, it's interesting going through this thread replacing “cyclist” with “pedestrian“… when driving you need to be looking out for non-lit dressed in black people, and be in control of your car, and, dare I say it, be slower and more careful on these darker evenings.

aracer - Member
So you're suggesting that drivers who run down cyclists because they couldn't see them when driving into a low sun are not at all at fault? Wow. Is it the cyclists who are at fault then?

well the stupid young b**ch who killed a friend of mine by pulling from a side road even though she COULD NOT see because of low sun walked away from court without so much as a fine 👿

She actually admitted in court that she could not see due to the setting sun but she pulled out anyway because "she assumed it was clear".

The Judge ruled that it was an accident and she could not reasonably has seen him due to the time of year, the suns position, etc.
Bearing in mind he had a helmet cam on and the footage showed her with her windows open, dark glasses on and not covering her face. She also didn't wait any length of time at the junction either. The footage showed her pulling up to the STOP line, quickly looking and then pulling out - so her story of not being able to see was a total crock.
She still walked though.

So yes aracer - it is reasonable to "assume" that a driver killing someone because they couldn't see is not at fault....

[quote=molgrips ]

Driving into a space you can't see is a mistake? Presumably people shouldn't be punished for things which are just mistakes rather than negligence?

I think it's you who is confused - in criminal terms it does remove culpability in almost all cases. Or maybe you could point me to details of the case where a motorist made a mistake and was prosecuted?

Are you two still at it? 🙂

Think they got a room last night......

Well, it all got a bit silly didn't it.

Clearly it's a good idea to have lights fitted and it good working order and turned on at night when cycling

The law is clear on this

If you choose not to fit / use lights and ride at night on public roads/places, then you are somewhat daft in my opinion.

I think it's you who is confused - in criminal terms it does remove culpability in almost all cases

What?

Ignorance has never been a defence.

Or maybe you could point me to details of the case where a motorist made a mistake and was prosecuted?

Me, I made a mistake in thinking a 40 was a 30.

You got prosecuted for doing 10mph under the speed limit? ISTR it's happened, but it's not exactly common 😉

[url= http://road.cc/content/news/136356-two-drivers-cleared-causing-death-careless-driving-after-hitting-cyclist-low-sun ]A telling story about low sun[/url], cyclist hit (and later died) by 3 separate drivers then a driver who got out to help the cyclist was also hit.

Everyone acquitted coz, you know, assuming the road is clear isn't careless/dangerous...
Awesome!

(I was looking for "I made a mistake" drivers being acquitted but got derailed when I read that)

Ignorance has never been a defence.

I assumed it was more a reference to mens rea than to ignorance. But even then AFAICT there's no real difference between mistakes and negligence (other than, one might speculate, the likelihood of a jury sympathising with the defendant), which makes half the thread a moot discussion of semantics: see the comment regarding R v Lawrence at the bottom of the first page of [url= http://motoroffence.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/the-law-behind-careless-driving.pdf ]this document[/url].

A telling story about low sun, cyclist hit (and later died) by 3 separate drivers then a driver who got out to help the cyclist was also hit.

Yeah, done that one too, [url= https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/****-this/ ]in (now rarely-seen) full rant mode[/url] 😐

Yeah, done that one too, in (now rarely-seen) full rant mode

[quote=molgrips ]Me, I made a mistake in thinking a 40 was a 30.

Assuming you mean the other way round, then you mean that you were negligent in failing to read the speed limit signs.

[quote=D0NK ]Forum even swear filters URLs

I hadn't realised it did that, though it shouldn't really be that surprising.

Fixed: [url= http://tinyurl.com/m3365qp ]in (now rarely-seen) full rant mode[/url]

Assuming you mean the other way round, then you mean that you were negligent in failing to read the speed limit signs.

Yep.

As Bez said there's no real difference. Neglicence can lead to mistakes, but mistakes can be made for other reasons. That's why we are prosecuted for driving without DUE care and attention, not driving whilst not taking every possible scenario into account at all times.

But this is rather pointless. You've said that blame cannot automatically be apportioned to the non-light using cyclist, I've agreed.

I however believe that certain things do help others to make fewer mistakes. Lights at night is a pretty straightforward one, which is why it's mandatory for all vehicles. The article in the OP is about a cyclist breaking the rules, not about who was at fault in an accident.

[quote=Bez ]which makes half the thread a moot discussion of semantics

What's new?

Though there is a fundamental point here - it appears that hitting somebody whilst driving into a space you can't see is a mistake. Because nobody ever considers the negligence involved in driving into a space you can't see - there is a very conscious decision being made by drivers to do that, a decision which is fundamentally reckless about the safety of other road users.

[quote=molgrips ]Neglicence can lead to mistakes, but mistakes can be made for other reasons. That's why we are prosecuted for driving without DUE care and attention, not driving whilst not taking every possible scenario into account at all times.

There is a fundamental difference though. Because mistakes without negligence (or incompetence, inexperience or deliberate intent) won't be prosecuted (mistakes with negligence don't get prosecuted often enough when the negligence isn't acknowledged). Bez's legal link up there doesn't contradict that.

Is not seeing a cyclist because they are in a saccade a mistake or not ?

Indeed. And negligence is defined as not doing the things that one SHOULD be doing. Which is what the lawyers argue over.

Drivers are expected to be only so good, it is recognised that not everyone should be expected to be perfect. You seem to have a problem with where the line is drawn.

Which is fair enough, and I think that could've been explained better in a single post rather than a long drawn out bickerthon.

[quote=molgrips ]Drivers are expected to be only so good, it is recognised that not everyone should be expected to be perfect. You seem to have a problem with where the line is drawn.

I have a problem with some forms of negligence not even being acknowledged. Fair point on the bickerthon though, to everybody's relief I'll stop here.

The article in the OP is about a cyclist breaking the rules, not about who was at fault in an accident.

<edit> not wanting to reignite the bickerthon but I've been away from the thread for a while 🙂

Is not seeing a cyclist because they are in a saccade a mistake or not?

Heh. I must get round to finishing the next column 🙂

I think you'll find it's Bickathon or Bickerathon NOT Bickerthon.

Eh? You want some?

TurnerGuy - Member
Is not seeing a cyclist because they are in a saccade a mistake or not ?

Not a mistake. Dangerous driving - you should be driving so you can stop. A saccade is almost instantaneous, and a cyclist is not going to miraculously materialise out of nowhere 5 feet from your bumper.

So you should be driving within your reaction time + whatever period occupied by a saccade.

I might be tempted to agree on the saccade. The mistake is to trust your eyes, trust that quick glance. You need to look twice or three times everywhere, and make sure you're taking enough time to do so.

I've been surprised by cars or cyclists because I've missed them the first time but there's been a second time, because that's how I try to drive.

I knew you were with me really 😉

The point is that it is possible to do things to avoid missing a cyclist in a saccade, therefore drivers should do them. Like you I now take a second and third look before pulling out of anywhere - we could do with more public information stuff on this.

The point is that it is possible to do things to avoid missing a cyclist in a saccade, therefore drivers should do them. Like you I now take a second and third look before pulling out of anywhere - we could do with more public information stuff on this.

And there's the rub: we don't educate people about this when they learn to drive, let alone test them on it. So there's a limit to how culpable someone can be held when they adhere to what they've been told is best practice, but that supposed best practice fails to account for researched and accepted visual and cognitive effects.

(There you go: that's the next column in a paragraph.)

<spoiler>

And there's the rub: we don't educate people about this when they learn to drive, let alone test them on it.

this is why I like two flashing lights in opposite sequence, so it looks like something is moving from side to side.

We are evolved to see movement so a driver is more likely to see that - I have had a number of drivers catch-themselves before pulling out on me with lights like that, but not if I only have a single light, or a single solid light.

I have a constant beam head torch and a flashing front light, and two or three rear flashing lights.

I would not use a headtorch when riding on the road. You need to look around a lot obviously, and you'll just be dazzling motorists.