tinyurl.com/qfj3jek
Surely it would be worthwhile keeping this up all year round.
Pat
|
Pat's link is to a commercial drivers mag reporting on elevated Police activity following the rash of cyclist deaths in November. While it highlights FPNs issued for cycling offences it goes on to mention that numerous seatbelt refuseniks and phone users were also trapped in the web.
I believe there was also a joint action with VOSA focussed on construction lorries and with a similar success rate.
Both City and Met are regularly out at major junctions stopping red light jumpers.
|
To quote from the article "The most common offences included not having lights on their bicycles at night (1,598 FPNs/reports for summons).
Around 900 FPNs were cancelled when the cyclists agreed to attend designated points subsequently to show that they had now fitted lights to their bikes.
Motorists were issued with 9,733 FPNs or reported for summons during the period. Failing to wear a seatbelt (2,437) and using a mobile phone while driving (2,424) were the most frequent offences. However, 1,056 motorists also contravened traffic signals.
So, a cyclist can break the law by not having lights fitted, but if they then fit them afterwards and prove it, they get let off. Surely not having lights is just as dangerous as someone on a mobile or not wearing a seatbelt?
|
>> So, a cyclist can break the law by not having lights fitted, but if they
>> then fit them afterwards and prove it, they get let off. Surely not having lights
>> is just as dangerous as someone on a mobile or not wearing a seatbelt?
Isn't the same process applied for some Lighting and Construction & Use offences for cars?
AFAIR the driver is issued with a 'rectification notice'. He then has to produce the repaired car at either a police station or MoT test centre within a week or so. If he does then FPN etc is cancelled.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 7 Jan 14 at 10:29
|
>> AFAIR the driver is issued with a 'rectification notice'. He then has to produce the repaired
>>car at either a police station or MoT test centre within a week or so. If he does then FPN
>>etc is cancelled.
Not really the point though is it. Cycling without lights is near-suicidal. Problem is the suicide is ignored when the poor motorist ends up in court, and is treated as a murderer.
Speaking as a cyclist and motorist, cyclists should suffer financial penalties, pour encourager les autres. A few jail sentences for cyclists for behaving like idiots (say, getting knocked off their bike when riding without lights) would rapidly send out the signal that petty crime on bicycles is not acceptable to society - because it's endangering the cyclist.
|
I agree with that viewpoint in principal but in my experience many cyclists wouldn't class themselves as cyclists if you know what I mean.
Same way as some folks who walk to work wouldn't say that their pastimes included walking!
In the week between Xmas and New Year, I was out walking the dog one evening, rain absolutely battering down about 10pm at night, floods all over the road, and there was a cyclist peddling away, swerving to avoid all the puddles with no lights on and no hi-vis.
That is the type of person who should be hammered but in reality with that attitude he is not going to read about some other cyclist being punished and think, oh I must change my habits.
And then the other side, why should a cyclist be jailed for not having lights on but many other offences like knife carrying, burglary etc don't merit a prison sentence.
On Saturday afternoon I passed two cyclists on their race bikes, side by side on the road, all the lycra etc on but no lights and both in head to thigh black. Is it so unstreet cred to even wear a hi vis vest or an outfit with a brighter colour than black?
When I am out on my bike, even to the local shop, I will wear a helmet and throw the hi-vis waistcoat thingy on. When bike not in use, they are both kept hanging from the handlebars so always to hand!
|
>> Not really the point though is it. Cycling without lights is near-suicidal.
Absolutely.
Generally unless a car/lorry/bus is very unmaintained it will still have at least one light at the front and rear to indicate its presence, whereas a bike has none.
A couple of months ago the local paper (Oxford Mail) reported a similar story to the one in Pat's link. Loads of cyclists caught without lights, fixed penalty notices issued, but then waived if they bought lights for their bikes and produce a receipt for inspection at a police station.
tinyurl.com/on28bnp
As well as not having lights, the newspaper picture also showed the cyclists in dark clothing. And they wonder why they get run over.
|
Having an FPN cancelled isnt a lot different to a motorist avoiding points if he attends a driver aware course.
However I'm all for cyclists being rapped over the knuckles for not complying with the laws of the land. As a road user they are not exempt from prosecution or above the law.
Can't fathom why some cyclists dont have lights. Are they concerned about a weight penalty?
There are lots of compact, lightweight LED lights these days that can be unobtrusively fitted.
|
>> Having an FPN cancelled isnt a lot different to a motorist avoiding points if he attends a driver aware course.
The driver however still has to pay the fine to cover the cost of the course, whereas the cyclist pays nothing.
|
Riding without lights is stupid. With modern LED stuff there's next to no weight penalty, the bulbs last for ever, batteries last for ages and replacements are small & light. The lightness also means they're easy to remove and carry when bike is unattended.
OTOH none of the accident figures for cities like London, Oxford or Cambridge suggest that lack of lights is a major factor in fatalities or other accidents. I imagine the culprits, mostly students, think they can see/be seen as well as a pedestrians.
I don't imagine for a minute that they see themselves as 'cyclists' and any sort of crackdown pour encourager etc. will go over their heads. The 'get lights and avoid the FPN' message may actually reach them - more so if co-ordinated with other campaigns eg through colleges etc.
|
>>I don't imagine for a minute that they see themselves as 'cyclists'
I don't see myself as a cyclist any longer, after two posts above. I am a bicycle user. Probably a BSO user - is a Boris bike even a BSO...?
But driving round London is increasingly dangerous for pedestrians and motorists, as more cyclists do it without lights.
I think that if a few people on a bicycle were sent to prison it would make a huge difference to the attitude of the people on bicycles to lights etc.
|
>> if a few people on a bicycle were sent to prison it would make a huge difference t
'HUMAN PYRAMID' JAILED FOR RIDING ON PAVEMENT WITHOUT LIGHTS
11 circus performers receive 'exemplary' sentences
I have to say Mapmaker that the last thing the average criminal would want would be a lot of fanatical Lycra-clad amateur athletes making a clamour and doing physical jerks. They have human rights you know. Prison is their home.
|
The police have been quite intelligent about this as far as I can see.
The objective is presumably NOT to pander to cycle-hating drivers, but to bring about an attitude change on the part of a group of mainly casual 'cyclists', as Bromp says largely students, who obviously see nothing wrong with bimbling round the town centre or a mile up the road with no lights. I see and mutter at scores every time I go to Cambridge.
A draconian campaign is not the way to achieve a culture/attitude change. They aren't exactly being let off - they get off the fine only if they take the next required action, i.e. to get some lights.
To VxFans's point, they are paying to equip themselves just as the car driver on a SAC is paying to equip himself to manage his speeding tendency. You can either use the money to pay the fine, or get some benefit.
Decent cycle lights are especially cheap, though they are a lot more convenient and reliable than they were even 10 years ago.
It's unusual to see roadies without plenty of very bright lights, but I have noticed whole groups attired in black. Very odd, considering it is usually clothing specifically made for cycling.
Last edited by: Manatee on Tue 7 Jan 14 at 14:46
|
>> They aren't exactly being let off - they get off the fine only if they take the next required
>>action, i.e. to get some lights.
No, they're only being made to prove they own (or can borrow) a set of lights. Not to use them the next time they're out in the dark.
AC, you've just made me laugh until I cried.
|
Can I just mention that if a lorry is stopped, as we constantly are, with any one of the 20+ lights out on our vehicle or trailer it is an instant £60 fixed penalty unless
A) We can humour VOSA/Plod to let us fit another bulb on the spot while he watches us fumble.
or
B) We can bash it hard and make it come on and stay on.
Leeway should only work for ALL road users.
Pat
|
>> Leeway should only work for ALL road users.
But should perhaps be applied proportionately depending upon the threat posed by different classes of vehicles and their operators?
|
Perhaps Alanovic, but the danger posed by having one light in 20+ out is surely less than having none at all?
The Police look upon a light out on an HGV as a good reason for a pull.
The tacho check and paperwork checks follow on from the initial reason.
Scenario: Vehicle pulled one mile from yard at 6am because of a trailer light out.
Plod: Did you know you had a light out?
Driver: No, it was on when I left the yard a minute ago.
Plod: How do you know that?
Driver: When I did my walk round checks it was working.
Plod: Can I see your tacho card/print out please?
Plod: You haven't shown any 'other work' before starting driving this morning so this isn't a true and accurate record of your working day if you did a walk round check.
Plod: Can I see your charts for the previous two weeks please.
Driver:......losing the will to live!
It's the easiest and most productive pull a copper can get for an HGV, all for one simple small brake light bulb often with a bad wiring connection.
Pat
|
That seems OTT to me Pat. And perhaps you are talking about VOSA, the police don't seem to stop cars for lighting offences now unless they want to jerk the occupants around a bit or breathalyse the driver. A couple of my neighbours are down to two bulbs each I think.
But as I said, the point of the cycle campaign is not to mollify other road users. Presumably the police aren't going to do this full time, what they want is hearts and minds.
|
>>Leeway should only work for ALL road users
At the risk of being wrong (never!) - surely having to take your HGV to a VOSA station so they can confirm you have replaced a bulb isn't worth the hassle to avoid a £60 non-endorsable FPN?
|
|
I think the younger generations, (almost anyone on a bike), must be totally devoid of common sense. I still remember being stopped by the local bobby (Met police) at about age seven or so. The wire from the dynamo to the front light of my bike had broken, after a colossal ear bashing he fixed it and sent me on my way. How times have changed.
|
>>The wire from the dynamo to the front light of my
>> bike had broken, after a colossal ear bashing he fixed it and sent me on
>> my way. How times have changed.
So he "let you off" then?
I can't understand the pavement riding thing. I'd be happy for a campaign on that. Walked to the paper shop round the corner from my daughter's house in Chesterton on Boxing Day, next to nothing on the roads, and had to dodge a vacuous looking 20 something year old on a bike. Why?
I tried a bit of pavement riding in Hythe back in September - the road was busy in both directions, I was holding up traffic and the pavement was empty. What with lamp posts, bits of glass, parked cars and dropped kerbs every few yards I soon gave that up.
|
>> So he "let you off" then?
>>
I don't think they did FPNs and ASBOs in the 1950s, more likely to be a cuff around the ear. :-)
Last edited by: Uncle Albert on Tue 7 Jan 14 at 16:48
|
>> So, a cyclist can break the law by not having lights fitted, but if they
>> then fit them afterwards and prove it, they get let off. Surely not having lights
>> is just as dangerous as someone on a mobile or not wearing a seatbelt?
Dangerous to whom?
The other day, daughter and I, on foot, were about to cross the tightly curved access road to Waitrose in Sheffield. Just as we stepped into the road an LR Disco hurtled round the bend, considerable body roll on show, forcing us to leap back onto the kerb.
Reason for failure to adequately control was i-phone in driver's right hand while she steered etc with her left.
An order of magnitude more dangerous than an unlit cyclist.
|
>>Dangerous to whom?<<
To himself, as well as to the car or lorry driver who knocks him off and kills him.
Despite being not to blame the driver will inevitably go to sleep each night seeing the picture in his mind, and wake up the following morning asking himself 'what if''
Two wrongs will never make a right Bromp and the fact remains that both the cyclist without lights and your Disco driver are in the wrong, so why try and defend the cyclist at all costs?
Pat
|
>> Two wrongs will never make a right Bromp and the fact remains that both the
>> cyclist without lights and your Disco driver are in the wrong, so why try and
>> defend the cyclist at all costs?
>>
>> Pat
Why. Pavlov excepted, do you think I'm defending the cyclist? I said at 14:03 yesterday that riding without lights was stupid and enlarged on why.
My reply was contesting VXfan's assertion that cycling sans lights was as dangerous as driving while using a mobile and justified a similar penalty.
The fact that you need to resort to the 'think of the blameless driver' line suggests I'm probably right.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 8 Jan 14 at 11:26
|
Brompton, you're being ridiculous and taking offence from Pat where none exists.
Notwithstanding your earlier comments at 14.03 yesterday, you're defending the right of cyclists to ride light-less *because* of a Disco-driver on an iPhone.
You ask "dangerous to whom?"
And the answer is, dangerous to the sanity of the driver who kills them. The vehicle driver will spend the night in the cells almost certainly; and quite probably get his day in court, and maybe even a term inside. And all because the cyclist had no lights.
SMIDSY because you were invisible.
Just back to your Disco-driver; what exactly did they do wrong? You were standing in the road when a car was coming at you, and seem surprised that it would have hurt you if it had hit you?
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Wed 8 Jan 14 at 11:35
|
The rather doubtful equation of risk from light-free cycling with risks from mobile wielding drivers et al was raised by VxFan. It seems quite right to argue that the risks are different in these cases.
I think Brompt was trying to illustrate that the errant cyclist primarily creates a risk to themselves, but drivers of larger vehicles are more likely to create serious risks to others. The potential mental effects of a fatality are a common denominator, so balance out.
From the description of the LR driving it sounded as though the LR was out of conscious control, and speeding. Two pedestrians had already started to cross when the vehicle appeared. The driver is supposed to stop, but a) wasn't capable due to excess speed; b) didn't care.
|
>>. Two pedestrians had already started to cross when the vehicle appeared. The driver is supposed to stop,
Really? What part of the Highway Code is that in?
I was always told off for playing 'Chicken'...
|
I always start at the beginning:
1. Overview
"This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident."
There is more: I raise you 146 and 204.
|
I raise you 7A. "First find a safe place to cross."
Being in the right is no comfort when you're dead...
|
>> I was always told off for playing 'Chicken'...
>>
Are you on something?
Incident was here - goo.gl/maps/MMBNy
We were crossing from right to left. The Disco was on same track as the dark coloured Audi in the streetview. It was going faster than it should have been and was not signalling as it left Eccleshall Rd.
|
>> Brompton, you're being ridiculous and taking offence from Pat where none exists.
I was looking for a discussion and am not remotely offended.
>> Notwithstanding your earlier comments at 14.03 yesterday, you're defending the right of cyclists to ride
>> light-less *because* of a Disco-driver on an iPhone.
No I'm not. Both are offences deserving of penalty. I'm arguing that they're offences of vastly differing seriousness/consequence and justify differing penalties.
>> You ask "dangerous to whom?"
>>
>> And the answer is, dangerous to the sanity of the driver who kills them. The
>> vehicle driver will spend the night in the cells almost certainly; and quite probably get
>> his day in court, and maybe even a term inside. And all because the cyclist
>> had no lights.
If he gets a term inside then by definition he did something seriously wrong and 'no lights' was merely contributory. And, without wishing to open another front, it seems quite difficult to actually secure a conviction when motorists kill cyclists.
>>
>> Just back to your Disco-driver; what exactly did they do wrong? You were standing in
>> the road when a car was coming at you, and seem surprised that it would
>> have hurt you if it had hit you?
The wrong was to be sat in 2 tonnes of metal over speed and under controlled. As it happened my best response was to jump back. If I'd been further into road or had stumbled I doubt she could have steered to avoid me. Doubt if I'd be dead but probably in Royal Northern or Hallamshire with a fractured femur.
|
>> it seems quite difficult to actually secure a conviction when motorists kill cyclists.
Great anecdotal evidence I'm sure, but seems a pretty high stick-rate for prosecutions becoming convictions where I live.
|
>>If he gets a term inside then by definition he did something seriously wrong and 'no lights' was merely contributory.
But the night in the police cell?
Are you on something?
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Wed 8 Jan 14 at 12:56
|
>> it seems quite difficult to actually secure a conviction when motorists kill cyclists.
<<
Could that be because it's impossible to prosecute a dead cyclist?
Pat
|
>>
>> An order of magnitude more dangerous than an unlit cyclist.
>>
In your circumstance possible so, but I wouldn't say that in all circumstances.
|
More detail of offences reported for both cyclists and motorists in an MPS press release from yesterday:
www.met.police.uk/pressbureau/Bur06/page02.htm
EDIT Met request that links to tar page should not be published. There's an ES report based on it at:
www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/thousands-of-london-cyclists-and-drivers-fined-as-mets-road-safety-blitz-continues-9042012.html
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 8 Jan 14 at 16:29
|
Proof Policing works. - Bromptonaut
