Cyclist no lights, wrong way down one ways streets ect

[sailor sam]

Yesterday I encountered a near-miss with a middle aged woman on a push bike.

 

I was approaching the end of a one way street which ended onto a mini-island on two way side road , you tend to exit the one way street on the right hand side of the road,

knowing that nothing should be coming the other way.

 

the woman came into the one way road from my left straight in front of me (as she entered the road on her 'left' which would of been correct normally).

This of course almost resulted in a head on collision.

 

Obviously i had to take evasive action and blew my horn at the same time, but all I got was abuse from her as if I was in the wrong!

 

It occurred to me that we never ever see people asking advice about cyclists getting tickets or being pulled by the police.

Its very apparent (in my area at least) that the majority of cyclists seem to travel at night without lights and I personally have never seen any action being taken.

Is it because the law doesn't apply to cyclists? I found this article which seems to suggest that it is the case;

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1377653/Cyclists-law.html

 

Anyone else got any thoughts on this? I ask because I am wondering where I would stand if I hadn't managed to avoid this idiotic woman? Would the law of been behind me?

Edited February 7, 2012 by sailor sam

[dx100uk]

yep the law does

 

dx

[green_and_mean]

Cyclists do get tickets most however their 'crimes' are seen as low priority along with other crimes that have no direct victims ie not a theft, assault etc. On a practical basis if you had crashed and she had ridden off what are the realistic chances of finding her? That story is complete rubbish cyclists are just as liable as anyone else, not having insurance for example does not make them not liable for damage to your car it just means it comes out of their pocket, pedestrians don't need insurance either but still cause accidents and Section 30 Road Traffic Act 1988 says: “It is an offence for a person to ride a cycle on a road or other public place when unfit to ride through drink or drugs – that is to say – is under the influence of a drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle.

[sailor sam]

Ok, but why do their 'crimes' register as low priority? In my case for example, there was the possibility of her 'crime' resulting in a fatality. Ok, the speed limit at the location is only 20mph (being a predominately residential street), but she came around the corner at speed herself so if she had collided with me, I reckon she would of suffered serious injury at best. It seems that they only register on the 'radar' of prosecution when an accident has occurred. Unlike motorists who get routinely stopped sometimes. Where I live, you also get kids on skateboards or scooters (the push along ones) tearing along the streets at night without a care in the world. At the end of the day, you see motorists getting prosecuted every day in you local newspaper for sometimes 'minor' offences, but never cyclists. The machine may be different, but the person using it is the same if you catch my drift.

[Aretnap]

I imagine that part of the reason cycling offences are low priority is that while idiot cyclists may cause much indignation and even ocasional bruises, it's actually rare for them to cause serious injuries, which is an obvious difference beyween them and drivers. Someone cycling the wrong way down a one way street with no lights poses a far greater risk to herself than to anyone else. There's also the practical aspect that as bicycles (and Skateboards and pedestrians) don't have numberplates, so you can't just set up a camera and send NIPs through the post as with

cars. Where I live (Cambridge) the police do set up a couple of checkpoints for a couple of days each year and stop some people for riding without lights and hand out fixed penalties. It seems to be mostly a PR exercise though, there are still plenty of potential Darwin Nominees riding around unlit.

 

The article is typical Daily Mail nonsense. Dangerous and careless cycling are both modern offences under the Road Traffic Act. The old offence of causing injury by wanton or furious riding is occasionally because unlike the modern offences it's imprisonable, so useful where a cyclist has caused serious injury or worse and a fine doesn't seem like adequate punishment.

[Tony P]

I imagine that part of the reason cycling offences are low priority is that while idiot cyclists may cause much indignation and even ocasional bruises, it's actually rare for them to cause serious injuries, which is an obvious difference beyween them and drivers.

 

A wrongly parked or overdue car does even less damage than occasional bruises, but there seems a pretty effective 'offence detection and clear-up' rate for them.

Could it be this is done for financial gain sooner than aleviating danger to persons?

Heaven forbid!

[green_and_mean]

A wrongly parked or overdue car does even less damage than occasional bruises, but there seems a pretty effective 'offence detection and clear-up' rate for them.

Could it be this is done for financial gain sooner than aleviating danger to persons?

Heaven forbid!

 

How many times has a motorist been prosecuted in the last year for a wrongly parked car or overstaying his parking?

[green_and_mean]

Ok, but why do their 'crimes' register as low priority? In my case for example, there was the possibility of her 'crime' resulting in a fatality.

 

Correct there was a possibility of it resulting in affecting someone but it didn't, the Police are stretched at the best of times to deal with actual reported crime such as theft, assaults, rape, fraud etc. If you were sitting in doors with no PC, tv, Car etc after being burgled would you be happy if you found out there were no officers available as they are all out looking for cyclists with no lights on? If you sat at the side of the road for an hour and counted how many vehicles went past without seat belts on/childseats used or on the phone and compared that to the number of cyclists going past on the footway or without lights the cars would win by a mile.

[sailor sam]

Well there's certainly been more tickets issued to motorists that to cyclists i'll bet. Which I think is the point that Tony is making. The thing that gets under my skin is that some cyclists have developed a mentality over the years that the traffic laws do not apply to them. Maybe thats because no one ever hears about them getting prosecuted. I remember a case a few years ago where a cyclist was 'racing' across a footpath when he hit and killed a pedestrian. But unlike a motorist, he could not be prosecuted whereby he would receive the same sentence tariff. It just seems that a cyclist has to commit a really serious offence before he/she is bought to book than that compared to a motorist. They want to use the roads but don't want to follow the rules it seems.

Edited February 8, 2012 by sailor sam

[sailor sam]

Correct there was a possibility of it resulting in affecting someone but it didn't, the Police are stretched at the best of times to deal with actual reported crime such as theft, assaults, rape, fraud etc. If you were sitting in doors with no PC, tv, Car etc after being burgled would you be happy if you found out there were no officers available as they are all out looking for cyclists with no lights on?

 

Well many motorists who get pulled over for 'minor' offences would probably say exactly the same thing G & M!

 

If you sat at the side of the road for an hour and counted how many vehicles went past without seat belts on/childseats used or on the phone and compared that to the number of cyclists going past on the footway or without lights the cars would win by a mile.

 

You are probably right, but cyclists are very vunerable and some act oblivious to that fact. I think the reason for that is they can see that they are very unlikely to get stopped by the cops. Even parents of kids who let their 'precious little ones' out at night without lights msut have the same way of thinking. After all how much does a set of lights (with batteries) cost for a bike these days from Halfords? More than the value of a child?

[green_and_mean]

Well there's certainly been more tickets issued to motorists that to cyclists i'll bet. Which I think is the point that Tony is making. The thing that gets under my skin is that some cyclists have deleloped a mentality over the years that the traffic laws do not apply to them. Maybe thats because no one ever hears about them getting prosecuted. I remember a case a few years ago where a cyclist was 'racing' across a footpath when he hit and killed a pedestrian. But unlike a motorist, he could not be prosecuted whereby he would receive the same sentence tariff. It just seems that a cyclist has to commit a really serious offence before he/she is bought to book than that compared to a motorist. They want to use the roads but don't want to follow the rules it seems.

 

Motorists get more tickets because there are more offences that relate to motor vehicles how many cyclists for example get done for speeding? Insurance is also not required so they are not going to get done for that either. Most people are ignorant of the laws anyway and think cyclists are breaking the law when they are not, the Police prompted by complaints had a purge on cyclists cycling through my local town centre shopping pedestrian area until I kindly pointed out it wasn't an offence. It annoys me and may be a nuisance but how many people are actually killed and injured by people cycling on a footway compared to the number of deaths and injuries caused by cars? The penalty for killing someone with a cycle is not the same as killing someone with a car, but neither is the penalty for killing someone with a knife or gun or in a plane if you want to stick to transport. You are comparing apples with oranges, why not compare cycles with pedestrians or with horse riders both use the road and get less fines than cycles? From personal experience most cyclists that don't do it responsibly are either children or motorists making occasional use of a bike, most serious cyclists that use it as the main form of transport have lights, insurance, ride on the road etc.

[sailor sam]

Motorists get more tickets because there are more offences that relate to motor vehicles how many cyclists for example get done for speeding? Insurance is also not required so they are not going to get done for that either. Most people are ignorant of the laws anyway and think cyclists are breaking the law when they are not, the Police prompted by complaints had a purge on cyclists cycling through my local town centre shopping pedestrian area until I kindly pointed out it wasn't an offence. It annoys me and may be a nuisance but how many people are actually killed and injured by people cycling on a footway compared to the number of deaths and injuries caused by cars? The penalty for killing someone with a cycle is not the same as killing someone with a car, but neither is the penalty for killing someone with a knife or gun or in a plane if you want to stick to transport. You are comparing apples with oranges, why not compare cycles with pedestrians or with horse riders both use the road and get less fines than cycles? From personal experience most cyclists that don't do it responsibly are either children or motorists making occasional use of a bike, most serious cyclists that use it as the main form of transport have lights, insurance, ride on the road etc.

 

Isn't that the same as cycling on a pavement or footpath? Regarding the killing by knife/gun comparison, well those are completely different situations. That would be considered to be intentional thus murder. Being killed by a vehicle (cycle or car ect) is normally a result of what used to be known as a 'road traffic accident'. In my opinion if a death occurs (or serious injury) be someones careless or dangerous actions, then the penalty should be the same no matter what 'machine' you are using. After all the end result is the same isn't it?

[green_and_mean]

Isn't that the same as cycling on a pavement or footpath? Regarding the killing by knife/gun comparison, well those are completely different situations. That would be considered to be intentional thus murder. Being killed by a vehicle (cycle or car ect) is normally a result of what used to be known as a 'road traffic accident'. In my opinion if a death occurs (or serious injury) be someones careless or dangerous actions, then the penalty should be the same no matter what 'machine' you are using. After all the end result is the same isn't it?

 

I rest my case no it isn't the same Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835 made it an offence to cycle on a footway cycling on a pedestrian area or a footpath is not an offence unless there is a traffic order and signage but it doesn't stop people shouting and complaining. You seem to make many assumptions death with a gun is murder, death with a car is an accident?? What if I ran you down on purpose in my car then accidently shot my wife whilst out clay pigeon shooting, which one is more serious? If I killed someone due to negligence on my bike I'd be in Court on a serious charge, it would not be death by dangerous driving as I wasn't driving but I would not be immune to prosecution. No lights is a construction and use offence not exactly high up on the list of crimes that need to be dealt with and probably no more dangerous than a car with tinted windows at night. I have known a few cyclists that have been killed and many injured and none of them was due to no lights, jumping lights or riding on the footway. Its annoying and anti social but so is littering and dogs poohing on the footway but hardly up there with more serious offences.

[sailor sam]

I rest my case no it isn't the same Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835 made it an offence to cycle on a footway cycling on a pedestrian area or a footpath is not an offence unless there is a traffic order and signage but it doesn't stop people shouting and complaining.

 

I could say the same thing in that this my whole point. I think the clue is in the date of the act. It's outdated. Obviously pedestrian areas probably didn't exist then which may explain the ignorance. Also the fact that we don't see any cases involving cyclists to need us researching the applicable legislations. It seems from what you say even the police don't know.

 

You seem to make many assumptions death with a gun is murder, death with a car is an accident?? What if I ran you down on purpose in my car then accidently shot my wife whilst out clay pigeon shooting, which one is more serious?

 

I'm not making any assumptions here... its quite obvious that using a gun to kill someone will result in a murder charge (unless your James Bond) as opposed to killing someone with a vehicle which would normally at the msot result in manslaughter. There would have to be some signifitant evidence to bring a murder charge in such circumstances.

 

If I killed someone due to negligence on my bike I'd be in Court on a serious charge, it would not be death by dangerous driving as I wasn't driving but I would not be immune to prosecution.

 

Agreed. But I think the penalties should be similar thus maintaing an equal deterrent.

 

No lights is a construction and use offence not exactly high up on the list of crimes that need to be dealt with and probably no more dangerous than a car with tinted windows at night. I have known a few cyclists that have been killed and many injured and none of them was due to no lights, jumping lights or riding on the footway. Its annoying and anti social but so is littering and dogs poohing on the footway but hardly up there with more serious offences.

 

I also agree BUT don't you think that one of the main reasons we are seeing more and more (well I am anyway) 'petty' offences being committed by cyclisits is because the simple lack of enfiorcement compared to what there is for motorists. It seems to have given people like the woman I encountered, the notion that the law dosn't apply to them. She was quite clearly oblivious to the danger she put herself in by turning into a one-way street the wrong way at the rate of knots she was doing. Perhaps she was lucky she came accross a compitent driver like myself....

[my-spirit-soars-free]

We have derestricted, bendy, narrow country lanes. Hedges either side. Nearest street light a few miles away.

 

I would guess that about 50% of my journeys on those roads (after dark) I pass cyclists who don't have lights on. In a nice dark coat, sometimes the nice army jackets designed to hide you. No reflectors either. The only way they could make it harder for me to see them would be to borrow Harry Potters invisibility cloak. Yes, if I hit them I will kill them, and it will merely scratch my car - but they will also ruin my life, as I would feel responsible.

 

It really annoys me when the police cars drive past them, don't even pull over to have a "little chat".

 

For motorists - cyclists have eyes too, if a cyclist is coming towards you then you need to dip your headlights. Motorbikes have mirrors like cars, when they are in front of you - dip your headlights!

[sailor sam]

We have derestricted, bendy, narrow country lanes. Hedges either side. Nearest street light a few miles away.

 

I would guess that about 50% of my journeys on those roads (after dark) I pass cyclists who don't have lights on. In a nice dark coat, sometimes the nice army jackets designed to hide you. No reflectors either. The only way they could make it harder for me to see them would be to borrow Harry Potters invisibility cloak. Yes, if I hit them I will kill them, and it will merely scratch my car - but they will also ruin my life, as I would feel responsible.

 

It really annoys me when the police cars drive past them, don't even pull over to have a "little chat".

 

For motorists - cyclists have eyes too, if a cyclist is coming towards you then you need to dip your headlights. Motorbikes have mirrors like cars, when they are in front of you - dip your headlights!

 

This is my whole point. If you were in your car and didn't have your lights on, would they simply ignore you then? Of couse they wouldn't so why not pull the cyclist? It dosn't seem to matter until it's too late and poor cyclist is being carried away in a body bag. Only then it seems to the police take action.

[Badbunny]

This is my whole point. If you were in your car and didn't have your lights on, would they simply ignore you then? Of couse they wouldn't so why not pull the cyclist? It dosn't seem to matter until it's too late and poor cyclist is being carried away in a body bag. Only then it seems to the police take action.

 

Agreed, but you are making generalisations, I do know of people who have been pulled and fined for not riding with lights. Working with Students in a University Campus it happens quite regularly.As for ignoring the car with no lights...I have seen police cars happily drive past cars with no lights, people without seatbelts etc etc. I guess it all depends how near brew time it is!

[Andrew-P]

In my view cyclists should have third party insurance and some form of unique identifier on thier bikes if they go on public roads.

 

As a pedestrian I have lost count of the number of times when the safety of my family and I has been risked by someone on a bike going through a red light onto crossings or being on a footpath.

 

As a driver I have seen some crazy things where cyclists have played Russian roulette with cars, vans and trucks.

 

I accept that this is only a minority of cyclists but it is a sizeable minority who are putting themselves and others at risk.

 

I do have sympathy with cyclists in that our roads are generally not designed for the volume or size of traffic using them and as for cycle paths many are so poorly designed as to be unusable - a bit of paint does not make a cycle path!

[Tony P]

Times change.

 

In 1954 or 5 I was up before the West Sussex Juvenile Magistrates Court for riding a bike with no front light (I had a back one which is the real danger - one can see what's coming).

 

7s 6d fine - 3 weeks pocket money!

 

(37 and a half p to you youngsters)

[my-spirit-soars-free]

When I came to the UK from the Netherlands, many years ago, I brought my Dutch bike to the UK. It had the regulation large reflector on the back, the correct lights fitted, etc, as required by Dutch law.

 

Knowing no better, I took it in to the nearest police station, asking them what I needed to do to it to make it comply with British law. (I even pushed it down to the police station!). They fell about laughing, and told me that there were no laws in the UK about bikes.

 

I am pretty sure that was wrong, even for those days, but it does sum up how little some policemen regard bikes as "real" road users.

[green_and_mean]

In my view cyclists should have third party insurance and some form of unique identifier on thier bikes if they go on public roads.

 

 

At what age would you suggest they need insurance, how can you prosecute a child for no insurance? Who would pay to set up a cycle DVLA? It would take millions and be totally unenforceable there is the issue of childrens cycles and foreign cycles for a start. How is a tourist going to get a bike registered in time for a holiday trip and foreign cycle teams would have to register hundreds of bikes a year in order to compete in the uk. Why not take it a stage further and make pedestrians have insurance, far more are involved in accidents than cyclists?

[sailor sam]

When I came to the UK from the Netherlands, many years ago, I brought my Dutch bike to the UK. It had the regulation large reflector on the back, the correct lights fitted, etc, as required by Dutch law.

 

Knowing no better, I took it in to the nearest police station, asking them what I needed to do to it to make it comply with British law. (I even pushed it down to the police station!). They fell about laughing, and told me that there were no laws in the UK about bikes.

 

I am pretty sure that was wrong, even for those days, but it does sum up how little some policemen regard bikes as "real" road users.

 

No doubt the Dutch would fall about laughing at our 'laws' in respect of cyclists... and quite rightly so. They seem to have the right idea!

[green_and_mean]

No doubt the Dutch would fall about laughing at our 'laws' in respect of cyclists... and quite rightly so. They seem to have the right idea!

 

I've cycled in the Netherlands and no one questioned my uk spec bike with no reflectors, lights etc cycles are treated very well they have seperate cycle lanes, traffic lights with cycle priority etc.

[my-spirit-soars-free]

I've cycled in the Netherlands and no one questioned my uk spec bike with no reflectors, lights etc cycles are treated very well they have seperate cycle lanes, traffic lights with cycle priority etc.

 

They do - but they also have strict laws on keeping bikes visible - did you notice the large, rectangular reflectors fitted to all bikes? I am assuming that an EU national would be given some time to bring the bike up to standard - not sure on that one, as I know that EU car drivers do have to comply with local laws like winter tyres in Germany. And cycling in the Netherlands does have one hazard that we don't have much here - tram lines are just the right width for a bike tyre to slide into, and a bent wheel is no fun.

 

I think the biggest difference is that bikes are considered road users, and expected to obey the rules of the road. I don't remember any adult cycling on the pavement in the years that I was there, and going through a red light is frowned upon. Of course a law that makes the motorist responsible for any bike/motorist collision helps too.

 

I think what is needed here is more mutual respect, where bikes riders realise that they are hard to see and give motorist a break by adding lights and keeping to the rules of the road - and motorists treat bikes as road users, and give them the same courtesy and consideration that they give a car.

[sailor sam]

Its a pity that unlike in the Netherlands, we don't seem to take cycling issues that seriously until an accident occurs. This is why the 'rouge' cyclist has evolved and it looks to me that they are mulitiplying rapidly. Education is a key factor here and perhaps the best way of doing that is to dish out more penalty tickets to offenders rather than just 'having a word in their ear'. The police coud do what they do with motorists; seize a bilke which isn't road legal ect. Prevention is always better than cure in my book.