Cyclists still not getting the message

Idiophreak

custardy wrote: »

or a quality segregated cycle path :eek:

Honestly, I see cycle paths / cycle lanes as the problem more than the solution. I've spoken to people before and the conversation's been very much.
"You don't have lights on."
"No, I'm in the cycle lane."

Likewise, you often see people "dashing" between one cycle path and the next....or coming out of nowhere off the cycle path to cross the road right in front of you. People feel like they're bullet proof if they're on cycle paths and don't need to follow the usual rules.

Tilt

Cycrow wrote: »

but why not, they allow motorists to carry on driving.
if you're lights are broken on your car, will the police say you have to push it back ?
or wil they allow you to drive back as long as you get it sorted

i still stand by the fact i had no other option, walking 10 miles after a long day of work on my feet is not an option.

maybe im getting peed off due to attitude i get from alot of drivers on the road

I think you will find the police CANNOT allow someone to continue to drive where they will be likely to commit further offences.

However, they can use discretion to certain matters such as having a tail light out and issue a warning to get it fixed BUT if it were the case that you had no lights at all, I cannot imagine that they would allow a motorist to continue to drive at night. At the same time, I doubt that a cyclist would be treated any differently. Can you imagine what would happen if the police DID allow you to continue without any lights at all and you were involved in an accident as a consequence?

Rotor

Well , talk about everyone being in violent agreement!

What I've gleaned from this thread :-

It is irresponsible and an offence for a motorist or cyclist to be on the road after dark without lights.

There are many reasons why a person may not have working lights ( some better than others-but none make it legal)

The police don't catch many transgressions that motorists and cyclists make.

Thats about it really.

fivetide

Strider590 wrote: »

^^
Car drivers don't have to worry about batteries, a cyclist probably won't carry spares due to the added weight and having somewhere to actually store them.

Sorry but weight? of an AA battery? If that's an issue they better not try any actual peddaling up a hill!

Beyond that there are good and bad on all sides as in any walk of life.

Captain_Flack.

Tilt wrote: »

I think you will find the police CANNOT allow someone to continue to drive where they will be likely to commit further offences. I think you will find they need to be PG9 trained to stop you and the offence must present immediate danger.

However, they can use discretion to certain matters such as having a tail light out and issue a warning to get it fixed BUT if it were the case that you had no lights at all, I cannot imagine that they would allow a motorist to continue to drive at night. At the same time, I doubt that a cyclist would be treated any differently. Can you imagine what would happen if the police DID allow you to continue without any lights at all and you were involved in an accident as a consequence?

Make your mind up, using discretion goes against your cannot which was wrong.

custardy

fivetide wrote: »

Sorry but weight? of an AA battery? If that's an issue they better not try any actual peddaling up a hill!

Beyond that there are good and bad on all sides as in any walk of life.

4 lights,waterproofs,lock(s),food,tools,work clothes,shoes,contact lenses,cycling glasses,layers in cold weather,water
just stuff off the top of my head for my average commute
plus pannier rack & bike bin/pannier bag
It all starts to add up

Tilt

Captain_Flack. wrote: »

Make your mind up, using discretion goes against your cannot which was wrong.

Not really as I was pointing out to Cycrow (who claimed the police allow drivers to continue) that the police cannot allow someone to continue to drive if they are likely to commit a further offence (i.e. if they discover the driver is un-insured for example) or would pose a possible danger to other road users.

In the circumstances that Cycrow was in (and likening it to a motorist), I doubt the police would of allowed he/she to carry on riding a bike on a road without any lights at all. We then get onto "I had no choice" or what do you expect a car driver to do if he had no lights... push the car home" argument. Well simply the police wouldn't need to be PG9 trained (as you put it) in those circumstances, they would simply arrange for the car to be recovered (if it were in an un-lit area) OR insist that the driver arranges the same.

Which ever way you paint it, no way would the police allow a driver to proceed at night with no tail lights at all and I believe they would treat a cyclist the same. The fact that he has 10 miles to travel would pose a greater risk to the cyclist, especially on un-lit roads.

Captain_Flack.

Tilt wrote: »

Not really as I was pointing out to Cycrow (who claimed the police allow drivers to continue) that the police cannot allow someone to continue to drive if they are likely to commit a further offence (i.e. if they discover the driver is un-insured for example) or would pose a possible danger to other road users.

In the circumstances that Cycrow was in (and likening it to a motorist), I doubt the police would of allowed he/she to carry on riding a bike on a road without any lights at all. We then get onto "I had no choice" or what do you expect a car driver to do if he had no lights... push the car home" argument. Well simply the police wouldn't need to be PG9 trained (as you put it) in those circumstances, they would simply arrange for the car to be recovered (if it were in an un-lit area) OR insist that the driver arranges the same.

Which ever way you paint it, no way would the police allow a driver to proceed at night with no tail lights at all and I believe they would treat a cyclist the same. The fact that he has 10 miles to travel would pose a greater risk to the cyclist, especially on un-lit roads.

The can allow you to drive and commit a further offence. Excess weight is one for example, you may be restricted to a speed or route though.

What power do the police have to get a vehicle with a defective light recovered then?

Why does no insurance pose a danger then? Does insurance make you less likely to crash?

You do love to make things up don't you.:D

Tilt

Captain_Flack. wrote: »

The can allow you to drive and commit a further offence. Excess weight is one for example, you may be restricted to a speed or route though.

What power do the police have to get a vehicle with a defective light recovered then?

Why does no insurance pose a danger then? Does insurance make you less likely to crash?

You do love to make things up don't you.:D

Not making anything up. have you got any other examples where they will allow you to continue? If so, please provide a link to the exemption(s).

And i'm not saying they would not allow you to carry on with a defective LIGHT (meaning just 1 out providing the other or at least one was illuminated), in those circumstances they would allow you to get it fixed. If however the officer felt that your vehicle was not in a fit state to continue and he wasn't qualified to PG9 it, then he would summon an officer who was qualified.

As for the insurance question, well you astound me to be honest.

Driving without insurance is a strict liability offence (which you should know) and subject to the criteria being met under sec 165 of the RTA, the police now have the power to seize the vehicle.

The fact that it may or may not increase the "danger" of crashing is totally irrelevant so your argument there is pretty silly.

Oh, and if you do think I am making all this up, you know where Google is don't you?

Captain_Flack.

Tilt wrote: »

Not making anything up. have you got any other examples where they will allow you to continue? If so, please provide a link to the exemption(s).

And i'm not saying they would not allow you to carry on with a defective LIGHT (meaning just 1 out providing the other or at least one was illuminated), in those circumstances they would allow you to get it fixed. If however the officer felt that your vehicle was not in a fit state to continue and he wasn't qualified to PG9 it, then he would summon an officer who was qualified.

As for the insurance question, well you astound me to be honest.

Driving without insurance is a strict liability offence (which you should know) and subject to the criteria being met under sec 165 of the RTA, the police now have the power to seize the vehicle.

The fact that it may or may not increase the "danger" of crashing is totally irrelevant so your argument there is pretty silly.

Oh, and if you do think I am making all this up, you know where Google is don't you?

Find your own facts to back up your rather weak argument. You said cannot I've given you an example of can now you want more.