You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Had a chat with a feller in the local fishmongers, who asked me what I thought of this idea:
The police carry sets of basic bike lights in their cars/a bag. If they stop anyone for riding without lights, to give them the option of either buying a set of lights there and then, or get a (much higher price) fine.
Personally I think it's a great idea. They could then carry on riding safely, rather than copping a fine (which takes up a lot of resources to chase up etc), and would then at least have a set of lights on their bike.
What do you think of this? Pros? Cons? Any issues?
Can't see the police wanting to carry a load of bike lights around with them. But I have seen initiatives where they have set up a stand in Leeds city centre and offered cyclists a free bike check, and decent locks at half price along with registering their bikes on a data base.
So something similar for bike lights could be good.
What else could the police carry to help out hapless individuals? Keys, jackets, umbrellas, etc, etc.
I get your point but it's not the job of the police to act as a shop for idiots to buy stuff.
You're not really looking at this from a wider perspective are you.
So bike shops are getting squeezed by online retailers, direct to consumer brands, supermarkets, and now potentially coppers too?
When I worked at The Bike Chain in Edinburgh we had some older light sets that we would carry around with us while commuting, offering them - free - to anyone we saw without lights.
You know that phrase "you can't give them away"? Most folk just were not interested as it meant they'd have to buy batteries at some point, or just said they'd be nicked as they couldn't be arsed taking them off the bikes when parked.
I can see bike shops *loving* that, "Nah mate I'll get them off the Police for half what you charge if they ever bother to stop me".
[quote=Gary_M ]What else could the police carry to help out hapless individuals? Keys, jackets, umbrellas, etc, etc.spare tyres (and a fitting service) for any motor vehicles they might stop? A full range of bulbs?
I thought somewhere had actually done this?
Next time suggest the Police carry round some nice bits of fish they can sell cheap in case they see anyone who's only got chips 😉
You're not really looking at this from a wider perspective are you.
I'm looking at it from the perspective of promoting road safety, educating people, providing an alternative to the normal bureaucratic route, and helping prevent future offences, and even possibly injury or death. Not sure I need to look at it from a 'wider' perspective really.
I can see bike shops *loving* that, "Nah mate I'll get them off the Police for half what you charge if they ever bother to stop me".
So you charge full RRP for them.
You know that phrase "you can't give them away"? Most folk just were not interested as it meant they'd have to buy batteries at some point, or just said they'd be nicked as they couldn't be arsed taking them off the bikes when parked.
But you weren't acting in a legal capacity; you didn't have the authority to offer them a choice between buying some lights, and copping a much larger fine. So, not quite the same, although I do see your point.
Next time suggest the Police carry round some nice bits of fish they can sell cheap in case they see anyone who's only got chips
Have you ever considered a career as a comedian?
[i]I'm looking at it from the perspective of promoting road safety, educating people, providing an alternative to the normal bureaucratic route, and helping prevent future offences, and even possibly injury or death. Not sure I need to look at it from a 'wider' perspective really.[/i]
A wider perspective as in the police have lots to do, selling lights to cyclists isn't one of them.
You're not quite getting this, Gary M. I'll give you a little more time to think about it.
I get it, in my opinion it's not a workable solution, police officers in general wouldn't be keen on the idea, I don't need any more time to agree with you. Thanks anyway.
Out of interest OP what are the statistics on police fining people riding bikes without lights?
Road Safety Objective - get cyclists using lights.
Method - 1) - spend x amount of time fining them for not using lights.
2) - spend x amount of time fining them or let them buy some
lights instead.
For the same amount of time 2) might result in more cyclists using lights.
What's the problem?
The police could carry round flamethrowers and set cyclists without lights on fire
That way they would be clearly illuminated and no longer pose a danger to road safety.
#winning
One of the local bike groups did it at a busy London junction last year, gave them away to those without lights then and there, think they'd pooled a stock from some local bike shops.
I think the better idea is that a local shop does this with a stand near a busy junction and either gives away a cheap set or sells at vastly reduced cost. It would be / could be great publicity.
Been done. Sort of.
[i]What's the problem? [/i]
The problem is the police have a wider remit than just looking after cyclists. Should they carry spare tyres in case they stop a vehicle with a tyre below the legal limit, should they carry various bulbs for vehicles, should they carry helmets for the motorcyclists that may not wear a helmet. You know so they educate and sell things, rather than fine, to other members of the public doing all sorts of other stuff.
The bigger picture means look at everything the police do, give everyone the opportunity to put right their wrongs. It's not all about cyclists you know.
If someone is stupid enough to not know they need lights when it's dark then they deserve a fine.
Bike lights are widely available and cheep to buy/maintain. People who ride bikes should be responsible for their own safety.
That would be nice. I'd much rather the police facilitated that by getting the idiot drivers who are responsible for the vast majority of cyclist deaths and injuries off the roads. A lack lights has not be proved to be a major safety factor. Unfortunately it does act as a bit of poster boy for some drivers. "I saw a cyclist without lights, I saw a cyclist run a red light, I saw a cyclist on the pavement so they're all idiots and beneath me and deserving of my contempt"People who ride bikes should be responsible for their own safety.
[i]A lack lights has not be proved to be a major safety factor. [/i]
So no point in such an initiative then.
[i]Unfortunately it dies act as a bit of poster boy for some drivers. "I saw a cyclist without lights, I saw a cyclist run a red light, I saw a cyclist on the pavement so they're all idiots and beneath me and deserving of my contempt" [/i]
I completely agree, cyclists need to obey the rules of the road. That includes having lights if required.
it's patching up rather than solving the problem.So no point in such an initiative then
Next time suggest the Police carry round some nice bits of fish they can sell cheap in case they see anyone who's only got chips
Have you ever considered a career as a comedian?
Well it made me LOL.
I've seen initiatives like this, which is fine as a one off publicity push, but I also see cars driving without lights on my commute far more often than cyclists (to be fair I see more cars that bikes on my commute). Should the police also be trained to know how to teach every driver to operate their lights?
Would the cheap lights sold actually be worth having? In the past I've seen police cycling with illegal lighting on their bikes (before the law changed on flashing lights being allowed).
as do motorists. The difference is the motorists not obeying the rules kill 100s of people every year. There was a recent report that stated the recent rise in ksi was due to a reduction in policing. That is where resources should go IMO. Not making the victims a bit harder to victimise.cyclists need to obey the rules of the road
What if the cyclist doesn't have any money on him?
When I go out for a local ride I don't take any money with me. Why would I?
Am I to be denied the option to purchase these cheap lights (They should be called Po-lites ) and forced to pay an exorbitant fine as a result?
Are the Po-Po going to extend me favourable credit terms?
[i]as do motorists[/i]
Obviously, that's a give and I didn't suggest otherwise, but the op was about giving cyclists special dispensation. But that's a whole different discussion.
but the op was about giving cyclists special dispensation.
Motorists get special dispensation with speed awareness courses.
What if the cyclist doesn't have any money on him?
The solution in Bristol was to ticket the cyclists, but cancel the fine if they turn up at a police station with lights fitted.
[i]Motorists get special dispensation with speed awareness courses. [/i]
And your point is?
Natural selection would be the normal approach, but that argument doesn't work well in the court (and the driver would probably feel fairly guilty too)
Still shocked how many people I see without any form of visibility device - lights, reflectors etc. Just. Plain. Stupid.
Was done (sort of) in Oxford for years. First week clocks change the Police will be on Magdalen bridge. Issue a fine and have it cancelled when cyclist comes back to the station bearing some lights (and presumably a receipt). Simples.
Never affected me and my Two-wheeled Christmas tree.
I think a big part of the problem is the differing levels of awareness and visibility. On a bike you are pretty aware of you surroundings and can happily cycle around a lit town being clearly able to see everything lit up or otherwise. In a car you so disconnected and visibility is reduced by bits of car, glare, minor imperfections and dirt on the windscreen. Unless you do both its hard to empathise so you get the "how could you not see me!?" from the cyclists and the "look at this idiot dressed like a ninja" from the motorists.Still shocked how many people I see without any form of visibility device - lights, reflectors etc. Just. Plain. Stupid
I'm of the opinion it's the individuals issue whether they have lights or not, it's for them to abide by the Law (or not) and face the consequences, or not.
Selling lights isn't a solution.
some of you are well mencap.
On a minor scale, I am involved with the organisation giving these lights away and how can it be a bad ting?
[i]I am involved with the organisation giving these lights away and how can it be a bad ting?[/i]
And how is that the same as the police packing their bags or vehicle boot with bike lights? If you think an organization educating cyclists and the police doing a lights for fines deal then you must be stupid.
And your point is?
There is a precedent, and cyclists are not being treated more favourably.
When Aldi last had their £2.99 packs of lights I considered buying a few sets to keep in the car & give to people that I see riding with no lights on as a gift.
Didn't do it, but wish I had now. I will keep an eye out for their next cycle specials and nab a couple of sets. People can always refuse or shout & swear at me, but it might make a difference.
Not sure I understand your rhetoric Gary, are umbrellas now law? I was led to believe the having a front white light and a rear red light is the law, whereas your suggestion that police carry umbrellas, keys etc sounds stupid to me but I could be way off here.
The Police currently help us by marking bikes to reduce bike crime, increase returns of stolen goods-we also hand out lights at the same time-this initiative will be a simple extension of this.
What else could the police carry to help out hapless individuals? Keys, jackets, umbrellas, etc, etc.
I get your point but it's not the job of the police to act as a shop for idiots to buy stuff.
You're not really looking at this from a wider perspective are you.
I'd disagree it's actually quite a "Big picture" idea, Police actually trying to deliver a preventative measure, rather than passing out fines and turning up later to help peel another moron off the road...
I think a fine should apply regardless, if part of that fine went directly to funding a set of lights then even better IMO.
Of course this assumes they bother pulling unlit cyclists... How often do the rozzers really bother anymore?
[i]sounds stupid to me but I could be way off here.[/i]
Ah bless you managed to get a retaliatory 'stupid' in. Good effort.
You missed car tyres, motorcycle helmets and bulbs whilst being selective.
I'd strongly disagree with that. Its a sticking plaster on the real problem of a lack of infrastructure and a shockingly poor attitude from a significant number of motorists.I'd disagree it's actually quite a "Big picture" idea
right I see your point now Gary.
But one issue at a time eh?
Great idea with one other problem.....
Which LEGAL lights will the Police be carrying / selling?
I can't walk into a single shop in our town and buy front and rear lights that 100% meet the UK legislation (ANYWHERE - that includes about 15 local bike shops, 3 national chains, supermarkets, Argos etc etc).
Its a sticking plaster on the real problem of a lack of infrastructure and a shockingly poor attitude from a significant number of motorists.
It is?
I thought it was just a means by which the police might address the small percentage of bellends who choose to break the law requiring them to have lights when cycling on the roads at night... Not sure how infrastructure or the de-clarksonification of the UK would be directly affected, but carry on...
Yes, it is. While it's a bloke in the local chip shop struggling to see the bigger picture that's not really a big deal. When the police think this will make significant impact on road safety it's a bit worrying.It is?
I did manage to get a few sets of those Aldi lights in the sale reduced to £1 each. I kept them in my commuting rucksack and gave them out to people I saw without lights. Some gave me a mouthful of abuse, others were eternally grateful and asked why I did this. Anyone with kids can easily answer that question!
As I understand the actual proposal, it involved giving out lights and not prosecuting. Now, punishing crime is known to deter criminal behaviour in many cases, so not doing so will likely have a negative effect. The question is, will the free lights have an encouraging of non-criminal behaviour effect that outweighs it. The only way to answer that is by carrying out a trial and carefully measuring the outcomes. Evidence based policing is where it's at, waffling about it is pointless, as is doing it without measuring whether it works or not.
Also, is there more to the protocol? Do repeat offenders get a further set of free lights or a summons? The scheme could easily be taken advantage of by scallywags deliberately riding without lights to get the freebies to sell, it would be worth trying to build in some safeguards.
Could I please ask for a constable to be stationed permanently halfway along "the clunch" just north of Stewarton, Ayrshire please with a decent array of charged lights, I carry a credit card on my bike so make sure they accept visa please.
My solar storms died on me last night and it was a bit of a surprise given it was pitch black windy and raining.
Thank **** for my exposure light....
Tyvm
[i]My solar storms died on me last night and it was a bit of a surprise given it was pitch black windy and raining.[/i]
Could have been worse, might have been Wednesday night! Thursday was tame by comparison.
I commute killie to Glasgow and know rate clunch well.
Some interesting (and surprising) opinions. GaryM; you seem really quite opposed to the idea, yet so far I've not seen a conclusive argument against it, from you. The police regularly do other kinds of PR type exercises, and the tax/insurance/DSS roadblocks etc. And I'm sure that a box of lights would fit fine in an average panda car. And personally, I think cycling safety awareness campaigns are a bloody good use of police resources. Better than hanging around outside Downing street, for sure! 😀
Now, punishing crime is known to deter criminal behaviour in many cases, so not doing so will likely have a negative effect.
Riding a bike without lights at night is hardly a 'criminal' matter,it's just bloody stupid. And as for fines; I'd be interested to see just how effective issuing fines for this particular offence actually is. I've never known anyone who has been fined for this, does anyone else? Do the police even bother with fines? Aren't such low-level fines more costly overall to actually implement and chase up?
I'm more interested in the safety aspect; the increasing numbers of cyclist mean there are more and more inexperienced/ignorant cyclists out there, posing an increasing risk to their own safety, and that of others. So, we need to be focussing on stuff which can raise awareness and potentially save lives. I'm all for a bit of 'Darwinism', but I wouldn't want any driver to have to go through the trauma of having seriously injured/killed someone, simply because the idiot didn't have lights on their bike.
Riding a bike without lights at night is hardly a 'criminal' matter,it's just bloody stupid. And as for fines; I'd be interested to see just how effective issuing fines for this particular offence actually is. I've never known anyone who has been fined for this, does anyone else? Do the police even bother with fines? Aren't such low-level fines more costly overall to actually implement and chase up?
Your logic evades me. How does the fact that riding at night without lights is "hardly criminal" (although it is "literally criminal") affect the argument as to whether free lights or a fine work better at deterring no-lights riding? Neither can be discounted as ineffective, the question is, which works best.
I would be interested to see if fines (the status quo) work as well, a well constructed trial would tell us this. Why aren't you equally interested in finding out if free lights work? You seem to have made up your mind in advance that free lights work and fines don't. Why? Where's your evidence? The way to find out if fines work is to propose an alternative intervention, say free lights or something, conduct a trial and see if light usage goes up or down...
As to fines not being used, the police in the area the OP talked about clearly do punish offenders as they say the free lights were an option, the other option being a fine. And even if they do not fine, if it turns out that fining people is a good way of modifying their behaviour, then they should be fining.
As to the fines being "more costly", more costly than what? Each fine may be more costly to administer than a free light, but as you say it is all about road safety. If it turns out that either measure improves road safety appreciably better, then the extra benefit may well be worth the cost. And how do we find out if either measure improves road safety...
Romantic idea, but the fact is it's not within the police remit, not even close and it's simply not practical, those same police who should be out prosecuting dangerous drivers and other criminals will be wasting time ordering, dealing with suppliers, stock taking, handling cash, dealing with faulty returns and irate customers and lugging sacks of lights round with them everywhere, the overheads would be, frankly ridiculous.
Romantic idea, but the fact is it's not within the police remit, not even close and it's simply not practical, those same police who should be out prosecuting dangerous drivers and other criminals will be wasting time ordering, dealing with suppliers, stock taking, handling cash, dealing with faulty returns and irate customers and lugging sacks of lights round with them everywhere, the overheads would be, frankly ridiculous.
But, as someone pointed out before,
a) It's already been done in Bristol.
b) The precedent would be that motorists get the same sort of option in a speed awareness course. Pay the fine/get points, or pay the same and get some 'speed awareness'.
It's hardly a big effort to phone up Madison, setup an account and order a box of cheap lights. In fact they'd might even give them away for the free publicity. The real issue is that police (AFAIK) aren't stopping unlit bikes so the fine Vs lights is a non issue.