Police to hand out bike lights in Edinburgh as part of #LightUp campaign

brooksby wrote:

https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/the-wedge/

which points at

https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/chris-peck/archive-times-1st-august-1934

Quote:

CTC strongly resisted the requirement that cyclists have to use rear lighting - and, indeed, the 1934 Road Traffic Act only brought in the requirement to have white patches in addition to the red reflector that was already the law. Today opposition to rear lighting may seem the strangest of demands, but back then the logic was clear - responsibility for driving safely at night should rest with the driver. There were plenty of other unlit vehicles about on the streets (ie, carts) and of course, pedestrians and animals. CTC argued that the creep of rear lighting would lead to an arms race which cyclists could not survive. Rear lighting for cyclists became the law in 1947, despite vigorous opposition from CTC.

My emphasis.

 

To be fair. Back then vehicles were slower and narrower. I've a photo of an old Austin. Compare that to today's vehicles that are needlessly to large. In fact the old Silver Ghost is narrower than today's Mini One. There's no need for vehicles over a certain BHP and wheelbase on our streets. Reducing their size and speed limits will go a long way to aiding road safety in the urban landscape. It's also interesting to note that sidelights are the only requirement in areas with street lighting with headlights and main beam elsewhere!  Yet. Headlights have become the default setting in our towns and cities. 
 

Unfortunately CTC's prophesy of a lights arms race has come about. As vulnerable road users, (pedestrians and equestrians included) we have all looked to ways of highlighting our presence be it lighting or reflective adornments. In fact I've seen mounted police with rear lights in daytime. Like how the hell can you not see a Shire Horse in front of you!

And yet regardless of these actions. The highly trained individuals who have been granted a licence to drive  consistently demonstrate their inability to observe what's in front of them as many of us can attest to. My recent collision being proof of this. Well lit and reflective clothing and reflectors. Yet the clown who hit me was far too keen on getting onto the main carriageway to bother looking out for me!

Maybe the test should also include a section where reaction times and vision including periferary be tested. 

craigstitt wrote:

I fail to see where there is an issue here, other than some peoples sheer hipocrisy at times.

I regularly see people on here praising things like close pass initiatives and other initiatives targetting cars, however, whenever something is done about cyclists breaking the law.... those same commentators roll out "Victim Blaming" "they should be focussing on cars not poor bikes"

Expecting the police to ignore law breaking cyclists and focus solely on law breaking motor vehicle drivers is complete hipocrisy. 

Its akin to the police saying that they won't deal with vandalism to private property because they are too busy dealing with  pub brawls, because statistically people are less likely to be injured by someone spray painting their property thant they are if they were involved in a bar fight.

Also.... preventing one accident is better than dealing with the consequences of it, whether it be cause by driver inattentiveness or whether it be caused by a cyclist riding with no lights

I see the issue being that they're handing out lights (which in itself I don't have an issue with) instead of things like close-pass initiatives or preventing speeding/phone using motorists.

If they did both, then that would be great and I, for one, wouldn't have an issue about that. It's almost as if they're saying that they are too busy dealing with cyclists without lights to deal with dangerous drivers and this is despite the statistical evidence of which is more effective.

If they want to be preventing accidents, then they should be mixing it up - random close-pass initiatives, mobile phone use whilst driving, speeding and maybe even tackling any dangerous cyclists that they come across as well. If people think that there's a reasonable chance of them getting caught sooner or later, then they're much less likely to behave irresponsibly.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I see the issue being that they're handing out lights (which in itself I don't have an issue with) instead of things like close-pass initiatives or preventing speeding/phone using motorists.

If they did both, then that would be great and I, for one, wouldn't have an issue about that. It's almost as if they're saying that they are too busy dealing with cyclists without lights to deal with dangerous drivers and this is despite the statistical evidence of which is more effective.

If they want to be preventing accidents, then they should be mixing it up - random close-pass initiatives, mobile phone use whilst driving, speeding and maybe even tackling any dangerous cyclists that they come across as well. If people think that there's a reasonable chance of them getting caught sooner or later, then they're much less likely to behave irresponsibly.

Finite resources mean they have to do targeted initiatives, which they do on a regular basis, doing exactly what you said..... My local force has had phone initiatives, speeding initiatives, drink driving intitatives throughout the year, all of which target motor vehicles in the main.

From a lot of the comments I just see the cycling community complaining because once they are ones being targeted in a particular initiative.

And if cyclists think there is a reasonable chance of them getting caught sooner or later, then they should be much less likely to ride irresponsibly and have lights fitted to their bikes.  No?

This crying out whenever there is a campain against cyclists (similar to the one where cyclists were being told to cycle the right way down a one way street that featured here a few weeks ago) just adds to peoples irritiation with cyclists.  The whole we don't do any damage so we should be exempt from the laws argument pisses me off, because it is utter BS.  

vonhelmet wrote:

Getting rid of rear lights of reflectors makes no sense. You'd then be expecting people to drive around at 3mph with ludicrously bright front lights.

No it wouldn't, that's an absolute load of pony and you know it, for one we already have street lights in built up areas, such that even side lights on motor vehicles are not required to see unlit objects in the vicinity. Also, and I don't know when you started cycling, but most of us BITD could go at a reasonable speed without clattering into innocent people with barely more than glow worm for a front light.

So you're talking absolute poop, e ver brighter lights mean people go faster, in motor or on bike, that's not always a good thing if you're not obeying the HC and your reaction distance and time is reduced such that you aren't able to react in time, but forcing the onus of not getting killed on the innoicent party is disgusting, maybe you think blaming victims of crime is cool so you can go faster and take less care, I don't. 

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Getting rid of rear lights of reflectors makes no sense. You'd then be expecting people to drive around at 3mph with ludicrously bright front lights.

No it wouldn't, that's an absolute load of pony and you know it, for one we already have street lights in built up areas, such that even side lights on motor vehicles are not required to see unlit objects in the vicinity. Also, and I don't know when you started cycling, but most of us BITD could go at a reasonable speed without clattering into innocent people with barely more than glow worm for a front light.

So you're talking absolute poop, e ver brighter lights mean people go faster, in motor or on bike, that's not always a good thing if you're not obeying the HC and your reaction distance and time is reduced such that you aren't able to react in time, but forcing the onus of not getting killed on the innoicent party is disgusting, maybe you think blaming victims of crime is cool so you can go faster and take less care, I don't. 

Whatever. Keep shouting at anyone who disagrees with you, see how far that gets you. We all know who you are, and the mods will catch up with you before too long and we won't have to put up with your raving.

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Getting rid of rear lights of reflectors makes no sense. You'd then be expecting people to drive around at 3mph with ludicrously bright front lights.

No it wouldn't, that's an absolute load of pony and you know it, for one we already have street lights in built up areas, such that even side lights on motor vehicles are not required to see unlit objects in the vicinity. Also, and I don't know when you started cycling, but most of us BITD could go at a reasonable speed without clattering into innocent people with barely more than glow worm for a front light.

So you're talking absolute poop, e ver brighter lights mean people go faster, in motor or on bike, that's not always a good thing if you're not obeying the HC and your reaction distance and time is reduced such that you aren't able to react in time, but forcing the onus of not getting killed on the innoicent party is disgusting, maybe you think blaming victims of crime is cool so you can go faster and take less care, I don't. 

If you ban all rear lights, reflectors, fog lights, then the outcome will be manufacturers will find a way to increase front lights to compensate. We already see very bright lights as it is. Also we see innovation, so in reponse to the drls and indicators problem, some have an indicators which sweep left and right or dim the drl monmentarily.

Quite why you would want to be without lights at night seems bizarre. Perhaps you are one of these drivers who doesn't look very far ahead beyond the range of your headlights.

hirsute wrote:

At least BTBM allows us to use a front light. Must be galling that this allows oothers to see us though.

I'm not stopping anyone from doing anything, I'm saying the focus on not getting killed/maimed whilst cycling or even walking is ridiculously slanted on those two road user groups and away from those doing the harm, that does not occur anywhere else in society. By continually pushing that onus over best part of a century it has shifted not just how the law is being applied to vulnerable road users but it has had huge wider impacts on our society as a whole and not for the better.

But then you knew that was the point as I'd said it already, you have no point or contribution to the matter at hand have you, just throwing in a troll post for shits n giggles.

This problem isn't a laughing matter when it costs lives and people are being discriminated against by unlawful legislation that treats some groups massively different to others when they are the victim of crime.

TheLonelyOne wrote:

It's been interesting reading about all the BS6102/3 and other conformity issues. This is the best resource I've found today summing it all up:

https://www.cyclinguk.org/lighting-regulations

My take: the Law is a mess, but it's still the Law.

The regs are so weird. The 2005 update also made legal the use of illuminated amber lights on pedals! I'm sure someone has had a go making some, but I've never seen any in the wild.

There's also the bit about 'moving lights', where only lights that turn with steering or move with pedals are allowed. Anything attached to a 'load' cannot be allowed to move - is a bike rider the load? Does this mean that helmet/body mounted lights are actually illegal? Does anyone care? Probably not!

crazy-legs wrote:

Everyone knows that, scientifically, the way to be seen on a bike is to wear all black and jump traffic lights (and ride on the pavement). Not only does everyone within half a mile see you, they also post all about it on social media!

Rick_Rude wrote:

The danger is to themselves. Doesn't mean you ignore it.

That's the thing though as pointed out above - once again, they're concentrating on the victims. I kind of see it - it's a reasonably easy way of doing "road safety" where the police don't have to do much of that pesky paperwork but it's like doing a Rape Crisis class by handing out long skirts to every woman going on a night out or combating knife crime on the council estate by giving everyone a free stab vest rather than actually concentrating on the CAUSE of the problem.

Lots of things are unlit - trees, hedges, potholes, wildlife, pedestrians - and the answer is not to give out free lights to everything. Yeah it helps, it's better than nothing (although I'd be interested to see the legal case if a cyclist was given a set of these lights and then knocked off by a driver around the next corner, the police may find themselves in slightly difficult circumstances...)

Mathemagician wrote:

Get sick of seeing people on here who think the law just somehow doesn't apply to them. Grow up and take some responsibility for your actions. 

I never said the law doesn't or shouldn't apply, I was pointing out there that are some "reasonable" reasons why a person may not have lights at any given moment. Rather than immediately judging them it's worth taking a few moments to understand that maybe, just maybe there might be circumstances where a rider has to somehow cope with no/limited lighting for a short time. Or they might be a total idiot.

I finished a long ride a while ago right on the last dregs of the last working rear light because of a mistimed charging stop en route in spite of starting the ride with two fully charged lights.
And many years ago, a mate and I were out far later than expected for various reasons and to get home we hasd to split the one set of lights we had; front light on his bike, rear on mine and then tuck in as closely as possible. Not ideal but we judged the risk vs the other options and rode "illegally" but carefully.

It's nothing like this.

Comparing cyclists who choose not to use lights at night with victims of rape is distasteful in the extreme.

It implies that you believe short skirts actually cause women to be raped? Do you?

Because that would, ironically, make you the epitome of a victim blamer.

Rich_cb wrote:

crazy-legs wrote:

Everyone knows that, scientifically, the way to be seen on a bike is to wear all black and jump traffic lights (and ride on the pavement). Not only does everyone within half a mile see you, they also post all about it on social media!

Rick_Rude wrote:

The danger is to themselves. Doesn't mean you ignore it.

That's the thing though as pointed out above - once again, they're concentrating on the victims. I kind of see it - it's a reasonably easy way of doing "road safety" where the police don't have to do much of that pesky paperwork but it's like doing a Rape Crisis class by handing out long skirts to every woman going on a night out or combating knife crime on the council estate by giving everyone a free stab vest rather than actually concentrating on the CAUSE of the problem.

Lots of things are unlit - trees, hedges, potholes, wildlife, pedestrians - and the answer is not to give out free lights to everything. Yeah it helps, it's better than nothing (although I'd be interested to see the legal case if a cyclist was given a set of these lights and then knocked off by a driver around the next corner, the police may find themselves in slightly difficult circumstances...)

Mathemagician wrote:

Get sick of seeing people on here who think the law just somehow doesn't apply to them. Grow up and take some responsibility for your actions. 

I never said the law doesn't or shouldn't apply, I was pointing out there that are some "reasonable" reasons why a person may not have lights at any given moment. Rather than immediately judging them it's worth taking a few moments to understand that maybe, just maybe there might be circumstances where a rider has to somehow cope with no/limited lighting for a short time. Or they might be a total idiot.

I finished a long ride a while ago right on the last dregs of the last working rear light because of a mistimed charging stop en route in spite of starting the ride with two fully charged lights.
And many years ago, a mate and I were out far later than expected for various reasons and to get home we hasd to split the one set of lights we had; front light on his bike, rear on mine and then tuck in as closely as possible. Not ideal but we judged the risk vs the other options and rode "illegally" but carefully.

It's nothing like this. Comparing cyclists who choose not to use lights at night with victims of rape is distasteful in the extreme. It implies that you believe short skirts actually cause women to be raped? Do you? Because that would, ironically, make you the epitome of a victim blamer.

It is EVERYTHING like that!

Frankly people like you disgust me and make my blood boil, you yet again show massive ignorance of the problem at its very core, your continual push for helmet wearing and defence of such plus the ignorance of the facts shows time and again how you are so massively out of touch and thinking of the past which has led to the problems and huge inequity/treatment of people on bikes that we have to date!

You and many others including police and gov are resolved to sticking to what we know doesn't work, won't admit to be utterly wrong to the point that they dig their heels in, continue to rant unabated at every oppoortunity (which is often the popularist belief) whilst people are being killed and maimed for life due to such vapid ignorance and wrong headed thinking!

You people are not just narrow minded, you're dangerous, dangerous because your voices are the ones that perpetuate the absolute dirge of pushing the focus away from the people doing the harm and pushing it in a massively inequitable way onto the victims of crime, it couldn't be more abhorrent if you tried, so yes the comparison to telling rape victims that they should be wearing anti rape garments or garments that make them less of an easy target is bang on the money!

How can you not see that the legislation that we have has continued to remove the responsibility of safety away from the very people causing the vast majority of the harm, that that has had a tsunami effect of pushing innocent people from travelling/going about their business in the manner they wished too, quite literally by massive force and threat of harm!

We know what the outcome of that has been, obesity crisis which means a failing NHS due to the huge negative outcomes from that, not to mention the tens of billions in cost for the carnage caused by this group of terrorists! Pollution on a weapons grade level, yet more cost to the NHS and premature deaths/lower quality of life, destruction of property and landscape, waste of finite resources as well as the aftermath of waste material that gets dumped and rarely recycled effectively.

Reflectors and rear lights for cyclists along with hi-vis and helmets are such massive red herrings with regards to safety, it's utterly contemptable that you people and the powers that be continue down this victim blaming avenue which has proven time and time again throughout history never to be a solution and always to shift the focus away from wrong doers.

This is why I am so anti helmet, anti hi-vis and think rear lighting at least for cyclists and indeed motor vehicles has such a massive negative effect on ALL of us whether you wear or not, whether you have lights or not, the root problems are continually being ignored such that people are dying and the 'system and legislation creates victims, causes desperation and sorrow.

I rarely go out because I'm too scared to walk across the road, this is what I hear from older people whom I see through my charity, you think that is extreme, it isn't, the reason why cycle journeys haven't risen across the UK in the last 14 years ... because as many people are giving up cycling as starting, even on here, on the CUK forum you read yet another person forced off the roads, doing all the right things, taking 90% of the responsibility to not getting killed yet too fearful to put up with the bullshit any longer, no help from police, no help from politicians and ridiculed by others particularly non cyclists because they're part of that hated demonic law breaking out group.

Women no longer get pulled up/blamed for getting sexually assaulted for wearing short skirts/alluring/sexy garments or for going down the 'wrong' street at the 'wrong' time of the day/night, because we've recognised that the victim is not the problem, the victim has done absolutely nothing wrong and that to resolve the problem we adjust the behaviour of those posing the threat of harm or POLICE the problem areas and those that are likely to pose the threat of harm!

YOU are part of the problem, but you will respond with some carp and still not get it will you!

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

It is EVERYTHING like that!

Frankly people like you disgust me and make my blood boil, you yet again show massive ignorance of the problem at its very core, your continual push for helmet wearing and defence of such plus the ignorance of the facts shows time and again how you are so massively out of touch and thinking of the past which has led to the problems and huge inequity/treatment of people on bikes that we have to date!

You and many others including police and gov are resolved to sticking to what we know doesn't work, won't admit to be utterly wrong to the point that they dig their heels in, continue to rant unabated at every oppoortunity (which is often the popularist belief) whilst people are being killed and maimed for life due to such vapid ignorance and wrong headed thinking!

You people are not just narrow minded, you're dangerous, dangerous because your voices are the ones that perpetuate the absolute dirge of pushing the focus away from the people doing the harm and pushing it in a massively inequitable way onto the victims of crime, it couldn't be more abhorrent if you tried, so yes the comparison to telling rape victims that they should be wearing anti rape garments or garments that make them less of an easy target is bang on the money!

How can you not see that the legislation that we have has continued to remove the responsibility of safety away from the very people causing the vast majority of the harm, that that has had a tsunami effect of pushing innocent people from travelling/going about their business in the manner they wished too, quite literally by massive force and threat of harm!

We know what the outcome of that has been, obesity crisis which means a failing NHS due to the huge negative outcomes from that, not to mention the tens of billions in cost for the carnage caused by this group of terrorists! Pollution on a weapons grade level, yet more cost to the NHS and premature deaths/lower quality of life, destruction of property and landscape, waste of finite resources as well as the aftermath of waste material that gets dumped and rarely recycled effectively.

Reflectors and rear lights for cyclists along with hi-vis and helmets are such massive red herrings with regards to safety, it's utterly contemptable that you people and the powers that be continue down this victim blaming avenue which has proven time and time again throughout history never to be a solution and always to shift the focus away from wrong doers.

This is why I am so anti helmet, anti hi-vis and think rear lighting at least for cyclists and indeed motor vehicles has such a massive negative effect on ALL of us whether you wear or not, whether you have lights or not, the root problems are continually being ignored such that people are dying and the 'system and legislation creates victims, causes desperation and sorrow.

I rarely go out because I'm too scared to walk across the road, this is what I hear from older people whom I see through my charity, you think that is extreme, it isn't, the reason why cycle journeys haven't risen across the UK in the last 14 years ... because as many people are giving up cycling as starting, even on here, on the CUK forum you read yet another person forced off the roads, doing all the right things, taking 90% of the responsibility to not getting killed yet too fearful to put up with the bullshit any longer, no help from police, no help from politicians and ridiculed by others particularly non cyclists because they're part of that hated demonic law breaking out group.

Women no longer get pulled up/blamed for getting sexually assaulted for wearing short skirts/alluring/sexy garments or for going down the 'wrong' street at the 'wrong' time of the day/night, because we've recognised that the victim is not the problem, the victim has done absolutely nothing wrong and that to resolve the problem we adjust the behaviour of those posing the threat of harm or POLICE the problem areas and those that are likely to pose the threat of harm!

YOU are part of the problem, but you will respond with some carp and still not get it will you!

No. It's nothing like that at all.

Is there a legal requirement to wear long skirts. No.

Is there a legal requirement to use lights when cycling at night. Yes.

Does using lights make you less likely to be in an RTC? Yes.

Is it possible for somebody cycling without lights at night to be seriously harmed by accident? Yes.

Do the clothes you wear affect your chances of being raped?

Is it possible to rape someone by accident?

Those last two questions are for you BTBS. I look forward to your reply.

Rick_Rude wrote:

The danger is to themselves. Doesn't mean you ignore it.

There's plenty of mobile phone using drivers that get ignored and they're far more of a hazard to everyone on the road. Whenever I encounter a cyclist not using lights (which can be quite common in Bristol), I remind myself to make sure that I'm looking out for hard-to-see pedestrians and cyclists.

hirsute wrote:

It's not illegal, the lighting regs were updated. There is also a limit on the amount of flashes per second. https://www.cyclinguk.org/lighting-regulations

It technically is illegal, the regs were updated, but included a bizzare clause that if the light had a 'steady' mode, then it must conform to the standards.

Many flashing LED lights have a steady mode, making them illegal to use on their own if they don't have BS/EU conformance markings.

edit: just to be fair to hirsute - they were responding to a statement that flashing lights are illegal - they were correct in saying they are not illegal (since 2005). It's only if you want to use them as your sole means of illumination (as shown in the video), that you need to ensure the light has:

-no steady mode

-brighter than 4 candela

-1-4Hz flash rate

or conforms to the relevant BS/EU standard. (phew!)

HoarseMann wrote:

or conforms to the relevant BS/EU standard. (phew!)

I've searched for BS6102 and it appears that it has to be purchased to view (£206 on one site !)
I wonder what standard actually says and whether recent lights would conform?