Lightless cyclist locked up by Lancashire Police

Enjoyed some of these comments so much i have included them in :

Skippi-Cyclist.blogspot.com

Given how exceedingly bright and all pervasive street lights are now, it doesn't actually seem to me to be a major problem to ride a cycle without lights (in most urban settings). This feels like a piece of legislation that was relevant in the 1970s, but isn't really appropriate now.

I have cycled in other parts of the world, and it makes you realise how much the night has been abolished in UK cities.

I have several sets of the cheap lights from Tescos for emergencies (but please note they don't meet the legal requirements, so technically you could still be stopped, and be issued with a fixed penalty, or even be arrested and appear in court if you don't give your name and address). Lets hope most PCs can use their common sense. Problem is of course you probably will have forgotten to carry them on the day/night you need them, and you can't leave them on the bike as they always get nicked by kids.

Personally I favour hub dynamos and LED lights with stand light features. Pretty reliable, much less likely to get nicked, and legally compliant. Unlike the old bulb dynamo lights the LED ones rarely fail, and are much brighter.

Sad that having got to court they couldn't process it with a quick and well deserved fine. The Police should have known better that it was not in the public interest to pursue from an earlier stage and issued a caution.

Either way, this is the guy who (when I'm driving my car) puts me in the awkward position of perhaps maiming or killing someone else who can't be bothered taking some responsibility for his own well-being and expects everyone else to take account of him. What a prat!

The main thing people are missing with this is the fact he is in Blackpool and was being nicked for not having any illumination.

Blackpool.

Illuminations.

Ah, feck it, pearls before swine...

Tesco have a front and rear light pack for a couple of quid, they are just a single led in a rubberised shell that you wrap around the seat post / handlebars.

Like Simon mentioned i keep a couple of these in my backpack in case of an emergency and they weigh next to nothing.

Ok thanks Stumps and Simon. As it happens my front light is USB rechargeable and has a warning light when the battery is low, so I should have been able to avoid the situation... I simply forgot to recharge it at work. Might be a good idea to carry a cheapo spare with me nevertheless.

eurotrash, I would expect a dead light to be the same as no light. The prospect of finding myself in the same predicament is why I now carry small backup lights (Electron Backupz, Aldi had some recently, about £4?) at this time of year.

Question: a week ago I started my commute home and my front light battery died. So I cycled most of the way back with only a rear light. I did feel like a twat.
Well my question is, in that case could I be fined? Is it just for riding "without" lights, does the fact that I have a non-functional light attached mitigate anything?

Stopped for no lights - offence, fair enough. The Police have a few options I'd say. Advise, gain co-operation and get the guy to walk, or deal formally with offence by way of ticket. If the Police do nothing and the cyclist carries on riding and gets killed just up the road in a vehicle collision..... well the consequences are not good for the Police.

I dont go with this whole attitude test thing, I reckon most Police decide what they are going to do before they engage the person, you know being impartial and all that... I'd be utterly disappointed if that were the case and the norm. So it looks like the officer decided the formal method - issue a ticket. Thats the officers call and we should not judge them on it. The cyclist fails to give his details necessary for the ticket. The officer has no choice in that case - the Police cannot back down and nor would I want them to. Its actually the cyclist that is now dictating what move the Police have to do next. The cyclist might have refused the ticket. Either way he gets nabbed for failing to give details so that he could have be summonsed. If the cyclist was being gobby then the Police would have nabbed him for that I would suggest.

So he's locked up in a Police cell. The Police now have to deal with him. How, exactly? What are their options? They can release him without charge. Having established his details at the station they could release him after reporting him for summons which is what appears to have happened. I'm not sure why he went to court, maybe he refused to accept a caution, or a penalty notice and there was no other option, or not all options were considered because of the circumstances in the station. I would also suggest that if he had a legal representative at the station they can often give bad advice, such going "no comment" if interviewed or not saying anything other than confirming identity. I do agree that its not the best offence to take to court, but if this cyclist has been very awkward sometimes the Police have to go down a course of action that they even find themselves cringing over.

The Police always release press statements that are very, very carefully considered - they have to because of potential litigation. The press can be a monster if not treated with care. The Police never reveal the full story or go into detail because of this and very often I'm sure they'd love to shout, "Hang on a minute this is what actually happened, so wind yer feckin necks in!" But they can't and always take unfair and unwaranted criticism as a result, which they take on the chin, keep calm and carry on.

I am personally a little miffed by the CPS lawyers comments when nearly all of the time its the CPS who get it wrong. There are also ways of doing things to resolve matters that does not involve the blame game, which is how this looks.

Sswindells - i disagree with your final paragraph -

"To go ahead with a prosecution should only be reserved for the more sinister members of our society and those that are doing their best to evade justice."

The law is there for a reason and just because your generally mr or mrs cannybody does not mean you dont get prosecuted.
If you break the law then you have to suffer the consequences whatever they maybe. It may sound a bit draconian but we are now to soft on people who break the law and thats why the country is in such a mess.

I haven't read all the comments so sorry if it has been covered already.

The police do not have the power to arrest anyone for breaking the law. S24A of PACE which grants police officers powers of arrest state arrest can only be used if certain criteria are filled. Some of these are name not known or doubted.

However, what S24a PACE did create was the power to arrest for ANY offence if the criteria are filled.

So the suspect here will likely have refused his details following committing the offence of riding without lights during hours of darkness. He will have been stopped by officers legitimately.

The unofficial attitude test would have taken place. I.e do you know why you have been stopped, yes officer I hae no lights I'm sorry I'll walk home. No problem thanks very much. Or... What more likely happened here. Do you know why you have been stopped. Because you've nothing better to do? Etc etc. Officer points out the offence and advises to provide details for issue of ticket / summons ( completely legitimately ) and details are refused or clearly wrong (I.e I'm Mickey Mouse of mouse land ). Final warning to cooperate given, and then arrests are made because the ante has been upped and the officer is left with no choice.

That being said, as soon as the necessity for arrest ceases, the power does to. Ok officer I'm sorry my name is john smith here's my id. Right off you go.

To go ahead with a prosecution should only be reserved for the more sinister members of our society and those that are doing their best to evade justice. Seems excessive in these circumstances, but then we only have what is reported.

Can elaborate further re PACE etc if anyone was interested.
Sincerely doubt it mind!

Whereas a FP for riding without lights seems a 'fair cop' I'd rather see a fine vs lights scheme used.

As for failing to give details: the police have no right to ask a cyclist to do so any more than they do a pedestrian in the normal course of going about their business. That, and it's something the police have tried elsewhere, only applies to those driving vehicles.

was he arrested for refusing to provide his details or riding without lights. I get that the cops give a hard time to people who are being "difficult" but this seems extreme to put it mildly

Stumps, wouldn't you like the idea of marching such a cyclist down to the nearest LBS and making the offender by a new set of lights (regardless of whether he has any).

It would save time, put money into the local economy and serve as both a deterrent and safety measure.

There's no obligation to accept a fixed penalty. That's an admission of guilt. Feel free to admit guilt if appropriate (and in this case I'd imagine it was) but don't do so automatically.

Well, I'm no legal expert as most above seem to be, but I'd like to be the first to say "Bravo" to the Crown Prosecutor for displaying that all too rare quality of common sense.

I wonder whether the Police officer concerned and custody Sergeant that didn't query the offence oughtn't to be charged with wasting police time. At the very least they ought to be docked the wages for the time spent on this.

I do wonder how many drivers get pulled up for wonky or no lights. I see plenty every time I go out with either just fog+sidelights, faulty bulbs, or completely buggered electrics.

There is no excuse for cycling without lights, but the Police do seem to go for the easy option all the time.

Also this case does seem strange in that it got all the way to the court room before someone saw sense. I do suspect plod overstepped a mark by quite a degree here

Maybe a good solution is for the police to team up with a bike shop and then do a 'stop and fit or get a fine' initiative.

The police would get to enforce the law in a way that's friendly and helpful, cyclists get lit up properly and it would also save money on handing out then rescinding fines. A local bike shop would do a decent trade as well.

If any cyclists refused to fit lights, then fine them for being a dickhead.

Fine them £30 and give them some decent lights in return. Win-win.