Cycling has been a popular activity in Britain since the late 19th century. Cycling arguably started in Germany, but over the course of a few decades, different inventors from around Europe – including Scotland’s Thomas McCall – developed it from a rudimentary vehicle that still needed the rider to push along with his or her feet to a recognisably modern means of transportation. In the 1870s, the focus of stories in the press about cycling was about learning to ride, and to ride safely, with cycling clubs being established and pamphlets being published to help people learn – such as one published by the Surrey Bicycle Club in 1874, entitled ‘Hints on Bicycle Riding: How to learn to ride without a Master’, which was available to buy for fourpence. However, it was still seen as something of a niche interest, with a Scottish paper in 1879 stating that it ‘fancied’ the fans of cycling to be ‘a select rather than numerous section of the public’, largely comprising of ‘youths long of leg and eccentric of habit’. Elsewhere in Scotland, one writer set out to disprove the notion that cycling was hard, and boasted that he had learned the skill in ‘exactly twenty minutes’.

Growing popularity
More people soon realised that cycling didn’t take that long to learn, and with technological advancements, cycling rapidly grew in popularity. Around the middle of the 1880s, the first chain-driven bicycle was developed, and from here on, bicycles stayed pretty much the same in shape, enabling men and women to ride upright on a two-wheeled vehicle. In 1888, the government passed the Local Government Act, which defined bikes as ‘carriages’, rather

than as ‘nuisances’ that local councils in England and Wales could ban. The 1890s saw the golden age of bicycles, as they further developed with the addition of pneumatic tyres, better gears and brakes.

In today’s society, there is sometimes friction between car drivers and cyclists, with the former resenting cyclists slowing them down on roads, riding double breasted or cycling towards the middle of the road rather than far to one side – both of which are entirely legal and often the sensible way to cycle. The Highway Code sets out both advice (‘you should do’ or ‘do not’) and legal requirements (‘you must do…’). Even advice not adhered to can lead to court cases, however, or civil compensation cases. The Highway Code today states that you must have approved lights both at front and rear of your bicycle, working properly, when cycling between sunset and sunrise. Cycling UK stresses that this does not mean ‘the hours of darkness’ (30 minutes after sunset to 30 minutes before sunrise) but is a longer period of time.

Oil and gas lamps
This might seem like a relatively recent rule, but in fact from Victorian times onwards there was concern about bicycles being ridden without lights when it was dark, and this law already existed, brought in to ensure that cyclists were visible if they were riding after sunset. Originally, lights had been oil lamps, with gas lights only being introduced around 1896; battery-powered lamps followed later. Acetylene gas lamps for bicycles required a reaction between water and calcium carbide to generate gas, and the cyclist needed to light the lamp with a match to produce a white-coloured flame. Cyclists needed to be prepared even if they set off on their journeys in daylight, in case they needed to light their lamps for their return journeys.

Many cyclists did not take the rule on lights seriously, and local petty sessions were full of cyclists – often, but not always, young men – appearing to explain why they had failed to cycle safely at night. Brothers Cedric and Reginald Crowley of Alton, Hampshire, were two of the earlier offenders, being fined a shilling each and five shillings each in costs for riding their bicycles without lights between sunset and sunrise. Reginald was 14 at the time, but Cedric was 20 and perhaps should have known better while out with his younger brother. Henry Allen, of the Hampshire village of Bishopstoke, was another offender, being fined eight shillings for riding his bicycle without lights in June 1884.

In some cases, the defendant in such cases was the victim of bad luck, rather than having not had lights. Clerk William Shackleton was one such individual. He had been cycling from Leeds to Pontefract on a summer’s evening in 1881, when, as he reached the bottom of a hill near Glasshoughton, his bicycle lamp – it would have been an oil lamp at that time – went out. He didn’t have a match on him to relight it. He didn’t want to dismount until he reached the level ground in the village, where he knew he could ask someone for a match, but unfortunately for him, a policeman was patrolling Glasshoughton. The constable spotted Shackleton and told him he would report him. However, he was also nice enough to then give him a match, and Shackleton was able to light his lamp and continue cycling. At the West Riding Police Court the next day, Shackleton attended and was fined 10 shillings and costs of over eight shillings.

William Shackleton’s fine was high; it was more common at this time for a shilling’s fine to be the punishment. When a Birmingham man named Allen was summoned by police for riding a bicycle after dark with no lamp attached, he stated that he was actually riding a tricycle. He argued that the Highway Amendment Act of 1878 ordered bicyclists to carry lights, but did not mention trikes. In addition, his summons was for riding a bicycle, when he was not actually riding one. His attempt to argue that the summons was not applicable was foiled when the police court clerk said that the magistrates could alter the summons – and they duly did so. The argument about lights only applying to bicycles rather than their three-wheeled relative was ignored, and Allen was fined a shilling anyway.

Cycling commuters
The cyclists who came before the courts on the charge of riding without lights show how popular cycling was among the working and middle classes alike. Some may have used their bicycles to cycle to and from work, such as shopkeeper Robert Blake (fined at Blofield in 1902) or Harry Norton and Arthur Wallace, two Norwich neighbours, who both worked as commercial clerks and were fined in the same year. Edward Mansell, a railway labourer, and his brother Fred, who worked as a chauffeur and gardener, were both fined at Cheltenham in 1906. Fred may have cycled to work, where he used his employer’s car to chauffeur him or her around. These were relatively cheap forms of transportation, could be used in rural areas where public transport was limited or non-existent and could enable their riders to travel further distances than if they were walking.

The attraction was clear, but it was also clear that cycling could be dangerous – both for the cyclist and any pedestrians or vehicles they came into contact with – and hence the recognition that they needed to be safe, using lights during darker conditions. However, it’s also clear that some cyclists simply did not take the rules seriously. In 1897, in fact, the Dundee Courier had noted how many people chose to disregard the rule about riding with lights, helped by the fact that in some parts of the country, the police chose not to focus on this issue and looked the other way when cyclists were out and about without their lamps lit. This Scottish newspaper noted, approvingly, that the Fife police were actually ‘keeping a strict lookout’ for errant cyclists, and that on one day in May that year alone, four young men had all been convicted at Tayport for breaking the rules. It was hoped that they would serve as an example to other local cyclists.

Under the influence
Not all cyclists failed to have lights due to forgetfulness or accident, and not all admitted to the police that they were in the wrong. Nellie Smith, from Lincolnshire, had been to a dance one night in 1919, accompanied by her 12-year-old child. They left after midnight, and having cycled to the dance, they now had to cycle back home, in the dark, on bicycles without lights. They were stopped on the road by police, where Nellie told them that both bikes had had lamps, but that they had been stolen while they were at the dance. It was later discovered that their bicycles had never had lamps – Nellie had not bothered to attach any, and when caught, had lied to the police. To make her an example, the Hull magistrates fined her four times the usual amount.

As Nellie’s case suggests, some individuals chose to cycle to their nights out, which might in turn suggest that there were some instances of drunk cycling back! A common feature of these night-time cyclists was failing to have lights on their bikes, and if you had had a few drinks, it might not occur to you to ensure you were visible before you set off back home. Such errant cyclists could be found in all parts of Britain. In May 1919, an eisteddfod had taken place on the Powys/Carmarthenshire border, and a number of people travelled down from the Breconshire district of Devynock to attend. Several of them journeyed there and back by bicycle, and between 10.30pm on 22 May and 1.45am the following morning, a patrolling constable at Llywel stopped 11 of them for riding without lamps. Nine either admitted the charge or failed to attend the police court two months later, and were each fined. Those who admitted the charge were fined five shillings; those who failed to attend received higher fines of seven shillings and sixpence. Many of these cyclists were farm workers.

Two women, however, who were charged, pleaded not guilty; Gertie Jenkins, 22, and Mary Evans, 24, both of Sennybridge, had been stopped on the road at 12.20am without lamps, and had asked the police constable, Owen Jones, to ‘say nothing about it’. However, Gertie stated that the girls had been walking with their bicycles, not riding them; but as their journey had been around eight miles long, the magistrates did not think it feasible that the women had been walking the whole distance. They were duly accused by the magistrates of lying and fined ten shillings each.

In the early decades of the 20th century, people became increasingly reliant on cycling, and it was not only a hobby but a vital form of transport for people who lived in areas with inadequate or expensive public transport. But as cars and buses increased in number, it was clear that cycling without lights at night could be a dangerous activity, and one that police and magistrates were keen to punish. Cyclists, though, might be unable to realise the dangers and resent the police for attempting to fine them. Their excuses varied, but the results were usually the same: a fine, and a hope that they would learn to be safer cyclists in future. {