Cateye Cycle Lamps

Axel_Knutt

Do you have a Cateye cycle lamp with the following statement on the package?:-

“When used in constant flashing (sic) mode this light complies with the Road
Vehicles Lighting Regulations 2005 No. 2559. If used in constant mode, this
light should be used in conjunction with a British Standard 6102/3 cycle light.”

If you bought one of these lamps on the understanding that it complies with Statutory Instrument 2559, and meets the requirements for cycling on a public highway at night, you may be interested to note that Cateye have withdrawn this statement after I notified Essex Trading Standards.

New stock now correctly states that these lamps must be used in conjunction with an approved lamp if cycling at night on a public highway.

Contacts:
Dave Green, Essex Trading Standards, 01245 341938
Brian Goss, Zyro (Cateye Distributors), 01845 521700

Ref:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20052559.htm
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1989/Uksi_19891796_en_1.htm

Andy140

This will not affcet just Cateye lights - if any light has a steady light (non flashing mode) then it must conform to BS.

If its just got flashing modes only then it does not need to conform to BS.

On another note - any bike used after dark then it must have amber pedal reflectors. So any one with clip in pedals could have problems!

Crazy world

Axel_Knutt

Andy140 wrote:

This will not affcet just Cateye lights - if any light has a steady light (non flashing mode) then it must conform to BS.

Yes, but the incorrect statement on Cateye packages only affects Cateye.

alfablue

Yes, its annoying, flashing lights that have a constant mode need to be BS approved even if that constant mode isn't used, yet as far as I know, no one makes either a BS approved flasher / constant, or a flasher only light.

mdg1157

Andy140 wrote

On another note - any bike used after dark then it must have amber pedal reflectors. So any one with clip in pedals could have problems!

Crazy world

Thats me b**lloxed then, Been using Speedplays all winter

Indeed a crazy world!!

sean65

Axel_Knutt wrote:

you may be interested to note that Cateye have withdrawn this statement after I notified Essex Trading Standards.

Why did you notify trading standards?

What are you trying to achieve by doing so?

Do you think the outcome has been of benefit to anyone except Trading Standards?

alfablue

sean65 wrote:

Axel_Knutt wrote:

you may be interested to note that Cateye have withdrawn this statement after I notified Essex Trading Standards.

Why did you notify trading standards?

What are you trying to achieve by doing so?

Do you think the outcome has been of benefit to anyone except Trading Standards?

I think it is helpful to cyclists that might otherwise be misled in this confusing area of the law, leading them to think that they were legal using this alone in flashing mode when they are not, so I for one am grateful to Axel. Companies such as Cateye surely have the resources, and should have the responsibility, to get such statements correct. I think Alex has helped Cateye too, as they will have avoided a possible (though unlikley) law suit should a user come to grief using their product.

I am of the firm belief that there is too little complaining and whistleblowing when things are wrong, we tend to put up and shut up. Better to raise such issues when they arise than sit on ones hands thinking someone else wil do it!

tarpaullynn

I have raised the legalities of LED lights in the following thread.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12560556

The statements quoted in that thread from the CTC seem to suggest that they may be legal in flashing mode on condition that they above above a certain brightness.

[/url]

alfablue

Does the fitting of a "4 candela flasher", if it has a steady mode (don't they all?) which is not BS approved in that mode, actually be legal?

Also, whilst Cateye have changed their statement, we should be wary of "Complies with RVLR" as compliance means they meet the standard, but does not mean "Approval" which is required to be legal.

I have mixed feelings about the whole issue, I would like to be legal, but I can be much better lit if I ignore the law. The answer is of course to fit some very low rent (and pretty useless) BS approved lights in addition, but its a bit of a pain, I already have two front and rear lights to provide useful lighting, not keen on adding to it with a pair of useless lights.

Cunobelin

I am totally ilegal(ish)

I use a Cateye AU100 which has a BS 6102/3 stamp on the back, and a Dinotte (12 watts (halogen equivalent) output) which is my "supplementary light". The fact you can't see the Cateye for the Dinotte is irrelevant!




The same is true on the front, an EL 300 as my "legal light and paired up with a 15 watt (halogen equivalent) output (on the front.....




So the ones you can see are "illegal" if used on their own, but "legal" if coupled with a seriously underpowered set of conforming lights.

The only comment form the local Police has been a compliment on my visibility and a request to pass the details of Dinotte on to one of the senior officers who is now buying some!







The advice given by COBR is:

Are your cycle lights legal?
What's the difference between legal and BS approved?

We're often asked the question as to whether or not flashing LED's (Light Emitting Diodes) are legal in the UK? The answer is that if they are the sole form of lighting, even if they are BS Approved, they are still not legal.

So that's the bad news and here's a little bit more. Many LED lights and high-performance filament front lights, are not BS-approved. This is due to an obscure 'loophole' in the legal documentation, but it's a technicality as there is no denying that the intent of the law, certainly since April 1995, is to legalise LED lights that are BS-approved.

So, a small word of caution, if you see an LED light that states it is 'legal' - it's not! If it says it is BS Approved, this means it has been approved against a strict set of standards - BS6102 Part 3 and is fit for purpose but, it is still not legal!

Knightlite were the first to produce an LED rear light that conformed to BS 6102/3. Many others have followed and there is now an excellent selection of BS-approved LED rear lights available, as well as others with equivalent accreditation. Click here for a wide selection

For those who wish to read more, the main documentation relating to these issues are the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989, plus any subsequent amendments and the British Standard 6102 part 3. This BS relates to 'visibility lighting' and was further amended in 1995.

Flashing red LED lights have now reached the stage where they are seen as symbolic of 'cyclist'. This could be said to be a good thing, but it still does not make it legal in the eyes of the Law. Some cyclists get around the issue by wearing the flashing light on their clothing.

The use of LEDs in the form of a steady light seems well accepted, yet the position in law is confused. To quote from a letter from the Department of Transport dated 23 October 1995,

"The Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989 require cycles to be fitted with certain obligatory lights if used at night. Obligatory lights fitted to new cycles must be 'e/E' approved or comply with British Standard BS 6102 Part 3 or with a standard providing an equivalent level of performance." BS 6102 part 3 was amended in 1995, and now recognises the LED as a legitimate light source - prior to then only filament bulbs were acceptable. However another letter from the DoT dated 11 March 1996 refers to "the latest version of BS6102 part 3 (which the lighting regulations do not currently recognise)".

Note however that the letter also states that "the Regulations do permit cyclists to fit non-approved lights to their cycles if they are in addition to the obligatory approved lights." On this basis LED lights can be used as 'secondary' lighting; unfortunate when you consider their superior performance.

Some are concerned about the colour of LEDs that can be used on the front of a cycle. The 1995 letter states - "Regulation 11 of the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 strictly controls the colour of light that may be shown to the front and rear of vehicles. In general, only red light may be shown to the rear and any other colour than red to the front." However blue lights are prohibited on any vehicle other than emergency vehicles. But green or yellow lights do appear to be acceptable at the front.

Therefore to abide by the law as it stands, strictly speaking you must use cycle lights that are not very effective compared to some of the high performance lighting systems available. Some people get around this by carrying two sets of lights, one 'legal' and one 'high performance'. In practise however there are very few recorded instances in the UK of a cyclist with technically illegal lighting, falling foul of the police or the legal processes. Generally the police seem appreciative of any cyclist using effective lighting, as opposed to using non at all.

For some however the most serious issue is their status in law in the event of an accident. It is felt by some that an astute lawyer could point to the use of a non-legal lighting setup to undermine a cyclist's position in any ensuing compensation or insurance case.

The practicalities

If you are now utterly confused here is some practical experience, but please do not interpret this as anything other than such.

There is no doubt about it that the most effective form of lighting system currently available uses LED's. Infact one advert I have seen claims a cyclist can be seen from 2000 feet in the air when using a particular red flashing LED. Personally I'd rather be seen from 50 yards up the road, but then that's another issue and a very old joke.

Personal experience has shown that most members of the constabulary seem to 'turn a blind eye' to a cyclist who has one blinking LED, combined with a second LED set on solid. I have personally used this form of lighting now for many years and have never fallen foul of the law. However at the end of the day, this is my choice because, as the Law stands, I am breaking it, sorry Guv.

alfablue

Good extract from COBR above, but again the issue of "complies with" versus "approved" comes up. They are not synonymous. I found Knightlight and emaied them to seek clarification on the status of their lights, but they chose not to answer.

Cunobelin

It's a bodge whichever way you look at it.

Personally I think the 2004 revision was a case of listening to too many lobby groups and insufficient practical research, linked to a fast advancing technology.

ALso a standard measurement, as long as three are candelas, lumens and wattswe will never as "ordinary cyclists" be able to compare.

I have in my garage an original "Vistalite" flashing forn safety LED for a bicycle. It was not cheap, and green in colour, but it was "state of the art" - using such a light these days is foolhardy...

Equally a set of 10 watt halogen lights was about £60 in the mid 80's, a considerable expense at the time.

What we need is a simple, minimum standard which can be exceeded - but must be met..

andrew_s

alfablue wrote:

Yes, its annoying, flashing lights that have a constant mode need to be BS approved even if that constant mode isn't used, yet as far as I know, no one makes either a BS approved flasher / constant, or a flasher only light.

The cateye AU100 is BS approved, and flasher/constant, but it's still not legal on its own in flashing mode, as it's only BS approved when on constant.

Reelights are flasher only, and thus legal on their own.
It's a special British version with a steady flash rate. On the original version the rate depended on bike speed, so was only legal if you were going the right speed.

The "Reelight is British Standard Approved - passing all standards applicable to cycle lighting in the UK and EU" statement is a bit naughty though. There are no British Standards for flashing bike lights for it to pass.

Axel_Knutt

The purpose of the lighting regulations is twofold. Firstly they define which categories of light are prohibited, and secondly they define which categories are compulsory for cycling at night. Terms like "illegal" and "legal" are therefore ambiguous.

Flashing lights used to be prohibited, but the ban was lifted in 2005 by SI2559 above. Most cyclists and shopkeepers seem to have taken this as meaning that you can now legally cycle at night with any old light, which is not the case. It has always been compulsory to show an approved lamp whilst cycling at night, and it still is. SI 1989 above states that an approved lamp is one showing an approval mark, and that an approval mark is BS6102/3.

SI2559 removed the requirement for an approval mark, but only for a light which has no continuous mode!!(and hence can't be tested to BS6102/3). The Cateye lamps were claiming that the requirement for an approval mark is waived simply by switching to flashing mode, which is not correct. That's why I notified Trading Standards (and started this thread).

(The requirement for for tungsten rather than LED was dropped from the BS in 2003 I think, which is probably why SI 2559 invokes the newer edition of the BS spec.)

alfablue

andrew_s wrote:

alfablue wrote:

Yes, its annoying, flashing lights that have a constant mode need to be BS approved even if that constant mode isn't used, yet as far as I know, no one makes either a BS approved flasher / constant, or a flasher only light.

The cateye AU100 is BS approved, and flasher/constant, but it's still not legal on its own in flashing mode, as it's only BS approved when on constant.

Yes, only the constant mode is "approved" but when used in flashing mode it is permitted, despite there being no approval for flashing mode.

The Reelights, if flashing only (if between 1 and 4 flashes per minute) are also permitted.

My bugbear is the lights that say "comply with BS" which is not the same as BS approval, and are therefore prohibited as the only source of lighting.