The law

Parkey

But you're supposed to turn them on in light rain aren't you? It's so other motorists can tell where you are by the blinding red smear on their windscreens.

spen666

dondare wrote:

I'm happy about guns, knives and clipless pedals being freely available. My point is that unless pressure is put on suppliers to market a pedal that meets all the legal requirements then the law must be ignored or changed or cyclists must be prosecuted. But pedal reflectors are good so the law makes perfect sense as it is and it is not in the interests of cyclists to be prosecuted.

They do manufacture many types of pedal that are 100% road legal.

If you choose to use a non road legal pedal on a road bike, that is your choice - not the fault of the manufacturer. no one is forcing you to break the law except you


This is nothing to do with the maufacturers at all.


The issue re pedal reflectors is : -
1) prosecute those who use illegal pedal OR
2) change the law to allow these pedals to be used onbikes on the road
AND ( independent of the other two)
3) try to encourage manufacturers to devise pedals that fit both the demand for clipless and the requirement for reflectors

There is no need to ban manufacturers from making things which have many lawful uses- eg on trackbikes, on bikes not ridden on the highway etc

dondare

I haven't made myself clear, it seems.
Manufacturers can make whatever kind of pedal they like, but will not make something if there's no demand fo it. The reason why there's no demand for a good clipless pedal that complies fully with the law for a bike used on the road at night is that this law is hardly ever enforced. The problem that I have with that is that it's a good law because pedal reflectors are really visible in headlights and cyclists really ought to use them. But enforcing the law now would be unfair because it would mean that many cyclists would have to replace their existing clipless pedals with an inferior type.
At the moment suppliers get round the problem by selling bikes without pedals at all or with very cheap ones that the owner will imediately replace.
I'm not saying there's an easy or obvious answer to this, but the options are to ignore the law, change it or enforce it.

gtvlusso

Must say, I agree with Spen666's earlier comment about "change the law". Did not realise all this stuff about reflectors, bells and clipless pedals....I don't think any bike I have ridden or owned has been legal! Oh well....

Not sure if there is precedent for "blissful ignorance".....me lod....Anyone know the penalities for these infringments or has anyone been pulled for it?! I would think the Police are a bit too busy to worry about us or even know this stuff!?! We do have a few bicycle Police in Brizzle now though....anyone had anything from a bike cop?

spen666

dondare wrote:

I haven't made myself clear, it seems.
Manufacturers can make whatever kind of pedal they like, but will not make something if there's no demand fo it. The reason why there's no demand for a good clipless pedal that complies fully with the law for a bike used on the road at night is that this law is hardly ever enforced. The problem that I have with that is that it's a good law because pedal reflectors are really visible in headlights and cyclists really ought to use them. But enforcing the law now would be unfair because it would mean that many cyclists would have to replace their existing clipless pedals with an inferior type.
At the moment suppliers get round the problem by selling bikes without pedals at all or with very cheap ones that the owner will imediately replace.
I'm not saying there's an easy or obvious answer to this, but the options are to ignore the law, change it or enforce it.

You have now changed your position.

You were calling for manufacturers to be banned from making these products ( despite their having legal uses)

If the law is not enforced at manufacturer and supplier level, then it will either have to be ignored or enforced at cyclist level.

I agree with you now

dondare

gtvlusso wrote:

Must say, I agree with Spen666's earlier comment about "change the law". Did not realise all this stuff about reflectors, bells and clipless pedals....I don't think any bike I have ridden or owned has been legal! Oh well....

Not sure if there is precedent for "blissful ignorance".....me lod....Anyone know the penalities for these infringments or has anyone been pulled for it?! I would think the Police are a bit too busy to worry about us or even know this stuff!?! We do have a few bicycle Police in Brizzle now though....anyone had anything from a bike cop?

Bikes have to be sold with bells attached, but don't have to be used with them. A bike without a bell is legal.

gtvlusso

I build my own bikes.....hence no knowledge of these laws.

And now back to ordering a new MTB frame!

spen666

gtvlusso wrote:

I build my own bikes.....hence no knowledge of these laws.

And now back to ordering a new MTB frame!

That of course is no defence to a charge....

Underscore

spen666 wrote:

That quote from Leeds Cyclists is actually wrong as the lights must comply with BS6102-3 OR an equivalent EC standard


I suspect the EC standard doesn't require the 10 hour time limit. The BS came out in 1985- I bet there were no lights that matched this then for cycles

but (from the the DfT page linked to above):

Lights and reflectors not conforming to the BS, but conforming to a corresponding standard of another EC country and marked accordingly, are considered to comply as long as that standard provides an equivalent level of safety.

So can an EC standard which doesn't require a 10 hour battery life be deemed to provide an equivalent level of safety?

_

gtvlusso

No, Spen666, it isn't - but It does mean that I was not aware of the offences.

dondare

Underscore wrote:

spen666 wrote:

That quote from Leeds Cyclists is actually wrong as the lights must comply with BS6102-3 OR an equivalent EC standard


I suspect the EC standard doesn't require the 10 hour time limit. The BS came out in 1985- I bet there were no lights that matched this then for cycles

but (from the the DfT page linked to above):

Lights and reflectors not conforming to the BS, but conforming to a corresponding standard of another EC country and marked accordingly, are considered to comply as long as that standard provides an equivalent level of safety.

So can an EC standard which doesn't require a 10 hour battery life be deemed to provide an equivalent level of safety?

_

I've examined my Cat Eye lights and even if they are dsigned to meet the standards, even if they are marketed as doing so, they don't carry the necessary markings.

spen666

Underscore wrote:

spen666 wrote:

That quote from Leeds Cyclists is actually wrong as the lights must comply with BS6102-3 OR an equivalent EC standard


I suspect the EC standard doesn't require the 10 hour time limit. The BS came out in 1985- I bet there were no lights that matched this then for cycles

but (from the the DfT page linked to above):

Lights and reflectors not conforming to the BS, but conforming to a corresponding standard of another EC country and marked accordingly, are considered to comply as long as that standard provides an equivalent level of safety.

So can an EC standard which doesn't require a 10 hour battery life be deemed to provide an equivalent level of safety?

_

I'm not aware of case law on the subject, but I would argue that whether the battery lasts 10 hours, 5 hours or less isn't a matter of safety in so far as the question is surely was the light on at the relevant time ( and obviously sufficiently visible)

cee

i thought this stuff about reflectors and bells was that any bike sold, must be sold with reflectors and a bell. You can then perfectly legally remove them.

Again, this is what i think the law says. I could be convinced otherwise. But either way, if I choose to ignore this law, then I must be willing to take the punishment if I get caught doing so. This is the reason that more serious offences carry stiffer penalties. It is to deter would be neerdowells from commiting the law breach.

If the penalty for jumping a red light was a minimum 5 year jail sentence, I would bet a zillion blorg dollars that many fewer folks would do it.

Also, the person earlier who half quoted my previous speeding example. When I talked about the consequences, I meant the penalty for getting caught. Not what could happen whilst doing it. When I said points and a fine at least, I thought it was reaosnable to assume that if you knocked someone over whilst speeding, the at least part would have come into play an heftier penalties would be dished out appropriately.

I think you will agree that you could knock someone over and kill them without speeding. It is therefor not a consequence of speeding. I do concede however that it may make an accident more likely.

don_don

Actually I only say that the law should be obeyed to distinguish it from the Highway Code, which IMAO should be ignored.

May I ask why? I understand the difference between the two, but the Highway Code contains an awful lot of advice. Are you referring to just the cycling bits that have been changed recently?

Again, this is what i think the law says. I could be convinced otherwise. But either way, if I choose to ignore this law, then I must be willing to take the punishment if I get caught doing so

In the words of the Fun Lovin' Criminals - "It ain't a crime if you don't get caught"

always_tyred

It must be possible to arrive at a determination of whether it is, in fact, illegal to ride a bike without a bell and/or reflectors.

Regarding changes in the law - that would be trivial, but might require us all to have velcro reflectors around our ankes. Style disaster.

I always found it rather easier to edit someone's publications and presentations than to compose something myself. Perhaps its the same with law.

El Gordo

spen666 wrote:

Underscore wrote:

....According to http://www.leedscyclists.org.uk/Legal/Legal.htm:

The British Standard for front lamps includes a requirement that they be capable of running for 10 hours on a set of batteries

Unfortunately, it cost £80 to purchase a copy of BS6102-3 so I've been unable to confirm this point.

_

I also can't find that BS anywhere

The relevent part of BS6102-3.

---

8.1.2 Maintenance of luminous intensity
8.1.2.1 Headlamp. After having been subjected to the test in 8.1.3, the luminous intensity at test point A
shall be not less than 100 cd, when the final measured voltage is applied to the lamp.
If the lamp fails to meet the final luminous intensity requirement, repeat the test once more using fresh
batteries and a new light source. If the result of the second test is satisfactory, the lamp is deemed to have
met the requirement.
8.1.2.2 Rear lamp. After having been subjected to the test in 8.1.3, the luminous intensity at test point A
shall be not less than 22 % of the initial luminous intensity as measured at this point in the test in 6.1,
when the final measured voltage is applied to the lamp.
If the lamp fails to meet the final luminous intensity requirement, repeat the test once more using fresh
batteries and a new light source. If the result of the second test is satisfactory, the lamp is deemed to have
met the requirement.
8.1.3 Method of test. Fit the unit to be tested with the light source specified by the manufacturer, and with
fresh batteries (i.e. within 4 weeks of their date of manufacture).
Carry out the test at a temperature of 20 ± 2 °C and a relative humidity of 60 ± 15 %.
Operate the lamp on full load (i.e. including any additional light units, where appropriate) for 30 min
continuously, once per day for 5 consecutive days per week, for 4 weeks (i.e. a total of 10 h operation).
Measure the voltage on full load at the end of this period, and verify the luminous intensity using this
voltage.
If a filament lamp fails during the test, replace it with a new one, and continue the test. If a filament lamp
fails for a second time, the test is discontinued at that point.

---

Since you have to operate the light at full load I suspect the majority of the expensive dual light rechargable systems would fail. Mind you, just becasue it's a British Standard doesn't make it law (at least in the world of construction, I don't know about bike lights).

spen666

Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 and section 91 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

On **(..SPECIFY DATE..) at **(..SPECIFY TOWNSHIP..) used on a road, namely **(..SPECIFY ROAD AND LOCATION..), a pedal cycle which was not fitted with

(A)_[a front position lamp]_
(B)_[a rear position lamp]_
(C)_[a rear retro reflector]_
(D)_[pedal retro reflectors]_ [note not required on bikes manufactured before 1/10/1985]

NOTE Regulation 4(3) Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 states that lamps need not be fitted between sunrise and sunset.

Thus reflector on bike is required at all times it is used on road, as are pedal reflectors ( on bikes manufactured post 1/10/85)

spen666

El Gordo wrote:

The relevent part of BS6102-3.

---

8.1.2 Maintenance of luminous intensity
8.1.2.1 Headlamp. After having been subjected to the test in 8.1.3, the luminous intensity at test point A
shall be not less than 100 cd, when the final measured voltage is applied to the lamp.
If the lamp fails to meet the final luminous intensity requirement, repeat the test once more using fresh
batteries and a new light source. If the result of the second test is satisfactory, the lamp is deemed to have
met the requirement.
8.1.2.2 Rear lamp. After having been subjected to the test in 8.1.3, the luminous intensity at test point A
shall be not less than 22 % of the initial luminous intensity as measured at this point in the test in 6.1,
when the final measured voltage is applied to the lamp.
If the lamp fails to meet the final luminous intensity requirement, repeat the test once more using fresh
batteries and a new light source. If the result of the second test is satisfactory, the lamp is deemed to have
met the requirement.
8.1.3 Method of test. Fit the unit to be tested with the light source specified by the manufacturer, and with
fresh batteries (i.e. within 4 weeks of their date of manufacture).
Carry out the test at a temperature of 20 ± 2 °C and a relative humidity of 60 ± 15 %.
Operate the lamp on full load (i.e. including any additional light units, where appropriate) for 30 min
continuously, once per day for 5 consecutive days per week, for 4 weeks (i.e. a total of 10 h operation).
Measure the voltage on full load at the end of this period, and verify the luminous intensity using this
voltage.
If a filament lamp fails during the test, replace it with a new one, and continue the test. If a filament lamp
fails for a second time, the test is discontinued at that point.

---

Since you have to operate the light at full load I suspect the majority of the expensive dual light rechargable systems would fail. Mind you, just becasue it's a British Standard doesn't make it law (at least in the world of construction, I don't know about bike lights).

Thanks for that - very illuminating ( sorry!)

I've never been able to find it before

dondare

don_don wrote:

Actually I only say that the law should be obeyed to distinguish it from the Highway Code, which IMAO should be ignored.

May I ask why? I understand the difference between the two, but the Highway Code contains an awful lot of advice. Are you referring to just the cycling bits that have been changed recently?

Too many people make no distinction between the HC and the law, and therefore condemn cyclists who fail to follow the HC's instructions about helmets and cycle-lanes, for instance.
The HC tells cyclists to wear helmets. Helmets have not been proved to be genuinely useful, let alone necessary.
The HC still maintains that cycle-lanes can make your journey safer. Cycle-lanes are far more likely to make your journey less safe; and if the DSA aren't prepared to admit this then they should simply point out that cycle-lane use is not a legal requirement and leave it at that.

dondare

Always Tyred wrote:

It must be possible to arrive at a determination of whether it is, in fact, illegal to ride a bike without a bell and/or reflectors.

Regarding changes in the law - that would be trivial, but might require us all to have velcro reflectors around our ankes. Style disaster.

I always found it rather easier to edit someone's publications and presentations than to compose something myself. Perhaps its the same with law.

Bell not required by law.
Pedal reflectors are required by law. Rear reflector also required by law. Reflectors have to conform to British Standard.
Other reflectors not required by law.

If the law was changed so that we could use clipless pedals but must have something similar to pedal reflectors, such as reflective patches on the backs of the shoes or reflective bicycle clips, then these would have to meet a standard as well, but undoubtedly many would not.

don_don

Too many people make no distinction between the HC and the law, and therefore condemn cyclists who fail to follow the HC's instructions about helmets and cycle-lanes, for instance.

Thanks dondare

I see where you are coming from and incidentally, I completely agree with you there.

iainment

So philosophical questions about the law come down to whether or not reflectors on bikes make the rider lawful or an outlaw.

God bless this site it's priceless.

spen666

iainment wrote:

So philosophical questions about the law come down to whether or not reflectors on bikes make the rider lawful or an outlaw.

God bless this site it's priceless.

Does that make you Robin Hood?

iainment

spen666 wrote:

iainment wrote:

So philosophical questions about the law come down to whether or not reflectors on bikes make the rider lawful or an outlaw.

God bless this site it's priceless.

Does that make you Robin Hood?

No, Green I mean Red Lantern.

downfader

gtvlusso wrote:

Not sure if there is precedent for "blissful ignorance".....me lod....Anyone know the penalities for these infringments or has anyone been pulled for it?! I would think the Police are a bit too busy to worry about us or even know this stuff!?! We do have a few bicycle Police in Brizzle now though....anyone had anything from a bike cop?

I think there used to be a fixed fine if you're caught riding at night without reflectors and lights. I have seen one or two kids getting stopped in the past couple of years by local police.

Theres a few bikecops here in Southampton. The tend to get frowned at just as much as others due to one or two using the pavements. I will oneday catch one of these out and it'll end up on youtube, LOL! I honestly beleive you have a point about police being busy, I only ever see them when theres a deterant needed (footie game for example) otherwise its PCSOs.

Vroomfondel

Howdy, i work for the police on a bike (Giant XTC 1, sweet) and I still am not too keen on riding on some of these A-Roads, would much rather take the footpath that never gets used by pedestriants. It is amazing how much of a wider berth cars give you when you're riding in uniform compared to some downright dangerous and antisocial driving ive experienced when out riding off duty... if they try and intimidate me with their driving they get their plates taken and promptly given a Section 59 warning later on so if they do it again, they get their car seized, nice.

If a light is red and there is not a car to be seen around, im not going to sit there like a lemon waiting for it to change when it is perfectly safe to do so when its still on red!!!

downfader

Vroomfondel wrote:

Howdy, i work for the police on a bike (Giant XTC 1, sweet) and I still am not too keen on riding on some of these A-Roads, would much rather take the footpath that never gets used by pedestriants. It is amazing how much of a wider berth cars give you when you're riding in uniform compared to some downright dangerous and antisocial driving ive experienced when out riding off duty... if they try and intimidate me with their driving they get their plates taken and promptly given a Section 59 warning later on so if they do it again, they get their car seized, nice.

If a light is red and there is not a car to be seen around, im not going to sit there like a lemon waiting for it to change when it is perfectly safe to do so when its still on red!!!

You work for the police, sorry but does that mean you're actually policeman? Or a PCSO Just curious to clarify.

Vroomfondel

They wouldnt let a real policeman do anything fun like ride about on an XTC 1 all day now would they they have far too much paperwork and doughnuts to eat!!!

brookter

Vroomfondel wrote:

If a light is red and there is not a car to be seen around, im not going to sit there like a lemon waiting for it to change when it is perfectly safe to do so when its still on red!!!

I can foresee a little chat with supervision in your future...

To be serious for a second, if you really are a PCSO, then you need to reconsider your attitudes. There are enough people out to criticise PCSOs, without you giving them an open goal. The vast majority of PCSOs do a brilliant job and they deserve respect. Jumping red lights in uniform because you can't be bothered to wait a few seconds isn't professional and it does your colleagues no favours. Don't do it, please.

David

dondare

iainment wrote:

So philosophical questions about the law come down to whether or not reflectors on bikes make the rider lawful or an outlaw.

God bless this site it's priceless.

I think that technically an outlaw is someone who has had the protection of the law removed rather than someone who simply chooses not to obey it.