What are the UK legal requirements on lights / reflectors?

Liversage

I believe that at lighting up time in the UK, you need front and rear lights, a separate rear red reflector and, on the pedals alone, amber reflectors. I also believe that there is no legal requirement to have any reflectors / lights whatsoever during the day.

But got into a baffling, inconclusive discussion about all this with three assistants in Evans today on what the legal requirements are. No-one seems to have a definitive answer:

- one thinks that I'm mostly right, but not on the amber reflectors on the pedals.

- one thinks that you can substitute the rear reflector for a rear red light - i.e. you don't need both, because the "light acts as a reflector".

- one thinks that you need everything I've outlined, plus a front clear reflector and 'side' reflectors on the wheels, and that you actually need all these reflectors ALL the time, not just at night. And a bell. This surely can't be right?

Can someone spell out for me precisely what is or is not the legal requirement on lights and reflectors in the UK - both during the day, and at night?

prj45

Amber reflectors on the pedals are a requirement during lighting up hours.

You MUST have a rear red reflector AND a rear red light if riding at night.

You don't need front or side reflectors.

Monkeypump

Are you likely to be charged with ??? (insert offence here) if you have lights but not reflectors?

Also, am I right in thinking a bell must be fitted to bike at point of sale, but it's not illegal to take it off?

prj45

Monkeypump wrote:

Are you likely to be charged with ??? (insert offence here) if you have lights but not reflectors?

Highly unlikely.

If a car runs into the back of you though their laywers will use the fact you didn't have reflectors.

And if you're riding an illegal bike it's probably going to look bad if you crash into something or somebody.

doog442

prj45 wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

Are you likely to be charged with ??? (insert offence here) if you have lights but not reflectors?

Highly unlikely.

If a car runs into the back of you though their laywers will use the fact you didn't have reflectors.

can you supply us with a stated case to back up this please :?:

prj45

doog442 wrote:

prj45 wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

Are you likely to be charged with ??? (insert offence here) if you have lights but not reflectors?

Highly unlikely.

If a car runs into the back of you though their laywers will use the fact you didn't have reflectors.

can you supply us with a stated case to back up this please :?:

Not easily.

I've read a couple of stories though where the lack of reflectors on the bike was mentioned in court and noted by the judge, including the one where the guy on the road bike knocked the girl over that then died of head injuries.

And it's pretty clear to me that if at night your bike is not lit up legally and you are struck or otherwise involved in an incident this will be used against you.

always_tyred

prj45 wrote:

doog442 wrote:

prj45 wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

Are you likely to be charged with ??? (insert offence here) if you have lights but not reflectors?

Highly unlikely.

If a car runs into the back of you though their laywers will use the fact you didn't have reflectors.

can you supply us with a stated case to back up this please :?:

Not easily.

I've read a couple of stories though where the lack of reflectors on the bike was mentioned in court and noted by the judge, including the one where the guy on the road bike knocked the girl over that then died of head injuries.

And it's pretty clear to me that if at night your bike is not lit up legally and you are struck or otherwise involved in an incident this will be used against you.

Its relevant to contributory negligence, PRJ.
As I understand things, the burden of proof lies with the party alleging this, meaning that rather than merely state that reflectors or lighting COULD have contributed, they must show that it DID (to whatever level of legal certainty required) in the incident in question.

In the case you mentioned, a lawyer raised the subject of the legality of the guy's bike. The outcome of neither the case, nor the sentence, rested on the issue mentioned.

Monkeypump

So is there a reasonable argument that a bike with lights (assuming to a legal standard) but no reflectors would not necessarily be more visible if reflectors were fitted?

Just curious, as I have no reflectors at all, buit do have multiple lights when I ride at night.

always_tyred

Monkeypump wrote:

So is there a reasonable argument that a bike with lights (assuming to a legal standard) but no reflectors would not necessarily be more visible if reflectors were fitted?

Just curious, as I have no reflectors at all, buit do have multiple lights when I ride at night.

The point of reflectors is that they are passive - don't require batteries. Cars require them also.
The point of he pedal reflectors is to highlight to motorists a motion unique to cyclists.

I think its fair to say that if your lights are working well, relectors don't make any difference to your overall visibility. Pedal reflectors - well, the legislation is a good idea and at night I do try to have something reflective to highlight the pedaling motion - usually my overshoes. However its not strictly legal.

I don't have reflectors. I don't even think my rear light is strictly legal, although its the brightest money can buy. I don't have pedal reflectors. Pretty well anyone using clipless systems is therefore illegal at night.

I'm not aware of anyone ever being in trouble with the plod for this - although I imagine that if you did something flagrant to irritate said plod, it might be thrown into the mix.

davidmarsden

I am amazed at the need for the reflectors on the pedals. I purchased a new pair of pedals the other day but these don't have the reflectors on them so I guess effectively my bike is useless at night

bikesr4riding

davidmarsden wrote:

I am amazed at the need for the reflectors on the pedals. I purchased a new pair of pedals the other day but these don't have the reflectors on them so I guess effectively my bike is useless at night

I use SPDs on my road bike and I'm not sure there's even a way of attaching reflectors to this type of pedal without adding a platform type attachment. It did ocur to me however that my shoes and clothing and rucksack all have reflective material on them, possibly for this reason.

bromleycommuter

Can I just say I am a cyclist and a lawyer (not personal injury) . I resent the fact that people say the lawyers will use it against you. If you do not have a reflector or lights on the rear of your bike then it makes you very difficult to see. That is just common sense is it not????? If you ran into a car that had no lights on would it be right for your lawyer to use it - of course it would . If the comment is regarding the guy who had an accident but had no helmet onI suggest you read the full judgement again. As you can tell i am a little pi***d off that us lawyers get blamed for everything.

thanks for letting me vent!

Monkeypump

bromleycommuter wrote:

Can I just say I am a cyclist and a lawyer (not personal injury) . I resent the fact that people say the lawyers will use it against you. If you do not have a reflector or lights on the rear of your bike then it makes you very difficult to see. That is just common sense is it not????? If you ran into a car that had no lights on would it be right for your lawyer to use it - of course it would . If the comment is regarding the guy who had an accident but had no helmet onI suggest you read the full judgement again. As you can tell i am a little pi***d off that us lawyers get blamed for everything.

thanks for letting me vent!

Feel free to vent, but I don't think anyone is suggesting riding with no reflectors OR lights. Don't think we'd have much of a case there...

DVV

I do remember a case when a cyclist ended up hitting and killing a girl. In the court case the fact that he didn't have pedal reflectors - which made his bike 'illegal' - was brought up, and reported in the press. I have no idea whether it was at night or not. Just an example. Nasty case.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -fine.html

the_hundredth_idiot

DVV wrote:

I do remember a case when a cyclist ended up hitting and killing a girl. In the court case the fact that he didn't have pedal reflectors - which made his bike 'illegal' - was brought up, and reported in the press. I have no idea whether it was at night or not. Just an example. Nasty case.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -fine.html

That's the one they're talking about. I remember the reporting of the case bringing up that the bike didn't have reflectors and so wasn't legal (the implication being therefore that it was unsafe and dangerous), despite the accident taking place during the day.

No idea if it made any difference to the final judgment but it does show that a lawyer might well bring it up against you. And, frankly, surely they should if it is relevant to the case - bike not complying with the legal requirements might well reflect the temperament of the rider even if not directly relevant to the case.

prj45

bromleycommuter wrote:

As you can tell i am a little pi***d off that us lawyers get blamed for everything.!

If you didn't bring up the illegality of a bike (or car) involved in an incident you wouldn't be doing your job!

I wasn't suggesting it was a a bad thing that a lawyer would do this, as agents of the law they have to surely?

the_hundredth_idiot

But I meant to say, legal requirements are mentioned here in the Highway Code - paragraph 60. If the Highway Code says must then it is a legal requirement.

If it says "should" then it's not a legal requirement but (I understand) could still be used to imply that you weren't using best practice and therefore contributed to the cause of the accident or degree of injury.

Liversage

Very useful and reassuring link to the Highway Code sections. Looks like the law stipulates at night: front + rear lights, rear reflectors and amber pedal reflectors. Shows how much the "experts" at Evans know.

On pedals alone, I reckon a lot of cyclists out there are riding illegally at night...

prj45

What excellent resource Cambridge cycling campaign is:


http://www.camcycle.org.uk/resources/lights/

And from the horse's mouth:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/vehicle ... edalbi4556

scooper

Thanks for clearing that up prj45

always_tyred

bromleycommuter wrote:

Can I just say I am a cyclist and a lawyer (not personal injury) . I resent the fact that people say the lawyers will use it against you. If you do not have a reflector or lights on the rear of your bike then it makes you very difficult to see. That is just common sense is it not????? If you ran into a car that had no lights on would it be right for your lawyer to use it - of course it would . If the comment is regarding the guy who had an accident but had no helmet onI suggest you read the full judgement again. As you can tell i am a little pi***d off that us lawyers get blamed for everything.

thanks for letting me vent!

That's not very helpful, to be honest.
The point you make is comparing a car with no lights with a bicycle having no reflectors. The point under discussion was a bicycle with lights but no reflectors. So you are being disingenuous, which is precisely the criticism being levelled at the profession.
I don't share the criticism, by the way. I am paid to effectively be an advocate for invetors and I often have to suspend my personal opinions regarding the technical merits of an invention. So I understand the it is the responsibility of a lawyer to raise an available issue.

The helmet related case was extremely concerning becuase - as I understand things - in an obiter statement a judge held that it was in principle possible, although not in that case, for helmet use or lack of to be relevant to contributory negligence. This effectively requires cyclists to provide a duty of care that goes beyond statutory requirements, which is out of line with all other road users. That is a slippery slope. Is use of an A-road going to be contributory negligence. We are allowed to, but who in their right mind would? Its the equivalent of suggesting that a driver of an old vehicle is negligent because their vehicle doesn't have airbags, or that non-installation of a road cage could be contributory negligence. Its absurd, but has been stated in relation to cyclists.

Its understandably irritating that the issue was raised, and downright unacceptable that a judge should chose to open a can of worms on an issue that was not relevant to the case. It was ill considered and the CTC are rightly working to close the door which has been cracked open.

Kieran_Burns

doing some digging:

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Mode ... elID=35616
http://www.jensonusa.com/store/product/ ... LUK&cc=GBP
http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/product.asp? ... rc=froogle
http://www.pedalite.com/home.aspx


for some ideas... i guess we have to consider visibility over weight sometimes

davidmarsden

Interesting reading. So my DMR V8 Pedals are illegal at night. Damn.

Does anyone know of any pedal reflector attachments on the market?

cheers
David

always_tyred

davidmarsden wrote:

Interesting reading. So my DMR V8 Pedals are illegal at night. Damn.

Does anyone know of any pedal reflector attachments on the market?

cheers
David

Honestly, I really wouldn't worry about it.

posh_pedaller

davidmarsden wrote:

Interesting reading. So my DMR V8 Pedals are illegal at night. Damn.

Does anyone know of any pedal reflector attachments on the market?

cheers
David

Would this work?
http://www.beseenonabike.com/shopuk/product_info.php?cPath=33_42&products_id=104

Downwardi

M520's are doomed then.

Aguila

The bit about pedal reflectors is a real eye opener. As someone else mentioned I dont think any clipless systems will have this. My shoes and overshoes have reflective material at the back, you would haope that common sense would prevail and this be considered equivalent in the event of some incident.

spen666

Aguila wrote:

The bit about pedal reflectors is a real eye opener. As someone else mentioned I dont think any clipless systems will have this. My shoes and overshoes have reflective material at the back, you would haope that common sense would prevail and this be considered equivalent in the event of some incident.

I understand it is possible to get reflectors for some SPD pedals

The fact that there are no available reflectors for pedals doesn't mean the legislation does not apply to you. You choose to use that type of pedal as opposed to one with legal reflectors on them (as do I and many other cyclists).

The pedal reflectors are actually very effective at night owing to the motion of the pedals. They stand out very clearly.

I am not sure that the lack of reflective material on your pedals would make much difference in practice provisding you had sufficient lighting etc on your bike.

[Unless you meat a jobsworth policeofficer]

Agent57

Downwardi wrote:

M520's are doomed then.

Not really -- my new Rockhopper came with SM-PD22 inserts on the pedals. I removed them, naturally.



They were a bitch to get off.

glamrox

I didn't think that clipless are technically classified as pedals inthe eyes of the law and thus got around the reflector laws, something about them being a method of shoe attachment instead ..... I'm fairly sure I didn't imagine reading that somewhere once

always_tyred

glamrox wrote:

I didn't think that clipless are technically classified as pedals inthe eyes of the law and thus got around the reflector laws, something about them being a method of shoe attachment instead ..... I'm fairly sure I didn't imagine reading that somewhere once

That's news to me. Would love to find out if there's any mileage in the argument though..... lunchtime research, methinks....