flashing lights - illegal - WTF !

corshamjim

I don't mind flashing lights but I do think it's much easier to see who is where if there's a steady light too. Lights where they shouldn't be (on helmet, shoulder, elbow, valve cap etc, ) annoy me as well. A bicycle should look like a bicycle. Silly lights on cars are just as bad. Don't get me started on the lights runners adorn themselves with neither. I know they call it road running, but do they really have to go running in the road when there's a perfectly clear pavement?

philwi

It seems a bit stupid to stop a cyclist to demonstrate one's ignorance of the law. On the other hand I'd rather a driver stopped and asked me about my lights than ran me down.

Are flashing lights annoying? I do hope so. Well, I don't particularly want to be annoyed when I'm driving, but I need all the help I can get in spotting cyclists, and flashing red lights are great for that. They're hugely more attention grabbing than a little red dot. I wish there was a law that said all hire bikes had to have Boris-bikes lights: most hire bicyclists are "stealth" and dangerous to me both driving and cycling.

Do they affect my distance judgement? I've heard this one repeated, but seen no evidence for it. It should be easy enough to demonstrate. Which way does it affect your judgement, precisely?

Lights where they shouldn't be (on helmet, shoulder, elbow, valve cap etc, ) annoy me as well.

<shrug>. My lights are conventionally (and legally) placed. However the law stipulates where your light goes to be legal, but it doesn't to my reading say you can't have additional lights elsewhere. So long as you're not doing anything which could be construed as distracting, then I don't think having a few fibre flares strapped to your frame is going to do anyone any harm.

bompington

alfablue wrote:

Stuff I'm well aware of but didn't want to bore everyone to death

nigglenoo

bompington wrote:

alfablue wrote:

Stuff I'm well aware of but didn't want to bore everyone to death

Well bully for you :x I also know this stuff inside out, but if you read through the thread you will see there are plenty who do not, and it is not surprising seeing as even the police are not always that well versed in it.

Actually a sticky with links to the CTC pages on cycling regulations might be a good idea, the main ones are:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/ ... egulations

http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/ ... uction-use

Note that as well as lights a BS compliant red rear reflector and pedal reflectors are required by law after dark, no exception for SPDs, but you can throw away the bell, spoke reflectors and front reflector that the bike came with when new if you want to.

EDIT: also you are legal riding fixed with just a brake on the front, but if you flip round your flip-flop hub and go single speed with freewheel then a rear brake is a legal requirement.

bompington

I think the point may be that - shock horror - most cyclists are interested in being safe, not having BS compliant lights. Being able to quote the exact BS for lights is not going to make you any safer, it's just, well, BS really ;-)

alfablue

bompington wrote:

I think the point may be that - shock horror - most cyclists are interested in being safe, not having BS compliant lights. Being able to quote the exact BS for lights is not going to make you any safer, it's just, well, BS really ;-)

I entirely agree! But it is good to know what the rules are. If we know how silly they are we may even try and get a change.

alfablue

nigglenoo wrote:

bompington wrote:

alfablue wrote:

Stuff I'm well aware of but didn't want to bore everyone to death

Well bully for you :x I also know this stuff inside out, but if you read through the thread you will see there are plenty who do not, and it is not surprising seeing as even the police are not always that well versed in it.

I don't think I said the "stuff I'm well aware of" above, and for the record, I am always happy to bore everyone to death!

nigglenoo

alfablue wrote:

bompington wrote:

I think the point may be that - shock horror - most cyclists are interested in being safe, not having BS compliant lights. Being able to quote the exact BS for lights is not going to make you any safer, it's just, well, BS really ;-)

I entirely agree! But it is good to know what the rules are. If we know how silly they are we may even try and get a change.

It also helps to know what you need to do to be legal, so then you can choose whether or not to comply, plus if you are involved in an 'accident' and have legal lighting and reflectors its one less thing for the crafty lawyers to pounce on as 'contributory negligence'.

If I ruled the world then rear lights would not be a legal requirement and car drivers would be held totally responsible for running into any cyclist from behind at night. After all a reflector is all that is normally attached to fixed obstacles in the road like bollards, so spotting a cyclist with a rear reflector should be at least as easy.

Up to the 1940s (or there abouts) the only requirement was for a reflector that met the BS of the day and that the rear part of the mudguard was painted white. Later on in order to appease the motorist, who did not want to be restricted to travelling within the speed that was safe with his lighting system, we were ordered to have rear lights. Rear lights are of no particular functional use to the cyclist travelling forwards in the dark....

nigglenoo

alfablue wrote:

nigglenoo wrote:

bompington wrote:

alfablue wrote:

Stuff I'm well aware of but didn't want to bore everyone to death

Well bully for you :x I also know this stuff inside out, but if you read through the thread you will see there are plenty who do not, and it is not surprising seeing as even the police are not always that well versed in it.

I don't think I said the "stuff I'm well aware of" above, and for the record, I am always happy to bore everyone to death!

I know you didn't, I re-quoted bompington's misquote, sorry if that led to any confusion

bails87

nigglenoo wrote:

alfablue wrote:

bompington wrote:

I think the point may be that - shock horror - most cyclists are interested in being safe, not having BS compliant lights. Being able to quote the exact BS for lights is not going to make you any safer, it's just, well, BS really ;-)

I entirely agree! But it is good to know what the rules are. If we know how silly they are we may even try and get a change.

It also helps to know what you need to do to be legal, so then you can choose whether or not to comply, plus if you are involved in an 'accident' and have legal lighting and reflectors its one less thing for the crafty lawyers to pounce on as 'contributory negligence'.

Whilst I agree in principle, actually finding BS standard lights isn't necessarily easy. The others may well meet the standards but the makers haven't paid for it to be stamped. And I've been hit by two cars, with two different insurance companies and one reported to the police. No-one has ever asked if my lights were BS approved, they just asked if I was using lights. There's a big difference between an 'Eveready special' on nearly dead batteries and my freshly charged (front:Knog strobe/Smart 25lux/Magicshine MJ852, rear:MJ818/Smart R2/Fibreflare) setup, but the police and the insurers don't seem to care, as long as I'm lit, they haven't tried to blame me for being pulled out into.

alfablue

bails87 wrote:

Whilst I agree in principle, actually finding BS standard lights isn't necessarily easy.

exactly, as above the Cateye TL-AU100 BS is the only model I have found that is actually marked as such. Any one know of any others?

nigglenoo

bails87 wrote:

nigglenoo wrote:

alfablue wrote:

bompington wrote:

I think the point may be that - shock horror - most cyclists are interested in being safe, not having BS compliant lights. Being able to quote the exact BS for lights is not going to make you any safer, it's just, well, BS really ;-)

I entirely agree! But it is good to know what the rules are. If we know how silly they are we may even try and get a change.

It also helps to know what you need to do to be legal, so then you can choose whether or not to comply, plus if you are involved in an 'accident' and have legal lighting and reflectors its one less thing for the crafty lawyers to pounce on as 'contributory negligence'.

Whilst I agree in principle, actually finding BS standard lights isn't necessarily easy. The others may well meet the standards but the makers haven't paid for it to be stamped. And I've been hit by two cars, with two different insurance companies and one reported to the police. No-one has ever asked if my lights were BS approved, they just asked if I was using lights. There's a big difference between an 'Eveready special' on nearly dead batteries and my freshly charged (front:Knog strobe/Smart 25lux/Magicshine MJ852, rear:MJ818/Smart R2/Fibreflare) setup, but the police and the insurers don't seem to care, as long as I'm lit, they haven't tried to blame me for being pulled out into.

The issue is probably not going to come up until there is a risk of a very big payout, e.g. due to death or life long severe disability (i.e. exactly when you don't want them to be wriggling out of it). Then the brightest and most creative legal brains will be wheeled out by the insurance company and they are more likely to come up with this sort of argument.

If popping along to Halfords is not easy, I wonder what is
http://www.halfords.com/webapp/wcs/stor ... yId_165636

In additon several of these sets are approved, but they all have old fashioned battery hungry 'krypton' front light bulbs like the Halfords set: http://www.eurolight-marketing.ltd.uk/p ... aspx?id=3# Halfords did have the only BS approved LED front light I have ever seen a while ago, but it seems to have disappeared. All these lights have quite low output compared to even the average unapproved LED ones, and are totally useless for seeing where you are going. If I ever bother they will be legal a$$ covering back ups to the non-approved T6 front and MJ818 rear I already use.

One alternative is to get lights approved to German standards, e.g. Busch and Muller, which will be covered by the EU reciprocation rules about standards (standards have to be 'equivalent', but German standards are, of course, higher). They perform better, are of better quality and are available through many bike accessory suppliers. These include very good LED front lights, some of which are dynamo powered ones with standlight facility so they don't go out while you are stationary at traffic lights. They are not cheap but at least they are usable and durable.

corshamjim

+1 for the B+M led lights in particular the dynamo powered 'Cyo'. B+M have recently produced a new 'Luxos' model which incorporates a usb socket for charging/powering your phone or gps from the dynamo too.

http://www.starbike.com/p/Busch-M%FClle ... OS-5251-en

philwi

Has anyone got an example where not having BSxxx stamped on a light was used to successfully reduce a payout in court?

If you could demonstrate that you're using lights which exceeding the law in every practical respect, then I feel that a driver would have a very weak case indeed should they try to avoid responsibility that way. Using a better light that the standard would reduce your risk, so your "contributory negligence" would in fact be negative. Your honour.

--
I doubt very much that rear lights were introduced for any reason other than to improve the safety of cyclists, in the same way rear lights for cars were introduced to improve the safety of motorists. I think you have cause and effect the wrong way around here.

The "functional use" of *my* rear lights is that they stop motorists driving over me and should there be a cyclist fast enough to catch me, it saves them from crashing into me. A tertiary effect is that it makes wheel sucking far less pleasant.

nigglenoo

philwi wrote:

Has anyone got an example where not having BSxxx stamped on a light was used to successfully reduce a payout in court?

If you could demonstrate that you're using lights which exceeding the law in every practical respect, then I feel that a driver would have a very weak case indeed should they try to avoid responsibility that way. Using a better light that the standard would reduce your risk, so your "contributory negligence" would in fact be negative. Your honour.

But are they better 'in every practical respect'? I think that some of the criteria of the BS standard may be about the area of the visible lens and the side visibility, for which some LED lights are not that great. I am not saying its likely to be brought up, but it is certainly possible, particularly when the stakes are high, and I suspect a court may take the view that a light cannot be considered to meet the BS standard unless it is either stamped with the BS number (or equivalent EU member state alternative) or they have expert testimony that it does.

philwi wrote:

I doubt very much that rear lights were introduced for any reason other than to improve the safety of cyclists, in the same way rear lights for cars were introduced to improve the safety of motorists. I think you have cause and effect the wrong way around here.

The "functional use" of *my* rear lights is that they stop motorists driving over me and should there be a cyclist fast enough to catch me, it saves them from crashing into me. A tertiary effect is that it makes wheel sucking far less pleasant.

The reason for introducing rear lights on bikes was to improve cyclists safety from what? From motor vehicles, as before cars came to dominate the road nobody needed lights on the back of their bikes, as there was nobody bearing down fast on them in a two ton steel box. The cause is motorists wanting to drive fast at night, the effect is that we are forced to have lights on the back of our bikes and I strongly suspect that it has not improved cyclists' safety over all.

The cure is to dismiss the excuses and victim blaming and force drivers to pay proportionately for the injury they cause to other road users, e.g. through legal penalties including custodial, removal of license, compensation under strict liability- then even if rear lights were no longer required or used the safety of cyclists would improve because drivers would be motivated to look out for them.

I often hear or read complaints from car drivers that they have just 'seen a completely invisible cyclist' on the road in the dark with no lights, all dressed in black, how irresponsible, blah blah blah, whilst completely missing the irony. A lot of people now think its irresponsible not to wear a hi-viz/retro reflective jacket even with legal bike lights and reflectors, so what next, make that law as well, then what?

And are you seriously saying that after dark a cyclist would ride in to an object the size of a fridge just because it had no red light attached? If so how on earth do they negotiate an unlit country lane without crashing into walls, hedges, trees, etc.?

As for wheel suckers, drop them or let them past.

alfablue

nigglenoo wrote:

In additon several of these sets are approved, but they all have old fashioned battery hungry 'krypton' front light bulbs like the Halfords set: http://www.eurolight-marketing.ltd.uk/p ... aspx?id=3#

This is the problem I referred to previously. These lights are not BS approved, the company says "Both front and rear lights conform to BS6102/3 and ISO6742/1" which does not mean they have been tested, approved or carry the BS mark. I contacted the company and they would not confirm that they were actually "approved". My Smart 1/2 watt light also said "conforms" on the box, but no where did it carry any such BS marking.

nigglenoo

alfablue wrote:

nigglenoo wrote:

In additon several of these sets are approved, but they all have old fashioned battery hungry 'krypton' front light bulbs like the Halfords set: http://www.eurolight-marketing.ltd.uk/p ... aspx?id=3#

This is the problem I referred to previously. These lights are not BS approved, the company says "Both front and rear lights conform to BS6102/3 and ISO6742/1" which does not mean they have been tested, approved or carry the BS mark. I contacted the company and they would not confirm that they were actually "approved". My Smart 1/2 watt light also said "conforms" on the box, but no where did it carry any such BS marking.

Good point,and I am not about to order some just to see what is stamped on them, I have no doubt that they are rubbish anyway, particularly the krypton front light.

I might drop in to Halfords at some point though and check theirs, they do say 'approved' and if you look at the close up and zoom right in you can see it embossed on the front light lens.

gentlegreen

A great many of the lights as (mis-)used by cyclists in the UK would potentially be liable to a fine in Germany at least.
And quite rightly so in my opinion - though I actually only encounter said cyclists on the Bristol to Bath Railway path.

It's not entirely their fault. The lights are nearly always shoddy - nasty point source emitters and cheap plastic optics, and bikes no longer come with lighting mounts that are suitably low.

There are only a handful of lights available that offer a proper dipped beam and they are very expensive.
The biggest problem in my opinion is that lack of thumb-accessible handlebar switches so they can easily change modes.

But I manage perfectly well using a domestic LED spot that cost me £10, a yoghurt pot and an aero wrapper and some Evo-stik. My battery cost £25 and lasts me two or three winters - charger another £12.

But at the end of the day, people are people, usually simply clueless, but sometimes bloody-minded and sometimes out and out malicious when they deliberately fire multiple watts of LEDs at other riders with a flash pattern that is probably illegal even in the UK.



I can thoroughly recommend the Topeak bar extender for getting your lighting mounted solidly and low.

As you can see, I have lights available for all situations, and if I routinely rode on busy roads, I might even wire in a flashing mode for some of them.

Not rocket science - all "Ladybird Book" stuff.

alfablue

Gentlegreen; I think your point is particularly imnportant re: low mounting, when riding on the Bristol-Bath Railway Path (unlit shared path that I have done several thousand miles on); that could make a lot of difference. In urban traffic, I think a higher mount could be preferable. It would be really interesting to see a better / fuller picture(s) of your setup.

unixnerd

I think flashing lights are essential when commuting, particularly to alert drivers emerging from roads on the left.

In addition to my main lights I run an AA Maglite on a NiteIze headband. If I want a driver at a junction or roundabout to be aware of me I look directly at them. It's not bright enough to dazzle them and so far it's always worked. Handy for punctures or looking at the speedo too.