Cyclists gets a finger wag !

[steve50]

Sorry, there's no argument that pedal reflectors are a legal requirement for riding at night.

http://www.cyclinguk.org/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations

Fair enough , I stand corrected on that point .

 

[mjr]

My bike my choice, I have the required reflectors and front and rear lights as required in law, I also have reflective tape built into my over shoes and cycling tights which I would think will more than make up for the missing pedal reflectors.

Write it in blue (I think) and bold all you like, but "missing pedal reflectors" means you don't "have the required reflectors" and you're riding illegally at night. Why won't you take this reasonable minor step to ride legally? I don't see why law-abiding cyclists should take advice on visibility from someone who knowingly rides illegally.

I doubt you always wear overshoes and if you only cycle when wearing reflective tights, that must rather limit riding opportunities and is rather different to most people who ride bikes, especially for transport.

 

[steve50]

Write it in blue (I think) and bold all you like, but "missing pedal reflectors" means you don't "have the required reflectors" and you're riding illegally. Why won't you take this reasonable minor step to ride legally? I don't see why law-abiding cyclists should take advice on visibility from someone who knowingly rides illegally.

If I was to ride my bike after dark then yes I would be riding illegally, I don't ride after dark.
I'm not offering advice I am airing my point of view to which I am legally entitled.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Fair enough , I stand corrected on that point .

Depends how old your bike is. Bikes manufactured before 1985 don't require pedal reflectors. Now why do you think that is?

 

[Smokin Joe]

If I was to ride my bike after dark then yes I would be riding illegally, I don't ride after dark.
I'm not offering advice I am airing my point of view to which I am legally entitled.

Then how come the lights you have fitted are "As required by law"?

 

[mjr]

If I was to ride my bike after dark then yes I would be riding illegally, I don't ride after dark.
I'm not offering advice I am airing my point of view to which I am legally entitled.

Fine! Well, your point of view and a quid fifty will get you a good coffee, but I think it would be better if you stopped trying to teach your grandmothers to suck eggs! There's quite a lot of us who have ridden in the dark for decades (I remember riding home from school, peering for the verge in the dim glow of never-readies) mostly without incident (but the comments from those knocked down while lit up like Christmas trees are also interesting IMO) and have often tried a few of the Be Seen BS products before realising the vast majority are useless snake oil which the Highway Cod should not be recommending.

 

[potsy]

If I was to ride my bike after dark then yes I would be riding illegally, I don't ride after dark.
I'm not offering advice I am airing my point of view to which I am legally entitled.

So why do you have so much reflective gear?

 

[mjr]

Then how come the lights you have fitted are "As required by law"?

He doesn't ride after dark = no lights are required by law = he has no lights?

 

[steve50]

Then how come the lights you have fitted are "As required by law"?

Because I use my lights when I am cycling. Even in daylight.

Fine! Well, your point of view and a quid fifty will get you a good coffee, but I think it would be better if you stopped trying to teach your grandmothers to suck eggs! There's quite a lot of us who have ridden in the dark for decades (I remember riding home from school, peering for the verge in the dim glow of never-readies) mostly without incident (but the comments from those knocked down while lit up like Christmas trees are also interesting IMO) and have often tried a few of the Be Seen BS products before realising the vast majority are useless snake oil which the Highway Cod should not be recommending.

and that is your point of view to which you are entitled.
We have a difference of opinion, it does not mean you are right anymore than I am, each to their own as they say.

 

[steve50]

He doesn't ride after dark = no lights are required by law = he has no lights?

Do keep up!!

 

[steve50]

So why do you have so much reflective gear?

Another one that needs to keep up.
I believe I have covered that many posts ago.

 

[mjr]

Depends how old your bike is. Bikes manufactured before 1985 don't require pedal reflectors. Now why do you think that is?

The lighting law is delegated to regulations so I'm not sure it passed through parliament. The current regulations reenacted the 1984 ones with modifications but pedal reflectors weren't modified. The 1984 regulations are being exceptionally slow to download... do you know why a presumably-new requirement wasn't applied to older bikes?

While searching, I did notice pedal reflectors were illegal for a brief time in the 1950s due to a slip-up drafting a law: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1957-11-26a.993.0#g993.1

Because I use my lights when I am cycling. Even in daylight.

Why do you want to reduce the relative conspicuity of other lawful unlit road users like that? Bit selfish, innit?

and that is your point of view to which you are entitled.
We have a difference of opinion, it does not mean you are right anymore than I am, each to their own as they say.

No, the difference of opinion doesn't make you wrong - it's repeating unsupported-by-evidence motorist-excusing cyclist-hate that makes you wrong.

 

[potsy]

Another one that needs to keep up.
I believe I have covered that many posts ago.

Really?

So you wear reflectives even when there is no light to be reflected from it?

 

[Bimble]

No, the difference of opinion doesn't make you wrong - it's repeating unsupported-by-evidence motorist-excusing cyclist-hate that makes you wrong.

That's a bit strong isn't it - Steve's just doing like many do, and looking out for himself. His choice. If it works for him that's okay.

 

[mjr]

The 1984 regulations are being exceptionally slow to download...

The notes to the 1984 regulations don't explain the pre-1985 exception either. I suspect the explanation may be in some government consultation response of the time, but 30-year-old consultation responses aren't online.