Flashing cycle lights???

[purplepolly]

I think most of us who use bright lights also use "bobby dodgers"

I'm a bit slow so it took me a while to work that out - like my front dynamo and fixed rear rack light, BS compliant but useless.

 

[ACS]

Mr Plod is not going to stop anyone who is lit up like a Christmas tree on steroids and in this case I doubt he a slightest interest in the BS specifications of your lights or pedal reflectors.

He is very interested in whether you pose a danger to other road users and yourself by failing to pay due heed to the law. The rule of the reasonable man must have influence in this matter, no one has ever ended up in court for exceeding the legal requirement.

 

[ufkacbln]

I'm a bit slow so it took me a while to work that out - like my front dynamo and fixed rear rack light, BS compliant but useless.

This is even more complex.....

The Road Vehicle Lighting regulations gave details of the requirements of lights.

This states that your lights must comply with BS6102/3, and hence be "Kite marked"

Even sillier was the Cateye AU1000 where the light body was stamped with BS6102/3, but it only applied to the reflector - the light portion was illegal!

Luckily for us in 2005 the Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 2559:The Road Vehicles Lighting (Amendment) Regulations 2005 allowed flashing lights.... this does not meet BS6102/3 as the standard does not cover flashing lights (and by definition LEDs) Cateye for instance sold their lights as "RVLR" compliant - they have not been submitted for BS compliance, and hence although they absolutely meet the requirements of the regulations, they are still (technically) allowable as the RVLR supercedes the BS6102/3

 

[ron4322]

I think most of us who use bright lights also use "bobby dodgers"

Personally all my bikes have a pair of "cheap as chips" lights which are RVLR compliand, and only use the Dinotte and MaxxD to back up these lights.

They are NOT my main lighting system

The only legal (ie BS6102/3 and therefore "approved") front light I own takes 4 AA batteries, which it eats at a frightening rate, and which is soon suitably dim. It is also very fiddly to change the batteries. It came in a set with a 6102/3 rear led light which is fine and which I use. Because of the battery problem, there is no point in even fitting the front light. Also, I would probably lose half of the components if I tried to change the batteries when on the road at night, as it is so fiddly. I would be happy to fit a "legal but useless" front light along with a christmas tree's worth of flashing other unapproved lights, provided that the light didn't need a battery change every couple of days.

From reading up on some of the confusing legislation, as I understand it, the only 6102/3 "approved" led lights are on/off only, ie no flashing mode. (My led rear light is like this). BS6102/3 does not allow flashing lights.

Flashing lights alone would be legal, although not to 6102/3, provided they don't have a steady light mode. If they have a steady light mode, then they must comply with BS6102/3, which they don't/can't.

In my case I only need "to be seen" lights, but would like to be legal.

I notice some of the front and rear led sets on the market are marked something like "compliant with BS6102/3 when used in steady mode". These are "compliant", but not "approved" - if they were approved, then they would be stamped BS6102/3. So, if I were in court a "compliant" light could be no better than none at all.

I wonder if a way around this would be a flashing led light which DID NOT HAVE A STEADY MODE, and therefore would not need to be to BS6102/3, but would still be "approved". This would have the 100 or so hours of battery life of a typical led and therefore be cheap to run, and be augmented by other unapproved but visible lights.

What "Bobby Dodger" front lights do people use?

Edit - I'm a very slow typist so did not see Cunobelin's last post.

 

[ron4322]

This is even more complex.....

The Road Vehicle Lighting regulations gave details of the requirements of lights.

This states that your lights must comply with BS6102/3, and hence be "Kite marked"

Even sillier was the Cateye AU1000 where the light body was stamped with BS6102/3, but it only applied to the reflector - the light portion was illegal!

Luckily for us in 2005 the Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 2559:The Road Vehicles Lighting (Amendment) Regulations 2005 allowed flashing lights.... this does not meet BS6102/3 as the standard does not cover flashing lights (and by definition LEDs) Cateye for instance sold their lights as "RVLR" compliant - they have not been submitted for BS compliance, and hence although they absolutely meet the requirements of the regulations, they are still (technically) allowable as the RVLR supercedes the BS6102/3

I'm getting more confused. My led rear light is stamped with "BS6102/3" (though no little kite mark) which I took to mean it met BS6102/3 - but as it is a led light, I presume it cannot be after all. (EDit - maybe a similar issue to the one you mention where it was only the reflector).

 

[ron4322]

Mr Plod is not going to stop anyone who is lit up like a Christmas tree on steroids and in this case I doubt he a slightest interest in the BS specifications of your lights or pedal reflectors.

He is very interested in whether you pose a danger to other road users and yourself by failing to pay due heed to the law. The rule of the reasonable man must have influence in this matter, no one has ever ended up in court for exceeding the legal requirement.

I think the concern of some people, me included, is not the police, it is the possibility of being partially blamed for an accident because we didn't have a set of approved lights (along with our better but unapproved ones).

 

[yenrod]

Hi all,
This may just be me and my eye's but when there is another cyclist oncoming with front light flashing i find it quite difficult to gauge there position in particular distance and it seems the brighter the light the harder it is.

Anyone else find this or should i have gone to specsavers??

Simon

Ive a flashing fornt AND a constant too !

 

[hackbike 666]

I think the concern of some people, me included, is not the police, it is the possibility of being partially blamed for an accident because we didn't have a set of approved lights (along with our better but unapproved ones).

Aye and we know what Lawyers are like.

 

[siadwell]

I think the concern of some people, me included, is not the police, it is the possibility of being partially blamed for an accident because we didn't have a set of approved lights (along with our better but unapproved ones).

In post #50, I posted the opinion of a lawyer that use of flashing lights would be unlikely to be regarded as cause for contributory negligence (the article was written before they were legalised).

It seems logical that having lights that are not marked to comply with the relevant standards would be treated similarly. As the reason for kite marking etc. is to impose a minimum standard, the use of lights that exceed the standard should not be considered as contributory negligence.

 

[J4CKO]

Personally, I couldnt give a flying about "legal", I am interested in being seen and not dead, will worry about the legal implications later if I need to. I am also concerned that I dont annoy drivers with overly bright light but I suppose the chances of getting splattered by someone "blinded" are far lower than someone who hasnt seen you at all and to be honest some of the headlamps on modern cars seem to be bright enough to see through me rather than just see me, the german things with Xenon headlamps are the main culprits.

Also, we are worrying about BS numbers, brightness and placement so we dont get blamed for an accident or have one in the first place but I seem to be seeing about one in five cars at the moment with only one functioning headlamp which I would venture is far more of a worry than fitting in with the finer points of the legislation, loads of cars this morning with one lit headlamp, or one dim one bright, one headlamp and one front fog or various combinations, here we are making sure we have backups and drivers of a tonne plus of metal loose one and dont get it fixed, see the same sheddy Blue Laguna every morning, old bloke with a fag in his mouth, one working lamp so when that fails I will just have to look for the red tip of his Fag, no redundancy and when the other one ineviatably goes no lights, funny how he always manages to be smoking so he must stop for fags but cant summonm the wherewithall to stop at a car spares shop and spend a fiver on a bulb, and that is what we have to deal with so if I glare this daft old twat I am not going to loose sleep over it.

 

[irontam]

This is a good thread.

Having previously run double constant front lights (two feeble torches cable tied to the bar) I'd replaced with a single 3-led light left on flash only.

I hadn't thought about the perceived distance ramifications. Will def. be looking to add a secondary constant light in the near future.

 

[totallyfixed]

Personally, I couldnt give a flying about "legal", I am interested in being seen and not dead, will worry about the legal implications later if I need to.

+1
I think we all know that the UK cycling lighting regs are a joke. I just had a look on a police forum about cyclists and their lights - very interesting. [An interesting point here is that prior to Oct 2005 when flashing rear led's were illegal, Manchester Police were using them on their bikes!] What they were basically saying is that when they stop a cyclist for having inadequate lights, as many times as not they turn out to be legal!
Most of us probably ride with lights that are hugely more powerful than when the BS standard was first implemented, so the BS standard is therefore out of date if officially we are illegal with our more powerful lights.
Also how is it that respected cycle lighting manufacturers are able to produce and sell lights that are not tested to the BS standard. For those worried about the implications of blame in an accident, surely this lies with the manufacturer and the retailer who sold you those lights, and it matters not one jot if they were made abroad, that's the reason for trading standards [another joke].
To answer the original point, when in the city/town in brightly lit areas I switch to flashing front because it identifies me as a cyclist, and elsewhere I'm on a steady light. On really dark roads, high beam, and as a car approaches low beam unless the f...wit stays on main beam then I will do the same.

 

[Bugner]

I have the Exposure Joystick. The flashing mode is actually the low mode (more than bright another for urban commuting) on constant, with a high level flash over the top, I think this works quite well as there is a constant point of reference, with an attention grabbing flash

 

[ACS]

In post #50, I posted the opinion of a lawyer that use of flashing lights would be unlikely to be regarded as cause for contributory negligence (the article was written before they were legalised).

It seems logical that having lights that are not marked to comply with the relevant standards would be treated similarly. As the reason for kite marking etc. is to impose a minimum standard, the use of lights that exceed the standard should not be considered as contributory negligence.

+1

Ignoring any additional contributory factors, any advocate in the civil court that bases his client’s case or defence stating that a cyclist was to blame or was partly responsible for an accident because the lights on the bicycle exceed the minimum legal requirement would IMO get very short shrift from his Lordship. In this very conscious climate of personal H&S I would think that any half decent advocate would highlight the weakness in opposing side’s argument.

The law can be ass at times but it can be very pragmatic as well. I have seen many solicitors and some barristers being told by the bench; remembering the Judge has already seen the evidence to be put forward by both sides, that if they were to rely on a particular defence or tenuous line of prosecution then the matter would be reviewed ‘in chambers’ or they could have 30 minutes to consult their client.

The 30 minute offer is almost always taken or the case is set aside due to the lack of substantive evidence.

 

[adds21]

To answer the original point, when in the city/town in brightly lit areas I switch to flashing front because it identifies me as a cyclist, and elsewhere I'm on a steady light. On really dark roads, high beam, and as a car approaches low beam unless the f...wit stays on main beam then I will do the same.

+1

I have Ay Ups at the front, as well as a cheap Cateye. When I'm in town I use the Cateye in flash mode, when I get out to the dark country lanes on my way home, I switch the Ay Ups on and the Cateye off.

IMO, it's just about common senese, and using what's appropriate for the conditions.