Flashing cycle lights???

[HJ]

+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.

I would have thought that in town having the Ay-Up on steady would be useful for being seen, or are you trying to save the battery for when you need them to see by?

 

[totallyfixed]

+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.

But why the hell should a cyclist have defend themselves in the first place regarding lights? The police are more confused than we are, it's no wonder solicitors are having a field day.

 

[ufkacbln]

At the Cycle Show in Earls Court, the two Police bikes and the ambulance bike were adorned with Exposure MaXx D lights.

So I can in defense asay that my bike is equipped to the same standard of visibility as an emergency vehicle...... and you still couldn't see me?

 

[ron4322]

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.

The opinion of one lawyer is just that - the opinion of one. If there was a chance that a motorist's insurance company might be able to substantially reduce a personal injury payout, I'm sure they'd be able to find another lawyer with the exact opposite view to work for them.

I think it is unlikely to be a problem, but is "unlikely" good enough if there is a risk of a big reduction in a payout (a payout which may need to last the rest of one's life if severely disabled by a car driver)?

 

[purplepolly]

but is "unlikely" good enough if there is a risk of a big reduction in a payout (

I think it was on CC that a poster told of how as a teenager she had been crossing the road at a pelican crossing, in the approved manner, and a driver had gone through on red and hit her. The damages were reduced because it was decreed she had accepted an element of risk by using the crossing.

 

[ron4322]

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.

We have no control over how other road users behave, we can only be responsible for ourselves.

 

[ron4322]

+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.

Many manufacturers included disclaimers along the lines of "only to be used in conjunction with lights approved to BS6102/3"

 

[ACS]

But why the hell should a cyclist have defend themselves in the first place regarding lights? The police are more confused than we are, it's no wonder solicitors are having a field day.

In civil proceeding the advocate for the defendant will use any tactic to try and reduce the liability of their client. If could be argued that the plaintiff (cyclist) contributed to the event because the lights in use did not conform to the legal requirement. (contributory negligence). If the court (jury) decides that the use of non standard lights by the plaintiff was a factor in the event then the amount of damages due would be reduced.
Again in civil matters the plaintiff is not defending himself in a way he might in a criminal proceeding, he /she is putting forward an argument to support his position and to negate the counter argument placed before the court by the defendant.

 

[ron4322]

+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.

Just because lights are more powerful and brighter than BS6102/3 does not necessarily make them better in the eyes of the law. The BS includes requirements regarding viewing angles, to help the cycle to be seen from the side. A very directional front lamp may not have this. Again, if a driver hits you from the side he may be able to argue that your light was inferior to a BS one and therefore you were partly to blame. He would not be able to say this if the light was totally legal.

 

[ACS]

Just because lights are more powerful and brighter than BS6102/3 does not necessarily make them better in the eyes of the law. The BS includes requirements regarding viewing angles, to help the cycle to be seen from the side. A very directional front lamp may not have this. Again, if a driver hits you from the side he may be able to argue that your light was inferior to a BS one and therefore you were partly to blame. He would not be able to say this if the light was totally legal.

So where does your technical argument rest when light do not conform to the BS but to the DIN standard.

Your perspective on the law does not take in to account the fact that the court is not blind to fact that the law lags behind technology by many years, the action by the cyclist while technically not conforming to the letter of the law he / she has exceed the statutory legal requirement by adopting new technologies in an effort to elevate his own level of personal visibility to other road users and thereby attempting to reduce the risk to him herself.

This is not an argument that could be used in a criminal proceeding where the burden of proof is greater than the balance of probability used by the civil court.

 

[ron4322]

So where does your technical argument rest when light do not conform to the BS but to the DIN standard.

Your perspective on the law does not take in to account the fact that the court is not blind to fact that the law lags behind technology by many years, the action by the cyclist while technically not conforming to the letter of the law he / she has exceed the statutory legal requirement by adopting new technologies in an effort to elevate his own level of personal visibility to other road users and thereby attempting to reduce the risk to him herself.

This is not an argument that could be used in a criminal proceeding where the burden of proof is greater than the balance of probability used by the civil court.

I'm quite happy to admit I have no definitive knowledge on this subject. I have read whatever I can to better understand the conflicting regulations and information.

I believe (but do not know for certain) that equipment to a suitable DIN (or to an equivalent standard from any other EU country) would be acceptable - but you might need to demonstrate that they are standards for similar types of equipment, ie "cycle front and rear lights for on-road use" or something similar.

In the case of "exceed the statutory requirement" - I think it would be necessary to exceed ALL aspects of the standard, ie not just brightness, but such aspects of angle of view etc. In the event of not having a formal kite mark, would it be the cyclist's responsibility to demonstrate it was equal to the BS? I think it would be the cyclist's responsibility to do this, (presumably at very high cost to simulate the BS requirements/tests) - all the opposite side would need to do is say "it isn't BS approved, so prove it is as good."

I don't know what would happen in the event of a collision at night while using unapproved lights, most probably nothing, I agree, but I don't think any of us can be certain that there is not a possible problem. What about the courtroom scenario "Mr Budgie, you only fitted a set of SupaMegaWatty lights to your velocipede despite the instructions on the packet which clearly and unequivocately instructed you to also fit a set of BS6102/3 CrapbutBobbydodger lights, and yet you now expect the court to not reduce the damages we would have awarded to you had you not ignored these instructions."

I repeat I do not KNOW, but I am wary of being caught out. Therefore I would prefer to use a set of BS6102/3, along with my preferred lights.

 

[HJ]

It just goes to show what ridiculous lengths the fear of litigation has driven us, so many so called "Health and Safety" rules are driven by a fear of litigation and a lack of common sense

 

[hackbike 666]

Originally Posted by 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.

Haven't really read the rest of this thread since I posted last night.The thing that gets me with this is,if it goes go wrong then however many "illegal" lights you have you will get the odd motorists trying to squirm out of accepting responsibility and the defence side using the that you wern't using BS approved lights.

Who knows I may be talking bull but that's what it seems like to me.

 

[ron4322]

This is, in my opinion, a useful link - just in case any of you have not already seen it.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4071

 

[Chamfus Flange]

I always have one light constant and one flashing, front and rear: contant lights are for me to see or be seen, the flashing lights are for me to be noticed.



.