Rohloff_Brompton_Rider
Formerly just_fixed
marinyork said:
get a life saddo. someone asked.
Lighting regs and Police
- Thread starter SavageHoutkop
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
get a life saddo. someone asked.
bromptonfb said:
The story has been debated extensively. One extreme reading of the principles of it would even be the opposite of what you were getting at - that if cunobelin was not using a 720 lumen light and was only using a poorly powered BS light then things would go down the same road! So I don't think it is very fair to mention the story as a scaremongering story.
As for selling BS only lights, this would be a disaster.
Rohloff_Brompton_Rider
Formerly just_fixed
oh i'm sorry. you can have opinions whilst i can not. who are you?! i simply stated that cateye lights in general are not legal, that is fact. i simply stated that I make sure I have legal lights as I don't wish to have MY payout POSSIBLY reduced like someone I read about.
where did you get scaremongering from that? it is my opinion and my life. since when did little hitlers like you have the rite to issue orders to me? arse!!
where did you get scaremongering from that? it is my opinion and my life. since when did little hitlers like you have the rite to issue orders to me? arse!!
bromptonfb said:
You had your own thread on this and you comment every time this comes up so on that basis I find it somewhat odd you think I am telling you you can't have opinions and I can. Cateye lights in general are not BS marked. It is believed some of my smarts and some of my cateyes are CEN. Like I said hopefully in the next few years it'll all be put to bed on that issue.
I have explained one aspect of why it is scaremongering and other people have commented that that case has little to do with what we're talking about here (see coruskate's post). If you don't like that that's fine but we have done that other rather disturbing judgement to death.
Actually there is a parallel between helmets and lights when it comes to standardss.
MAny helmets are not tested above the absolute minimum for sale. This meand tht you cannot tell how much protection a psecific model will give. The same is true with lights.
Many lights comply with regulations such as the RVLR, and are therefore useable under the RVLR amendments that superceded the requirement for a BS6102/3 kitemark.
Since the 2005 amendments this has NOT been a requirement for cycle lights.
MAny helmets are not tested above the absolute minimum for sale. This meand tht you cannot tell how much protection a psecific model will give. The same is true with lights.
Many lights comply with regulations such as the RVLR, and are therefore useable under the RVLR amendments that superceded the requirement for a BS6102/3 kitemark.
Since the 2005 amendments this has NOT been a requirement for cycle lights.
HJ
Cycling in Scotland
- Location
- Auld Reekie
The problem with the BS kitemark system is that, even though it is a tick box exercise, it is very expensive for manufactures to go thought it which is why they don't bother even though their lights exceed the required standards.
Crankarm
Guru
- Location
- Nr Cambridge
bromptonfb said:
A bit harsh ......... calm down, calm down dear!
We're all on the same side
.
Rohloff_Brompton_Rider
Formerly just_fixed
i have.
Crankarm
Guru
- Location
- Nr Cambridge
I have Smart 3 and 5 LED rear lights whose packaging merely states "UK Compliant". No BS, TUV or CEN marks on the lights themselves. They are bright though. My Cateye front lights have no markings other than model number and that batteries have to be recycled on the casings.
As I've commented before, on the blame/payout/fault thing if someone knocked me off my bike and I was unconscious it would only take a few seconds for someone to remove the lights and chuck them in the bushes. A bit more time would completely remove the mounts although at the moment one of them is cabled tied on so that might present more difficulty. I've no doubt that some people would stoop this low were they quick enough thinking and the police would sympathise with the poor motorist 
!
. They could equally chuck my helmet in the bushes.
!. They could equally chuck my helmet in the bushes.
Crankarm
Guru
- Location
- Nr Cambridge
marinyork said:As I've commented before, on the blame/payout/fault thing if someone knocked me off my bike and I was unconscious it would only take a few seconds for someone to remove the lights and chuck them in the bushes. A bit more time would completely remove the mounts although at the moment one of them is cabled tied on so that might present more difficulty. I've no doubt that some people would stoop this low were they quick enough thinking and the police would sympathise with the poor motorist!
Ooh....... a series attempt to pervert the course of justice. If of course your lights aren't smashed due to the vehicle or hitting the road .......... They would of course be putting their selfish behaviour to remove or destroy evidence above the need to contact the emergency services for your injuries.
Lol I would find this completely hilarious if I didn't think you actually mean what you are saying. 
marinyork said:As I've commented before, on the blame/payout/fault thing if someone knocked me off my bike and I was unconscious it would only take a few seconds for someone to remove the lights and chuck them in the bushes. A bit more time would completely remove the mounts although at the moment one of them is cabled tied on so that might present more difficulty. I've no doubt that some people would stoop this low were they quick enough thinking and the police would sympathise with the poor motorist
Similar threads
