Looking at possible new job

[oxoman]

Please note I wouldn't blind a driver with my front light on purpose, I use the one on my helmet to make sure they see me if they get to close or at junctions etc. TBH country lanes are usually the best places to ride in the dark as less light pollution and you and other road users are way more visible.

 

[YMFB]

As well as the obvious danger, it's super illegal and sod's law means you'll do it to an unmarked cop car at some point.

What on earth do you mean by “super illegal”

After looking at the Highway Code I’m not even sure it’s illegal. It is obviously stupid, inconsiderate and dangerous.

 

[Drago]

What on earth do you mean by “super illegal”

He means not just illegal, but so incredibly illegal its actually super illegal.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/regulation/27/made

Note its "any" vehicle and not simply "motor" vehicle.

 

[YMFB]

Taking the superlative out of the equation and accepting that using a light that’s dazzling is just plain silly, the chances of being caught and prosecuted in Wiltshire for such a misdemeanour is about the same as the Ice age returning this winter. Unmarked Police cars, we barely have panda cars.

 

[Once a Wheeler]

In these conditions I always used a knee lamp which straps to the lower leg just beneath the knee and shines white to the front and red behind. Never had a problem with motorists. My feeling was that the up-and-down motion of the lights attracted attention which then led to the motorists registering that a cyclist was present and keeping their distance. I have never seen any statistics on this arrangement nor, for a long time now, have I ever seen lamps of this kind on sale; but my guess is that the up-and-down movement is the key to the success, probably just leading to a 'What on earth is that? Oh! A cyclist. Better steer clear,' reaction.

 

[mjr]

What on earth do you mean by “super illegal”

Something like obviously dangerous and antisocial to most people, not something like variable flash rate or give-way-left-turning-on-red which some people can make a reasonable argument for, but is still illegal.

After looking at the Highway Code I’m not even sure it’s illegal. It is obviously stupid, inconsiderate and dangerous.

Or alternatively, we could say it's something so obviously illegal that the Highway Code authors didn't realise they needed to mention it. You won't find anything in the Highway Code telling you not to throw knives out of a moving vehicle willy-nilly at passers-by, either. It's still not legal.

Yes, chances of being caught for it are currently slim, except then there's sod's law...

 

[Drago]

Taking the superlative out of the equation and accepting that using a light that’s dazzling is just plain silly, the chances of being caught and prosecuted in Wiltshire for such a misdemeanour is about the same as the Ice age returning this winter.

Ditto for shoplifting and drug dealing, but thats not an excuse to join in.

 

[Alex321]

Something like obviously dangerous and antisocial to most people, not something like variable flash rate or give-way-left-turning-on-red which some people can make a reasonable argument for, but is still illegal.


Or alternatively, we could say it's something so obviously illegal that the Highway Code authors didn't realise they needed to mention it. You won't find anything in the Highway Code telling you not to throw knives out of a moving vehicle willy-nilly at passers-by, either. It's still not legal.

No, we can't say that. The HC does mention dazzle, and in fact since it is a MUST NOT, it is actual law, contrary to what @YMFB says above.

Section 114

Rule 114​

You MUST NOT

• use any lights in a way which would dazzle or cause discomfort to other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders
• use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is seriously reduced. You MUST switch them off when visibility improves to avoid dazzling other road users (see Rule 226).

And the relevant law in this case is RVLR (Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989) Section 27, items 1, 2, 3, 11
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/regulation/27/made

 

[YMFB]

No, we can't say that. The HC does mention dazzle, and in fact since it is a MUST NOT, it is actual law, contrary to what @YMFB says above.

Section 114

Rule 114​

You MUST NOT

• use any lights in a way which would dazzle or cause discomfort to other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders
• use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is seriously reduced. You MUST switch them off when visibility improves to avoid dazzling other road users (see Rule 226).

And the relevant law in this case is RVLR (Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989) Section 27, items 1, 2, 3, 11
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/regulation/27/made

I didn’t state it was illegal I said, I’m not even sure it is illegal. I’m happy that you have confirmed it is Illegal.

The chance of being prosecuted for it is extremely unlikely, unless you cause or are accused of causing an accident.

 

[mjr]

And the relevant law in this case is RVLR (Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989) Section 27, items 1, 2, 3, 11
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/regulation/27/made

Does that apply to head torches not attached to a vehicle? If not, I expect there's another law covering it, as I strongly suspect it's illegal for walkers to go around blinding other walkers. @Drago may have some idea what he would have arrested someone being a tit with a floodlight on a busy Abington Street for.

 

[Adam4868]

Chances of getting pulled by the law for having a bright light on a bike....about the same as having no lights....
Sure they'll be someone along to say they got pulled 🙄

 

[Drago]

Does that apply to head torches not attached to a vehicle? If not, I expect there's another law covering it, as I strongly suspect it's illegal for walkers to go around blinding other walkers. @Drago may have some idea what he would have arrested someone being a tit with a floodlight on a busy Abington Street for.

I think some smart arse defence brief would argue a head torch isn't not "on" a vehicle. I expect rher s likely either case law or ola stat d case on the subject.

 

[RoadRider400]

Are there any bridleways nearby? Or even a footpath right of way?

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Are there any bridleways nearby? Or even a footpath right of way?

Not great in winter unless good amount of snow

 

[Alex321]

Does that apply to head torches not attached to a vehicle? If not, I expect there's another law covering it, as I strongly suspect it's illegal for walkers to go around blinding other walkers. @Drago may have some idea what he would have arrested someone being a tit with a floodlight on a busy Abington Street for.

No, that section specifically applies to "vehicles". The wording of the section heading is:
27. No person shall use, or cause or permit to be used, on a road any vehicle on which any lamp, hazard warning signal device or warning beacon of a type specified in an item in column 2 of the Table below is used in a manner specified in that item in column 3.