New offences for cyclists/cycling

[Dogtrousers]

It does seem weird that
a) people are discussing whether or not some lights are legal - when we all have seen loads of bikes riding around at night with no lights f any kind anywhere
and a light - or several in my case, is always better than none (excepting ones that dazzle)
b) when you look for bike lights, then very few can be found that actually specify that they comply with any UK laws or standards anyway

If I had been born in mediaeval times I would most definitely have been heartily engaged in discussion of the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Thanks for that bit of pedantry. You have put me to shame

But I can also point out that pedal reflectors do nothing on a recumbent other than point at the stars or point at the tarmac,

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I seem to remember in one country the bike lighting laws are rather simple. Must have a front facing white light, visible from the front at least 100m away, same idea for rear facing red light. Then there’s likely something about not dazzling other road users.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

But I can also point out that pedal reflectors do nothing on a recumbent other than point at the stars or point at the tarmac,

Pedal reflector are a whole separate thing

I mean - they are often mostly hidden my the shoe
and most that have clip thing on then just don't have a reflector anyway

just checked and a lot of the flat pedal I saw had no reflectors

not even sure if mine have or not - I didn't choose them, the LBS just said the old ones were not working properly and put new ones on

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Pedal reflector are a whole separate thing

Also not a requirement on bikes originally built pre 1985 etc.

I think it’s just another point that the lighting regulations for bikes need overhaul. Both lighting and reflector requirements.

 

[TC99]

Hopefully.

There is a subset of cyclists in Royal Parks whose inconsiderate and dangerous behaviour needs to change.

These are usually park coppers on cycles to be fair. Too much time on their hands.

 

[TC99]

I think the parks are a bit of a red herring. There are already bylaws that apply there (eg speed limits that do apply to cyclists.

And anyway, for most Londoners the Royal Parks situation is completely meaningless.

I don't have a speedo. How can the plod enforce a no speeding bylaw regarding me?

 

[PK99]

These are usually park coppers on cycles to be fair. Too much time on their hands.

Bollocks!

 

[Dogtrousers]

I don't have a speedo. How can the plod enforce a no speeding bylaw regarding me?

You don't need a speedo. They do (a speed gun or similar).

Doesn't matter whether or not you knew you were speeding, just the fact that you were speeding would be sufficient.

 

[Binky]

OK.
This is the reply I got from Cateye when I asked if their lights and specifically the one I have, the VIZ450 was for road use and legal :

"
CatEye lights (including the VIZ range) are intended for both daytime visibility and night-time road use. The VIZ 450 is a rear red light, rated at 450 lumens peak output, with multiple modes (steady, flashing, group ride etc.).
It complies with general UK cycle-lighting standards provided it is:

• Mounted facing rearwards.
• Emits red light only.
• Visible from a reasonable distance (up to 50 m + easily met).
• Used with an approved steady mode when riding at night on the public highway.

The relevant law is The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 (RVLR).
Key points:

Night riding (between sunset and sunrise)​

You must have:

• White front light
• Red rear light
• Red rear reflector
• Amber pedal reflectors (front and rear of each pedal, unless bike type makes this impractical such as clipless MTB pedals)

Your rear light must:

• Emit a steady red light or a flashing red light (flashing allowed if it flashes at least once per second and has a luminous intensity ≥ 4 candela — which most CatEye models exceed easily).
• Be mounted centrally or offside (right-hand side), and clearly visible from the rear.

There are no specific lumen limit in UK law — the RVLR only specifies minimum visibility, not maximum brightness.
However, you can technically commit an offence under Regulation 100 of the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986 (or the more general offence of “not using lights so as to cause danger or undue dazzle”) if a light is likely to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to other road users.
For context:

• A 450-lumen rear light is very bright — excellent for daytime visibility but can be too intense at night if angled directly at following drivers.
• This is why CatEye include “Group Ride” or “Low” modes, usually around 20–50 lumens, specifically intended for night-time riding to avoid glare.

Practical advice:

• Use the lower-intensity steady or flashing mode at night.
• Angle the light slightly downward so the beam is aimed at bumper height rather than straight into drivers’ eyes.
• Use the brightest mode only for daytime running or foggy conditions.

That will ensure your light is both legal and considerate.

So long as it’s mounted properly and used in a non-dazzling mode at night, it meets all legal UK requirements."

So there you go. The Cateye lights are intended for road use and they are legal.
Who'd have thought eh.

 

[TC99]

Bollocks!

Little crime to chase. Too much kit, too much time on their hands, bored cops looking for anything to write up.

 

[TC99]

You don't need a speedo. They do (a speed gun or similar).

Doesn't matter whether or not you knew you were speeding, just the fact that you were speeding would be sufficient.

I doubt this very much. Any evidence of convictions under these circumstances?

 

[matticus]

That will ensure your light is both legal and considerate.

So long as it’s mounted properly and used in a non-dazzling mode at night, it meets all legal UK requirements."

Good news! Cos we know that all UK Cyclists turn down their lighting brightness, rather than risk dazzling other road-users, or breaking laws that they know there's feck-all chance of being prosecuted for 👍

 

[Dogtrousers]

I doubt this very much. Any evidence of convictions under these circumstances?

What do you doubt? That you could be convicted of speeding on the basis of a police speed gun or camera? Do you think that not having a speedo is some kind of magic get-out clause?

As a matter of fact I do have evidence of a conviction under these circumstances.

The world's first speeding ticket went to Walter Arnold who drove a horseless carriage at 8mph through Paddock Wood, Kent on 28 January 1896. https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Walter-Arnold-Worlds-First-Speeding-Ticket/ He was fined 1 shilling for speeding.

The first motor car speedometer was introduced in 1901 https://www.motorhowto.com/how-did-old-cars-measure-speed/

So Mr Arnold was convicted of speeding some 5 years before the invention of the car speedometer. I think that counts

In fact, speedometers in cars weren't mandatory in the UK until 1937, two years after the introduction of 30mph limits in urban areas. https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-safety-the-highway-code-and-the-driving-test

Now I've never been done for speeding, so I could be wrong, but I think pretty much all speeding convictions are done on the basis of external measuring equipment, and no reference is made to the car's speedo.

Of course, if you want a helping hand in ensuring that you stay within the speed limit you are free to fit a speedo to your bike. Just as you should have a speedo in your car if you want it to pass its MoT. But not having one won't save you from a ticket if there is evidence that you were speeding.

 

[Profpointy]

Why? It's the use that's illegal, not the sale. If you put an otherwise legal rear light on the bike facing forward, that would be illegal.

Astonishingly I have seen that done !

I have also seen a briskly ridden motorcycle with a reddish purple headlight cover on which I almost interpreted as a receding rear light so didn't quite pull into his path at night.