New offences for cyclists/cycling

[mjr]

Didn't think I'd have to navigate the website for you but a few clicks and here's the UK section :

Oh yeah, it's the same.

https://www.cateyecycling.co.uk/collections/rear-lights?page=1

The same? I see no explicit mention of road use on the UK site. Is it hidden in an expanding bit or something?

Even so, I reckon the ASA would uphold a complaint that the lights "ensure you'll be seen" is unsubstantiated and untrue, if anyone can be bothered to fill out the form.

 

[Binky]

The same? I see no explicit mention of road use on the UK site. Is it hidden in an expanding bit or something?

Even so, I reckon the ASA would uphold a complaint that the lights "ensure you'll be seen" is unsubstantiated and untrue, if anyone can be bothered to fill out the form.

You are really reaching now.

Do you seriously think those lights are advertised and sold and also bought by cyclists purely for off road use?

Seeing as you are so convinced of this, why don't you contact Cateye and specifically ask them if their lights are only for off road use.
Then report back your findings.

 

[mjr]

Do you seriously think those lights are advertised and sold and also bought by cyclists purely for off road use?

Only if a regulator asks!

Seeing as you are so convinced of this, why don't you contact Cateye and specifically ask them if their lights are only for off road use.
Then report back your findings.

Because one local council is trying to spaff millions from a cycling budget on a second car park for their "innovation centre", another is trying to backtrack on providing enough secure cycle parking at a new library, they're also trying to build a new road with substandard cycling infrastructure, and the two together are trying to push through a new transport strategy that contains no strategic decisions and four road widenings and not much else! When we've won all those campaigns, I might remember to contact Cateye.

So why don't you?

 

[Binky]

Only if a regulator asks!


Because one local council is trying to spaff millions from a cycling budget on a second car park for their "innovation centre", another is trying to backtrack on providing enough secure cycle parking at a new library, they're also trying to build a new road with substandard cycling infrastructure, and the two together are trying to push through a new transport strategy that contains no strategic decisions and four road widenings and not much else! When we've won all those campaigns, I might remember to contact Cateye.

So why don't you?

Because I don't care if they are for road, off road and space travel. The light I have is nice and bright so hopefully other road users will see me.

However, seeing as Cateye sell world wide then I'd be frankly amazed if their legal dept hadn't considered the implications of say a motorist in the land of litigation, aka USA sueing the company for billions because one of their lights dazzled them.
As far as I can find there is no disclaimer on their website about road/off road use or so called "correct" use so not to blind other road users so I think we can with reasonable certainty say the lights are sold for road use and everyone(apart from you) accepts it.

 

[mjr]

Because I don't care if they are for road, off road and space travel.

Then don't ask how and why road-illegal lights are sold! 🙄

The light I have is nice and bright so hopefully other road users will see me.

They won't. The conscientious ones will be dazzled, but you don't need to worry about them because they'll slow down and still not hit you, even if they think badly of you. The ones you need to worry about still won't see you because their eyesight is defective or they're looking at their phone.

 

[Binky]

Then don't ask how and why road-illegal lights are sold! 🙄


They won't. The conscientious ones will be dazzled, but you don't need to worry about them because they'll slow down and still not hit you, even if they think badly of you. The ones you need to worry about still won't see you because their eyesight is defective or they're looking at their phone.

If the lights were road illegal then Cateye wouldn't be able to sell them.

 

[mjr]

If the lights were road illegal then Cateye wouldn't be able to sell them.

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.

 

[Binky]

Lol.
Fair play I'll give it to you you're trying hard

So now your line is Cateye are knowingly selling illegal lights but their defence would be they shouldn't be used.
In the case of the light I have, the VIZ450 rear light you are saying they are selling them but they are not intended to be used on the road.
Correct? This is what you are saying?

Just to sort this out, I'll contact Cateye and see what they say.
I'm away from early Tuesday on holiday so not sure how arsed I'll be at chasing them up and going through response to post here immediately but I will do so.

As it happens I'm off to Mallorca cycling so I'll see what the Spanish think 😂

 

[Dogtrousers]

If the lights were road illegal then Cateye wouldn't be able to sell them.

That's a very naïve view.

I'd be amazed if a majority of bike lights on sale are compliant with the standards required by legislation. The standards are confusing and nobody seems to care any more. The chances of it actually mattering are low, but not zero. https://www.cyclinguk.org/lighting-regulations

It's like a miniature version of what's going on with illegal e-bikes. Ostensibly legal only off road but used on road more or less with impunity.

 

[Binky]

That's a very naïve view.

I'd be amazed if a majority of bike lights on sale are compliant with the standards required by legislation. The standards are confusing and nobody seems to care any more. The chances of it actually mattering are low, but not zero. https://www.cyclinguk.org/lighting-regulations

It's like a miniature version of what's going on with illegal e-bikes. Ostensibly legal only off road but used on road more or less with impunity.

No it's an entirely reasonable and obvious point of view to expect a mainstream company to sell lights that are fit for purpose and legal to use.
If there was any legal grey area I'd have also expected to see a prominent disclaimer on the website advising recommended use
There isn't any.

The lengths some try and go to to be contrary on this forum never fails to astound.
Then again it does seem some spend 24/7 on here so possibly got nothing better to do.

Anyway. As stated I will contact Cateye and get their take on this.

 

[Alex321]

If the lights were road illegal then Cateye wouldn't be able to sell them.

Most bike lights sold in the UK are not legal for use as the only front/rear lights on a bike.

Ones that are to bright are very questionable whether they are road legal (questionable because there is no fixed limit on brightness, just a rather subjective test of whether they dazzle), but would still be legal for off road use, so perfectly legal to sell.

Having said which, under the details of the brightest one https://www.cateyecycling.co.uk/products/cateye-viz-450-rear-bike-light
it says:
"Long rear beam projection technology greatly increases the effective visibility range, giving motorists more time to react."

Which definitely implies they think the light is suitable for road use. Which is very questionable.

 

[Alex321]

No it's an entirely reasonable and obvious point of view to expect a mainstream company to sell lights that are fit for purpose and legal to use.

The fact it is reasonable and obvious does not, unfortunately, mean it is correct.

It is simple fact that the law requires (when cycling after dark) that you have a front light and a rear light which both meet the relevant British standard (BS 6102 part 3) or an equivalent European standard.

It is also a fact that hardly any of the lights sold in the UK actually meet that standard. I'm pretty sure that none of the Cateye lights do.

They can still be sold (without any disclaimer), because most of them are legal to use as a second light. The only requirements of optional additional lights on pedal cycles are that they are the right colour (white to the front, red to the rear).

But there is still an obligation when they are in use to not dazzle other road users.

If there was any legal grey area I'd have also expected to see a prominent disclaimer on the website advising recommended use
There isn't any.

The lengths some try and go to to be contrary on this forum never fails to astound.

It isn't "being contrary", it is just stating the facts.

 

[Dogtrousers]

If there was any legal grey area I'd have also expected to see a prominent disclaimer on the website advising recommended use
There isn't any.

They are trying to sell products. If there is a legal grey area the very best you can expect is an asterisk with an annotation in tiny print. Or more likely, just silence.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Cateye lights. The Cateye Omni 5 is my go to rear light. Does it comply with BS3648, or BS6102/3, or an equivalent EC standard as required by law? I have no idea. I don't think it's safe to assume that it does just because Cateye are a big company.

 

[mjr]

Lol.
Fair play I'll give it to you you're trying hard

So now your line is

Gadzooks, what's with all the incivility? My line hasn't changed either.

Cateye are knowingly selling illegal lights but their defence would be they shouldn't be used.
In the case of the light I have, the VIZ450 rear light you are saying they are selling them but they are not intended to be used on the road.
Correct? This is what you are saying?

Basically, yes. In the unlikely event anyone tries to sue or prosecute Cateye over a collision due to their dazzling lights, they'll blame the user, possibly pointing out they never claimed any road-legal compliance, except for a few like the GVolt range rarely sold in the UK. And they'd probably succeed. Cateye feel it's worth the tiny risk in order to keep selling their most profitable substandard tat here, instead of what they sell in Germany.

 

[mjr]

It is simple fact that the law requires (when cycling after dark) that you have a front light and a rear light which both meet the relevant British standard (BS 6102 part 3) or an equivalent European standard.

Or that it is brighter than four candles and flashes at a fixed rate between 1 and 4 cycles a second, with no other mode.

Except for that omission, I agree.