New offences for cyclists/cycling

[mjr]

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 :

Thanks for passing it on, but this really doesn't make sense:

"It complies with general UK cycle-lighting standards"
There are no "general UK cycle-lighting standards". There is the British Standard, but it's trivial to see it doesn't comply with that, as there's no conformance marking ("kitemark") on the light.

"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.

"
And what does that mean? Do they mean to say it must be used with an approved steady mode light when riding at night on the public highway? Which would imply that the light itself isn't sufficient to comply with the law (RVLR 1989). Or maybe they mean it must be used in an approved steady mode? Which would be odd, as no standard that I know approves only some modes. Either a light conforms to a standard or doesn't.

"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.

"
They've mis-summarised the law there: a light claiming legality under the flashing clause can only claim that if it only flashes, and it also needs to flash less than four times per second and at a constant rate. If a light has a steady mode, it must also conform to a European standard as safe as the British Standard.

"There are no specific lumen limit in UK law — the RVLR only specifies minimum visibility, not maximum brightness."
It's true that there's no specific lumen limit, as UK law is stated in candelas, not meaningless marketing lumens, but the final bit is just wrong. RVLR states brightness, not only visibility, and does give a maximum brightness in section 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 [...] so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to other persons using the road."

Of course, that's wonderfully vague, so the boundary then gets tested and refined in court, and I don't know exactly where it is now.

The next bit from Cateye is interesting, as they seem to basically admit the light can dazzle and must be put in "low" to be not illegal for night-time riding:

"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."

And does anyone with that light use it in "group" or "low" modes and angle it down?

I'd be fascinated to know if the UK retail packaging tells customers that prominently, or indeed at all. If so, that would suggest preparation to blame incorrect use if anyone tries to sue Cateye for a collision after one of their lights dazzles someone. But of course, it's quite unlikely that someone would do so, because that would probably mean a driver admitting they didn't slow/stop when dazzled, as required by law.

Never mind. I've thought Cateye were shoot since they changed all their front light mounts some years ago, trying to get everyone to buy new mounts for all their bikes.

 

[Punkawallah]

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

Should that not be ‘pedal-antry’? I’ll see myself out . . .

Fun fact. Pedal reflectors are not required by law in the UK if the bike is older than 1985 (Road Vehicle Lighting Regs, 1989)

 

[Binky]

Thanks for passing it on, but this really doesn't make sense:

"It complies with general UK cycle-lighting standards"
There are no "general UK cycle-lighting standards". There is the British Standard, but it's trivial to see it doesn't comply with that, as there's no conformance marking ("kitemark") on the light.

"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.

"
And what does that mean? Do they mean to say it must be used with an approved steady mode light when riding at night on the public highway? Which would imply that the light itself isn't sufficient to comply with the law (RVLR 1989). Or maybe they mean it must be used in an approved steady mode? Which would be odd, as no standard that I know approves only some modes. Either a light conforms to a standard or doesn't.

"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.

"
They've mis-summarised the law there: a light claiming legality under the flashing clause can only claim that if it only flashes, and it also needs to flash less than four times per second and at a constant rate. If a light has a steady mode, it must also conform to a European standard as safe as the British Standard.

"There are no specific lumen limit in UK law — the RVLR only specifies minimum visibility, not maximum brightness."
It's true that there's no specific lumen limit, as UK law is stated in candelas, not meaningless marketing lumens, but the final bit is just wrong. RVLR states brightness, not only visibility, and does give a maximum brightness in section 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 [...] so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to other persons using the road."

Of course, that's wonderfully vague, so the boundary then gets tested and refined in court, and I don't know exactly where it is now.

The next bit from Cateye is interesting, as they seem to basically admit the light can dazzle and must be put in "low" to be not illegal for night-time riding:

"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."

And does anyone with that light use it in "group" or "low" modes and angle it down?

I'd be fascinated to know if the UK retail packaging tells customers that prominently, or indeed at all. If so, that would suggest preparation to blame incorrect use if anyone tries to sue Cateye for a collision after one of their lights dazzles someone. But of course, it's quite unlikely that someone would do so, because that would probably mean a driver admitting they didn't slow/stop when dazzled, as required by law.

Never mind. I've thought Cateye were shoot since they changed all their front light mounts some years ago, trying to get everyone to buy new mounts for all their bikes.

What actually matters is they have confirmed the lights are specifically for road use and are legal to use.
Think that what was subject at the time.
If you want to contact Cateye regarding their interpretation or otherwise of UK law regarding lights then be my guest.

 

[Dogtrousers]

What actually matters is they have confirmed the lights are specifically for road use and are legal to use.
Think that what was subject at the time.
If you want to contact Cateye regarding their interpretation or otherwise of UK law regarding lights then be my guest.

I think you have gone above and beyond what can be expected from a normal consumer.

In the vanishingly small chance that you are hauled up before the bench on charges of maliciously using naughty lights you can point to your diligent email exchange in your defence. This may get your sentence commuted from Death to being detained for life at His Majesty's Pleasure.

 

[Binky]

I think you have gone above and beyond what can be expected from a normal consumer.

In the vanishingly small chance that you are hauled up before the bench on charges of maliciously using naughty lights you can point to your diligent email exchange in your defence. This may get your sentence commuted from Death to being detained for life at His Majesty's Pleasure.

Nah I couldn't care less about legality. I just wanted to prove a point on an anonymous forum.

 

[mjr]

What actually matters is they have confirmed the lights are specifically for road use and are legal to use.

Except they haven't. They've suggested that the lights might be legal if used on group or low power modes, aimed downwards and used alongside a approved steady mode light, but they've also clearly demonstrated that they don't know the UK lighting laws.

 

[mjr]

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.

The Netherlands's Wegenverkeerswet has been very short on light requirements for more than 20 years: a white or yellow light shining straight ahead from the front of the bike, red to the rear from the back, no blinking, and relying on the general rule against unsafe behaviour to mean you can't dazzle other road users.

No distance requirements in that. Croatia required lights that lit up at least 10m and not more than 50m in front of the bike, but their law is as messy, patchwork and incomplete as the UK's.

 

[Alex321]

If there is no fixed limit on brightness how then can the lights be illegal?

If they are dazzling other road users, then they are illegal in use.

They can also be illegal for a variety of other reasons not connected to brightness.
And technically, they are illegal to use as the only front or rear light unless they conform to the appropriate standrd (and have the markings to show it)

 

[Alex321]

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.

In spite of what they say, I'm not convinced they are legal as the only light. They do not mention the relevant standard, and I see no sign of the marking that the law requires to say they meet the standard.

They are perfectly legal to use as a second light.

And the chances of getting done for them being illegal as the only light is remote in the extreme. If a copper can see that you have a light, visible from a reasonable distance, they are not going to be looking for the standards marking on it.

 

[presta]

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

Seeing as Cateye sell worldwide, I'd being willing to bet they're not going to waste money making a different version of all their lights just to humour the Brits and their totally dysfunctional cycle lighting regulations. Take what everyone else has, or lump it.

So now your line is Cateye are knowingly selling illegal lights but their defence would be they shouldn't be used.

They're no more illegal to sell than the E-bikes and E-scooters that you also can't use on the road.

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 Statutory Instrument 2559

Does it comply with BS3648, or BS6102/3, or an equivalent EC standard as required by law? I have no idea.

If it's not marked on the lamp it doesn't comply.

Night riding (between sunset and sunrise)​

• 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).

No, at least one lamp front and rear must meet BS6102/3, or SI2559, or any other equivalent European specification, any supplementary ones used in addition need not.
I reported Cateye to Trading Standards 19 years ago for making incorrect claims on their lamp packaging, see my post here.

no standard that I know approves only some modes

BS6102/3 applies only to continuous mode, and SI2559 applies only to lamps that don't have any continuous mode, the reason there are two specifications and not just one is that neither covers both flashing and continuous.

 

[Alex321]

That is a hangover from when the law was written - cycles could not then exceed speed limits - technology and limit changes mean they now can. Time to bring the law up to date.

Do you have any evidence to support that assertion?

IMO it would have been just as likely that cycles could hit the speed limit then as now (particularly on downhill stretches).

I believe it was a deliberate decision to exclude muscle powered transport, whether that be bicycle, horse, roller skates or anything else.

 

[Alex321]

What actually matters is they have confirmed the lights are specifically for road use and are legal to use.
Think that what was subject at the time.
If you want to contact Cateye regarding their interpretation or otherwise of UK law regarding lights then be my guest.

But "legal to use" does NOT mean they are legal as the only front or rear light.

I have not seen the appropriate BS marking (or other European marking) on any Cateye light, which means they are technically only legal to use as an optional additional light, not as the only light.

 

[PK99]

Cyclists who breach the speed limit may not be prosecuted for a speeding offence but they can, however, be prosecuted for “cycling furiously” or “wanton and furious cycling.”"

The "wanton and furious cycling law" only applies after an injury has been caused.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Should that not be ‘pedal-antry’? I’ll see myself out . . .

Always at least one crank, another will be along soon 🎃

 

[Dogtrousers]

The "wanton and furious cycling law" only applies after an injury has been caused.

That's true. But there are also dangerous and careless cycling offences in the RTA. But they don't sound anywhere near as good as "wanton and furious"