You're all breaking the law!

[mjr]

I couldn't care less about 'approved standards' - you are actually more likely to be run over using some of the BS approved lights and reflectives than using other stuff. No police officer or 'legal' person will question your use of good lights.

BS has been left behind. K marking is better. I agree that police challenge is unlikely, though.

I was mildly amused to find that even carbon road bikes come with a little bag of reflectors and a bell, which I'm guessing is to comply with the aforementioned point of sale regulation.

It doesn't. The regulation requires that they're fitted, so supplying a bag of them doesn't comply.

......so you have made a decision to actually fit pedals with reflectors on to a bike which, at night, as approached from the rear, will make it obvious you are a cyclist! [...] The two situations don't go together.

My light can be seen from much further away than my reflectors. If your light is so rubbish that people see the reflectors first, get a new light.

The only thing that really bothers me about this is if I were to get rear-ended, despite showing several rear lights and having retro-reflectives on my clothing and shoes, an insurance company could bring up my technical illegality.

They could bring it up, but it'll probably be dismissed as irrelevant. As I understand it, contributory negligence requires the defendant to show that the alleged negligence was both negligence and materially contributed to the damage suffered. So they'd have to show that they would have missed you if you'd been wearing hi-viz, but the highway code is quite clear that motorists must "drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear" (from rule 163 - rather than driving assuming that what they can't see is clear), so I don't see how they can reasonably blame someone else for them driving into anything visible on the road, whether it's another road user or an unlit obstruction.

If they couldn't see empty road, they should have slowed so that they could stop within empty road (rule 163). If their eyesight is defective, it should be corrected (rule 92) or they should surrender their licence (rule 90). Attempts to claim contributory negligence by people who foolishly left their house on a sharp bend without reflective posts or panels and madness like that has generally failed.

I guess that law was written before clipless pedals became a big thing

Last updated 2010. I'm pretty sure clipless pedals existed by then.

 

[Brand X]

My light can be seen from much further away than my reflectors. If your light is so rubbish that people see the reflectors first, get a new light.

Yes, but your rear light is probably static and even in a flashing mode it can be lost in the modern-day visual noise of heavy traffic so the up-down motion of your pedal reflectors is still a benefit, and your red rear reflector will still work even if your batteries go flat or the bulbs fail.

 

[mjr]

Yes, but your rear light is probably static and even in a flashing mode it can be lost in the modern-day visual noise of heavy traffic so the up-down motion of your pedal reflectors is still a benefit,

Yes, in busy areas, but they only become obvious once the motorist is near enough for their dipped lights to reflect, which seems to be too close for most of them to try anything silly.

and your red rear reflector will still work even if your batteries go flat

Dynamo.

or the bulbs fail.

What's the mean failure time of an LED? I expect the plastic housing to fail first.

 

[mjr]

Wire break, connector fall off?

The wire is overkill for the task so I'll be surprised if it breaks and the connectors have been heatshrinked into place (also to minimise water ingress). The light (Axa Riff Steady) does have an integrated rear reflector anyway, plus there's another on the mudguard, the tail of which is painted white (see avatar pic), but I still think a good bolted-on dynamo light is going to be seen long before any reflectors.

 

[Stevec047]

It's an old and out of date law. The move to better lights, reflective trim and pedal systems for keen bikers means the law needs to be reviewed and adjusted accordingly to save any back lash in a legal case.

The way I see it is I wear a jacket with at least 8 different reflective elements from low down to high up. My cycling shorts or leggings also have a number of reflective panels. My helmet has a reflective panel. My shoes have reflective detail and so do my gloves. Add to that a static light and flashing light to the front and rear plus a set of tires which have reflective side walls it is a safe bet that unless penfold (look it up if your too young) is driving a car I should be pretty noticeable no matter what direction said car is coming from.

I really didn't think my post about best use of lights would end up in a huge debate like it has

 

[mjr]

The way I see it is I wear...

The law correctly does not regulate what people wear while walking or cycling, so it requires the correct reflectors on the cycle. I'm against the law being changed to force any particular clothing while cycling because it'll harm public health.

The lighting requirements could do with an update to simplify them, to make it easier for ordinary people and roadside police to decide if a light is sufficient - probably a minimum be-seen distance and a maximum above-the-horizontal dazzling distance test.

 

[Lozz360]

I guess that law was written before clipless pedals became a big thing...

Quite possibly. However, the highway Code gets updated regularly. The last update was actually er...today! (I kid you not). The rule that you must...etc. is still there.

 

[Stevec047]

The law correctly does not regulate what people wear while walking or cycling, so it requires the correct reflectors on the cycle. I'm against the law being changed to force any particular clothing while cycling because it'll harm public health.

The lighting requirements could do with an update to simplify them, to make it easier for ordinary people and roadside police to decide if a light is sufficient - probably a minimum be-seen distance and a maximum above-the-horizontal dazzling distance test.

I am not saying there should be a change of law to the clothing worn that would be down to individuals and getting them to use common sense.

My point was the lighting aspect of bikes. New technology such as leds which can be mounted almost anywhere with varying brightNess and colors and reflective material such as vinyl allow for a much higher visability than before and these should be acknowledged in the law.

Standard reflectors are fine but rely on a light source bouncing off them where as replacing pedal reflectors with small led units would allow for a permanent light source being kicked out.

 

[I like Skol]

Jeez! Heaven help any new forum member or member of the public that ever happens to stumble across this thread. I am sure they will run away as quickly as possible while trying desperately not to make eye contact with a few of the main posters in the thread

The O.P was a light hearted comment on the fact that nearly all bikes on the road probably don't comply with the lighting regulations. Anyone simply looking for a bit of sensible, practical advice would apparently be bettor off not talking to an experienced cyclist!

 

[steverob]

[ANECDOTE="I Like Skol"]When riding on a shared cyclepath with my 10yr old son riding in front we came a cross a group of pedestrians spread out across the entire path (a converted railway so reasonably wide). As we approached I clearly instructed my son to slow down and wait until they knew he was there so he could pass. They obviously heard this (as intended) and one of the party whipped round and aggressively asked "Why don't you have a bell?"
I couldn't be arsed with the obvious answer that I have a voice and my usual method of saying 'excuse me' or 'please can I get past' seems much more polite than someone furiously pinging their bell which can be misinterpreted as 'Get out of my f'in way!'[/ANECDOTE]

Similar anecdote here - towards the end of a very long ride, decided to take a shortcut through a local estate rather than use the main road (saves me 1 mile and also avoids a large-ish hill) to get back home quicker, part of which means using a very wide shared-use cycle/pedestrian path - easily as big as one lane on a main road. As I turned on to it, I noticed halfway along was a woman all dressed up in athletic gear doing what I can only describe as power-walking (certainly slower than a jog, faster than normal walking) right down the middle of the path and it was clear I was going to have to pass her on one side or the other.

I was going quite slowly (~10mph) and when still about 50m behind her, I called out in what I believed to be a pleasant voice - e.g. not shouty or hectoring - "excuse me, coming through on your right". She then promptly gave an almost cartoon-like jumping out of her skin reaction (quite amusing to watch) and turned to berate me for not having a bell (or not using one, I can't remember exactly). I wanted to stop and point out to her that if she reacted that badly to someone's polite request, she'd have probably shat herself if I'd used a bell, but decided that I didn't want an argument (it had been a LONG ride and I was so nearly home), so just rode past, still at a reasonable speed, ignoring her rants. It was one of those 'you can't win' moments...

 

[Milkfloat]

I have a question regarding the need for a rear reflector. I understand that the regulations require a rear reflector in addition to a light, but could this be covered by having two rear lights? In addition, a couple of my bikes have mudguards, I have red reflective tape on them, does this count as a reflector?

I don't have pedal reflectors and see no easy way to solve that point.

 

[Leaway2]

That's the grey area I guess. I'm the same......I don't think I could be too much more visible on the road at night, despite a lack of wheel, rear and pedal reflectors. If anyone arse-ended me, it would be because of their own lack of attention, not because of my lack of visibility.......but some lawyers would turn that around in the blink of an eye I suppose.

Didn’t they fly off into the distance due to the impact?

 

[mjr]

I wanted to stop and point out to her that if she reacted that badly to someone's polite request, she'd have probably shat herself if I'd used a bell

Doesn't happen unless you're stupidly close when you ring it. Bells carry better than voices, especially near busy roads. A lot of people on here seem to have irrational hatred of bike bells.

I have a question regarding the need for a rear reflector. I understand that the regulations require a rear reflector in addition to a light, but could this be covered by having two rear lights? In addition, a couple of my bikes have mudguards, I have red reflective tape on them, does this count as a reflector?

Only if one of the rear lights incorporates a reflector, which some do. In addition, no, tape doesn't count for these regulations - or at least, I've never seen reflective tape that says it meets the standards required by them.

I don't have pedal reflectors and see no easy way to solve that point.

Wear something with amber reflective material near your feet, such as a reflective snap wrap. It's doesn't make the bike legal but I'd be astonished if you ever get stopped for it.

If you say what pedals you have, someone may know an add-on reflector for them or a similar design with a reflector.

 

[Leaway2]

Jeez! Heaven help any new forum member or member of the public that ever happens to stumble across this thread. I am sure they will run away as quickly as possible while trying desperately not to make eye contact with a few of the main posters in the thread

The O.P was a light hearted comment on the fact that nearly all bikes on the road probably don't comply with the lighting regulations. Anyone simply looking for a bit of sensible, practical advice would apparently be bettor off not talking to an experienced cyclist!

and we have not started on the weight implication yet.

 

[steveindenmark]

I have a question regarding the need for a rear reflector. I understand that the regulations require a rear reflector in addition to a light, but could this be covered by having two rear lights? In addition, a couple of my bikes have mudguards, I have red reflective tape on them, does this count as a reflector?

I don't have pedal reflectors and see no easy way to solve that point.

I am sure there will be a euro law which tells you the dimensions and height the reflector must be and positioned. You just need to keep out of the way until Brexit.

But your reflective tape reflects and you have 2 lights. You will not have any trouble with that.

With regards to ringing your bell. I just ping mine and say thank you as I pass. I have never had a problem.