You're all breaking the law!

[mick1836]

Loss360, Now Prisoner number VJ487352.

 

[Racing roadkill]

And if the bicycle doesn't come pedals fitted?

Exactly my defence last week. It worked.

 

[Supersuperleeds]

 

[Dogtrousers]

And if the bicycle doesn't come pedals fitted?

You're confusing two different things. 1) There are some regs that apply to retailers about the sale of bikes, and 2) there is the Road Traffic Act that requires people riding bikes to have certain kit.

If the bike came without pedals then you simply have to buy some pedals with reflectors*. Otherwise, if the rozzers feel your collar, then you're going daaaahn! (Or maybe not.)

* Unless you bought it from @biggs682 in which case it was manufactured before the RTA rules came into force, and probably before Magna Carta

 

[biggs682]

all bit of a minefield i would say

 

[Sunny Portrush]

I just cycle without any shorts in winter. Even in the darkest of nights my big white arse shines like a beacon, god help us if any car headlights catch it, there will be mass blindness and planes will fall out of the sky.......

 

[bikeman66]

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


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


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.


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.


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

You avoided answering my point about your apparent conflicting opinions on the subject of lights and how you think they might make motorists even more likely to abuse you, with aplomb. Excellent work. In fact you seem to have managed to turn it around to somehow make a judgment on what you presume the quality of my own lights might be. I guess you subscribe to the belief that the best form of defence, is attack! By the way, your presumption that my lights might be less noticeable than my rear reflector couldn't be further from the truth.........as there are no reflectors on any of my bikes.

Anyway.... If at any point in the future, you decide that you are able to answer my original point (without turning it around on someone else) please feel free to do so!

 

[freiston]

You don't have to swap to flats if you want reflectors. If you use 2 bolt SPDs you can get reflector pedals. I've got a pair. They're on my infrequently used bike. Sometimes I take them off and put them on my frequently used bike before a night ride, but often I can't be faffed.

Here you go Shimano PD-T400

I bought this very model of pedal because I wanted a double-sided SPD that had a full quota of pedal reflectors so that I wasn't 'breaking the law' - I stress that this is the primary reason for buying this pedal . I'm very happy with the pedal. There's been a very small number of occasions where I've accidentally 'unclipped' but what's to say that wouldn't have happened with regular SPDs.

 

[freiston]

I've got pulled up by the Police ... to ask me to be careful as I was breaking the 30mph limit for the road.

My understanding is that speed limits only apply to motorised vehicles and that therefore there is no such offence as a [pedal] cyclist exceeding a speed limit. It is, however, an offence to ride recklessly on a road or in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner and it is this that one would, if it came to it, be prosecuted/reprimanded for.

Dangerous cycling on a road is an offence under section 28 of the amended Road Traffic Act and is a more serious offence than careless and inconsiderate cycling. The amendment explains that the person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if, and only if, “(a) the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and (b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.” The section goes on to say that in considering what is to be expected of a competent and careful cyclist in (a), the circumstances which the cyclist was, or should have been, aware of must be considered. Also, in (b), the section states that ‘dangerous’ refers to “danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property.” The maximum penalty for dangerous cycling is £2,500 although this is rarely issued[1]. In November 2013, a man was caught by police cycling at high speed with his young daughter sat on his shoulders with neither of them wearing a cycle helmet and was fined the sum of £55

Section 29 outlines the less serious offence of careless and inconsiderate cycling which states that a person is guilty of such an offence if a person cycles on a road without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other road users. This offence is appropriate when a cyclist does not act so recklessly as to satisfy the required criteria for dangerous cycling as outlined above. The maximum penalty for careless cycling is £1,000 although, similarly to dangerous cycling, the maximum penalty is rarely issued. In July 2012, a man was found guilty of careless cycling and fined £850 after knocking over a man and causing severe brain damage.

 

[ianrauk]

My understanding is that speed limits only apply to motorised vehicles and that therefore there is no such offence as a [pedal] cyclist exceeding a speed limit. It is, however, an offence to ride recklessly on a road or in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner and it is this that one would, if it came to it, be prosecuted/reprimanded for.

I know that and so did the copper. He was just giving friendly advice.

 

[Poacher]

I just cycle without any shorts in winter. Even in the darkest of nights my big white arse shines like a beacon, god help us if any car headlights catch it, there will be mass blindness and planes will fall out of the sky.......

I was drinking coffee when I read that.........

 

[mjr]

You avoided answering my point about your apparent conflicting opinions on the subject of lights and how you think they might make motorists even more likely to abuse you, with aplomb. Excellent work.

I answered it, but let's try again in other words: there is no conflict. Reflectors only identify you as a cyclist once the motorist is in line and too close for all but the most determined nobber to do something silly, whereas a flashing red light identifies you from a much greater distance, enabling quite precise nobber positioning for maximum annoyance to cyclist with least risk to motorist.

 

[mjr]

I was drinking coffee when I read that.........

I was eating two scoops of vanilla ice cream

 

[mick1836]

You're confusing two different things. 1) There are some regs that apply to retailers about the sale of bikes, and 2) there is the Road Traffic Act that requires people riding bikes to have certain kit.

If the bike came without pedals then you simply have to buy some pedals with reflectors*. Otherwise, if the rozzers feel your collar, then you're going daaaahn! (Or maybe not.)

* Unless you bought it from @biggs682 in which case it was manufactured before the RTA rules came into force, and probably before Magna Carta

Yea, bet this guys bike hasn't got reflective pedals?

 

[bikeman66]

I answered it, but let's try again in other words: there is no conflict. Reflectors only identify you as a cyclist once the motorist is in line and too close for all but the most determined nobber to do something silly, whereas a flashing red light identifies you from a much greater distance, enabling quite precise nobber positioning for maximum annoyance to cyclist with least risk to motorist.

OK.