# Flashing front bike lights



## Crankarm (12 Sep 2012)

If you were cycling in a group of 3 along the GBW at about 7:15pm just east of St.Ives heading toward Swavesey last night, where you ALL had your LED bright front lights on strobe, you are all nobbers and menaces. Turn the fecking things off. 1) It was no where near dark and 2) Your lights were dazzling and dangerous. 3) There is absolutely no need to have such bright lights on strobe on the GBW or on any road for that matter unless you want to cause an accident.

End of rant.


----------



## Boris Bajic (12 Sep 2012)

All groups of road users contain groups or elements who are given to excessive or inappropriate illumination.

I find more among car drivers than any other group, but they do usually have more lights to play with: Failure to dip approaching oncoming traffic, unnecessary use of fog lights and the like in good visibility, holding cars on the footbrake on hills in heavy traffic.... there is quite a list. 

Nonetheless, a small group of cyclists also seem oblivious to the effect their lights can have. I hear the argument "If I'm dazzling him, at least he's seen me". That seems not to add up as a justification. I'm not writing here about those cyclists who prefer to have multiple lamps front and rear; that seems eminently sensible. I mean the riders who, either deliberately or through ignorance, set their extremely powerful lights to dazzle oncoming motorists. In 'flash' mode, this would appear to help nobody. There may be an element of 'look at me!' about it. I suspect that most of the high-wattage, 'in-your-eyes' flashers are boys or men. That sounds wrong, but I won't edit it... 

I suspect that in some cases these riders are not drivers, although that view doesn't account for the vast number of drivers who don't know where their dipswitch is.

These things are sent to try us....


----------



## tyred (12 Sep 2012)

I do have issues with being dazzled by lights on the road at night. Perhaps my eyes are more sensitive than normal, I don't know but I do seem to suffer more than most.

I really do think there should be a crackdown on people who can't be bothered to dip their headlamps when meeting oncoming traffic, people who can't be bothered to adjust and set their headlamps correctly (cars and bikes), people who fit ridiculously bright HID bulbs kits in headlamps designed for H4 halogen bulbs, people who use fog lights when it is not foggy or any where close to being foggy and also lorry drivers who feel the need to fit 4 - 6 high powered spot lights on the roof of their cab. This is a problem as the roads around here are undulating with a lot of hidden dips and they don't realise I'm there until they crest the hill so I get 4 x 100W halogen spotlights in my face.

Then there is the question of people around here who feel the need to light up their garden and driveway with bright spot lights, often pointing at the road and some can be dazzling. Why do people feel the need for so much light these days?

Flashing bike lights are another thing entirely. I can't understand how anyone could ride with a flashing headlamp. Any time I've tried, I've found it seriously distracting.

Why do people feel the need for so much light these days, either in the home, the garden, the car or the bike?


----------



## trampyjoe (12 Sep 2012)

tyred said:


> Flashing bike lights are another thing entirely. I can't understand how anyone could ride with a flashing headlamp. Any time I've tried, I've found it seriously distracting.


It's also dangerous at night as other humans - be they drivers, walkers or other cyclists - cannot judge the distance of a flashing light properly.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Sep 2012)

On my commuting bike I have one torch on lowest power 'steady' setting, and one on S-O-S flash pattern. In broad daylight. All the time. (In the dark the AyUPs get switched on and I melt the tarmac) Some of the anaesthetised stupid mofo's in their Audi's, Mercs, Volvos and Beemers who regularly attempt gbh, or worse, on myself and my friends, still can't see us it seems, but if the worst happens I wish to ensure their stupidity and bovine lack of awareness behind the wheel is highlighted in the courts.

I don't give a toss if it dazzles in daylight. (at night a different matter)

Not one flying feck.


----------



## numbnuts (12 Sep 2012)

I have always thought flashing gets you noticed


----------



## Cyclopathic (12 Sep 2012)

numbnuts said:


> I have always thought flashing gets you noticed


And on a register.


----------



## Smokin Joe (12 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I don't give a toss if it dazzles in daylight. (at night a different matter)
> 
> Not one flying feck.


You would if someone you've dazzled drives into you.


----------



## gaz (12 Sep 2012)

Strobe is the most annoying flash pattern. I hate it.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Sep 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> You would if someone you've dazzled drives into you.


Every time a cyclist uses a powerful flashing light in daylight a kitten dies. Right.

Yeah. Happens all the time. Daily Mail is full of stories of folk mowed down by be-dazzled motorists who just passed a cyclist going the other way. It's a mhoooo-sive problem up there with the odds of getting taken out by an illegal immigrant falling from the wheel bay of a passing jet.


----------



## MrJamie (12 Sep 2012)

I dont think people necessarily realise how bright and unpleasant these lights can be to others, a flashing setting on a normal light is probably quite good for drawing peoples attention at dusk but strobing magicshines etc are ridiculous.


----------



## Boris Bajic (12 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> On my commuting bike I have one torch on lowest power 'steady' setting, and one on S-O-S flash pattern. In broad daylight. All the time. (In the dark the AyUPs get switched on and I melt the tarmac) Some of the anaesthetised stupid mofo's in their Audi's, Mercs, Volvos and Beemers who regularly attempt gbh, or worse, on myself and my friends, still can't see us it seems, but if the worst happens I wish to ensure their stupidity and bovine lack of awareness behind the wheel is highlighted in the courts.
> 
> *I don't give a toss if it dazzles in daylight.* (at night a different matter)
> 
> *Not one flying feck*.


 
This is a surprisingly common sentiment among road users today, not just on the matter of dazzling.

One frequently comes across road users who don't give a toss (or indeed a flying feck) about one thing or another.

How refreshing to see this sentiment championed on a forum like this...


----------



## Peteaud (12 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Every time a cyclist uses a powerful flashing light in daylight a kitten dies. Right.
> 
> Yeah. Happens all the time. Daily Mail is full of stories of folk mowed down by be-dazzled motorists who just passed a cyclist going the other way. Its a mhoooo-sive problem up there with the odds of getting taken out by an illegal immigrant falling from the wheel bay of a passing jet.


 

But in all fairness my good friend, you dazzle them / us with your smile anyway


----------



## G2EWS (12 Sep 2012)

I have mentioned it elsewhere but I use flashing front and rear LED's at any time of the day. Seems to work by getting me noticed and not too bright to upset folk.

Chris


----------



## Smokin Joe (12 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Every time a cyclist uses a powerful flashing light in daylight a kitten dies. Right.
> 
> Yeah. Happens all the time. Daily Mail is full of stories of folk mowed down by be-dazzled motorists who just passed a cyclist going the other way. Its a mhoooo-sive problem up there with the odds of getting taken out by an illegal immigrant falling from the wheel bay of a passing jet.


 


If you dazzle someone it means they are less likely to see you. An optician will confirm that. If they can't see you they are more likely to hit you.

It's quite simple really.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Sep 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> If you dazzle someone it means they are less likely to see you. An optician will confirm that. If they can't see you they are more likely to hit you.
> 
> It's quite simple really.


They ain't lookin' so how are they ever gonna see me in the first place?


----------



## gavintc (12 Sep 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> If you dazzle someone it means they are less likely to see you. An optician will confirm that. If they can't see you they are more likely to hit you.
> 
> It's quite simple really.


 
I disagree. On a murky morning with light rain, a cyclist with a flashing headlight catches my eye quicker than a cyclist without. My optician might have a different opinion, but that is his problem.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Sep 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> This is a surprisingly common sentiment among road users today, not just on the matter of dazzling.
> 
> One frequently comes across road users who don't give a toss (or indeed a flying feck) about one thing or another.
> 
> How refreshing to see this sentiment championed on a forum like this...


I aim to please. Unlike my blinky lights.


----------



## Flyingfox (12 Sep 2012)

Can't speak for the country cyclists but in London there are so many lights be it from buildings/cars/street that to stand out and be seen you need at least one flashing light.


----------



## Smokin Joe (12 Sep 2012)

gavintc said:


> I disagree. On a murky morning with light rain, a cyclist with a flashing headlight catches my eye quicker than a cyclist without. My optician might have a different opinion, but that is his problem.


I don't know what you're disagreeing with me about, I'm not talking about flashing lights but Greg's practice of setting his front light so it dazzles oncoming drivers. Unless you think having a blinded driver coming towards you somehow makes you safer.


----------



## Crankarm (12 Sep 2012)

The situation I write of is perhaps rather unique. There is no vehicular traffic to be dazzled by or to dazzle save for buses on the GBW just other cyclists, runners, joggers, pedestrians and the occasional horse and numerous rabbits. So cycling along, at the end of day, you see in the distance x3 powerful lights set on strobe. They eventually get nearer and the light flashes are piercing bright light and because there are three LED on strobe pointing directly at you it's like flash over load. The riders were I think MAMILS on hybrid bikes although I could be wrong as I couldn't see them as I literally couldn't look at them as the lights were so blinding as they approached. I shouted at them to fecking turn them off. Don't know if they did as they sped past into the distance. There is no way the lights were illuminating their path as one it was no where near dark enough. I didn't have my lights on which were still in my panniers which are for elimination of doubt an Exposure Max D 1200 Lumens and two rear RSP Astriums 1/2W lights. These cyclists were selfish ignorant muppets with no thought of the affect their lights would have on any one else they might shine on.

Now if these nobbers ride with these lights in strobe mode on the roads, in traffic, which I am sure they must do, then it must only be time before they cause an accident. And as always happens it won't be them that gets injured but some poor unfortunate sod that is blinded by them colliding with some thing or some one else.

Car and other vehicle drivers are some times slow to dip main beam headlights and which DO NOT strobe, but the cycle strobe lights I saw last night were something else, a lot stronger and able to temporarily impair vision. The cyclists made no attempt to dip or re-direct them. At best they are a menace and at worst they could be very dangerous on a road with traffic approaching. And then there is also the possibility of these strobe lights being reflected into the eyes of drivers passing them from rear view mirrors. I have a strobe function on my Max D light but have never ever used or felt the need to use the setting. Why front facing bike lights have a strobe/flashing setting I do not know. Strobe lights should be BANNED and made ILLEGAL.


----------



## CopperCyclist (13 Sep 2012)

Reminds me of a post a while back with someone on a canal towpath screaming at people coming towards him dazzling him (on YouTube)


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Sep 2012)

Here's the thing, when you have a bright 'dazzling' blinky coming towards you, don't look directly at it.

Just like you don't look directly at car headlights.

You know it makes sense.


----------



## wiggydiggy (13 Sep 2012)

Crankarm said:


> <LINK>


 
Not sure about being made illegal but otherwise I agree with all you say - strobe/flashing lights are there to get you noticed, not to see with, so on the GBW there's no need for them to flash at all.


----------



## Lee_M (13 Sep 2012)

All I can think of is why are you riding on the Great Barrier Weef?


----------



## Crosstrailer (13 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> On my commuting bike I have one torch on lowest power 'steady' setting, and one on S-O-S flash pattern. In broad daylight. All the time. (In the dark the AyUPs get switched on and I melt the tarmac) Some of the anaesthetised stupid mofo's in their *Audi's, Mercs, Volvos and Beemers* who regularly attempt gbh, or worse, on myself and my friends, still can't see us it seems, but if the worst happens I wish to ensure their stupidity and bovine lack of awareness behind the wheel is highlighted in the courts.
> 
> I don't give a toss if it dazzles in daylight. (at night a different matter)
> 
> Not one flying feck.


 
Just those car makes then.......


----------



## Crosstrailer (13 Sep 2012)

Flashing lights should not be banned, thats just not sensible

I have a 2 inch LED on the front of my bike which I often set to flash at night for no other reason than to say 'I AM HERE, DON'T PULL OUT ON ME OR RUN ME OVER !!!!!'. Far more effective than a single light for that purpose.

Last night I turned the light on and walked some distance away from the bike to check the effect, and I have to say if anyway is dazzled by it or cannot judge the depth then they really need to see an optician.

I think even with the more powerful lights than I have its more a case of what angle the light is set to, strobing or not.


----------



## ianrauk (13 Sep 2012)

CopperCyclist said:


> Reminds me of a post a while back with someone on a canal towpath screaming at people coming towards him dazzling him (on YouTube)


 

Yes I remember. He was getting very angry wasn't he lol


----------



## Crankarm (13 Sep 2012)

CopperCyclist said:


> Reminds me of a post a while back with someone on a canal towpath screaming at people coming towards him dazzling him (on YouTube)


 
And your point?

Your are supposed to be a copper. What's your view or the law in relation to very bright and I mean bright, cycle front lights that flash or strobe? They certainly don't illuminate the route and if they were safe and effective why don't ALL vehicles have them, cars included?


----------



## Crankarm (13 Sep 2012)

wiggydiggy said:


> Not sure about being made illegal but otherwise I agree with all you say - strobe/flashing lights are there to get you noticed, not to see with, so on the GBW there's no need for them to flash at all.


 
And there is no need for them on the roads either.


----------



## Crankarm (13 Sep 2012)

Crosstrailer said:


> Flashing lights should not be banned, thats just not sensible
> 
> I have a 2 inch LED on the front of my bike which I often set to flash at night for no other reason than to say 'I AM HERE, DON'T PULL OUT ON ME OR RUN ME OVER !!!!!'. Far more effective than a single light for that purpose.
> 
> ...


 
A typcial arrogant cyclist. And you think cyclists are the only road users that get "pulled out on" therefore having such a light is justified? . I would suggest you get an Airzound instead.

So if ALL vehicles start using bright flashing strobe front lights it would be very dangerous on the roads, yes?


----------



## GrasB (13 Sep 2012)

I've got no problem with a flashing light as long as there's another light permanently on. Dazzlingly bright bike lights aimed at eye level is a completely different thing.


----------



## LosingFocus (13 Sep 2012)

Do the people who are moaning about flashing lights also moan about flashers on cones, on top of emergency vehicles, on top of motorway maintenance trucks? No? They are there to alert other road users to your presence.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Sep 2012)

Crosstrailer said:


> Just those car makes then.......


Well, honestly, ime, yes.

I regularly find badly driven Nissan's and Vee-Dubs, Fords, and Vauxhalls et all cross my paths but only those marques (Audi's, Mercs, Volvos and Beemers) seem to induce the deadliest form of motorised somnambulance in their operators. Which is, in turn, multiplied by their owners' heightened sense of entitlement. It's a heady mix I grant you.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Sep 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> I don't know what you're disagreeing with me about, I'm not talking about flashing lights but *Greg's practice of setting his front light so it dazzles oncoming drivers*. Unless you think having a blinded driver coming towards you somehow makes you safer.


Do keep up.

It's one flashing front light and one steady front light set so they can be clearly and readily seen by other road users. What would be the point of aiming them at the floor in daylight? I don't need see by lights during the day only be seens.

_Dazzlingly_ bright? Subjective BS imo and anyway I wouldn't care to say, and couldn't care less. An attitude apparently shared by every car driver I've encountered so far, including the coppers I pass as they go to and from the two police stations on my commute. 

Though I did read another illegal immigrant fell from a plane this week so the odds of death by dazzled driver are stacking up on me.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Sep 2012)

LosingFocus said:


> Do the people who are moaning about flashing lights also moan about flashers on cones, on top of emergency vehicles, on top of motorway maintenance trucks? No? They are there to alert other road users to your presence.


How can I be expected to navigate a contraflow in the wife's car with all those blasted dazzling flashing lights? Something must be done.


----------



## Boris Bajic (13 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Here's the thing, when you have a bright 'dazzling' blinky coming towards you, don't look directly at it.
> 
> *Just like you don't look directly at car headlights.*
> 
> You know it makes sense.


 
Yes and no. 

It is perfectly safe to look directly at car headlights when they are dipped. Cycists, drivers, pedestrians and motorcyclists do it all the time.

It is inadvisable and unpleasant to look directly into (or at) car headlamps on full beam. 

Drivers are taught to use the dipswitch when other road users are approaching.

If drivers didn't bother with dipped-beam headlamps, it would be unpleasant and (up to a point) dangerous on the roads.

High-aimed, powerful cycle lamps on a strobe setting are much like main-beam headlamps. They are unpleasant to look into or look close to.

Just as some drivers don't give a flying feck whom they dazzle with their main beams, some cyclists are casual about whom they dazzle with powerful or flashing lamps.

BMW, Audi, Volvo, Pinarello, Colnago.... these are all symptoms of the same mindset.


----------



## GrasB (13 Sep 2012)

Flashing lights don't dazzle, badly aimed high powered lights do.

Edit: Badly aimed lights will dazzle regardless of flashing or not.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Sep 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> BMW, Audi, Volvo, Pinarello, Colnago.... these are all symptoms of the same mindset.


Couldn't say, never owned any of the above, never wanted to own any of the above, never will own any of the above. Perhaps my mindset is symptomatic of another list of marques.

If a car or motorcycle or HGV in daylight flashes me as another road user, using its main beam that, as you say, is much like a high-aimed, powerful cycle lamp on a strobe setting, should I complain that I'm being dazzled?


----------



## CopperCyclist (13 Sep 2012)

Crankarm said:


> And your point?
> 
> Your are supposed to be a copper. What's your view or the law in relation to very bright and I mean bright, cycle front lights that flash or strobe? They certainly don't illuminate the route and if they were safe and effective why don't ALL vehicles have them, cars included?



CPS guidelines suggest that the act of not dipping headlights can be suitable to form part of a case of inconsiderate driving. I therefore see no reason why it couldn't potentially form part of a case for an inconsiderate cycling charge. I suspect however that the defence would have a strong counter argument in the form of 'My client, a vulnerable road user, was merely trying to be seen'. I wouldn't like to guess which way it would go.

I do however think the issue would have to be based on the extreme brightness of the lights, rather than simply the fact that they flash/strobe.

FWIW I have a pulsing front light (I.e. it's always on but pulses/flashes brighter) which is bright enough that I feel it appropriate to cover it when I pull up behind someone stationary in traffic.

As for whether they are needed on the GBW, I wouldn't really know, however from your description of it I doubt it. For people travelling at 20mph+ on the main road, going over roundabouts, anything that prevents a SMIDSY is a bit of a godsend tbh - but I think there are limits. A top of the range 'Lets illuminate the forest' Magicshine MAY not be appropriate as a 'See me' Commuting light - the difficulty is where do you draw the line, and how do you measure it.


----------



## wiggydiggy (13 Sep 2012)

Crankarm said:


> And there is no need for them on the roads either.


 
I have changed mine to constant a while back and agree to a certain extent , but I'd rather see people with a flashing LED than nothing? Its almost a helmet topic this as there'll be almost no consensus achieved!

I'll share a tale though - on a recent night right ride as we stopped at an unlit junction to take directions, my friends Exposure Strada was flashing bright enough to apparently wake the occupants of a bungalow 100yrds away! We saw them peering out of the house probably wondering what idiot was flashing a searchlight into their bedroom lol Bit embarrassed we left them to their sleep


----------



## fenlandpsychocyclist (13 Sep 2012)

1 in 16 vehicle drivers have inadequate vision and would fail a roadside eyesight test, some due to wearing
the incorrect strength of glasses.
I suspect the same people are making all the noise about being dazzled.

I do a lot of night cycling on incredibly knackered roads and have two handlebar lights with tight beam spread aimed at the road.
The other thing i have is a focusable light on my helmet, which spends 99% of the time also lighting up
the road where i'm going.

The odd time i've seen motorists approaching from a side road far to quickly to stop ... you can tell when
they are about to fly out with "half a look".

That in my opinion justifies a quick flash from the head-torch so they know i'm approaching.


----------



## Crankarm (13 Sep 2012)

CopperCyclist said:


> CPS guidelines suggest that the act of not dipping headlights can be suitable to form part of a case of inconsiderate driving. I therefore see no reason why it couldn't potentially form part of a case for an inconsiderate cycling charge. I suspect however that the defence would have a strong counter argument in the form of 'My client, a vulnerable road user, was merely trying to be seen'. I wouldn't like to guess which way it would go.
> 
> I do however think the issue would have to be based on the extreme brightness of the lights, rather than simply the fact that they flash/strobe.
> 
> ...


 
Interesting.

Basically what is the legislation surrouding the permitted type and use of bicycle front lights? Do front bike lights have to be on a continuous setting or is having them on flashing / strobe permitted? So if a car had flashing, pulsing lights would that contravene construction and use legislation? On the face of it it would be dangerous wouldn't it.


----------



## gaz (13 Sep 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Basically what is the legislation surrouding the permitted type and use of bicycle front lights? Do front bike lights have to be on a continuous setting or is having them on flashing / strobe permitted? So if a car had flashing, pulsing lights would that contravene construction and use legislation? On the face of it it would be dangerous wouldn't it.


Bicycle lights are allowed to flash.


----------



## Crankarm (13 Sep 2012)

gaz said:


> Bicycle lights are allowed to flash.


 
I read what you have written Gaz, but source / authority?


----------



## CopperCyclist (13 Sep 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Basically what is the legislation surrouding the permitted type and use of bicycle front lights? Do front bike lights have to be on a continuous setting or is having them on flashing / strobe permitted? So if a car had flashing, pulsing lights would that contravene construction and use legislation? On the face of it it would be dangerous wouldn't it.



Truthfully, I wouldn't have a clue on the actual legislation for cycle lights. I never have (and in my current role almost certainly never will) had to use them. We've certainly never been trained in it either. Most of my current limited knowledge in this area actually comes from reading this forum since taking up cycling rather than work!


----------



## Crosstrailer (13 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Well, honestly, ime, yes.
> 
> I regularly find badly driven Nissan's and Vee-Dubs, Fords, and Vauxhalls et all cross my paths but only those marques (Audi's, Mercs, Volvos and Beemers) seem to induce the deadliest form of motorised somnambulance in their operators. Which is, in turn, multiplied by their owners' heightened sense of entitlement. It's a heady mix I grant you.


 
Next time I go out I will try to keep my sense of entitlement in check LOL


----------



## gaz (13 Sep 2012)

Crankarm said:


> I read what you have written Gaz, but source / authority?


Highway Code Rule 60


> ... Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.


----------



## CopperCyclist (13 Sep 2012)

Here's what the CTC say on the matter: http://www.ctc.org.uk/desktopdefault.aspx?tabid=4071


----------



## Crankarm (13 Sep 2012)

CopperCyclist said:


> Truthfully, I wouldn't have a clue on the actual legislation for cycle lights. I never have (and in my current role almost certainly never will) had to use them. We've certainly never been trained in it either. Most of my current limited knowledge in this area actually comes from reading this forum since taking up cycling rather than work!


 

Fair enough CC. Thanks.

I am not familiar with secondary legislation on bike lights wrt to flashing / strobe front lights.


----------



## Crosstrailer (13 Sep 2012)

Crankarm said:


> A *typcial arrogant cyclist*. And you think cyclists are the only road users that get "pulled out on" therefore having such a light is justified? . I would suggest you get an Airzound instead.
> 
> So if ALL vehicles start using bright flashing strobe front lights it would be very dangerous on the roads, yes?


 
LOL  I love people who can't argue without making sweeping generalisations or who have to resort to making personal attacks.

I have been pulled out on less times in my car than I have on my bike, but then again, the car is much easier to see isn't it, as it far larger and far better lit. Over the past year I cannot remember having a car pull out in front of me putting either my vehicle or my personal safety in danger. On my bike that has happened 4 times in the last month in daylight. I rarely ride at night but I will give myself every chance I can with that light I'm afraid.

No need to use flashing strobe lights on all vehicles but then again I suppose you have to try and justify your sweeping generalisations don't you ?.


----------



## Crosstrailer (13 Sep 2012)

CopperCyclist said:


> Here's what the CTC say on the matter: http://www.ctc.org.uk/desktopdefault.aspx?tabid=4071


 
Right, so basically it's not illegal at all.

Thanks Copper


----------



## Crankarm (13 Sep 2012)

gaz said:


> Highway Code Rule 60


 
Thanks Gaz. Moving on from HWC which are guidelines to the legislation

RVLR - Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations.



> *Requirements about the use of front and rear position lamps, rear registration plate lamps, side marker lamps and end-outline marker lamps*
> 
> 
> 24.—(1) Save as provided in paragraphs (5) and (9), no person shall–
> ...


 
*Kept lit* - so maybe flashing / strobe does not comply with this as the light will be on intermittently and therefore NOT kept lit. Interesting. 


The BSI site does not show the full BS6102/3 content unless a fee of £48 is paid.


----------



## Crankarm (13 Sep 2012)

Crosstrailer said:


> Right, so basically it's not illegal at all.
> 
> Thanks Copper


 


Crosstrailer said:


> LOL  I love people who can't argue without making sweeping generalisations or who have to resort to making personal attacks.
> 
> I have been pulled out on less times in my car than I have on my bike, but then again, the car is much easier to see isn't it, as it far larger and far better lit. Over the past year I cannot remember having a car pull out in front of me putting either my vehicle or my personal safety in danger. On my bike that has happened 4 times in the last month in daylight. I rarely ride at night but I will give myself every chance I can with that light I'm afraid.
> 
> No need to use flashing strobe lights on all vehicles but then again I suppose you have to try and justify your sweeping generalisations don't you ?.


 
Maybe you should seek out the legislation on cycle lights such as the RVLR and BS6102/3 rather than ranting?

The CTC page,



> Lighting Regulations
> 
> Abbreviated to RVLR: the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989 (amended in 1994, 1996, 2001, 2005, again in 2005 and 2009) require pedal cycles to have various lights and reflectors fitted, clean and working properly, when being ridden on a public road between sunset and sunrise. Cyclists may also be required to light up in conditions of seriously reduced visibility during the day, but only if they have functional lights already fitted. Lights are not required when the cycle is stationary or being pushed along the roadside.
> 
> ...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Sep 2012)

RVLR only apply at night time!


----------



## Crosstrailer (13 Sep 2012)

You stating my measured response to a personal attack is ranting - 

To get this straight, I quoted from Coppers post (and you are now quoting at me !!?? ) a flashing front light is legal providing it meets the min 4 candela requirement ? So not only is your ranting comment as laughable as the arrogant one earlier, you are requoting what I have already quoted and are now arguing against yourself ?

Would you like to borrow a spade ?


----------



## Boris Bajic (13 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Couldn't say, never owned any of the above, never wanted to own any of the above, never will own any of the above. Perhaps my mindset is symptomatic of another list of marques.
> 
> If a car or motorcycle or HGV in daylight flashes me as another road user, using its main beam that, as you say, is much like a high-aimed, powerful cycle lamp on a strobe setting, should I complain that I'm being dazzled?


 
Good question. By the way, I'm not a driver or rider of any of those either, nor have I been - although a ride on a borrowed C40 was about the happiest I've been on a bicycle.

Your questuion: When a car comes at me with its main-beams on, I flash to let the driver know. It's not 'complaining', but it soon stops. I forget sometimes, too. Most drivers forget occasionally... and other drivers just flash to remind us. The system works. When I'm cycling, high-beam headlights seldom trouble me, perhaps because my eyes are higher than the bulk of the beam. When they do trouble me, I find that putting a hand up to shade the eyes encourages the driver to dip.

With many cycle lamps it's different. Changing the setting is something that most people have to move a hand for, partially of fully. Many also have to look down. Much easier just to set the thing in the first place so it doesn't dazzle.

My joke comment about the mindset being similar was a follow-on from your earlier (joke) remark that you didn't give a toss whether you dazzled someone. I was just carrying on the humorous line, probably unsuccessfully. 


Should you complain? No, I don't think so. I don't complain to cyclists who dazzle me with their strobo-fantastico lamps. But I don't find their thoughtlessness very warming.


----------



## Ex EnergyMan (13 Sep 2012)

If you buy the lights from Pound Land then you not only get noticed when riding but people feel sorry for you too !


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Sep 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Good question. By the way, I'm not a driver or rider of any of those either, nor have I been - although a ride on a borrowed C40 was about the happiest I've been on a bicycle.
> 
> Your questuion: When a car comes at me with its main-beams on, I flash to let the driver know. It's not 'complaining', but it soon stops. I forget sometimes, too. Most drivers forget occasionally... and other drivers just flash to remind us. The system works. When I'm cycling, high-beam headlights seldom trouble me, perhaps because my eyes are higher than the bulk of the beam. When they do trouble me, I find that putting a hand up to shade the eyes encourages the driver to dip.
> 
> ...


If my strobing were the greatest thoughtlessness I dished out on a given day I'd considered it a small moral victory.

I don't buy the dazzling bit hence my tinkers cuss is not available as a free gift.

EDIT: I'm a SAAB man myself, owned more of them than anything. Most fun I've ever had on a bike was on a Sunn. The next day I fell off a mountain on it.


----------



## snorri (13 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Here's the thing, when you have a bright 'dazzling' blinky coming towards you, don't look directly at it.
> 
> Just like you don't look directly at car headlights..


 
That's right, instead you look down and drift towards the centre of the road, before you have even crossed the white line the selfish *** have slowed down and dipped their lights.
Works every time.


----------



## Boris Bajic (14 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> If my strobing were the greatest thoughtlessness I dished out on a given day I'd considered it a small moral victory.
> 
> I don't buy the dazzling bit hence my tinkers cuss is not available as a free gift.
> 
> EDIT: I'm a SAAB man myself, owned more of them than anything. Most fun I've ever had on a bike was on a Sunn. The next day I fell off a mountain on it.


 
I apologise. I may have read more into your tinker's cuss than was appropriate.

When I was a very small boy, my father took me to visit a former mentor of his, a German economist whose work in Kiel was "brought to an end by political changes in 1933". He'd come eventually to the UK and this (decades later) was my first visit to his home. In the drive was a pale blue SAAB 96 (the 2-stroke model). I'd never seen a SAAB and sort of squawked the name out in joy. My father (in his Vauxhall) murmered "A connoisseur's car".

Since that day, whenever someone says _'connoisseur'_ I picture a pale blue SAAB 96. I think it was (at that age) the most perfect thing I'd seen.

I do not picture a Vauxhall cavalier with Swedish badges on it. Insincere apologies (as usual) for being wildly OT.


----------



## VamP (14 Sep 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I apologise. I may have read more into your tinker's cuss than was appropriate.
> 
> When I was a very small boy, my father took me to visit a former mentor of his, a German economist whose work in Kiel was "brought to an end by political changes in 1933". He'd come eventually to the UK and this (decades later) was my first visit to his home. In the drive was a pale blue SAAB 96 (the 2-stroke model). I'd never seen a SAAB and sort of squawked the name out in joy. My father (in his Vauxhall) murmered "A connoisseur's car".
> 
> ...


 
Particularly ironic and sad then, that SAABs today are basically rebadged GM models isn't it


----------



## Drago (14 Sep 2012)

Erm, that's a vast over simplification. SAABs engineers were told by their GM paymasters to base their new models on GM products. Alas, they were never very good at doing what they were told and apart from the power trains SAABs bore virtually no relation to the GM starting point by the time they'd finish. This is ultimately what killed the firm, spending vast amounts developing new products instead of simply re-clothing GM products like they'd been told to.


----------



## Boris Bajic (14 Sep 2012)

VamP said:


> Particularly ironic and sad then, that SAABs today are basically rebadged GM models isn't it


 
I am not a motor-industry insider, but I believe SAAB is now a *was* rather than an* is* in terms of car manufacture. It may be an *is* in the yet-to-come, but not an independent* is*. Even the last 'proper' SAAB, the 9000, was a Fiat Croma. The wonderful V4-engined 95 and 96 (_jolie-laide _defined) had a Ford motor. 

My bottom line above was a reference to the GM thing, which was odd rather than sad. I think the irony (if there was one) was that the designer set who'd become the SAAB customer base seemed blithely unaware and bought the badge and the glued-on quirkiness for years after the real article had been sublimated and sucked out by the GM furnace. 

I loved the older SAABs, but I'm not sure there's any irony here. SAAB had the perfect profile not to survive the 1990s auto industry as an independent manufacturer... and they didn't survive... No irony.

Soichiro Honda is quoted as saying many years ago that in fifty years there would be five car makers in the world - and that one of them would be Morgan. I may have got the numbers wrong, but that was his sentiment and he seems to have been a clever chappy.

My real concern (I mean *real*) is that after Citroen started putting self-cancelling indicators in their cars, the same thing happened to them that later happened to SAAB. The XM, of course, was an exception and fought a brave rear-guard against the Kia-isation of the world auto industry.

Did I digress again? Bugger!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Sep 2012)

Drago said:


> Erm, that's a vast over simplification. SAABs engineers were told by their GM paymasters to base their new models on GM products. Alas, they were never very good at doing what they were told and apart from the power trains SAABs bore virtually no relation to the GM starting point by the time they'd finish. This is ultimately what killed the firm, spending vast amounts developing new products instead of simply re-clothing GM products like they'd been told to.


Thank you Drago. I do wish people didn't take all their learning about cars from Clarkson et el.

A couple of minor points in correction though. The NG900 series cars were based on the Opel Vectra platform (bulkhead cracks anyone?) but SAAB did a lot to improve the suspension and the straight four engines in 2.0 and 2.3 are pure SAAB. The V's are bog standard GM fodder.

The GM cars only suffered becuase the 'classic' 900, which was on its last legs when GM took over, had such an iconic status and was such a revolutionary car on introduction. Sure when the GM influence bit it bit hard and diluted the technology led design SAAB was famous for BUT people weren't buying the cars and the company wasn't making the profits it needed.

As for the 9000 series cars on the Type Four platform - you may as well say they are bedge engineered Fiats and Lancias.

Contrary to popular mythology the build quality went UP under GM


----------



## wiggydiggy (14 Sep 2012)

From flashing cyclists to an accurate dissection of the death of Saab - I love CC on a friday

Ps I always like the old 900 Turbo Converatable, ugly flattened duck beak it is!


----------



## Drago (14 Sep 2012)

The Vectra platform was only used as the starting point on the NG900. While they are structurally still quite similar the wheelbase is different, suspension pick up points are located differently, door hinges use a different position in 3D space etc, so the time SAAB had finished it was a new platform entirely, in no way compatible with cousin Vectra.

The Type 4 was an early foray into platform, or at least substructure, sharing. SAAB 9000, Alfa 164, Fiat Croma and Lancia Thema if memory serves. All credit to SAAB for making the 9000 the only one that enjoyed significant commercial success. The SAAB purists forget that SAABs engine origins gave never been that pure, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

If I were buying a car and were in the market or a second hand one I'd be quite happy to have a GM era model. Decent GM engines with very nice SAAB body structures and systems is a combination I could live with. Hell, people forget that the 99 and 900 were powered by a motor developed very successfully from the Triumph 1750 unit. Apart from the early 2 stroke cars SAAB have always used someone else's engines, or developed their own version of someone else's engines, and we're doing so for 3 decades before GM came along.

I'm in total agreement with you about Clarksons and the (sometimes very entertaining) drivel he spouts. Morgan's with a "wooden chassis" anyone? How about a steel chassis with a wooden frame supporting the body Jeremy?


----------



## VamP (14 Sep 2012)

Wow, there has to be some serious funnage to be had in SAAB geek baiting. We should get the CAD mob over here.


----------



## VamP (14 Sep 2012)

Drago said:


> The Vectra platform was only used as the starting point on the NG900. While they are structurally still quite similar the wheelbase is different, suspension pick up points are located differently, door hinges use a different position in 3D space etc, so the time SAAB had finished it was a new platform entirely, in no way compatible with cousin Vectra.


 
Still drove like a dog though didn't it.


----------



## Drago (14 Sep 2012)

The Saloons drove OK, the convertibles rather less so.

The biggest issue was shovelling in more power than the FWD chassis can exploit and deliver, but SEAT, VW, Skoda, Audi, Vauxhall, Ford, Renault and a fistful of others have all been guilty of that over the last decade or so.


----------



## VamP (14 Sep 2012)

I've driven a 400bhp FWD Alfa that was coping just fine. I really don't think it was the power of the SAAB I drove that made it feel all wooden, and unplanted. Much like the Vectra I hasten to add.


----------



## defy-one (14 Sep 2012)

Wheels driving the car and steering - YUK!
Give me a balanced rear wheel drive anyday


----------



## GrasB (14 Sep 2012)

For road driving a FWD car should be able to deal with 400bhp without any problems. However when pushing to the limits of grip 200bhp into the front wheels of a car weighing 1.25tonn is going to be a real issue with road tyres. Slicks & a rev-happy engine may get you to around 350bhp maybe more but in term of dynamics you're really pushing the limits of what grip you have avalible on the front wheels.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Sep 2012)

VamP said:


> Still drove like a dog though didn't it.


Not with a 2.3 in it it didn't.

(Sorry.... doesn't)


----------



## VamP (14 Sep 2012)

GrasB said:


> For road driving a FWD car should be able to deal with 400bhp without any problems. However when pushing to the limits of grip 200bhp into the front wheels of a car weighing 1.25tonn is going to be a real issue with road tyres. Slicks & a rev-happy engine may get you to around 350bhp maybe more but in term of dynamics you're really pushing the limits of what grip you have avalible on the front wheels.


 
With a good mechanical limited slip differential, and well sorted suspension even on road tyres the Alfa was totally awesome. This is race track driving I am talking about not road. Proper on the limit stuff. Barely a hint of torque steer and utterly predictable. Lift off oversteer at the drop of a hat. Comparable performance to M3 CSL, with semi slicks on.

Mind you, the owner had spent over £40k to get his Alfa to the level of the CSL. On top of the purchase price. 


I agree that RWD is better, but people parrot the old power and steering formula without actually understanding how much impact a differential has. 

*wonders how much longer we can get away with the blatant OT *


----------



## VamP (14 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Not with a 2.3 in it it didn't.
> 
> (Sorry.... doesn't)


 

I can't agree with you, but give you full marks for loyalty


----------

