# You're all breaking the law!



## Lozz360 (6 Oct 2016)

Following on from the thread on rear lights, I had a read of the current Highway Code. Rule 60 says thus,

*Rule 60*
_*At night* your cycle *MUST* have white front and red rear lights lit. It *MUST* also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp._

OK regarding front and rear lights but, your cycle *MUST *have a a red rear reflector. Mine doesn't. It was supplied brand new last year without one. What about the amber pedal reflectors? My bike did come with them but I have since changed the pedals for the clip-less type so the bike is not ridden with the pedal reflectors anymore.

I can't find anything about I must have a bell though.

So what shall I do?

A) Fit reflector to the rear and swap the pedals for the flat ones with amber reflectors
B) Stop riding the bike immediately
or
C) Hand myself in to the nearest police station


----------



## suzeworld (6 Oct 2016)

Crikeyy - who has those amber bits on their pedals - I guess children and ppl who do not use click in shoes/pedals? I DO have reflective bits on my cycle shoes, though, so I guess that would serve the same purpose.


----------



## MontyVeda (6 Oct 2016)

C... definitely C.


----------



## ianrauk (6 Oct 2016)

C

as it will be a cold day in hell before you ever get pulled up by the police for not having reflectors on your bike.


----------



## Tin Pot (6 Oct 2016)

C


----------



## T4tomo (6 Oct 2016)

D, be shot at dawn for worrying about such rubbish.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Oct 2016)

_You_ might be breaking the law, my bike is fully compliant with the regs. </smug>


----------



## Starchivore (6 Oct 2016)

C. Get y'sel down there sharpish like


----------



## I like Skol (6 Oct 2016)

Lozz360 said:


> You're all breaking the law!


Yep, and not just in the ways you are suggesting either


----------



## Tin Pot (6 Oct 2016)

I like Skol said:


> Yep, and not just in the ways you are suggesting either



I thought everyone watched tv by peering from the upstairs window into the neighbours front room?


----------



## EnPassant (6 Oct 2016)

Tin Pot said:


> I thought everyone watched tv by peering from the upstairs window into the neighbours front room?


It was 10 days before I realised they don't even have a tv.


----------



## RegG (6 Oct 2016)

Another option is E: Don't go out in the dark!

The law regarding reflectors says: "All bicycles made after October 1st 1985 must also be fitted with amber pedal reflectors ( on each pedal) when being ridden on a public road between sunset and sunrise." So if you don't go out after sunset, you're OK!

As for a bell...... again the law says: "Bikes at the point of sale have to be fitted with bells, but there is no law saying they must be fitted to bicycles no longer on shop display." So, basically, it seems that the bike shop can take the bell off a display bike once it is sold and no longer on display!!


----------



## Tin Pot (6 Oct 2016)

RegG said:


> Another option is E: Don't go out in the dark!
> 
> The law regarding reflectors says: "All bicycles made after October 1st 1985 must also be fitted with amber pedal reflectors ( on each pedal) when being ridden on a public road between sunset and sunrise." So if you don't go out after sunset, you're OK!
> 
> As for a bell...... again the law says: "Bikes at the point of sale have to be fitted with bells, but there is no law saying they must be fitted to bicycles no longer on shop display." So, basically, it seems that the bike shop can take the bell off a display bike once it is sold and no longer on display!!



F: Don't go outside, ever


----------



## classic33 (6 Oct 2016)

And if the bicycle doesn't come pedals fitted?


----------



## DCLane (6 Oct 2016)

Definitely C. And then watch them staring at you in disbelief.

Then you can let us known what happened afterwards.


----------



## Colin_P (6 Oct 2016)

G

I'm fully compliant on all my bikes.

But I don't own a single stitch of cycling clothing, don't wear a hat and most certainly don't have silly pedals that require stupid shoes that make one look as if they have poo'ed themself when attempting to duck-walk.


----------



## Milkfloat (6 Oct 2016)

classic33 said:


> And if the bicycle doesn't come pedals fitted?


Then it does not require a bell.


----------



## Tin Pot (6 Oct 2016)

Colin_P said:


> G
> 
> I'm fully compliant on all my bikes.





Colin_P said:


> But I don't own a single stitch of cycling clothing,





Colin_P said:


> don't wear a hat





Colin_P said:


> and most certainly don't have silly pedals that require stupid shoes that make one look as if they have poo'ed themself when attempting to duck-walk.


----------



## T4tomo (6 Oct 2016)

Colin_P said:


> G
> 
> I'm fully compliant on all my bikes.
> 
> But I don't own a single stitch of cycling clothing, don't wear a hat and most certainly don't have silly pedals that require stupid shoes that make one look as if they have poo'ed themself when attempting to duck-walk.


Have you considered that all the people you have seen walking strangely in cycling shoes might have actually pooed themselves? The shows could have nothing to do with it.


----------



## classic33 (6 Oct 2016)

T4tomo said:


> Have you considered that all the people you have seen walking strangely in cycling shoes might have actually pooed themselves? The shows could have nothing to do with it.


Different kinda walk in the latter case!


----------



## gavroche (6 Oct 2016)

B and C. Bye bye. My bikes are not compliant either as I removed all front and rear reflectors.


----------



## Dogtrousers (6 Oct 2016)

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


----------



## Drago (6 Oct 2016)

Curiously enough, all my bikes were. manufacturer in 1983.


----------



## steveindenmark (6 Oct 2016)

ianrauk said:


> C
> 
> as it will be a cold day in hell before you ever get pulled up by the police for not having reflectors on your bike.



I was a police office for 8 years. I have never known anyone be pulled for not having reflectors. Ive never seen the subject raised in police discussions and I have never seen it come up as one of the bizzare questions in the Police Review.

Its a non starter, I think.

But I do like those Shimano PD T400 pedals


----------



## ianrauk (6 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> I was a police office for 8 years. I have never known anyone be pulled for not having reflectors. Ive never seen the subject raised in police discussions and I have never seen it come up as one of the bizzare questions in the Police Review.
> 
> Its a non starter, I think.
> 
> But I do like those Shimano PD T400 pedals




I've got pulled up by the Police (because they had eff all to do) a couple of times, first time they wanted to know why I wasn't wearing hi-viz or a plastic hat the second time because of the speed I was doing going down a hill and he stopped me to ask me to be careful as I was breaking the 30mph limit for the road. .Nothing about reflectors and to be honest I don;t think most cops would know the rule anyway.


----------



## e-rider (6 Oct 2016)

RegG said:


> Another option is E: Don't go out in the dark!
> 
> The law regarding reflectors says: "All bicycles made after October 1st 1985 must also be fitted with amber pedal reflectors ( on each pedal) when being ridden on a public road between sunset and sunrise." So if you don't go out after sunset, you're OK!
> 
> As for a bell...... again the law says: "Bikes at the point of sale have to be fitted with bells, but there is no law saying they must be fitted to bicycles no longer on shop display." So, basically, it seems that the bike shop can take the bell off a display bike once it is sold and no longer on display!!


I built my own bike; how does that work?


----------



## Dogtrousers (6 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> But I do like those Shimano PD T400 pedals


They're "Click-R" which I think is an easier release than standard SPDs. I also seem to remember they came with their own different multi release cleats. But I just use my standard SPD shoes and they feel just the same as any other pedals. Maybe slightly easier release, but only slightly.


----------



## mjr (6 Oct 2016)

classic33 said:


> And if the bicycle doesn't come pedals fitted?


Then the seller hasn't broken the related point-of-sale regulation, but it doesn't change duty of the rider who rides it at night.



RegG said:


> The law regarding reflectors says: "All bicycles made after October 1st 1985 must also be fitted with amber pedal reflectors ( on each pedal) when being ridden on a public road between sunset and sunrise." So if you don't go out after sunset, you're OK!


I've put pedals with amber reflectors onto a 1983 bike, mainly because I like the particular pedals. Am I a bad person?


----------



## steveindenmark (6 Oct 2016)

ianrauk said:


> I've got pulled up by the Police (because they had eff all to do) a couple of times, first time they wanted to know why I wasn't wearing hi-viz or a plastic hat the second time because of the speed I was doing going down a hill and he stopped me to ask me to be careful as I was breaking the 30mph limit for the road. .Nothing about reflectors and to be honest I don;t think most cops would know the rule anyway.



I think most cops would know the rule but are satisfied if you are lit up correctly.

With regards to the viz vest and helmet. I would educate him. Sod all to do with him.

Breaking the speed limit on a bike. He should have been pinning a medal on you.


----------



## ianrauk (6 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> I think most cops would know the rule but are satisfied if you are lit up correctly.
> 
> With regards to the viz vest and helmet. I would educate him. Sod all to do with him.
> 
> Breaking the speed limit on a bike. He should have been pinning a medal on you.



The HI-Viz/Plastic Hat thing was a well publicised (well uninformed) London wide Police action due to the amount of people killed in London over a very short period of time in November one year.


----------



## steveindenmark (6 Oct 2016)

ianrauk said:


> The HI-Viz/Plastic Hat thing was a well publicised (well uninformed) London wide Police action due to the amount of people killed in London over a very short period of time in November one year.


Did they stop all lorries on the road that day?


----------



## ianrauk (6 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> Did they stop all lorries on the road that day?




You think I didn't ask similar?


----------



## Banjo (6 Oct 2016)

Drago said:


> Curiously enough, all my bikes were. manufacturer in 1983.


And mine.Even my 2014 Synapse was built prior to 1985.


----------



## Dogtrousers (6 Oct 2016)

And oddly, the only bike I have that _does_ fully comply is actually exempt due to its age.

Edit. Not true. My Brompton complies too.


----------



## jayonabike (6 Oct 2016)

I wouldn't worry about it. The copper that pulled up next to me at the lights last night wasn't. Nor was he worried about the cyclist on the pavement. He did look worried about spilling his costa coffee on his lap though when the lights turned green.


----------



## mjr (6 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> I think most cops would know the rule but are satisfied if you are lit up correctly.


If they know the regulations, why don't their own bikes comply? I think that's the biggest hint that you're very unlikely to be stopped by the police for any lighting or reflector offence as long as you've got some sort of lights. If you ever notice the police bikes getting kitted out legally, then worry


----------



## shouldbeinbed (6 Oct 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> _You_ might be breaking the law, my bike is fully compliant with the regs. </smug>


Likewise


----------



## DCLane (6 Oct 2016)

e-rider said:


> I built my own bike; how does that work?



+1 to that - almost all mine are home-built.


----------



## John the Monkey (6 Oct 2016)

View: https://youtu.be/P0oEt_lrNgU


----------



## Turdus philomelos (6 Oct 2016)

suzeworld said:


> Crikeyy - who has those amber bits on their pedals - .



I do.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (6 Oct 2016)

Turdus philomelos said:


> I do.


I do too 
And if a bike comes with reflectors on wheels, I leave them until they break on their own accord.
Reflectors on seat post I take off, because I'm short, it won't be seen, or I need the space for a light.


----------



## DRM (6 Oct 2016)

But ironically, when you start spending on the more better specced bikes, they come without pedals due to the variety of clipless pedals out there!


----------



## fossyant (6 Oct 2016)

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.


----------



## CanucksTraveller (6 Oct 2016)

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.


----------



## classic33 (6 Oct 2016)

ianrauk said:


> C
> 
> as it will be a *cold day in hell* before you ever get pulled up by the police for not having reflectors on your bike.


Forecast for Friday


----------



## Shut Up Legs (6 Oct 2016)

ianrauk said:


> C
> 
> as it will be a cold day in hell before you ever get pulled up by the police for not having reflectors on your bike.


Or a normal day in Australia.


----------



## steveindenmark (7 Oct 2016)

CanucksTraveller said:


> 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.



I bought a bell for my carbon road bike.

I use 2 lights to the front and 2 to the rear and thought a bell would be more useful than reflectors.

I was right.


----------



## jefmcg (7 Oct 2016)

RegG said:


> As for a bell...... again the law says: "Bikes at the point of sale have to be fitted with bells, but there is no law saying they must be fitted to bicycles no longer on shop display." So, basically, it seems that the bike shop can take the bell off a display bike once it is sold and no longer on display!!


No, it has to be fitted with a bell at the point of sale; that is the moment that the bicycle changes hands. After that, the dealer can't remove the bell, as it is now your bell on your bike. You could give it back to him (or ask him to remove it), but that is your decision as the new owner.


----------



## jefmcg (7 Oct 2016)

NSW (Australia) has introduced fines for not having a bell - $106. 

To get an idea of how serious an offence this is - the fine for going 10km over the speed limit is $109.


----------



## MistaDee (7 Oct 2016)

Many motorists don't see my lights, head torch or high vis.. Im pretty sure reflective pedals does not change everything.


----------



## bikeman66 (7 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> Then the seller hasn't broken the related point-of-sale regulation, but it doesn't change duty of the rider who rides it at night.
> 
> 
> I've put pedals with amber reflectors onto a 1983 bike, mainly because I like the particular pedals. Am I a bad person?


......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!

According to your posts in another thread regarding back lights........this will give motorists early warning there is a "bloody cyclist" ahead, and give them a few precious seconds to prepare insults and to plan how they can cut you up or perhaps even clip you with their wing mirrors most effectively!

The two situations don't go together.


----------



## Ajax Bay (7 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> I use 2 lights to the front and 2 to the rear and thought a bell would be more useful than reflectors.
> I was right.


How do you know, Steve?


MistaDee said:


> Many motorists don't see my lights, head torch or high vis.


How do you know, Mr D?


----------



## Dogtrousers (7 Oct 2016)

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.


----------



## snorri (7 Oct 2016)

As part of a bike refurb. project I decided to relace the broken pedal reflectors and went along to my lbs for replacements. The shop owner quickly found the reflectors but was obviously struggling to find suitable nuts and washers.
It seems he regarded me as a bit of a cheapskate, he told me "Most people just fit new pedals".
Aye right!


----------



## bikeman66 (7 Oct 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## steveindenmark (7 Oct 2016)

Ajax Bay said:


> How do you know, Steve?
> 
> How do you know, Mr D?



Because there are no reflectors on my pedals and I am still here to tell the tale.

People move when I ding my bell on the cycle path.

Conclusive proof I was right. I believe.


----------



## steveindenmark (7 Oct 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> 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.[/QUOTE
> 
> If you could show me an example where this has happened I would consider your point as valid. But it comes under the "What if" syndrome, which is never ending and rarely proven.


----------



## Brand X (7 Oct 2016)

Lozz360 said:


> Following on from the thread on rear lights, I had a read of the current Highway Code. Rule 60 says thus,
> 
> *Rule 60*
> _*At night* your cycle *MUST* have white front and red rear lights lit. It *MUST* also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp._
> ...



I guess that law was written before clipless pedals became a big thing, but being a driver more often than a cyclist, I can say those amber strips on the pedals can be a lifesaver for dopey bicycle riders who are riding in low light wearing army surplus camo jackets; the up and down motion of the reflectors is eye-catching in the dark.
Shoes with reflective strips in the heels maybe?

The red rear reflector IS essential, the same as on a motorcycle: If your rear light fails and you don't notice, the red reflector acts as a back-up.


----------



## I like Skol (7 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> People move when I ding my bell on the cycle path.


[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]


----------



## si_c (7 Oct 2016)

Given my bikes were originally manufactured prior to 1985 (MTB excepted) they are exempt from the pedal reflector requirements, although I have a red rear reflector on each of the mudguards. 

I was initially quite skeptical about how effective the pedal reflectors would be, however I was riding with Mrs C earlier this year, and she has pedal reflectors, and I was astonished as to how attention grabbing they actually are. Far more visible than the red reflector or lights she was using, which I put to the up and down movement of the lights. So much so that I'm seriously considering some PD-T400s for my commuter.


----------



## mjr (7 Oct 2016)

fossyant said:


> 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.



CanucksTraveller said:


> 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.



bikeman66 said:


> ......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.



Dogtrousers said:


> 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.



Brand X said:


> 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 (7 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> 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 (7 Oct 2016)

Brand X said:


> 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.



Brand X said:


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


Dynamo.


Brand X said:


> or the bulbs fail.


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


----------



## mjr (7 Oct 2016)

User said:


> 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 (7 Oct 2016)

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 (7 Oct 2016)

Stevec047 said:


> 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 (7 Oct 2016)

Brand X said:


> *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 (7 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> 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 (7 Oct 2016)

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 (7 Oct 2016)

I like Skol said:


> [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 (7 Oct 2016)

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 (7 Oct 2016)

bikeman66 said:


> 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 (7 Oct 2016)

steverob said:


> 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.



Milkfloat said:


> 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 (7 Oct 2016)

I like Skol said:


> 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 (7 Oct 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> 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.


----------



## mick1836 (7 Oct 2016)

Loss360, Now Prisoner number* VJ487352.*


----------



## Racing roadkill (7 Oct 2016)

classic33 said:


> And if the bicycle doesn't come pedals fitted?


Exactly my defence last week. It worked.


----------



## Supersuperleeds (7 Oct 2016)




----------



## Dogtrousers (7 Oct 2016)

classic33 said:


> 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 (7 Oct 2016)

all bit of a minefield i would say


----------



## Sunny Portrush (7 Oct 2016)

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 (7 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> 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.
> ...


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 (8 Oct 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> 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 (8 Oct 2016)

ianrauk said:


> 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.



http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/cycling-offences-riding-dangerously-recklessly-carelessly-or-inconsiderately said:


> 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 (8 Oct 2016)

freiston said:


> 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 (8 Oct 2016)

Sunny Portrush said:


> 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 (8 Oct 2016)

bikeman66 said:


> 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 (8 Oct 2016)

Poacher said:


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


I was eating two scoops of vanilla ice cream


----------



## mick1836 (8 Oct 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> 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 (9 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> 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.


----------



## classic33 (10 Oct 2016)

Checked, and it does state bicycle. 
How do Recumbents fit into this? I'm sometimes on four wheels & pedal power.

Feet out in front.


----------



## Lozz360 (10 Oct 2016)

mick1836 said:


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


Pre-1985 manufactured. Therefore doesn't need them.


----------



## Sandra6 (10 Oct 2016)

Bit of an assumption to say we're all breaking the law, just because you are. 
You'll be saying we all jump red lights next!! 
I have a reflector on the rear of my bike and on the pedals. When riding at night I use two front, and one rear light. 
Did you also know that the lights you use have to comply a standard - bs6102/3? 
Mine do. Or will, when I get round to putting them back on the bike.


----------



## Elybazza61 (10 Oct 2016)

To be honest I don't think most coppers would give a shoot about pedal reflectors;and those rules really need looking at to reflect 21st century technology.My XLS commuter has reflective tape strategically positioned plus reflective bits on the mudguards plus three rear lights,two rear flashers and on the front three plus one on flash mode;can't really see how two crappy yellow reflectors would make me more conspicuous.


----------



## MontyVeda (10 Oct 2016)

TBH there's certain laws i'll quite happily break, and not having reflectors on my pedals is one of them. If my pedals came with reflectors then I'd comply but since they didn't, I don't. I'll also cycle on the pavement when it suits me and (gosh) jump the occasional red light.

Thanks in advance for all the 'likes'


----------



## jefmcg (10 Oct 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> Exactly my defence last week. It worked.


Can someone else flag this to @Racing roadkill as he has me on ignore: this whole thread is sharing the opinion that no one will every stop you for missing pedal reflectors, yet someone has apparently been threatened with being charged (unlike everyone else in this thread) and managed to argue their way out of it using a misunderstanding of the law.

We need to know the full details to understand the risk of flouting the law in this way.


----------



## jefmcg (10 Oct 2016)

User said:


> I doubt it was a legal defence, as in anywhere on the scale from in court, threaten with charge, spoken to by police officer.



No, I doubt the defence is worth anything. What really interests me is alleging that he was pulled over for missing pedal reflectors. That seems to have happened to no one else, yet he has mentioned it as an aside, rather than a news.


----------



## EnPassant (10 Oct 2016)

I find it hard to conceive of a single police minute being spent tracking down those dastardly illegal malcontents who eschew pedal reflectors when they could stand on any street corner and spot dozens mobile phone users in cars in that same minute for a far greater net safety benefit, yet still don't.


----------



## andrew_s (10 Oct 2016)

classic33 said:


> Checked, and it does state bicycle.
> How do Recumbents fit into this?


Recumbents count, as the law actually refers to "pedal cycles".
In fact, recumbents are illegal at night, because your pedal reflectors have to be visible from the rear (schedule 20, part 1.3)


----------



## classic33 (10 Oct 2016)

andrew_s said:


> Recumbents count, as the law actually refers to "pedal cycles".
> In fact, recumbents are illegal at night, because your pedal reflectors have to be visible from the rear (schedule 20, part 1.3)


Have to have another word with that Road Traffic Officer then. He quite liked the idea of fixing an open cage onto the rear, for the 2 -3 mile trip into town.

They are visible to the rear, I can see them! They're in front of me.


----------



## Ajax Bay (10 Oct 2016)

The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989
Schedule 20
Requirements relating to obligatory pedal retro reflectors (sunset to sunrise)

Two amber coloured reflectors on each pedal, one on the leading edge and one on the trailing edge of each pedal, plainly visible to front and rear respectively, reflectors must meet specification given in British Standards Institution BS 6102: Part 2: 1982, namely “BS 6102/2”. Size of reflecting area: No requirement (size spec reverts to BS 6102/2)

Yacf thread* - *more than any sane person could ever wish for.


----------



## classic33 (10 Oct 2016)

Sunset to Sunrise replaced by "anytime the sun is below the horizon", a few years ago now.


----------



## Ajax Bay (10 Oct 2016)

classic33 said:


> Sunrise to Sunset replaced by "anytime the sun is below the horizon"


Doubt it. Far too low.


----------



## Lozz360 (11 Oct 2016)

classic33 said:


> Sunrise to Sunset replaced by "anytime the sun is below the horizon", a few years ago now.


You mean "Sunset to Sunrise" I think. The difference is like night and day!


----------



## Lozz360 (11 Oct 2016)

Sandra6 said:


> Bit of an assumption to say we're all breaking the law, just because you are.
> You'll be saying we all jump red lights next!!
> I have a reflector on the rear of my bike and on the pedals. When riding at night I use two front, and one rear light.
> Did you also know that the lights you use have to comply a standard - bs6102/3?
> Mine do. Or will, when I get round to putting them back on the bike.


I could have made the title "Possibly some of you maybe breaking the law without actually realising it", but I doubt the thread would have got c3,500 views and still counting. I think a lot of cyclists don't jump red lights. I don't and I bet you don't.


----------



## swansonj (11 Oct 2016)

Before the CTC gave up on both technical expertise and on campaigning for identifiable results, this, making the law on cycle lights more rational, was one of the things Chris Juden (their since-sacked technical officer) was quietly beavering away at. Not, I think, because of a rash of technically illegal recumbent and spd users, and riders using flashing mode when their light also has a steady mode,being prosecuted. But more because this legal farce plays into the failure to take cycling seriously as a legitimate and serious transport mode.


----------



## Tin Pot (11 Oct 2016)

swansonj said:


> Before the CTC gave up on both technical expertise and on campaigning for identifiable results, this, making the law on cycle lights more rational, was one of the things Chris Juden (their since-sacked technical officer) was quietly beavering away at. Not, I think, because of a rash of technically illegal recumbent and spd users, and riders using flashing mode when their light also has a steady mode,being prosecuted. But more because this legal farce plays into the failure to take cycling seriously as a legitimate and serious transport mode.



And, I suspect, because every time a trucker murders a cyclist the first question the police ask is if the woman was wearing a short skirt I mean, cyclist was wearing a helmet and hi viz.


----------



## classic33 (11 Oct 2016)

Lozz360 said:


> You mean "Sunset to Sunrise" I think. The difference is like night and day!


See edited post.


----------



## Leaway2 (11 Oct 2016)

From Wiki

In the United Kingdom, there is a legally enforced *lighting-up time*, defined as from one half-hour after sunset to one half-hour before sunrise, during which all motor vehicles on unlit public roads (except if parked) must use their headlights.


----------



## benb (11 Oct 2016)

Leaway2 said:


> From Wiki
> 
> In the United Kingdom, there is a legally enforced *lighting-up time*, defined as from one half-hour after sunset to one half-hour before sunrise, during which all motor vehicles on unlit public roads (except if parked) must use their headlights.



So is it legal to be unlit (whether in a car or pedal cycle) if you're on a lit road?


----------



## slowmotion (11 Oct 2016)

classic33 said:


> Sunset to Sunrise replaced by "anytime the sun is below the horizon", a few years ago now.


{Useless fact alert}

Sunset is defined as being the time when the upper edge of the sun is seen to hit the horizon, but actually the sun is already a diameter below the horizon at that time but appears higher due to atmospheric refraction.


----------



## Leaway2 (11 Oct 2016)

benb said:


> So is it legal to be unlit (whether in a car or pedal cycle) if you're on a lit road?


No mention of pedal cycles. It is probably defined somewhere else, but that is the definition of lighting up time.


----------



## classic33 (11 Oct 2016)

slowmotion said:


> {Useless fact alert}
> 
> Sunset is defined as being the time when the upper edge of the sun is seen to hit the horizon, but actually the sun is already a diameter below the horizon at that time but appears higher due to atmospheric refraction.


And if you happen to be in a valley at the time?


----------



## Shut Up Legs (11 Oct 2016)

Leaway2 said:


> From Wiki
> 
> In the United Kingdom, there is a legally enforced *lighting-up time*, defined as from one half-hour after sunset to one half-hour before sunrise, during which all motor vehicles on unlit public roads (except if parked) must use their headlights.


Also known as the civil twilight times.


----------



## hatler (11 Oct 2016)

I'm sure I read somewhere that bikes had to be lit between sunset and sunrise, but that motor vehicles only needed to be lit during 'lighting-up time', which means that bikes have to be lit for an hour longer than motors.


----------



## classic33 (11 Oct 2016)

hatler said:


> I'm sure I read somewhere that bikes had to be lit between sunset and sunrise, but that motor vehicles only needed to be lit during 'lighting-up time', which means that bikes have to be lit for an hour longer than motors.


Not if you live in the valleys though!


----------



## Ajax Bay (12 Oct 2016)

hatler said:


> bikes had to be lit between sunset and sunrise, but that motor vehicles only needed to be lit during 'lighting-up time', which means that bikes have to be lit for an hour longer than motors.


This ^^^^^^^. Lighting-up time definition is {edit after Adrian's post below] WAS for motor vehicles. Pedal cycles require displayed lights (and reflectors) sunset to sunrise (or whatever @classic33 said the new term was (had horizon in it)).


----------



## hatler (12 Oct 2016)

Cool ! It's reassuring to see that anomalies like this are being eliminated, albeit slowly.


----------



## suzeworld (16 Oct 2016)

jefmcg said:


> No, it has to be fitted with a bell at the point of sale; that is the moment that the bicycle changes hands. After that, the dealer can't remove the bell, as it is now your bell on your bike. You could give it back to him (or ask him to remove it), but that is your decision as the new owner.



I have never been given a bell with a new bike, and neither has my missis, we have bought at least 9 bikes over the past few years .. most of them new from local shops !


----------

