# Flashing cycle lights???



## simongrant (16 Oct 2009)

Hi all,
This may just be me and my eye's but when there is another cyclist oncoming with front light flashing i find it quite difficult to gauge there position in particular distance and it seems the brighter the light the harder it is.

Anyone else find this or should i have gone to specsavers??

Simon


----------



## ed_o_brain (16 Oct 2009)

It's only a problem for me when the cyclist is some way off, usually too far away for me to even know that they are there.


----------



## GrasB (16 Oct 2009)

No, it's not just you. Only having one front or rear light set to flashing light is a menace. It takes far longer for you to work out the 3 principle components of the cyclists trajectory (speed, direction & distance) you need to know if you want to make a proper judgement. It doesn't need much, a cheap SMART 3 LED secondary, & the problem is solved.

I've had a potential incident where I thought a cyclist was a moped the other side of some trees, the lights were bright enough, it was only when I started to turn & my lights caught the front wheel did I realise it was a cyclist, it didn't help that the cyclist was in pure black head to toe.


----------



## J4CKO (16 Oct 2009)

I have three rears, generally only put two on but it does kind of make sense as the regular is too regular, like the sirens they have now that are purposefully dischordant and change patterns to help drivers pinpoint where the sound is coming from having light flashing at different speeds/patterns identifies you as a cyclist (as opposed to a bigger vehicle behind trees like was mentioned) and stops to a certain extent drivers making assumptions about speed and trajectory as it doesnt fit a pattern.

I had kind of worked this one out for myself with the above reasoning, but I would like to hear from someone who actually knows what they are talking about rather than slightly sounding like it might be correct 

Need to do something about the front if that is the case.

This kind of stuff, once there is a consensus, should be added to the sticky "Helpful tips and avoiding a messy death" section for new cyclists I mentioned a while back.


----------



## MartinC (16 Oct 2009)

Flashing lights are good for attracting attention but it's hard to judge the distance of a flashing light. Best bet is to use both flashing and steady lights on your bike.


----------



## oxford_guy (16 Oct 2009)

Personally I hate flashing lights on bikes full stop, especially on the front, where I think its really disorientating for drivers, though I guess having an auxiliary flashing rear light is okay for getting noticed.


----------



## Davidc (16 Oct 2009)

Well known issue, and you're certainly not alone.

I run with one steady and one flashing at both the front and back at night, and more often than not one flashing at the back in daylight. I think most drivers now understand that flashing = cyclist.

I also wear reflective stuff at night and have plenty of reflectives on the bike (but the wheel reflectors supplied with bikes/ wheels come off straight away - they're dangerous - see other threads).


----------



## semislickstick (16 Oct 2009)

Yeah, when people use them on flash on cycle lanes, you are passing closely is very disorientating and on the road where there is no street lighting all you see is the flash, one chap I pass on country 60mph roads only has very bright flashing lights (one on his head, one on the bike) I feel like vomiting and can't focus on the road. I wonder how he can make out where he is going?
I think newer LED lights are getting too powerful for flash. They are good for attracting attention, but there is no need to over do it!


----------



## siadwell (16 Oct 2009)

Flashing lights are, IMO, an important part of a cyclist's defences at night or in low visibility conditions, as they shout "bike!" more than perhaps anything else. 

However, in the absence of any other visual clues, such as a solid light or retro-reflectives, a flashing light is much more difficult to track.

Solid lights alone can also be problematic, as drivers are used to seeing motor vehicle lights, which are roughly the same size and brightness. So drivers tend to assume that the larger and brighter a light source, the closer it is. As cycle lights tend to be smaller and less bright, they are perceived to be closer away than they actually are.

I found this research done by Honda into motorcyclist conspicuity (http://world.honda.com/ASV/motorcycle/). This found that for some reason drivers found it much easier to judge speed and distance of motorbikes where there were additional lights separated _vertically_. It also found that front lights configured to form a "face" made motorbikes more noticable to drivers.

Now, if I can just wire the Christmas tree lights and loop them from the handlebars in a big friendly smile...


----------



## BentMikey (16 Oct 2009)

You guys would just hate me so much if you saw me riding at night. An Exposure MaxxD on flash mode is awesomely attention getting.


----------



## BigSteev (16 Oct 2009)

BentMikey said:


> You guys would just hate me so much if you saw me riding at night.



Only at night?


----------



## Davidc (16 Oct 2009)

siadwell said:


> Now, if I can just wire the Christmas tree lights and loop them from the handlebars in a big friendly smile...



last year there was a man round here who had fixed a plastic LED illuminated Christmas tree on the back of his bike rack. Looked crazy.


----------



## BentMikey (16 Oct 2009)

BigSteev said:


> Only at night?




Oh yeah! I forgot I usually put it on flash in the daytime when I have a lot of filtering to do. The motons scatter out the way, it's lovely.

Another fav is putting the light on constant a km or so before a speed camera like the one on Kentish Way, and then as I get level with the light putting it on flash. You can just see the motons getting stressed about the flashes.


----------



## Davidc (16 Oct 2009)

BentMikey said:


> as I get level with the light putting it on flash. You can just see the motons getting stressed about the flashes.


----------



## gaz (16 Oct 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Another fav is putting the light on constant a km or so before a speed camera like the one on Kentish Way, and then as I get level with the light putting it on flash. You can just see the motons getting stressed about the flashes.



ROFLMAO, that is awesome!

___


I personally can't stand flashing lights used as main ones. as many people have said it's hard to judge the speed that they are coming at you. I also find that often they are too bright and end up blinding me.

I have two lights at the front, and two at the back, both the main lights are on consitnatly and my two smaller lights have a rotational flash on.


----------



## garrilla (16 Oct 2009)

On the front I have a single EL5300 on constant. I wear suffiecient hi-viz that oncoming traffic should see me. I don't cycle on any paths where I would have to worry about oncoming cyclists. 

On the rear I have a LD1100, which has two banks of 5-leds so I have the lower bank on constant and the other on flash. Then I also have two fibre-flares on the stays, on constant, alathough these are new and have replaced two LD130S on constant on the stays. 

I also have the 4 x Crane hi-viv straps with red LEDs, one for each ankle and upper arm. Although to be honst, I rarely turn them on, but do so if I'm concerned enoug.


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (16 Oct 2009)

I use two front lights and two rears. I was worried that a pair of front lights (quite) close together would look to a moton like a car a long way away, rather than a close-up bike .. especially to a moton looking out through a letterbox wiped in their misted up / ice encrusted windows. Basically the issue siadwell mentioned.

Also aware that flashing lights are harder to tell speed from, I just have one flash and one on steady .. seems to work for me. And seems quite a common approach, from what I can make out from other responeses on this thread.

At the back, one of the Cateye TL whatevers on the seatpost (on steady) and a cheapy Tesco 3-LED job (flashing) which attaches neatly to the back of my crash helmet seems to get me noticed.

I also figured it's good to have two lights front and rear in case one should fail for whatever reason.


----------



## J4CKO (16 Oct 2009)

Davidc said:


> last year there was a man round here who had fixed a plastic LED illuminated Christmas tree on the back of his bike rack. Looked crazy.



Probably not as daft as it sounds, may serve to humanise how he looks to drivers, suggests a sense of humour and a bit of fun, possibly mentally unstable 

Until some right on local Council employee, usually white spots it and stops him based on it being offensive to trees or something.


----------



## iacula (16 Oct 2009)

There seems to be a consensus that a flashing light , at least on it's own, makes it harder for approaching vehicles to judge your and distance & speed. The assumption is that this is bad, but may it also be safer? Will not other road users give you a wider berth when passing you because they are not quite sure where you are?

I am regularly overtaken far to closely and quickly by motorists who are too confident about where I am, fortuneatly to date they have been right, but it scares the sh*t out of me! 

I'd rather the odd driver is disorintated and therefore slows down than that I'm dead.


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (16 Oct 2009)

iacula said:


> There seems to be a consensus that a flashing light , at least on it's own, makes it harder for approaching vehicles to judge your and distance & speed. The assumption is that this is bad, but may it also be safer? *Will not other road users give you a wider berth when passing you because they are not quite sure where you are?*
> 
> I am regularly overtaken far to closely and quickly by motorists who are too confident about where I am, fortuneatly to date they have been right, but it scares the sh*t out of me!
> 
> I'd rather the odd driver is disorintated and therefore slows down than that I'm dead.


My initial reaction to the bit in bold was "you'll be b****y lucky!!" but then I thought a bit more, and read the rest of your post, and it's kind of the approach I take to lighting and reflectives in the winter: I try to make motons have to pause and think a bit by wondering exactly what it is they're dealing with. At least that way I've got their attention ..


----------



## jonny jeez (16 Oct 2009)

BigSteev said:


> Only at night?



Ouch......Mikey, you walked into that one!!


----------



## jonny jeez (16 Oct 2009)

Simon, really good thread, I've never really stopped to think about it, just hit the factory setting and set off.

This thread, including the different viewpoints has really opened my eyes. I had no idea about the distance judgement issue (which now seems to make perfect sense).

I'm going to have to rethink my lighting arrangement this weekend.


Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## GrasB (16 Oct 2009)

iacula said:


> There seems to be a consensus that a flashing light , at least on it's own, makes it harder for approaching vehicles to judge your and distance & speed. *The assumption is that this is bad, but may it also be safer? Will not other road users give you a wider berth when passing you because they are not quite sure where you are?*
> 
> I am regularly overtaken far to closely and quickly by motorists who are too confident about where I am, fortuneatly to date they have been right, but it scares the sh*t out of me!
> 
> *I'd rather the odd driver is disorintated and therefore slows down than that I'm dead.*


Well one problem is you're working in a fail dangerous scenario. You're relying on the normal reaction of "_I duno what's going on I'll be more cautious_", not everyone follows that. Some time ago the highways agency/local council put up some 6' fencing on the approach to A505/M11 roundabout at Duxford, most drivers slowed down because they couldn't see, however there was a significant minority of drivers who charged down there with complete disregard for the fact they couldn't see traffic on the roundabout it's self. As a result I saw some rather nasty pieces of braking from cars as suddenly a car doing high speed would come into view. Now I'm sure there was never an accident there, as most people drove sensibly, but what would have happened if you had 2 people driving quickly & arrive at just the wrong time?

The other big problem is some times you fool the other road user into thinking that one scenario is going on but actually it's something different*. Every time you cause confusion on the road you *increase* thinking times & typically reaction times also increase as people are having to do more thinking just to make normal progress. Another thing is why have you got the right to deprive other road users of my attention while I spend far longer working out where you are, the direction you're travelling in & your speed? 

Yes flashing lights are nice, they grab attention & get you noticed but please, for your & other road users *safety* add a solid light into the mix.

BM: I have no problem with a flashing light as long as there's a second solid light source. I don't even care _which_ light is flashing, primary or backup, as long as there's a constant light to judge speed, distance & direction by.

*eg. me missing that cyclist, he was riding on the wrong side of the road so I thought he was on the other side of the trees as I couldn't work out exactly where he was. Yes I was cautious & just stopped part way across the road letting him through but had I pulled out quickly I could have easily taken the guy out before I knew what had happened.


----------



## iacula (16 Oct 2009)

Fair comment GrasB, I do actually follow your advice one solid and two flashing rear lights, one of the flashing lights hanging off my off side pannier bag. A configuration I tried for the first time this morning, anything to look unusual.... I was sure that cars that had the time and space gave me even more room. As is ever the case though, if they'd pulled out and had to overtake quickly, my safety was of secondary importance to their getting to work on time!


----------



## Hacienda71 (16 Oct 2009)

I don't know if the law has changed but there was definitely a view when LED bike lights came out a few years ago that flashing lights on their own where not legal and had to be accompanied with a constant when it was dark. This may well be heresay but judging by peoples posts seems sensible anyway.


----------



## BentMikey (16 Oct 2009)

I'm with iacula's view and logic.


----------



## garrilla (16 Oct 2009)

*#########################*
*Warning *
*- Seriously and dangerously *
*outdated information*
*- now completely wrong.*
*##########################*

The Law: *The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989* 

The Section: *Lamps to show a steady light*

*Lamps to show a steady light*
*13.*—(1) Save as provided in paragraph (2), no vehicle shall be fitted with a lamp which automatically emits a flashing light.

(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply in respect of-


(a) a direction indicator;
( a headlamp fitted to an emergency vehicle;
(c) a warning beacon or special warning lamp;
(d) a lamp or illuminated sign fitted to a vehicle used for police purposes;
(e) a green warning lamp used as an anti-lock brake indicator; or
(f) lamps forming part of a traffic sign.
*##########################*
*The correct regs are here*
*##########################*
These regs were updated in 2005 to make flashing lights on bikes legal.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20052559.htm


----------



## BentMikey (16 Oct 2009)

You've missed something Garilla, which makes your point wrong.


----------



## BentMikey (16 Oct 2009)

jonny jeez said:


> Ouch......Mikey, you walked into that one!!



I don't mind, it's because he's jealous that I'm faster than him.


----------



## UKPhil (16 Oct 2009)

I quite like the moving lights- noticable but not as blinding as a flash. Knight-Rider style.


----------



## Davidc (16 Oct 2009)

garrilla said:


> The Law: *The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989*
> 
> The Section: *Lamps to show a steady light*



*Warning - Seriously and dangerously outdated information - now completely wrong.*

The full current legal requirement is summarised here

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4071

The detail of the flashing lights ammendment is here

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20052559.htm


----------



## garrilla (16 Oct 2009)

Davidc said:


> *Warning - Seriously and dangerously outdated information - now completely wrong.*
> 
> The full legal requirement is here
> 
> http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4071



Great. An outdated goverment website. Who'da thunk it?


----------



## siadwell (16 Oct 2009)

garrilla said:


> The Law: *The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989*



These regs were updated in 2005 to make flashing lights on bikes legal.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20052559.htm

If you google "lighting regs", the 1989 version is the first hit. The amendments don't come up until the third page of results!


----------



## siadwell (16 Oct 2009)

garrilla said:


> Great. An outdated goverment website. Who'da thunk it?



To be fair, the amendments amend the existing regs, and the link you followed is a direct one to that document, so the website isn't out of date. They just make it very difficult to find the info you need.

The Highway Code has this rule, but a little more detail or direct links wouldn't go amis.*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. 
*[Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24)]*

EDIT: Actually, you are quite right, as the HC website has a direct link to the outdated regs with respect to this RVLR, and no mention of the amendments. I only knew because I'd read it on the CTC website.​


----------



## garrilla (16 Oct 2009)

BentMikey said:


> You've missed something Garilla, which makes your point wrong.




I wasn't making a point, I was merely relaying what the regulations said. Anyway, I'm really grateful that you were willing to point out the error instead of scoring points.


----------



## Davidc (16 Oct 2009)

garrilla said:


> Great. An outdated goverment website. Who'da thunk it?




Not your fault G. Typically for government what they've done is to ammend a set of regs with a set of ammendments which in part make the original illegal!

If Whitehall had a sigle brain cell somewhere in its length they'd simply publish a new and correct set of regulations when there's a significant change in the content.

(Don't believe it's just transport that suffers from this!)


----------



## PK99 (16 Oct 2009)

simongrant said:


> Hi all,
> This may just be me and my eye's but when there is another cyclist oncoming with front light flashing i find it quite difficult to gauge there position in particular distance and it seems the brighter the light the harder it is.
> 
> Anyone else find this or should i have gone to specsavers??
> ...




I agree.

A constant light indicates position and direction, a flashing light shows position but not direction until the next flash.

The worst one i saw was recently in Phlegm.

VERY RAPID Flash-flash-flash-flash-flash......LONG PAUSE.
Where has the damn thing gone?
VERY RAPID Flash-flash-flash-flash-flash......LONG PAUSE.
Repeat.


----------



## Davidc (16 Oct 2009)

PK99 said:


> I agree.
> 
> A constant light indicates position and direction, a flashing light shows position but not direction until the next flash.
> 
> ...



And that is quite clearly not a legal light under any of the rules!


----------



## Davidc (16 Oct 2009)

Trouble is with all this that if there's an accident and you're outside the legal niceities then some smart ars'd barrister on the other side will try to claim you were responsible for it.


----------



## BentMikey (16 Oct 2009)

garrilla said:


> I wasn't making a point, I was merely relaying what the regulations said. Anyway, I'm really grateful that you were willing to point out the error instead of scoring points.



Why would you assume I was trying to score points? My reason for not posting the direct link to flashing light info is that I hoped it would cause you to think and remember the issue.


----------



## Theseus (16 Oct 2009)

siadwell said:


> *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.
> *[Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24)]*​



How the feck to you fit reflectors to uncaged SPD's?


----------



## BentMikey (16 Oct 2009)

And why on a recumbent?

Just like having no pedal reflectors (Look Deltas), my lights aren't legal ones either.


----------



## siadwell (16 Oct 2009)

Touche said:


> How the feck to you fit reflectors to uncaged SPD's?



Ah, you have discovered one of the anomalies in the regs that did not get changed, despite lobbying from the CTC. This also applies to 'bents.


----------



## oxford_guy (16 Oct 2009)

I'm not very good at reading legal-ise - does it imply that you can have bright flashing *front* lights? I hope not...


----------



## iacula (16 Oct 2009)

It doesn't seem to mind front flashers, I use them myself as well as a steady front light.


----------



## J4CKO (16 Oct 2009)

Aside from the legality and whatever, I am going to make sure I run both a flasher and a solid light at both ends based on what is coming out of this thread, if nothing else it is hedging your bets on compared to either all flashing or all solid.

If anyone is stuck for something to do, make a video for Youtube with the different approaches and we can judge for ourselves, BM you like cameras and stuff do you not ?


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (16 Oct 2009)

RichK said:


> At the bottom of this page from DoT: http://webarchive.nationalarchives....awbal/surveycomplianceandqualityim1127?page=2


I've got rat traps on my commuter, so only one reflector per pedal. I have stuck some reflective tape on the front of the traps. I'd hope that, plus all the reflectives stuck elsewhere on the bike / accessories / me, the three lights at the front and the two at the back would keep me safe from prosecution, if not from a moton.

[that's not to say I assume they've seen me, of course]


----------



## siadwell (16 Oct 2009)

Good find RichK. I shall now be able to sleep well at night with an untroubled conscience.

Now if they'd only put all this stuff in easy-to-understand language, in one place...


----------



## siadwell (16 Oct 2009)

Davidc said:


> Trouble is with all this that if there's an accident and you're outside the legal niceities then some smart ars'd barrister on the other side will try to claim you were responsible for it.



This article by a cycling lawyer is interesting. Of course it is just one (qualified) person's opinion and I'd like to know if "contributory negligence" has ever been used in court.*Illegality as contributory negligence*

The main concern about the use of flashing lights appears to be the perception that a clever barrister in a court case involving a cyclist might use a breach of the regulations to argue for a decision adverse to the cyclist. It is of course true that failure to observe the provisions of the Highway Code is usually prima facie evidence of negligence. Equally, failure to comply with the Regulations is a matter to be taken into account in deciding issues of liability. 

A comparison can be made with seat belts. It is quite clear that damages will be reduced considerably as a result of a claimant’s contributory negligence in failing to wear a seat belt. However, that is because the basis of the legal requirement to fit and wear seatbelts is that they preserve lives and improve safety. The basis of the prohibition of flashing lights is unlikely to be that they reduce a bicycle’s visibility. Rather it is to ensure that normal vehicles are not confused with emergency vehicles. Accordingly, I suggest that such an argument should receive short shrift. 

http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-lighting​


----------



## Davidc (16 Oct 2009)

siadwell said:


> This article by a cycling lawyer is interesting. Of course it is just one (qualified) person's opinion and I'd like to know if "contributory negligence" has ever been used in court.



Although that must predate the current rules it's what I meant. I suspect that even something like not having a full set of 4 pedal reflectors might get picked on by an opposing barrister. We've already seen some bizarre judgements involving helmets.

Like you I'd be interested to know if there have been any relevant examples in court involving lighting and relectors.


----------



## andyfromotley (16 Oct 2009)

i like flashing at the rear i have two and am getting another set this weekend. Like others i clip on flashing to rear of helmet. I do notice that i get a very wide berh cycling home on an evening. Would agree that i flashing and one constant on the front is best mix. BUT if i was forced to choose i would go for flashing as it certainly gets the attention.

andy


----------



## ron4322 (16 Oct 2009)

How about fitting reflectors to your shoes, and if it ever came to court, you could argue that the shoe is an integral part of the pedal - which it surely is in the case of a clipless system.


----------



## ron4322 (16 Oct 2009)

I have a BS compliant continuous LED light at the rear, centrally mounted on the rack, plus a flashing LED on the offside seat stay.

At the front I have 2 LEDs, one flashing and one fixed. These are both "to be seen" lights as most of my riding is on lit roads. I also have an LED torch for if I ever need to see. None of my front lights are BS compliant - I keep looking, but haven't found a replacement yet.


----------



## Davidc (16 Oct 2009)

ron4322 said:


> I have a BS compliant continuous LED light at the rear, centrally mounted on the rack, plus a flashing LED on the offside seat stay.
> 
> At the front I have 2 LEDs, one flashing and one fixed. These are both "to be seen" lights as most of my riding is on lit roads. I also have an LED torch for if I ever need to see. None of my front lights are BS compliant - I keep looking, but haven't found a replacement yet.



All of mine (front and rear) have German approval numbers, which being EU also comply with our law.


----------



## hackbike 666 (16 Oct 2009)

I have flashing and steady on both front and rear...sometimes I have 4 flashing on my bag on the rear and one steady red on the bike.One Flashing front and one steady.

Don't really have too much of a problem with other cyclists unless they have no lights,then they can be hard to see.

I noticed as a ped tonight I had trouble judging a cars speed and he had his headlights on.

Plus Hi-Viz on my bag and me.


----------



## fossyant (16 Oct 2009)

All I will say, use good steady front and rears, backed up with flashy lights as these identify you as a pedal bike......

The bigger/nastier front lights you use, makes the motorist think you are a motorbike, and it works........


----------



## addictfreak (16 Oct 2009)

Was never really a fan of flashing lights, but my mate had some knog gekko lights last week and they were very effective.

So i have just put my order in to wiggle, I'll be out flashing later this week


----------



## Davidc (16 Oct 2009)

I'd realised people on CC were a funny bunch - but not that they were a load of flashers.......


----------



## GrasB (16 Oct 2009)

The problem with flashing lights is more when there's not a secondary reference to get information from. This might be because the person is out of light range for retroactive materials to work or they're just relying on flashing lights. If they're wearing high-viz clothing & there's some light about not a problem but occasionally there is a problem.


----------



## simongrant (16 Oct 2009)

Hey all, thanks for all the great contributions,some really good bits on info in there.
When i started the thread i was expecting a couple of replies telling me the visit the eye doctor lol.The reason i asked the question was there is a commuter passes me every few nights (10pm+)and the light is so bright i have no problem seeing it,but its all i see,and like others have said i become disorietated by it and i think it must have a magnifying lens because from a distance the light looks really really large but as he passes the actual light is only very small.

Again thanks for all the great responses

Simon


----------



## ed_o_brain (17 Oct 2009)

In this here city streets adorned with all manner of street lighting, I think flashing lights are fine. They say 'I'm here' and then other road user can properly observe the the cyclist and assess speed and direction. 

Where there is street lighting or other sources of light, I find it easy to see unlit cyclists, cars, pedestrians and cyclists.

Further out in the country where it is properly dark and all that can be observed is the flashing light, not what it is attached to, I'd agree that steady lights will help matters.

For urban twilight riding I believe flashing lights to better, for the sole reason other road users should look properly. If exclusive use of flashing lights makes other road users have to slow down in order to observe properly, then all the better.


----------



## hackbike 666 (17 Oct 2009)

Flashing lights tend to say "I am a cyclist".I don't find this a problem with motons and I find it helpful when I am a ped.


----------



## ron4322 (17 Oct 2009)

Davidc said:


> All of mine (front and rear) have German approval numbers, which being EU also comply with our law.



Does anyone know the relevant German standards to look for?


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Oct 2009)

BentMikey said:


> You guys would just hate me so much if you saw me riding at night. An Exposure MaxxD on flash mode is awesomely attention getting.



I had an incident with a taxi who pulled out at a junction.... MaxxD on full power illuminatingthe side of his vehicle as I stopped!

Couldn't you see me?

"I thought you were a motorcycle!"

"So you thought I was a big fast vehicle and stilled pulled out?"

"Well Motorcycles have good brakes, and wouldn't have had a poblem stopping!"


Which really to me illustrates the problem. No matter how festooned you are with lights, reflectives and the likes - unless the other vehicle responds appropriately it is all a waste of time, effort and money.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Oct 2009)

Funnily enough I had a scan error chav on Thursday night, and another one last night - junction in the maze near Victoria, and he just pulled across the road without looking, his giveway.

I like the light, but I don't assume it'll make everyone stop. It's nice that it gets most people to, though.


----------



## J4CKO (18 Oct 2009)

I had an old lady pull out on me the other day, because she was looking into bright sunlight and had massive specs on, perhaps someone could invent something that draws light away for daytime so myopic old ladies can see us.

Also, the lights thing has been debated quite a lot, haven't see anything regarding placement, I tend to put mine slightly right of centre, theory being that when dark, car drivers assume that it is on your centreline and pass accordingly, a little bit to the right would buy a few inches I think.


----------



## PK99 (18 Oct 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> I had an incident with a taxi who pulled out at a junction.... MaxxD on full power illuminatingthe side of his vehicle as I stopped!
> 
> Couldn't you see me?
> 
> ...




Mebbee, with your bright small lights looked like a motorbike but much further away?


----------



## purplepolly (18 Oct 2009)

J4CKO said:


> I had an old lady pull out on me the other day, because she was looking into bright sunlight and had massive specs on, perhaps someone could invent something that draws light away for daytime so myopic old ladies can see us.



sunglasses? 

proper sunglasses that take the glare off the road and increase contrast?

Problem is that generally only cyclists have the brains to use such items and then non-cyclists make fun of us for our funny wrap-around shades. They of course prefer to drive around in a state of semi blindness caused by 'unexpected' bright sun.


----------



## GrasB (18 Oct 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> I had an incident with a taxi who pulled out at a junction.... MaxxD on full power illuminatingthe side of his vehicle as I stopped!
> 
> Couldn't you see me?
> 
> ...


ARRGGSSS!!!! Yes their brakes are good, better than most car brakes, however how do you know the rider can use them properly & have you actually looked at the road surface?


----------



## HJ (18 Oct 2009)

I just thought I would throw in a couple of points.

The main reason for bike lights flashing in the first place is because they (used) to be under powered and where easily lost among all the other light sources in the urban environment, by making them flash the lights became more visible. Modern bright LED lights (say above 200 lumens) shouldn't be used on flashing mode at night, they are bright enough to stand out by them selves. Although the flashing mode can be useful in daylight to increase visibility.

The other important thing to be aware of it that there are many drivers out there who have not had their eyesight tested since they took their drive test and shouldn't be on the road because their eyesight has since deteriorated. At night things are even worse as there is no requirement for night vision to be tested to _get_ a driving licence and there are drivers out there who have very poor night vision but carry on driving regardless...

It would be safer for _all_ if people were required to have a full eye test before getting a licence and then required to retake both eye and driving tests on a regular basis, say 5 or 10 years.


----------



## purplepolly (18 Oct 2009)

HJ said:


> It would be safer for _all_ if people were required to have a full eye test before getting a licence and then required to retake both eye and driving tests on a regular basis, say 5 or 10 years.



Which would provoke nationwide wails of protest from people who completely ignore the fact that anyone with half a ounce of common sense would be having their eyes tested regularly anyway. Who would want to pemanently loose part, or most like my greataunt, of their vision to glaucoma for the sake of a £15 eyetest?


----------



## thomas (18 Oct 2009)

Not really read everything...but I think, technically, my powerful front light is, legally, the same as riding without a front light...unless, I use a less powerful light along side it.

Now, would I rather have a less powerful light legally...or a light which, from the distance looks like a powerful motorbike light? 

It's only because bicycle light laws are so badly written. And, if I am commuting over Christmas I will probably attach a light to my forks, if I can.


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Oct 2009)

I think most of us who use bright lights also use "bobby dodgers" 

Personally all my bikes have a pair of "cheap as chips" lights which are RVLR compliand, and only use the Dinotte and MaxxD to back up these lights.

They are NOT my main lighting system


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Oct 2009)

A second problem is that motorcycle and car lights have engineered refectors so that the bottom half ofthe beam illuminates, butthe upper half is damped, effectively makingthe beam a semicircular design.

Cycle lights do not yet have this and are full circular beams which can cause issues. It is also whuy only a numpty will mistake the bikelights for moped /motorcycle lights.


----------



## HJ (18 Oct 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> I think most of us who use bright lights also use "bobby dodgers"
> 
> Personally all my bikes have a pair of "cheap as chips" lights which are RVLR compliand, and only use the Dinotte and MaxxD to back up these lights.
> 
> They are NOT my main lighting system


----------



## purplepolly (18 Oct 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> I think most of us who use bright lights also use "bobby dodgers"



I'm a bit slow so it took me a while to work that out - like my front dynamo and fixed rear rack light, BS compliant but useless.


----------



## ACS (18 Oct 2009)

Mr Plod is not going to stop anyone who is lit up like a Christmas tree on steroids and in this case I doubt he a slightest interest in the BS specifications of your lights or pedal reflectors.

He is very interested in whether you pose a danger to other road users and yourself by failing to pay due heed to the law. The rule of the reasonable man must have influence in this matter, no one has ever ended up in court for exceeding the legal requirement.


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Oct 2009)

purplepolly said:


> I'm a bit slow so it took me a while to work that out - like my front dynamo and fixed rear rack light, BS compliant but useless.



This is even more complex.....

The Road Vehicle Lighting regulations gave details of the requirements of lights.

This states that your lights must comply with BS6102/3, and hence be "Kite marked"

Even sillier was the Cateye AU1000 where the light body was stamped with BS6102/3, but it only applied to the reflector - the light portion was illegal!

Luckily for us in 2005 the Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 2559:The Road Vehicles Lighting (Amendment) Regulations 2005 allowed flashing lights.... this does not meet BS6102/3 as the standard does not cover flashing lights (and by definition LEDs) Cateye for instance sold their lights as "RVLR" compliant - they have not been submitted for BS compliance, and hence although they absolutely meet the requirements of the regulations, they are still (technically) allowable as the RVLR supercedes the BS6102/3


----------



## ron4322 (18 Oct 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> I think most of us who use bright lights also use "bobby dodgers"
> 
> Personally all my bikes have a pair of "cheap as chips" lights which are RVLR compliand, and only use the Dinotte and MaxxD to back up these lights.
> 
> They are NOT my main lighting system



The only legal (ie BS6102/3 and therefore "approved") front light I own takes 4 AA batteries, which it eats at a frightening rate, and which is soon suitably dim. It is also very fiddly to change the batteries. It came in a set with a 6102/3 rear led light which is fine and which I use. Because of the battery problem, there is no point in even fitting the front light. Also, I would probably lose half of the components if I tried to change the batteries when on the road at night, as it is so fiddly. I would be happy to fit a "legal but useless" front light along with a christmas tree's worth of flashing other unapproved lights, provided that the light didn't need a battery change every couple of days.

From reading up on some of the confusing legislation, as I understand it, the only 6102/3 "approved" led lights are on/off only, ie no flashing mode. (My led rear light is like this). BS6102/3 does not allow flashing lights.

Flashing lights alone would be legal, although not to 6102/3, provided they don't have a steady light mode. If they have a steady light mode, then they must comply with BS6102/3, which they don't/can't.

In my case I only need "to be seen" lights, but would like to be legal.

I notice some of the front and rear led sets on the market are marked something like "compliant with BS6102/3 when used in steady mode". These are "compliant", but not "approved" - if they were approved, then they would be stamped BS6102/3. So, if I were in court a "compliant" light could be no better than none at all.

I wonder if a way around this would be a flashing led light which DID NOT HAVE A STEADY MODE, and therefore would not need to be to BS6102/3, but would still be "approved". This would have the 100 or so hours of battery life of a typical led and therefore be cheap to run, and be augmented by other unapproved but visible lights.

What "Bobby Dodger" front lights do people use?

Edit - I'm a very slow typist so did not see Cunobelin's last post.


----------



## ron4322 (18 Oct 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> This is even more complex.....
> 
> The Road Vehicle Lighting regulations gave details of the requirements of lights.
> 
> ...



I'm getting more confused. My led rear light is stamped with "BS6102/3" (though no little kite mark) which I took to mean it met BS6102/3 - but as it is a led light, I presume it cannot be after all. (EDit - maybe a similar issue to the one you mention where it was only the reflector).


----------



## ron4322 (18 Oct 2009)

satans budgie said:


> Mr Plod is not going to stop anyone who is lit up like a Christmas tree on steroids and in this case I doubt he a slightest interest in the BS specifications of your lights or pedal reflectors.
> 
> He is very interested in whether you pose a danger to other road users and yourself by failing to pay due heed to the law. The rule of the reasonable man must have influence in this matter, no one has ever ended up in court for exceeding the legal requirement.



I think the concern of some people, me included, is not the police, it is the possibility of being partially blamed for an accident because we didn't have a set of approved lights (along with our better but unapproved ones).


----------



## yenrod (18 Oct 2009)

simongrant said:


> Hi all,
> This may just be me and my eye's but when there is another cyclist oncoming with front light flashing i find it quite difficult to gauge there position in particular distance and it seems the brighter the light the harder it is.
> 
> Anyone else find this or should i have gone to specsavers??
> ...



Ive a flashing fornt AND a constant too !


----------



## hackbike 666 (18 Oct 2009)

ron4322 said:


> I think the concern of some people, me included, is not the police, it is the possibility of being partially blamed for an accident because we didn't have a set of approved lights (along with our better but unapproved ones).




Aye and we know what Lawyers are like.


----------



## siadwell (19 Oct 2009)

ron4322 said:


> I think the concern of some people, me included, is not the police, it is the possibility of being partially blamed for an accident because we didn't have a set of approved lights (along with our better but unapproved ones).



In post #50, I posted the opinion of a lawyer that use of flashing lights would be unlikely to be regarded as cause for contributory negligence (the article was written before they were legalised).

It seems logical that having lights that are not marked to comply with the relevant standards would be treated similarly. As the reason for kite marking etc. is to impose a _minimum_ standard, the use of lights that exceed the standard should not be considered as contributory negligence.


----------



## J4CKO (19 Oct 2009)

Personally, I couldnt give a flying about "legal", I am interested in being seen and not dead, will worry about the legal implications later if I need to. I am also concerned that I dont annoy drivers with overly bright light but I suppose the chances of getting splattered by someone "blinded" are far lower than someone who hasnt seen you at all and to be honest some of the headlamps on modern cars seem to be bright enough to see through me rather than just see me, the german things with Xenon headlamps are the main culprits.

Also, we are worrying about BS numbers, brightness and placement so we dont get blamed for an accident or have one in the first place but I seem to be seeing about one in five cars at the moment with only one functioning headlamp which I would venture is far more of a worry than fitting in with the finer points of the legislation, loads of cars this morning with one lit headlamp, or one dim one bright, one headlamp and one front fog or various combinations, here we are making sure we have backups and drivers of a tonne plus of metal loose one and dont get it fixed, see the same sheddy Blue Laguna every morning, old bloke with a fag in his mouth, one working lamp so when that fails I will just have to look for the red tip of his Fag, no redundancy and when the other one ineviatably goes no lights, funny how he always manages to be smoking so he must stop for fags but cant summonm the wherewithall to stop at a car spares shop and spend a fiver on a bulb, and that is what we have to deal with so if I glare this daft old twat I am not going to loose sleep over it.


----------



## irontam (19 Oct 2009)

This is a good thread. 

Having previously run double constant front lights (two feeble torches cable tied to the bar) I'd replaced with a single 3-led light left on flash only.

I hadn't thought about the perceived distance ramifications. Will def. be looking to add a secondary constant light in the near future.


----------



## totallyfixed (19 Oct 2009)

J4CKO said:


> Personally, I couldnt give a flying about "legal", I am interested in being seen and not dead, will worry about the legal implications later if I need to.


+1
I think we all know that the UK cycling lighting regs are a joke. I just had a look on a police forum about cyclists and their lights - very interesting. [An interesting point here is that prior to Oct 2005 when flashing rear led's were illegal, Manchester Police were using them on their bikes!] What they were basically saying is that when they stop a cyclist for having inadequate lights, as many times as not they turn out to be legal!
Most of us probably ride with lights that are hugely more powerful than when the BS standard was first implemented, so the BS standard is therefore out of date if officially we are illegal with our more powerful lights.
Also how is it that respected cycle lighting manufacturers are able to produce and sell lights that are not tested to the BS standard. For those worried about the implications of blame in an accident, surely this lies with the manufacturer and the retailer who sold you those lights, and it matters not one jot if they were made abroad, that's the reason for trading standards [another joke]. 
To answer the original point, when in the city/town in brightly lit areas I switch to flashing front because it identifies me as a cyclist, and elsewhere I'm on a steady light. On really dark roads, high beam, and as a car approaches low beam unless the f...wit stays on main beam then I will do the same.


----------



## Bugner (19 Oct 2009)

I have the Exposure Joystick. The flashing mode is actually the low mode (more than bright another for urban commuting) on constant, with a high level flash over the top, I think this works quite well as there is a constant point of reference, with an attention grabbing flash


----------



## ACS (19 Oct 2009)

siadwell said:


> In post #50, I posted the opinion of a lawyer that use of flashing lights would be unlikely to be regarded as cause for contributory negligence (the article was written before they were legalised).
> 
> It seems logical that having lights that are not marked to comply with the relevant standards would be treated similarly. As the reason for kite marking etc. is to impose a _minimum_ standard, the use of lights that exceed the standard should not be considered as contributory negligence.



+1 

Ignoring any additional contributory factors, any advocate in the civil court that bases his client’s case or defence stating that a cyclist was to blame or was partly responsible for an accident because the lights on the bicycle exceed the _minimum _legal requirement would IMO get very short shrift from his Lordship. In this very conscious climate of personal H&S I would think that any half decent advocate would highlight the weakness in opposing side’s argument. 

The law can be ass at times but it can be very pragmatic as well. I have seen many solicitors and some barristers being told by the bench; remembering the Judge has already seen the evidence to be put forward by both sides, that if they were to rely on a particular defence or tenuous line of prosecution then the matter would be reviewed ‘in chambers’ or they could have 30 minutes to consult their client. 

The 30 minute offer is almost always taken or the case is set aside due to the lack of substantive evidence.


----------



## adds21 (19 Oct 2009)

totallyfixed said:


> To answer the original point, when in the city/town in brightly lit areas I switch to flashing front because it identifies me as a cyclist, and elsewhere I'm on a steady light. On really dark roads, high beam, and as a car approaches low beam unless the f...wit stays on main beam then I will do the same.



+1

I have Ay Ups at the front, as well as a cheap Cateye. When I'm in town I use the Cateye in flash mode, when I get out to the dark country lanes on my way home, I switch the Ay Ups on and the Cateye off.

IMO, it's just about common senese, and using what's appropriate for the conditions.


----------



## HJ (19 Oct 2009)

adds21 said:


> +1
> 
> I have Ay Ups at the front, as well as a cheap Cateye. When I'm in town I use the Cateye in flash mode, when I get out to the dark country lanes on my way home, I switch the Ay Ups on and the Cateye off.
> 
> IMO, it's just about common senese, and using what's appropriate for the conditions.



I would have thought that in town having the Ay-Up on steady would be useful for being seen, or are you trying to save the battery for when you need them to see by?


----------



## totallyfixed (19 Oct 2009)

satans budgie said:


> +1
> 
> Ignoring any additional contributory factors, any advocate in the civil court that bases his client’s case or defence stating that a cyclist was to blame or was partly responsible for an accident because the lights on the bicycle exceed the _minimum _legal requirement would IMO get very short shrift from his Lordship. In this very conscious climate of personal H&S I would think that any half decent advocate would highlight the weakness in opposing side’s argument.
> 
> ...



But why the hell should a cyclist have defend themselves in the first place regarding lights? The police are more confused than we are, it's no wonder solicitors are having a field day.


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Oct 2009)

At the Cycle Show in Earls Court, the two Police bikes and the ambulance bike were adorned with Exposure MaXx D lights. 

So I can in defense asay that my bike is equipped to the same standard of visibility as an emergency vehicle...... and you still couldn't see me?


----------



## ron4322 (19 Oct 2009)

siadwell said:


> In post #50, I posted the opinion of a lawyer that use of flashing lights would be unlikely to be regarded as cause for contributory negligence (the article was written before they were legalised).
> 
> It seems logical that having lights that are not marked to comply with the relevant standards would be treated similarly. As the reason for kite marking etc. is to impose a _minimum_ standard, the use of lights that exceed the standard should not be considered as contributory negligence.



The opinion of one lawyer is just that - the opinion of one. If there was a chance that a motorist's insurance company might be able to substantially reduce a personal injury payout, I'm sure they'd be able to find another lawyer with the exact opposite view to work for them.

I think it is unlikely to be a problem, but is "unlikely" good enough if there is a risk of a big reduction in a payout (a payout which may need to last the rest of one's life if severely disabled by a car driver)?


----------



## purplepolly (19 Oct 2009)

ron4322 said:


> but is "unlikely" good enough if there is a risk of a big reduction in a payout (



I think it was on CC that a poster told of how as a teenager she had been crossing the road at a pelican crossing, in the approved manner, and a driver had gone through on red and hit her. The damages were reduced because it was decreed she had accepted an element of risk by using the crossing.


----------



## ron4322 (19 Oct 2009)

J4CKO said:


> Personally, I couldnt give a flying about "legal", I am interested in being seen and not dead, will worry about the legal implications later if I need to. I am also concerned that I dont annoy drivers with overly bright light but I suppose the chances of getting splattered by someone "blinded" are far lower than someone who hasnt seen you at all and to be honest some of the headlamps on modern cars seem to be bright enough to see through me rather than just see me, the german things with Xenon headlamps are the main culprits.
> 
> Also, we are worrying about BS numbers, brightness and placement so we dont get blamed for an accident or have one in the first place but I seem to be seeing about one in five cars at the moment with only one functioning headlamp which I would venture is far more of a worry than fitting in with the finer points of the legislation, loads of cars this morning with one lit headlamp, or one dim one bright, one headlamp and one front fog or various combinations, here we are making sure we have backups and drivers of a tonne plus of metal loose one and dont get it fixed, see the same sheddy Blue Laguna every morning, old bloke with a fag in his mouth, one working lamp so when that fails I will just have to look for the red tip of his Fag, no redundancy and when the other one ineviatably goes no lights, funny how he always manages to be smoking so he must stop for fags but cant summonm the wherewithall to stop at a car spares shop and spend a fiver on a bulb, and that is what we have to deal with so if I glare this daft old twat I am not going to loose sleep over it.



We have no control over how other road users behave, we can only be responsible for ourselves.


----------



## ron4322 (19 Oct 2009)

totallyfixed said:


> +1
> I think we all know that the UK cycling lighting regs are a joke. I just had a look on a police forum about cyclists and their lights - very interesting. [An interesting point here is that prior to Oct 2005 when flashing rear led's were illegal, Manchester Police were using them on their bikes!] What they were basically saying is that when they stop a cyclist for having inadequate lights, as many times as not they turn out to be legal!
> Most of us probably ride with lights that are hugely more powerful than when the BS standard was first implemented, so the BS standard is therefore out of date if officially we are illegal with our more powerful lights.
> Also how is it that respected cycle lighting manufacturers are able to produce and sell lights that are not tested to the BS standard. For those worried about the implications of blame in an accident, surely this lies with the manufacturer and the retailer who sold you those lights, and it matters not one jot if they were made abroad, that's the reason for trading standards [another joke].
> To answer the original point, when in the city/town in brightly lit areas I switch to flashing front because it identifies me as a cyclist, and elsewhere I'm on a steady light. On really dark roads, high beam, and as a car approaches low beam unless the f...wit stays on main beam then I will do the same.



Many manufacturers included disclaimers along the lines of "only to be used in conjunction with lights approved to BS6102/3"


----------



## ACS (19 Oct 2009)

totallyfixed said:


> But why the hell should a cyclist have defend themselves in the first place regarding lights? The police are more confused than we are, it's no wonder solicitors are having a field day.



In civil proceeding the advocate for the defendant will use any tactic to try and reduce the liability of their client. If could be argued that the plaintiff (cyclist) contributed to the event because the lights in use did not conform to the legal requirement. (contributory negligence). If the court (jury) decides that the use of non standard lights by the plaintiff was a factor in the event then the amount of damages due would be reduced. 
Again in civil matters the plaintiff is not defending himself in a way he might in a criminal proceeding, he /she is putting forward an argument to support his position and to negate the counter argument placed before the court by the defendant.


----------



## ron4322 (19 Oct 2009)

satans budgie said:


> +1
> 
> Ignoring any additional contributory factors, any advocate in the civil court that bases his client’s case or defence stating that a cyclist was to blame or was partly responsible for an accident because the lights on the bicycle exceed the _minimum _legal requirement would IMO get very short shrift from his Lordship. In this very conscious climate of personal H&S I would think that any half decent advocate would highlight the weakness in opposing side’s argument.
> 
> ...



Just because lights are more powerful and brighter than BS6102/3 does not necessarily make them better in the eyes of the law. The BS includes requirements regarding viewing angles, to help the cycle to be seen from the side. A very directional front lamp may not have this. Again, if a driver hits you from the side he may be able to argue that your light was inferior to a BS one and therefore you were partly to blame. He would not be able to say this if the light was totally legal.


----------



## ACS (19 Oct 2009)

ron4322 said:


> Just because lights are more powerful and brighter than BS6102/3 does not necessarily make them better in the eyes of the law. The BS includes requirements regarding viewing angles, to help the cycle to be seen from the side. A very directional front lamp may not have this. Again, if a driver hits you from the side he may be able to argue that your light was inferior to a BS one and therefore you were partly to blame. He would not be able to say this if the light was totally legal.



So where does your technical argument rest when light do not conform to the BS but to the DIN standard. 

Your perspective on the law does not take in to account the fact that the court is not blind to fact that the law lags behind technology by many years, the action by the cyclist while technically not conforming to the letter of the law he / she has exceed the statutory legal requirement by adopting new technologies in an effort to elevate his own level of personal visibility to other road users and thereby attempting to reduce the risk to him herself.

This is not an argument that could be used in a criminal proceeding where the burden of proof is greater than the balance of probability used by the civil court.


----------



## ron4322 (19 Oct 2009)

satans budgie said:


> So where does your technical argument rest when light do not conform to the BS but to the DIN standard.
> 
> Your perspective on the law does not take in to account the fact that the court is not blind to fact that the law lags behind technology by many years, the action by the cyclist while technically not conforming to the letter of the law he / she has exceed the statutory legal requirement by adopting new technologies in an effort to elevate his own level of personal visibility to other road users and thereby attempting to reduce the risk to him herself.
> 
> This is not an argument that could be used in a criminal proceeding where the burden of proof is greater than the balance of probability used by the civil court.



I'm quite happy to admit I have no definitive knowledge on this subject. I have read whatever I can to better understand the conflicting regulations and information.

I believe (but do not know for certain) that equipment to a suitable DIN (or to an equivalent standard from any other EU country) would be acceptable - but you might need to demonstrate that they are standards for similar types of equipment, ie "cycle front and rear lights for on-road use" or something similar.

In the case of "exceed the statutory requirement" - I think it would be necessary to exceed ALL aspects of the standard, ie not just brightness, but such aspects of angle of view etc. In the event of not having a formal kite mark, would it be the cyclist's responsibility to demonstrate it was equal to the BS? I think it would be the cyclist's responsibility to do this, (presumably at very high cost to simulate the BS requirements/tests) - all the opposite side would need to do is say "it isn't BS approved, so prove it is as good."

I don't know what would happen in the event of a collision at night while using unapproved lights, most probably nothing, I agree, but I don't think any of us can be certain that there is not a possible problem. What about the courtroom scenario "Mr Budgie, you only fitted a set of SupaMegaWatty lights to your velocipede despite the instructions on the packet which clearly and unequivocately instructed you to also fit a set of BS6102/3 CrapbutBobbydodger lights, and yet you now expect the court to not reduce the damages we would have awarded to you had you not ignored these instructions."

I repeat I do not KNOW, but I am wary of being caught out. Therefore I would prefer to use a set of BS6102/3, along with my preferred lights.


----------



## HJ (19 Oct 2009)

It just goes to show what ridiculous lengths the fear of litigation has driven us, so many so called "Health and Safety" rules are driven by a fear of litigation and a lack of common sense


----------



## hackbike 666 (19 Oct 2009)

*Originally Posted by J4CKO 

* 
_*Personally, I couldnt give a flying about "legal", I am interested in being seen and not dead, will worry about the legal implications later if I need to.

*Haven't really read the rest of this thread since I posted last night.The thing that gets me with this is,if it goes go wrong then however many "illegal" lights you have you will get the odd motorists trying to squirm out of accepting responsibility and the defence side using the that you wern't using BS approved lights.

Who knows I may be talking bull but that's what it seems like to me._


----------



## ron4322 (19 Oct 2009)

This is, in my opinion, a useful link - just in case any of you have not already seen it.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4071


----------



## Chamfus Flange (19 Oct 2009)

I always have one light constant and one flashing, front and rear: contant lights are for me to see or be seen, the flashing lights are for me to be noticed.



.


----------



## hackbike 666 (19 Oct 2009)

Chamfus Flange said:


> I always have one light constant and one flashing, front and rear: contant lights are for me to see or be seen, the flashing lights are for me to be noticed.
> 
> 
> 
> .



Agree and it works for me.They are also a "different" white colour also as I doubt that both LED lights are the same colour of white.


----------



## totallyfixed (19 Oct 2009)

I don't honestly think that in the case of riding with what are obviously powerful lights that the cyclist can take the blame. If you buy a new car it has to conform to a whole host of regulations [including lights] that's why it has to be MOT'd every year. there are no such stringent regs for bikes, on the whole we don't need them. However when I lived in Cambridge, some of the bikes there were death traps that the students were riding. In London it's apparantly ok to ride fixed sans brakes - how the hell does that work?
This evening I went out to try my new led front light, it's only 240 lumens on max, but on the really dark narrow country roads several cars flashed me after they had dipped their lights. Obviously I was still blinding them. This is a worry, if I cause an accident becuase my lights were too bright, what chance in court then if there is no BS/DIN marking. I know it feels good to make a car dip their lights, but it takes two to tango. I can't imagine what a car faces at 900+ lumens 
Light manufacturers have to know what they are producing and be aware of said effects. It's plainly obvious that very few powerful front lights are designed for road use. The only 2 I can think of are the Busch & Muller Ixon range and Exposure Strada.
I would love to hear the views of a manufacturer. Too many "cyclists" are in the "boys and their toys" mould and enjoy burning the retinas out of any other road user. It's not big and it's not clever. If these mega lumen beasties are just used for off road, not a problem. 
Surely the answer is a range of lights designed purely for road use.


----------



## ron4322 (20 Oct 2009)

Right on cue for this thread, early this morning, in the dark, I was followed for a very short distance by a bike with 2 very bright flashing lights. (the bottom of Coldwell Lane, Sheffield, if you were the rider). I was in a car.

He/she turned off down an unlit road. I could not imagine how anyone could ride down an unlit road with just flashing lights, especially ones which were so bright.

Does anyone do this? Can you actually see well enough when you are behind a flashing light?


----------



## skudupnorth (20 Oct 2009)

After reading this thread i thought i would try fixed and strobe to see if i get seen or not seen with either mode.Strobe i'm afraid wins hands down after i had near misses in heavy traffic from people who do not notice even other cars on the road never mind cyclists ! 
My lamps are Niterider x 2 which i dip so not to blind our "fellow" road users.They are useless in strobe mode in dark country lanes and just dangerous for both me and motorists.


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (21 Oct 2009)

Strobe would be quite, erm, "exciting" on an unlit road I'd have thought. I turn my second light (which is in strobe mode on lit roads) onto steady when I'm on unlit roads. My main light is always on steady.


----------



## skudupnorth (21 Oct 2009)

Lazy-Commuter said:


> Strobe would be quite, erm, "exciting" on an unlit road I'd have thought. I turn my second light (which is in strobe mode on lit roads) onto steady when I'm on unlit roads. My main light is always on steady.



You have to try it for a laugh on a country lane ! Really weird effect on your eyes


----------



## adds21 (21 Oct 2009)

HJ said:


> I would have thought that in town having the Ay-Up on steady would be useful for being seen, or are you trying to save the battery for when you need them to see by?



It depends on the light level, but generally, yes, I need the Ay-Ups to see where I'm going once I get out in the sticks, so want to make sure I've got enough battery when I get there! However, as it's getting darker each day now (and especially when it's wet), I'm using the Ay-Ups more often in town... I just have to remember to plug them in when I get in the garage at home!


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (21 Oct 2009)

skudupnorth said:


> You have to try it for a laugh on a country lane ! Really weird effect on your eyes


.. was planning to take the "woods route" home tonight. Might try it for a laugh.


----------



## HJ (21 Oct 2009)

adds21 said:


> It depends on the light level, but generally, yes, I need the Ay-Ups to see where I'm going once I get out in the sticks, so want to make sure I've got enough battery when I get there! However, as it's getting darker each day now (and especially when it's wet), I'm using the Ay-Ups more often in town... I just have to remember to plug them in when I get in the garage at home!



May you should look out for some one putting in an AyUp order and ask them to get a spare battery pack for you, then way you can carry a fully charged backup...


----------



## adds21 (21 Oct 2009)

HJ said:


> May you should look out for some one putting in an AyUp order and ask them to get a spare battery pack for you, then way you can carry a fully charged backup...



I've actually been thinking about getting an extra charger. That way I can charge the lights while at work. I'm probably more likely to remember to charge them then. Although, to be honest, it's not so much the battery, as my memory which is the problem (eg, "When did I last charge them? Was it yesterday? Better keep them off for a while just in case" ).

What I should really do is simply remember to plug them in each evening!


----------



## oxford_guy (21 Oct 2009)

adds21 said:


> I've actually been thinking about getting an extra charger. That way I can charge the lights while at work. I'm probably more likely to remember to charge them then. Although, to be honest, it's not so much the battery, as my memory which is the problem (eg, "When did I last charge them? Was it yesterday? Better keep them off for a while just in case" ).
> 
> What I should really do is simply remember to plug them in each evening!



Its this kind of thing that makes me glad I have dynamo lights (B & M Cyo IQ Senso Plus and DToplight XS), especially with my appalling memory!


----------



## zacklaws (22 Oct 2009)

Never came across this problem with flashing lights till Tuesday morning cycling home from work in the dark.

It was pitch black, not a thing in sight, I was all lit up with back and front lights not flashing, and high viz clothing cycling steadily along the cycle path, when all of a sudden out of the darkness a very intense beam of flashing white light was suddenly turned on very close to my front and shaking violently from side to side and aimed high into my eyes. As it got closer I still could not work out what it was as it was so blinding, then I noticed it was a cyclist when we was only yards apart, I was tight to the left but from the swerving action of the light could not work out the others riders intentions at all. At the last moment he swerved to my right and saw he was on a mountain bike going hell for leather and pulling on his handlebars swerving from side to side frantically.

Would you believe it 50 yards further on exactly the same happened again. I cannot understand the logic of leaving your lights off till you see someone else coming the opposite way. What happens in total darkness if two riders approach each other with the same mentality.

Wednesday morning, same happened again, but this time the first rider had his lights on, still flashing and aimed high, maybe he had a near miss and learned to leave them on, but once again cycling furiously, this time though he never saw me at all till we nearly impacted, I was tight to the left and he just came straight at me, once again I could not work out his intentions, then I saw his face lit up, probably by the light reflecting back from my high viz jacket and my headlight, looking straight downwards at the path, just as we was about to collide and before I could shout, he notices me, his face was a picture of shock, swerves to my right and shouting the "S" word at the same time as he scrapes past.

Dreading next Thursday and Friday when I probably meet him again, hopefully he will have crashed into something by then to learn him the errors of his ways


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (22 Oct 2009)

zacklaws said:


> <snip>
> 
> Would you believe it 50 yards further on exactly the same happened again. I cannot understand the logic of leaving your lights off till you see someone else coming the opposite way. What happens in total darkness if two riders approach each other with the same mentality.


This ..



zacklaws said:


> Dreading next Thursday and Friday when I probably meet him again, hopefully *he will have crashed into something by then to learn him the errors of his ways*


.. especially if they're both not looking. I just hope it's not you that teaches him the lesson. 

It's a strange approach, isn't it? Saving batteries or something?


----------



## hackbike 666 (22 Oct 2009)

*It's a strange approach, isn't it? Saving batteries or something?*


Nah,I seem to remember riding without lights illuminated down the canal at night as we found it easier to see.My lights don't light up the universe they only serve the purpose to be seen.


----------



## semislickstick (22 Oct 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> *It's a strange approach, isn't it? Saving batteries or something?*
> 
> 
> Nah,I seem to remember riding without lights illuminated down the canal at night as we found it easier to see.My lights don't light up the universe they only serve the purpose to be seen.



I have a friend who like s to ride like this, he goes on that any light (my lights) ruin his 'nightvision' !!
But clearly it's working well for the MTB rider....isn't it.


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (22 Oct 2009)

semislickstick said:


> I have a friend who like s to ride like this, he goes on that any light (my lights) ruin his 'nightvision' !!
> But clearly it's working well for the MTB rider....isn't it.


Aha, maybe we've now found the reason for running a red light on the front: it's to preserve night vision.


----------



## Amanda P (22 Oct 2009)

Slow vehicles are often required to have flashing orange lights on them - I'm thinking tractors, milk floats and so forth. 

On the nasty road I'm obliged to use to get to work, no-one drives a tractor on it without an orange strobe or beacon on it, and I don't blame them. 

Anyone know what the legality is of using an orange flashing light on a bike? (Yes, I have tried it).


----------



## HJ (22 Oct 2009)

Uncle Phil said:


> Slow vehicles are often required to have flashing orange lights on them - I'm thinking tractors, milk floats and so forth.
> 
> On the nasty road I'm obliged to use to get to work, no-one drives a tractor on it without an orange strobe or beacon on it, and I don't blame them.
> 
> Anyone know what the legality is of using an orange flashing light on a bike? (Yes, I have tried it).



Thinking of getting one of these Uncle Phil?


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Oct 2009)

Wot u eally need...

View attachment L12259119.jpg


----------



## hackbike 666 (22 Oct 2009)

Im using the Fantom XR9 as I have at last found a substitute for the crap fitting bracket supplied.I believe I have had a good reaction from the motons as it is so fkin bright.(on the rear)


----------



## siadwell (23 Oct 2009)

Uncle Phil said:


> Anyone know what the legality is of using an orange flashing light on a bike? (Yes, I have tried it).



Depends how fast you can ride...

Road Vehicles Lighting Regs 1989
PART II 
REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE FITTING OF LAMPS, REFLECTORS, REAR MARKINGS AND DEVICES

*Colour of light shown by lamps and reflectors
**11.*—(2) No vehicle shall be fitted with a lamp which is capable of showing any light to the rear, other than a red light, except-
(l) amber light from a warning beacon fitted to-
(iv) a vehicle having a maximum speed not exceeding 25 mph or any trailer drawn by such a vehicle;
​


----------



## Amanda P (23 Oct 2009)

I can occasionally exceed 25 mph.

I'm cast-iron certain that most modern tractors can! Doesn't stop them having orange beacons on though.


----------



## siadwell (23 Oct 2009)

Uncle Phil said:


> I can occasionally exceed 25 mph.
> 
> I'm cast-iron certain that most modern tractors can! Doesn't stop them having orange beacons on though.



Actually, there's another reference in rule 27 which allows for "Warning beacon emitting amber light" to be used "when it is necessary or desirable to warn persons of the presence of the vehicle". So as a bike is a vehicle and it's desirable to be seen, it looks like you can strap an amber beacon to your lid. Expect comments from the local kids though.


----------



## thomas (23 Oct 2009)

Uncle Phil said:


> I can occasionally exceed 25 mph.
> 
> I'm cast-iron certain that most modern tractors can! Doesn't stop them having orange beacons on though.




A friend got some high power amber flashers and put them on top of his Golf...which could certainly do more than 25mph. As far as I know it was legal. I think he mainly used it for when he was at the Airport. He did say that he managed to get people to pull over and let him past by putting them on - I don't know how true that is...they were quite cool though.


----------



## Norm (23 Oct 2009)

Uncle Phil said:


> I can occasionally exceed 25 mph.
> 
> I'm cast-iron certain that most modern tractors can! Doesn't stop them having orange beacons on though.


Sorry, I'm going to call you out on that one. Which is bizarre as my own Uncle Phil runs the family farm and is the reason that I know about tractors.

Anyway, the definition of an "off road tractor" is:
a tractor which is not an agricultural tractor and which is: 
a) designed and constructed primarily for use other than on roads, and 
 incapable by reason of its construction of exceeding a speed of 25mph on the level under its own power.

Some agricultural tractors can travel at over 25mph but, IIRC, they need road tax, use white dieseasel etc They still use flashing beacons, though.


----------



## atbman (25 Oct 2009)

I find this thread slightly baffling. I've never had a problem telling where a cyclist (with flashing lights only) is or what speed he's travelling at.

Amongst other things, their size gives a clue, unless he's a 10' tall rider who's further away than he appears or a 3' tall rider who's closer than he appears.

If the flash is seconds apart, then I can see that it might cause some difficulty, but since they usually flash more than once/second, what's the problem?


----------



## hackbike 666 (25 Oct 2009)

Agreed.


----------



## purplepolly (25 Oct 2009)

atbman said:


> I find this thread slightly baffling. I've never had a problem telling where a cyclist (with flashing lights only) is or what speed he's travelling at.
> ...
> what's the problem?



(sigh) because you're assuming all drivers can see as well as you, which may not be the case

read post #30
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=46177&highlight=contact&page=3


----------

