# Riding without pedal reflectors. OK or not?



## Red Light (20 Aug 2011)

We've had a long thread on the rights and wrongs of RLJing and whether its wrong because its the law or wrong because its wrong. So what about pedal reflectors? Its illegal to ride at night without pedal reflectors visible from the rear and a rear reflector. Which makes it illegal to ride with most clipless pedals at night or to ride a bent at all. So is it OK to break this law (I bet most of us do) or not?


----------



## lukesdad (20 Aug 2011)

I bought this up on the RLJing thread not because it was illegal,but from a safety point of view along with the use of clipless pedals as they are not reccomended for highway use. It seems some are ready to lecture about cycle safety to others yet choose to ignore other aspects that don t suit them. Looking at clipless moments relayed on here and the reccomendation to newbies to use clipless, it does appear to be a case of double standards.


----------



## Glover Fan (20 Aug 2011)

Yep I wear clipless all the time even at night and sometimes RLJ, chuck me in a cell and throwaway the key. I don't even have reflectors fitted to my bike. Cause drag like. Oh and they weigh like 5 grammes.


----------



## Moss (20 Aug 2011)

I suppose a reflective strip on the pedals or on the heel of your shoes, would aid safety if riding at night in darkness! I've used clipless pedals; but I must admit to being far more comfortable when riding with toe-clips and straps.


----------



## chillyuk (20 Aug 2011)

Reflectors are not something I had given thought to and in fact had to get up and have a look at my bike because I couldn't recall if I had pedal reflectors or not. It happens that I do, on the front and rear of the pedals. I haven't voted because none of the statements apply to me. If fitted I use them if not then I don't. I wouldn't go out of my way to get them fitted.


----------



## Ian 74 (20 Aug 2011)

Glover Fan said:


> Yep I wear clipless all the time even at night and sometimes RLJ, chuck me in a cell and throwaway the key. I don't even have reflectors fitted to my bike. Cause drag like. Oh and they weigh like 5 grammes.



Not worried about the weight issues but ditto. Its a fair cop officer. I will use good quality lights at night though. It does pay to be seen otherwise squish like tangerine.


----------



## mummra (20 Aug 2011)

_I've got SPD pedals and have fitted reflectors to them (It took some time finding some though)
It was my choice because I wanted to keep myself fully covered in the eyes of the law if I had another accident as my commutes in winter are before dawn and after dusk (which is when the law states you must have them).
I have kept them on all year now though as I couldn't be bothered taking them off.



_


----------



## Brandane (20 Aug 2011)

First thing I did with my new bike was take the front and rear reflectors off, and fitted double sided pedals which don't have reflectors. While I was at it, those ridiculous reflectors they fit on the wheels were binned as well. 

As confessed on the RLJ thread, I also do that on occassions, in a responsible manner so as not to come into conflict with other road users. Please forgive me, but I have also been known to cycle on empty footpaths on occassions, too. It is a better option on some narrow roads than being flattened by a car.

One of the reasons I like to cycle is that it still offers some sort of freedom that you don't get when driving a car. Make it as regimented as driving, as some on here seem to want, then the pleasure for me is gone and I might as well stick to my metal box.


----------



## Moodyman (20 Aug 2011)

Brandane said:


> First thing I did with my new bike was take the front and rear reflectors off, and fitted double sided pedals which don't have reflectors. While I was at it, those ridiculous reflectors they fit on the wheels were binned as well.
> 
> As confessed on the RLJ thread, I also do that on occassions, in a responsible manner so as not to come into conflict with other road users. Please forgive me, but I have also been known to cycle on empty footpaths on occassions, too. It is a better option on some narrow roads than being flattened by a car.
> 
> ...



Must confess, I don't RLJ when commuting, but that's always on busy roads during the rush hour.

When I've done late evening rides in quiet areas or ridden early on Sat/sunday morning, I go through red if there's no other traffic around. 

With regards to pedals, I ride SPDs which don't have space for reflectors. In winter I'm well lit and wear a builders' waistcoat with thick reflectives.


----------



## aberal (20 Aug 2011)

My SPD shoes have reflective strips.


----------



## gaz (20 Aug 2011)

I've been using SPD-SL pedals for over 5 years now, and with them all through the winter which equates to over 10hours a week in darkness.
The only reflector that I have on my current commuting bike is on the mudguard, but i'm looking at taking that off and replacing it with a mudguard.

Why do i need reflectors when my lighting system looks like this from the rear (ok i don't always have the fairly lights)







It's against the law to ride a bicycle without pedal reflectors but it's really a minor issue, it's not picked up on by the police and even they ride without pedal reflectors. I don't see it as a problem if you a. have a good lighting system b. use shoes or overshoes which have a reflective strip on (which most clip in style shoes do have.)


----------



## sdr gb (20 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> I don't see it as a problem if you a. have a good lighting system b. use shoes or overshoes which have a reflective strip on (which most clip in style shoes do have.)



Agreed. I took the front and rear reflectors off my commuting bike in order to add more lights.


----------



## John90 (20 Aug 2011)

All my bikes have platform pedals which come with reflectors so it isn't an issue. I can't say I've ever noticed a cyclist at night because of the reflection from their pedals and I don't think it's a big deal.

If it is illegal to ride without pedal reflectors why is it legal to sell pedals without them?


----------



## lukesdad (20 Aug 2011)

John90 said:


> All my bikes have platform pedals which come with reflectors so it isn't an issue. I can't say I've ever noticed a cyclist at night because of the reflection from their pedals and I don't think it's a big deal.
> 
> If it is illegal to ride without pedal reflectors why is it legal to sell pedals without them?



because they are not sold for highway use. This should be included in the manfacturers instructions.


----------



## Red Light (20 Aug 2011)

aberal said:


> My SPD shoes have reflective strips.



Doesn't make you legal I'm afraid.


No night-time bent riders here then? The only one I've seen that would be legal at night had a big pole sticking out sideways from the pedals with reflectors on the end to demonstrate the daftness of what would be needed to make it legal with reflectors visible from the rear. In normal riding the shoes completely obscure the pedals from the rear.


----------



## gaz (20 Aug 2011)

lukesdad said:


> because they are not sold for highway use. This should be included in the manfacturers instructions.


Don't the rules for lighting and reflectors only apply between sunset and sunrise. So it's not strictly true that they are not for highway use.


----------



## mickle (20 Aug 2011)

Discussions about the legality or otherwise of pedal reflectors is navel gazing when law dangerous breaking by other road users is so widespread. 

It can be shown that speeding and red light jumping causes death and serious injury, I doubt that anyone can produce any evidence that pedal reflectors have any influence whatsoever on road casualties.


----------



## lukesdad (20 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Don't the rules for lighting and reflectors only apply between sunset and sunrise. So it's not strictly true that they are not for highway use.



I dont think its just the lighting issue gaz.


----------



## lukesdad (20 Aug 2011)

mickle said:


> Discussions about the legality or otherwise of pedal reflectors is navel gazing when law dangerous breaking by other road users is so widespread.
> 
> It can be shown that speeding and red light jumping causes death and serious injury, I doubt that anyone can produce any evidence that pedal reflectors have any influence whatsoever on road casualties.



I do wonder about clipless pedals though.


----------



## barongreenback (20 Aug 2011)

At a guess, the law simply hasn't caught up with clipless pedals and I can't imagine it's a massive priority.


----------



## MacB (20 Aug 2011)

lukesdad said:


> I do wonder about clipless pedals though.


----------



## Red Light (20 Aug 2011)

mickle said:


> Discussions about the legality or otherwise of pedal reflectors is navel gazing when law dangerous breaking by other road users is so widespread.



Maybe but it perhaps helps clarify the RLJ issue. Some people are making out RLJing is unacceptable because its illegal but no pedal reflectors after dark is illegal and at current count about 80% of us are happy to break that law.



> It can be shown that speeding and red light jumping causes death and serious injury, I doubt that anyone can produce any evidence that pedal reflectors have any influence whatsoever on road casualties.



Its been seriously suggested that cyclists not RLJing costs lives and we certainly have no problem with pedestrians RLJing which is much closer to how cyclists RLJ IME.


----------



## al78 (20 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Maybe but it perhaps helps clarify the RLJ issue. S*ome people are making out RLJing is unacceptable because its illegal *but no pedal reflectors after dark is illegal and at current count about 80% of us are happy to break that law.



No that is not the only reason.




Red Light said:


> Its been seriously suggested that cyclists not RLJing costs lives and we certainly have no problem with pedestrians RLJing which is much closer to how cyclists RLJ IME.



One crucial difference is that when pedestrians cross on red it does not antagonize drivers and fuel negative stereotypes. It is not a good idea if you are a minority group in a democratic society to unnecessarily antagonize the majority.

If you want to be a wheeled pedestrian, buy a pair of roller skates.


----------



## aberal (20 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Maybe but it perhaps helps clarify the RLJ issue. Some people are making out RLJing is unacceptable because its illegal but no pedal reflectors after dark is illegal and at current count about 80% of us are happy to break that law.



RLJ and riding without reflectors are not IMHO on the same level. Regardless of the legality, you can ride safely on the road after dark without reflectors but with reflective/hi-viz clothing/strips and more importantly decent lights. A more sensible comparison would be between RLJ and riding without lights. I voted NO to RLJ and YES to riding without reflectors but would vote NO to riding without lights.


----------



## cycleruk (20 Aug 2011)

I don't think i can really vote on any of these polls because i have one big floor, i am a human being and* i am not perfect!*, do i ride with out reflectors, yes, but do i ride without lights, no, i have all ways found lights to be 10 times more effective then reflectors, so until some one says anything different, then that is how i will continue to ride.


----------



## Red Light (20 Aug 2011)

al78 said:


> One crucial difference is that when pedestrians cross on red it does not antagonize drivers and fuel negative stereotypes. It is not a good idea if you are a minority group in a democratic society to unnecessarily antagonize the majority.
> 
> If you want to be a wheeled pedestrian, buy a pair of roller skates.



But why does it antagonise drivers so much? It can't be the law breaking because otherwise our pedals would antagonise them. It can't be the danger because they're not in danger and it turns out not to be dangerous. So what is it that generates such strong feelings for cyclist RLJing compared to all the other things going on?


----------



## Red Light (20 Aug 2011)

aberal said:


> RLJ and riding without reflectors are not IMHO on the same level. Regardless of the legality, you can ride safely on the road after dark without reflectors but with reflective/hi-viz clothing/strips and more importantly decent lights.



But if the individual rationalised it as they are crossing like a pedestrian when there is no cross traffic, so minimal danger, so as to be safe from the Green Light Grand Prix, does that make it acceptable?

I'm not an RLJer but I do find it curious as to what specifically it is that arouses such passion and anger in people. It can't be the legality and it can't be the danger. I suspect its somebody making progress while they can't because we see similar behaviour to try and block filtering by some motorists - "If I'm not moving, neither are you" - but I don't know.


----------



## gaz (20 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> But why does it antagonise drivers so much? It can't be the law breaking because otherwise our pedals would antagonise them. It can't be the danger because they're not in danger and it turns out not to be dangerous. So what is it that generates such strong feelings for cyclist RLJing compared to all the other things going on?


If we suddenly stop rljing will it stop people hating on us? No.
People hate us for many reasons and unless we all stop cycling, it's going to continue.


----------



## apollo179 (20 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> But why does it antagonise drivers so much? It can't be the law breaking because otherwise our pedals would antagonise them. It can't be the danger because they're not in danger and it turns out not to be dangerous. So what is it that generates such strong feelings for cyclist RLJing compared to all the other things going on?


+1
I think its a myth that drivers get antagonised by rljing cyclists.
I didnt get upset by it when i drove nor does anyone i know, nor have i ever experience evidence of it on the road. 
I suspect the only people who do get antaganised by it are some cyclists with there own bizzare agenda.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> +1
> *I think its a myth that drivers get antagonised by rljing cyclists.*
> I didnt get upset by it when i drove nor does anyone i know, nor have i ever experience evidence of it on the road.
> I suspect the only people who do get antaganised by it are some cyclists with there own bizzare agenda.



No it is not a myth. 

A RLJ-er got shouted at, abused, and honked at by drivers in the 'sham town centre today about two hours ago. If they were not antagonised what were they about?


----------



## 400bhp (20 Aug 2011)

cycleruk said:


> i have one big floor


----------



## 400bhp (20 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> If we suddenly stop rljing will it stop people hating on us? No.
> People hate us for many reasons and unless we all stop cycling, it's going to continue.



Do people hate us?

I probably average 10 hours a week in the saddle. There's 168 hours in a week so they only hate me less than 6% of the time. 

Maybe a different debate, but what is a cyclist?


----------



## 400bhp (20 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> But why does it antagonise drivers so much? It can't be the law breaking because otherwise our pedals would antagonise them. It can't be the danger because they're not in danger and it turns out not to be dangerous. So what is it that generates such strong feelings for cyclist RLJing compared to all the other things going on?



The main reason for the difference is that most people don't know that riding without pedal reflectors is illegal.

RJL is seen as antisocial.

Plus I believe it's the British sense of fair play. We don't like people breaking rules.

Plus,it _looks_ irresponsible. 

it's the "why should we be considerate to cyclists when they go around being inconsiderate, irresponsible and break rules."

Rightly or wrongly, that's how it is.

Personally I DGAF whether I'm liked/disliked. People are irrational.


----------



## Emmanuel Obikwelu (20 Aug 2011)

al78 said:


> One crucial difference is that when pedestrians cross on red it does not antagonize drivers and fuel negative stereotypes. It is not a good idea if you are a minority group in a democratic society to unnecessarily antagonize the majority.
> If you want to be a wheeled pedestrian, buy a pair of roller skates.



The fact that it is illegal is a valid arguement.
The fact that it annoys motorists is not.
A motorist that cannot control his emotions and allows himself to get angry whatever the reason is indefensible.
Anyone who gets angry while driving for any reason has a problem. They have a problem , not the cyclist rljing or the milk float , or the livestock or the old woman driving slowly in front.
Whatever you do , do not become apologists for angry impatient car drivers.
Rljing is wrong but people driving with anger management issues is more wrong


----------



## Rapples (20 Aug 2011)

Don't ride at night for me.

On the very odd occasion that I have I wouldn't worry that I don't have reflectors. My shoes and overshoes have refective bits.


----------



## growingvegetables (20 Aug 2011)

Spend just a few minutes on Silly Cyclists –and RLJing cyclists regularly endanger themselves, pedestrians, push chairs,older people, other cyclists, motor drivers and passengers, etc etc etc ...not only *directly* by their own action, but *indirectly* by risking setting off a chain of reactions where a motor vehicle, taking evasive action,could conceivably cause one hell of a lot of damage, ........ while the RLJ cyclist carries on “oblivious”.

And you're equating that to (utterly useless!) reflectors on pedals? Honestly? That's daft.

The only effect of NOT having reflectors on your pedals is to yourself – if, God forbid, a driver hits you at night, you'll lose out for "contributory negligence". That's your personal call. Do you want the insurance cheque, or do you not?
[edited] Just adding that I voted RLJing is not OK - despite, for years and years and years, regularly cycling through one particular red light. It was controlled by a magnetic sensor - so on an evening or a Sunday, you could wait up to an hour for a bus to come along with sufficient iron to trigger the lights  . Changed now, than goodness.


----------



## MGBLemonrider (20 Aug 2011)

Yes, I do it all the time - year round shift working commuter

However - Hub dynamo & edlux on the front ( on sensor so comes on in light dusk conditions), two multi led rear lights (normally one on flash/strobe other solid). reflectors front and rear.
I wear wow wow ankle straps - they live in my cycling shoes so if the shoes are on my feet the straps are around my ankles.

I have A520 single sided - won't take reflectors and M520 on my MTB which are double sided, didn't come with reflectors and the ones shown (other thread) negate the advantage of being double sided.

Pedal reflectors are great they are often the first thing/only that you see on a ninja. However my lighting is more visible and I think does shout out cyclist like moving pedal reflectors.

I did read on here a DFT guidance that if ankle reflectors were worn not to prosecute for no pedal reflectors. I think a pragmatic approach.

Traditional Pedal reflectors are great because they're always on the bike and don't require any effort by the owner so by being OE, might help save a ninja's life. The white spoke reflectors do break and fall off through usage and are only compulsory at point of sale. I need to replace mine or put something else on.

On the contributory negligence side there is a risk you could be penalised, and for this reason mainly I wear helmet and High Vis waist coat though this summer that's been replaced with a yellow night vision jersey.


----------



## gaz (20 Aug 2011)

growingvegetables said:


> Spend just a few minutes on Silly Cyclists –and RLJing cyclists regularly endanger themselves, pedestrians, push chairs,older people, other cyclists, motor drivers and passengers, etc etc etc ...not only *directly* by their own action, but *indirectly* by risking setting off a chain of reactions where a motor vehicle, taking evasive action,could conceivably cause one hell of a lot of damage, ........ while the RLJ cyclist carries on “oblivious”.


I'll just add that Silly Cyclists shows the worst cyclists. I see and get plenty of videos of cyclists going through red lights. 9 out of 10 times it's on a pedestrian crossing with no pedestrians around.


----------



## PpPete (20 Aug 2011)

None of my bikes have pedal reflectors - all those that I might use at night have spoke reflectors (the little 3M ones that clip to individual spokes - not the dangerous kind that bridge across multiple spokes). These work best from the side view and IMO these make a much a greater contribution to my overall visibility than pedal reflectors ever could, as front and rear are illuminated by some serious lights.

At the risk of calling down the opprobrium of the UKIP tendency I really do think that UK law should be aligned with that of other EU countries - notably Germany, where the law - whilst still far from ideal, seems a little more useful.


----------



## Red Light (20 Aug 2011)

growingvegetables said:


> Spend just a few minutes on Silly Cyclists –and RLJing cyclists regularly endanger themselves, pedestrians, push chairs,older people, other cyclists, motor drivers and passengers, etc etc etc ...not only *directly* by their own action, but *indirectly* by risking setting off a chain of reactions where a motor vehicle, taking evasive action,could conceivably cause one hell of a lot of damage, ........ while the RLJ cyclist carries on “oblivious”.
> 
> And you're equating that to (utterly useless!) reflectors on pedals? Honestly? That's daft.



What you see on Silly Cyclists is not normal behaviour but videos that have been selected to show a particular issue. Its a bit like saying that Police, Camera, Action shows how people generally drive.



> The only effect of NOT having reflectors on your pedals is to yourself – if, God forbid, a driver hits you at night, you'll lose out for "contributory negligence". That's your personal call. Do you want the insurance cheque, or do you not?



The effect of running a red light will generally be to to the RLJer and maybe the bodywork of a car, just like if they were hit at night without reflectors. So where's the difference? And the risk is extremely low. Less than 2% of London road deaths are from RLJing despite so many people allegedly doing it. And it has been suggested by TfL and The Times that the reason for the high death rate of women on London's roads is they get caught up in the Green Light Grand Prix rather than jumping the red like the men.


----------



## Davidc (20 Aug 2011)

I have pedal reflectors on all platform type pedals (and spares - they're very cheap) because they help with being seen.

As a driver I've only seen some stealth rider Ninjas in time because of their pedal reflectors.

I don't have them on the SPD ones but wear slap wraps round my ankles at night. My shoes also have reflective strips all round. As MGBLemonrider has pointed out the DfT have in effect, through their guidance, made this an alternative. If there's an accident and the issue comes up I'm sure any half decent barrister will use that guidance in court to demonstrate the equivalence.



Red Light said:


> But why does it antagonise drivers so much? It can't be the law breaking because otherwise our pedals would antagonise them. It can't be the danger because they're not in danger and it turns out not to be dangerous. So what is it that generates such strong feelings for cyclist RLJing compared to all the other things going on?



It's because the vast majority of drivers try to avoid hitting other road users, including cyclists. That's why they dislike RLJers, both on bikes and motorised. The same applies to people who go round without lights. Motor vehicle drivers also get agitated with pedestrians who do stupid things

RLJers put themselves in harms way. If they get abuse as a result they've earned it, even though if that abuse turns offensive that's not justified.


----------



## Red Light (20 Aug 2011)

Davidc said:


> As MGBLemonrider has pointed out the DfT have in effect, through their guidance, made this an alternative.



Curious. When some suggest Home Office guidance makes riding carefully and considerately on the pavement acceptable, people dismiss it. Yet when it comes to riding without pedal reflectors they embrace DfT guidance as making it acceptable


----------



## Headgardener (20 Aug 2011)

I voted yes I do it all the time as my SPD pedals came with a reflector block which turned them into flats on one side. I took this block off inorder to use the SPD on both sides and there is a series of dots on back of my shoes which serve the same pupose. So no I am happy to break the law at night because there are other lights and reflectors on the bike.


----------



## Red Light (20 Aug 2011)

Davidc said:


> It's because the vast majority of drivers try to avoid hitting other road users, including cyclists. That's why they dislike RLJers, both on bikes and motorised.



Do they hate pedestrians equally then? Only they RLJ legally at junctions whenever they think the road is clear - a bit like cyclists really - and there are far more of them hit - over a thousand a year at traffic light junctions in London and another 2,300 at other junctions with about 70 deaths resulting. Compare that with half a cyclist death per year and it seems its pedestrians they should be getting angry with, not cyclists, if you are right.

Besides I think most of the motorists who actually get angry are sat in the queue at the red light so don't have a hope in hell of hitting the cyclist they are getting worked up about.

And if they dislike hitting them so much why do they kill so many by red light jumping themselves? In London RLJing cars killed 3 cyclists, 7 pedestrians and 7 vehicle occupants over 5 years which is a lot more than the two cyclists who were killed RLJing.


----------



## growingvegetables (20 Aug 2011)

Basic question - what is this thread about? Pedal reflectors?

Nope. You think cyclists RLJing is OK, and you've set up a straw argument about reflectors, which doesn't work .... sorry, but it just doesn't.

You are right to pick up motor vehicle drivers RLJing - t'aint just cyclists RLJing.

" A poll of 3,000 motorists by Thrifty Car & Van Rental reveals a staggering eight out of ten (85%) drivers admit to gambling amber lights in an attempt to race through the traffic.

Meanwhile, nearly four out of ten (38%) say they rarely stop if the lights are on amber. Sixteen per cent (16%) even confessed that amber is like a green light to them.

Worryingly more than one in ten (13%) motorists has had an accident or near miss as a result of belting through an amber signal. Half (50%) have been shouted at by their passenger and more than a quarter (26%) have been sworn or beeped at by other drivers. "

And there's any number of similar polls. But ...... since when did motorists being ignorant, dangerous dingbats give me (or you) as a cyclist the right to be a similarly ignorant, dangerous dingbat?


----------



## Bicycle (20 Aug 2011)

I don't use pedal reflectors.

None of my bicycles have them, nor do those of my children.

My wife has them, but only because I've put an old pair of flats on a roadbike for her until she'll consider clipless.

I don't have those funky spoke-mounted reflectors either.

We wear bright, visible clothing and in poor visibility we are well lit.

The SPDs, Look-style things and Egg Beaters we favour make the ountoing of reflectors unlikely... 

But... No-one's ever noticed that we don't have them... No-one's ever advised me to fit them.... No-one seeing me turning up at work without reflectors has patronised me with a 10-minute 'lecture' as I've had sometimes after commuting in a cotton cap.

I think Joe and Mrs Public are broadly unaware of the whole pedal-reflector issue, which may be because it is of no consequence and widely ignored by both Mr and Mrs Plod.


----------



## Red Light (20 Aug 2011)

growingvegetables said:


> Basic question - what is this thread about? Pedal reflectors?
> 
> Nope. You think cyclists RLJing is OK, and you've set up a straw argument about reflectors, which doesn't work .... sorry, but it just doesn't.



No I don't think RLJing is OK and don't do it. But neither do I think its the heinous crime warranting excoriation that its portrayed as. As your driver stats point out its people that RLJ and they do it in a variety of vehicles including bicycles and cars. But why doing it on a bike is always picked out as particularly bad I don't understand. At least they're not driving a ton of lethal metal when they do it..

As for the pedal reflectors its interesting because it negates the argument that its unacceptable because its illegal. It may be unacceptable for other reasons but not just because its breaking the law and its not at all clear what those reasons are. None of those advanced stand up to examination.





> And there's any number of similar polls. But ...... since when did motorists being ignorant, dangerous dingbats give me (or you) as a cyclist the right to be a similarly ignorant, dangerous dingbat?




Yes I agree tu quoque is not a good argument but what a cyclist does is by no stretch similarly ignorant or dangerous. Cars as you note tend to pile through at speed during the amber and early red phases hoping they'll get across before anything comes the other way. They are driving a ton of metal and if it goes wrong it tends to go seriously wrong. IME cyclists don't do that . They stop at the junction and wait until its clear to go rather like a pedestrian. And if it does go wrong its only them that gets hurt.

So at worst it demands the same level of disapprobation as red light running by motorists, not what happens which is the regular excoriation.


----------



## phantasmagoriana (20 Aug 2011)

I have Shimano M324s on my commuting bike, and have fitted reflectors to them (one of them's fallen off though - forgot to use threadlock on the bolts! ). 

Main reason for getting them was because I find them really visible on other cyclists, so thought it would be a good idea. (Admittedly they're most useful when the bikes have no/poor lights, and I always use at least 2 decent lights front and rear so the effect's probably much diminished).

No reflectors on the road bike (M520s) - I don't tend to ride it at night though.


----------



## Red Light (20 Aug 2011)

OK all the posters who said they use pedal reflectors to stay legal, do you ever have rear panniers on your bike when your ride at night? Panniers generally obscure pedal reflectors so they are not visible from the rear and therefore ostensibly illegal..


----------



## gaz (20 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> OK all the posters who said they use pedal reflectors to stay legal, do you ever have rear panniers on your bike when your ride at night? Panniers generally obscure pedal reflectors so they are not visible from the rear and therefore ostensibly illegal..


Do they also have two lights which conform to the legal requirements? And other reflectors needed?


----------



## al78 (20 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> OK all the posters who said they use pedal reflectors to stay legal, do you ever have rear panniers on your bike when your ride at night? Panniers generally obscure pedal reflectors so they are not visible from the rear and therefore ostensibly illegal..



No.


----------



## BSRU (20 Aug 2011)

It's an interesting question, my normal commuter has pedal reflectors but my road bike does not, but if someone cannot see my magicshine plus ultrafire torch on the front and Dinotte 400R and two Smart 1w on the rear plus reflectives on my shoes,tights and saddlebag then they are not going to see any pedal reflectors. But legally I'm breaking the law.


----------



## apollo179 (21 Aug 2011)

400bhp said:


> The main reason for the difference is that most people don't know that riding without pedal reflectors is illegal.
> 
> RJL is seen as antisocial.
> 
> ...


Agree with everything youve said.
However the reality on the ground, especially in some inner city areas, is that large sectors of society are inconsioderate , irresponsible and break the rules. and that the morality that you refer has been and is being slowly corroded.
In multicultural britain there are people to whom the british sense of fair play is not familiar , indeed there are alot of people who cannot even speak english. We have a decreasingly classic white (fair play) culture.
I am not seeking to critiscise these people , they have there own morality that we may not entirely understand, i am just trying to temper this discussion with a little perspective.
I myself have been horrified when i have seen freinds throw litter without seemingly any qualm , this is because in other countries it is ok to throw litter and indeed other people depend on litter collecting for there livelyhood.
So my point is that you are right but the reality on the ground is not as clear cut as all that.
Anyway have a nice sunday.


----------



## John90 (21 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Agree with everything youve said.
> However the reality on the ground, especially in some inner city areas, is that large sectors of society are inconsioderate , irresponsible and break the rules. and that the morality that you refer has been and is being slowly corroded.
> In multicultural britain there are people to whom the british sense of fair play is not familiar , indeed there are alot of people who cannot even speak english. We have a decreasingly classic white (fair play) culture.
> I am not seeking to critiscise these people , they have there own morality that we may not entirely understand, i am just trying to temper this discussion with a little perspective.
> ...



In other countries it is OK to cut peoples' hands off and stone them to death and indeed other people depend on it for their livelihood.

Apologies for going off-topic, but moral relativism is a bug bear of mine. Everyone understands (or should understand) that littering is a bad thing and 'fair play' is a good thing, they're not just British idiosyncrasies. Same with the RLJ debate.


----------



## apollo179 (21 Aug 2011)

John90 said:


> In other countries it is OK to cut peoples' hands off and stone them to death and indeed other people depend on it for their livelihood.
> 
> Apologies for going off-topic, but moral relativism is a bug bear of mine. Everyone understands (or should understand) that littering is a bad thing and 'fair play' is a good thing, they're not just British idiosyncrasies. Same with the RLJ debate.


But increasing numbers of people are brought up on a morality , value system other than the classic british one.
I have seen it with my own eyes people littering totally like it is the normal thing to do , because in other countries it is.
While we encourage people of other cultures to come to this country how can we then be surprised when they bring there own practices with them , some of which may be alien and offensive to us.
I didnt quite get your cutting the hands off point btw ?


----------



## dellzeqq (21 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> I've been using SPD-SL pedals for over 5 years now, and with them all through the winter which equates to over 10hours a week in darkness.
> The only reflector that I have on my current commuting bike is on the *mudguard*...............


eek! Get rid now!


----------



## John90 (21 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I didnt quite get your cutting the hands off point btw ?



Moral relativism. The idea that because someone's culture/society/religion takes a particular view that it is therefore excusable. All cultures are wrong about some things and some cultures are wrong about more things than others. Anyway, I doubt that littering is a deep-seated cultural phenomenon. It is possible to explain to anyone quickly and simply that it is wrong.

And if they keep doing it, chop their hands off.


----------



## apollo179 (21 Aug 2011)

John90 said:


> Moral relativism. The idea that because someone's culture/society/religion takes a particular view that it is therefore excusable. All cultures are wrong about some things and some cultures are wrong about more things than others. Anyway, I doubt that littering is a deep-seated cultural phenomenon. It is possible to explain to anyone quickly and simply that it is wrong.
> 
> And if they keep doing it, chop their hands off.


Gotcha.
The point i was trying to make was not a moral relativist one whereby i excused these foreign practices.
I think they are wrong just as much as you.
It was that the reality is that these customs have infiltrated the indigenous classic english culture , that classic british fair play culture has been and is being eroded .
I may regret this reality as much as you do john but that is what multiculturalism means.
I would add that multiculturism has also brought many benefits to english society.


----------



## dellzeqq (21 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Agree with everything youve said.
> However the reality on the ground, especially in some inner city areas, is that large sectors of society are inconsioderate , irresponsible and break the rules. and that the morality that you refer has been and is being slowly corroded.
> *In multicultural britain there are people to whom the british sense of fair play is not familiar , indeed there are alot of people who cannot even speak english. We have a decreasingly classic white (fair play) culture.*
> I am not seeking to critiscise these people , they have there own morality that we may not entirely understand, i am just trying to temper this discussion with a little perspective.
> ...


why am I not surprised? From pedal reflectors to David Starkey!

As far as I know, riding without pedal reflectors is perfectly legal. Selling a bike fitted with pedals but without pedal reflectors is illegal - unless the bike has pedals that are for racing.


----------



## on the road (21 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> We have a decreasingly classic white (fair play) culture.


What's that meant to mean?


----------



## rowan 46 (21 Aug 2011)

of course riding without reflectors is ok if you have lights. so is rlj on empty streets although I normally don't do it. but to rlj through pedestrians or past a line of cars is as stupid and thoughtless as riding at night without lights


----------



## apollo179 (21 Aug 2011)

on the road said:


> What's that meant to mean?



Its meant to mean that in certain parts of the country , principally urban areas we have got large communities of non indigenous peoples and descendants from recent immigrants. These people have different cultures , different from the traditional english culture. Different - im not saying better or worse. Indeed i know that moral decline is an extreme concern to immigrant communities as the west is regarded as being sexualy promiscous , a widely held perception in hand cutting of lands. These cross cultural fears work both ways.


----------



## Bicycle (21 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Agree with everything youve said.
> However the reality on the ground, especially in some inner city areas, is that large sectors of society are inconsioderate , irresponsible and break the rules. and that the morality that you refer has been and is being slowly corroded.
> In multicultural britain there are people to whom the british sense of fair play is not familiar , indeed there are alot of people who cannot even speak english. We have a decreasingly classic white (fair play) culture.
> I am not seeking to critiscise these people , they have there own morality that we may not entirely understand, i am just trying to temper this discussion with a little perspective.




The phrase *'white (fair play) culture'* follows closely the phrase *'there are a lot of people who cannot even speak English'.

*I find the construction of the first phrse I quote slightly clunky, but I think its meaning is clear enough.

However, if you thought that by adding a claim that you don't want to *'criticise these people'* you would sound any less like Alf Garnett in a moment of delusional, imagined enlightenment, you were wrong.

The broad implication flowing through the above is that the finger of blame can be pointed in one, clear direction. Just as when David Duke sought public office in the US by making non-racial references to the 'rising welfare underclass', many people will think they know exactly who you are talking about.

Feel free to add perspective; but if it's not your intention to sound like an ELD wannabe, you might want to review your use of language.


----------



## apollo179 (21 Aug 2011)

Bicycle said:


> The phrase *'white (fair play) culture'* follows closely the phrase *'there are a lot of people who cannot even speak English'.
> 
> *I find the construction of the first phrse I quote slightly clunky, but I think its meaning is clear enough.
> 
> ...


If by introducing the topic of multiculturism i sound like alf garnet then thats unfortunate as culturally i have feet in both camps.
What does eld stand for - if your comparing me with it id like to know what it means.


----------



## Bicycle (21 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> If by introducing the topic of multiculturism i sound like alf garnet then thats unfortunate as culturally i have feet in both camps.
> What does eld stand for - if your comparing me with it id like to know what it means.




Whoops.... Typo strikes again.

ELD should read EDL. I can see why that threw you. My apologies.

Introducing multiculturalism is by no means wrong, but the piece I quoted and questioned was eccentric in its wording if not meant to cause offence.


----------



## byegad (21 Aug 2011)

As a bent rider this one is an example of the law not moving with the technology. I had them on one bike and they would have been visible to LGM in their flying saucer or earthworms looking up. 

I do use a lot of lights to make up for the lack of a pedal reflector.


----------



## mr Mag00 (21 Aug 2011)

i use reflective ankle strips and the shoes have built in reflective material which does degrade.


----------



## dellzeqq (21 Aug 2011)

byegad said:


> *As a bent rider* this one is an example of the law not moving with the technology. I had them on one bike and they would have been visible to LGM in their flying saucer or earthworms looking up.
> 
> I do use a lot of lights to make up for the lack of a pedal reflector.


good grief! Is this another example of the non-indigenous culture we've been hearing about?


----------



## Moodyman (21 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Agree with everything youve said.
> 
> *In multicultural britain there are people to whom the british sense of fair play is not familiar , indeed there are alot of people who cannot even speak english. We have a decreasingly classic white (fair play) culture*.




As David Starkey said, we're all becoming black.


----------



## apollo179 (21 Aug 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Whoops.... Typo strikes again.
> 
> ELD should read EDL. I can see why that threw you. My apologies.
> 
> Introducing multiculturalism is by no means wrong, but the piece I quoted and questioned was eccentric in its wording if not meant to cause offence.



Firstly - i was not seeking to blame anyone of anything.
As an rljer myself with strong ties to "these people" i was basically attempting to in some poorly expressed way explain (mitigate) some rlj behaviour.
I was seeking to introduce the idea of multiculturism as one reason for why a large segment of societys may be unfamiliar with your concepts of "antisociability, fair play, We don't like people breaking rules.it looks irresponsible". etc etc. I was in no way hiding who i was talking about - as i have stated "non indigenous peoples and descendants from recent immigrants."
This is not moral relativism , it is more like just an appreciation of the possible conflicts associated with cultural migration.
I have been in a car with an elder immigrant who wound his car window down and emptied his car of all the rubbish as we went along. I was horrified but could not say anything as he was my elder. My point is that this was wrong to you and me but to him it was fine because it is fine where he was born (and i have spent half my life so i know). In absolute terms it was wrong in this country but the norm in his country. 

Apologies for the misunderstanding or offence my eccentric wording caused and please let me know if thare is any repeat in this message as this is not the intention.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (21 Aug 2011)

I have pedal reflectors, but no-one can see them through my two panniers. According to the RVLR, this appears to be illegal. The fact that it is illegal is completely Bl**dy stupid. I also have a big rear reflector and two fairly bright rear lights, one flashing and the other steady.

If someone hits me from behind, I am sure some hot-shot lawyer will claim contributory negilgence, and I have no doubt that some stupid judge will agree. However, the only alternative is to start carrying my stuff in the boot of my car which, incidentally, doesn't have any reflectors fitted to the pedals (but isn't illegal).


----------



## Emmanuel Obikwelu (21 Aug 2011)

They dont call kewing the british disease for nothing


----------



## Moodyman (21 Aug 2011)

Emmanuel Obikwelu said:


> They dont call kewing the british disease for nothing




Is this something peculiar to Kew?


----------



## 400bhp (21 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Agree with everything youve said.
> However the reality on the ground, especially in some inner city areas, is that large sectors of society are inconsioderate , irresponsible and break the rules. and that the morality that you refer has been and is being slowly corroded.
> In multicultural britain there are people to whom the british sense of fair play is not familiar , indeed there are alot of people who cannot even speak english. We have a decreasingly classic white (fair play) culture.
> I am not seeking to critiscise these people , they have there own morality that we may not entirely understand, i am just trying to temper this discussion with a little perspective.
> ...



There's a lot of people who can't spell, or use a good level of grammar.


----------



## 400bhp (21 Aug 2011)

This thread is gay.


----------



## funnymummy (21 Aug 2011)

I voted I obey the law, only one of my bikes has clipless pedals, the other two have stabdrad pedals with rfelveters & if I was out after dark, chnaces are i'd be on one of them. But saying that, if I did get caught out in the drak on my Spesh I have at laest 4 rear lights & lord knows how much reflective stuff on my night time jacket!


----------



## Emmanuel Obikwelu (21 Aug 2011)

400bhp said:


> This thread is gay.


Speak for yourself


----------



## Red Light (22 Aug 2011)

RichK said:


> From the DfT last paragraph...



That is not guidance, that is just an opinion. Ergo much weaker in defending yourself in Court than the clear guidance Paul Boateng gave on pavement cycling.


----------



## Red Light (22 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> As far as I know, riding without pedal reflectors is perfectly legal. Selling a bike fitted with pedals but without pedal reflectors is illegal - unless the bike has pedals that are for racing.



I think you are mixing up bells and pedal reflectors. Riding a bike without pedal reflectors when its dark is illegal. RVLR 1989 Schedule 20

Requirements relating to obligatory pedal retro reflectors and optional pedal retro reflectors to the extent specified in part ii

1. Number: Two reflectors on each pedal
2. Position–
(a) Longitudinal:On the leading edge and the trailing edge of each pedal
(b) Lateral:No requirement
(c) Vertical:No requirement
​3. Angles of visibility: Such that the reflector on the leading edge of each pedal is plainly visible to the front and the reflector on the trailing edge of each pedal is plainly visible to the rear
4. Markings: A British Standard mark
5. Size of reflecting area: No requirement
6. Colour: Amber


----------



## tyred (22 Aug 2011)

There is a cut off so that bikes built before (I think) 1986 don't require them by law. So all but one of my bikes are exempt from this rule but I still like to have them at night. They do attract attention, I have seen it many times on other bikes while driving.


----------



## on the road (22 Aug 2011)

My bike is illegal, it doesn't have pedal reflectors and doesn't have a front and rear reflector


----------



## Twigman (22 Aug 2011)

Shimano SM-PD58 - reflectors for PD-7810/PD-7800/PD-7750/PD-6700/PD-6620/PD-6610/ PD-5700/PD-5610/PD-5600/PD-R670/PD-R600/PD-R540 pedals

hth

http://techdocs.shim...69830706616.pdf


----------



## summerdays (22 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> OK all the posters who said they use pedal reflectors to stay legal, do you ever have rear panniers on your bike when your ride at night? Panniers generally obscure pedal reflectors so they are not visible from the rear and therefore ostensibly illegal..



My Ortlieb panniers have reflective patches on ... does that count? As does my mudguards both back and front, and some of those clip on spoke reflectors (though they seem to disappear off my bike quicker than on my son or husbands bike ... I suspect it might have something to do with where I lock mine up!). 

I find that the pedal reflectors fall off ... and I can't be the only person as I've been known to pick old ones up off the ground to attach back to my pedals. That said I would rather rely on my lights and reflective ankle bands which are larger and cover a greater angle.


----------



## Alun (22 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> OK all the posters who said they use pedal reflectors to stay legal, do you ever have rear panniers on your bike when your ride at night? Panniers generally obscure pedal reflectors so they are not visible from the rear and therefore ostensibly illegal..



The reflectors are still visible from the front/rear of the pedal, whether panniers are fitted to the bike or not.


----------



## gaz (22 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> Shimano SM-PD58 - reflectors for PD-7810/PD-7800/PD-7750/PD-6700/PD-6620/PD-6610/ PD-5700/PD-5610/PD-5600/PD-R670/PD-R600/PD-R540 pedals
> 
> hth
> 
> http://techdocs.shim...69830706616.pdf



Does that reflector have the relevant BS mark? Does it meet BS 6102/2 standards?
If not then it doesn't make you legal.


----------



## snailracer (22 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Firstly - i was not seeking to blame anyone of anything.
> As an rljer myself with strong ties to "these people" i was basically attempting to in some poorly expressed way explain (mitigate) some rlj behaviour.
> I was seeking to introduce the idea of multiculturism as one reason for why a large segment of societys may be unfamiliar with your concepts of "antisociability, fair play, We don't like people breaking rules.it looks irresponsible". etc etc. I was in no way hiding who i was talking about - as i have stated "non indigenous peoples and descendants from recent immigrants."
> This is not moral relativism , it is more like just an appreciation of the possible conflicts associated with cultural migration.
> ...


Us British have been wading through our own refuse since the Romans left. Next you'll be blaming foreigners (or would that just be the non-white foreigners?) for football hooliganism, graffiti and vandalism.


----------



## apollo179 (23 Aug 2011)

snailracer said:


> Us British have been wading through our own refuse since the Romans left. Next you'll be blaming foreigners (or would that just be the non-white foreigners?) for football hooliganism, graffiti and vandalism.



Nonsense.
As an rljing immigrant (of sorts) you can be assured that i was not blaming immigrants - quite the opposite. I was expressing the notion that immigrants bring there own culture and values with them and where these are different to those here in uk we should be understanding , be tolerant and bare these cross cultural considerations in mind before condemning them (for rljing for example)
Example - i never saw a seat belt over 15 years in india. So coming from india to uk isnt it understandable that there will be some seat belt culture gap (cos its the law to wear one i find here). But still i dont have that in built "must wear a seatbelt" thing that you guys presumably do. On the occasions i forget - its wrong but hey ive kindof got an excuse.
Snailracer - By your suggesting that by foreigners i mean just non-white foreigners i take it that you are insinuating that i am racist which unless you can substantiate your accusation i find quite cowardly and nasty .
It is a shame that any discussion if immigrants seems makes you a racist - something else i dont understand about the uk.


----------



## Moodyman (23 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> *It is a shame that any discussion if immigrants seems makes you a racist - something else i dont understand about the uk.
> *



Britain through colonialism and via its treatments of immigrants - Irish, Jews, and later those from the Commonwealth - has a guilty conscience.

As soon as you mention foreigners, you're automatically labelled a racist or a racist's sympathiser.


----------



## apollo179 (23 Aug 2011)

Moodyman said:


> Britain through colonialism and via its treatments of immigrants - Irish, Jews, and later those from the Commonwealth - has a guilty conscience.
> 
> As soon as you mention foreigners, you're automatically labelled a racist or a racist's sympathiser.



Good point. I would love to reply with an insight about what india and indians are like but had better not as it might be interpretted as racist. Im learning - yipee.


----------



## on the road (23 Aug 2011)

Moodyman said:


> As soon as you mention foreigners, you're automatically labelled a racist or a racist's sympathiser.


No, it's a soon as you blame all of britains ills on non-whites which is what some people do.


----------



## apollo179 (23 Aug 2011)

on the road said:


> No, it's a soon as you blame all of britains ills on non-whites which is what some people do.



I would err towards Moodymans opinion at least to say ;
As soon as you mention foreigners, there is an knee jerk tendency by some people to label you a racist or a racist's sympathiser regardless of the truth that your words convey.


----------



## summerdays (23 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Good point. I would love to reply with an insight about what india and indians are like but had better not as it might be interpretted as racist. Im learning - yipee.



I had friends who went to India for a year and a half ... they gave me lots of insights into the different world that they enjoyed whilst they were there, and they mentioned the no seat belts that they found very weird having come out from the UK with their children.


----------



## apollo179 (23 Aug 2011)

summerdays said:


> I had friends who went to India for a year and a half ... they gave me lots of insights into the different world that they enjoyed whilst they were there, and they mentioned the no seat belts that they found very weird having come out from the UK with their children.



Its is - and thats how it is for alot of immigrants coming here.
Seat belt law is unfamiliar.
Lots of things are unfamiliar.
Im sure they had lots of insights - good and bad as i myself do - unfortunately the readiness of some on this forum to shout racist means it is not possible to share.
Thanks for the post.


----------



## Twigman (23 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Good point. I would love to reply with an insight about what india and indians are like but had better not as it might be interpretted as racist. Im learning - yipee.


the Indians are the worst hypocrites - their caste system is the most crass form of discrimination.....and yet they love to play the race card over here

???


----------



## apollo179 (23 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> the Indians are the worst hypocrites - their caste system is the most crass form of discrimination.....and yet they love to play the race card over here
> 
> ???



FTFY


----------



## twobiker (23 Aug 2011)

How did pedal reflectors turn rascist ? I took mine off, they looked cheap and everything on my bike is black,Mtb, or silver,tourer. I don't ride in the dark because of the boogieman


----------



## Stephenite (23 Aug 2011)

I'm going to bask in moral superiority for a minute... 

 

...I bought some pedals (spd one side, flat t'other) for the commuter a couple of years ago from LeisureLakes in Bury. As they didn't come with reflectors I asked if they would put some on, and they happily obliged, free of charge. As i was planning on cycling at night, in snow, on crappy Norwegian roads I thought it best to be legal.

I couldn't vote in the poll tho' because I sometimes use the mtn bike at night which doesn't have reflectors. Shame..


----------



## Cyclopathic (23 Aug 2011)

At night it is simply wise to make ones self as visible as possible. If one has clipless pedals it stands to reason that reflectors are not possible. I personally would not worry about pedal reflectors too much but I would and do try and make sure that I have other highly visible points. I don't believe in adhereing to the law for its own sake but being visible at night just makes sense so I try to be.
Perhaps the law could be slightly amended so that it states pedal reflectors compulsary where there is a place for them to be fitted. A bit like the seatbelt law for very old cars where you don't have to wear one if they are not fitted. Failing that common sense should be applied to save the law the time and expense. I can't imagine that if one were lit up and wearing bright or reflective clothing that a traffic cop would go to the trouble of stopping you to lay down the law. As long as there is a general level of visibility it seems unproductive and unnescessarily pedantic to get caught up with the minutae of the law.


----------



## tyred (23 Aug 2011)

Cyclopathic said:


> At night it is simply wise to make ones self as visible as possible. If one has clipless pedals it stands to reason that reflectors are not possible. I personally would not worry about pedal reflectors too much but I would and do try and make sure that I have other highly visible points. I don't believe in adhereing to the law for its own sake but being visible at night just makes sense so I try to be.
> Perhaps the law could be slightly amended so that it states pedal reflectors compulsary where there is a place for them to be fitted. A bit like the seatbelt law for very old cars where you don't have to wear one if they are not fitted. Failing that common sense should be applied to save the law the time and expense. I can't imagine that if one were lit up and wearing bright or reflective clothing that a traffic cop would go to the trouble of stopping you to lay down the law. As long as there is a general level of visibility it seems unproductive and unnescessarily pedantic to get caught up with the minutae of the law.


The most sensible thing I have read all day!


----------



## Dan B (23 Aug 2011)

al78 said:


> One crucial difference is that when pedestrians cross on red it does not antagonize drivers and fuel negative stereotypes. It is not a good idea if you are a minority group in a democratic society to unnecessarily antagonize the majority.
> 
> If you want to be a wheeled pedestrian, buy a pair of roller skates.



I have a pair of roller skates (several pairs, in fact, one of which cost more than all but one of my bikes). I find it interesting that you say that, because on the public highway I often skate as I would ride - in the roadway, at 12-20mph, and obeying the signs and signals in much the same way as I would on a bicycle. But if I slow down to walking speed, then I behave as - and am treated by other road users as - a pedestrian, and I have never had anyone suggest that I should take my skates off in order to use a pedestrian crossing or a footway. So, why is it so widely protested when a cyclist moving at 3mph crosses the road at red, but yet it's OK for him to be pushing the bike at the same speed?


----------



## apollo179 (23 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> the Indians are the worst hypocrites - their caste system is the most crass form of discrimination.....and yet they love to play the race card over here
> 
> ???




On consideration i am refraining from commenting as ive allready found how quick people are to shout racist , so although i may agree with you i could not possibly comment . I do respekt you for giving the frank straightforward opinion - more than i do these cowardly pc racist calling types.

I would say in answer to youre race card comment in the context of what ive allready said that you could say that i have been playing the immigrant card (rather than the race card) in proposing tolerance and understanding of immigrants who contravene british laws.
And i would say that so long as the uk continues its tradition of welcoming immigrants from other countries then i would say that it behoves us to be understanding and tolerant of legal lapses caused by this culture gap.


----------



## twobiker (23 Aug 2011)

It seems that we have lots of nationals who already flout the law,{me included,no reflectors,} dont try giving all the credit to immigrants,we can break the law with the best of them,stand up for uk lawbreakers and be counted


----------



## sunnyjim (23 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> I think you are mixing up bells and pedal reflectors. Riding a bike without pedal reflectors when its dark is illegal. RVLR 1989 Schedule 20
> 
> Requirements relating to obligatory pedal retro reflectors and optional pedal retro reflectors to the extent specified in part ii
> 
> ...





My reflectors are infinitely small.


----------



## apollo179 (23 Aug 2011)

twobiker said:


> It seems that we have lots of nationals who already flout the law,{me included,no reflectors,} dont try giving all the credit to immigrants,we can break the law with the best of them,stand up for uk lawbreakers and be counted



Hell yes - lots of brits break the law and they do not have the excuse that they have come from a foreign land where rljing and pedal reflectors and seat belts etc etc are alien concepts.


----------



## Cyclopathic (23 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> the Indians are the worst hypocrites - their caste system is the most crass form of discrimination.....and yet they love to play the race card over here
> 
> ???




That is some prety big generalisations you are using there. "the indians", what all of them? Are all Indians hypocrites. "their caste system", Do they all believe in it? Do all Indians adhere strictly to it? Is it only in operation in India? Do you know enough about it to be able to comment with any authority. "they love to play the race card"? All indains do this do they, all the time.

I'd say that you don't know what you are talking about because all English people are too busy Morris dancing and drinking real ale to have time to learn about anything else.


----------



## Cyclopathic (23 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> On consideration i am refraining from commenting as ive allready found how quick people are to shout racist , so although i may agree with you i could not possibly comment . I do respekt you for giving the frank straightforward opinion - more than i do these cowardly pc racist calling types.
> 
> I would say in answer to youre race card comment in the context of what ive allready said that you could say that i have been playing the immigrant card (rather than the race card) in proposing tolerance and understanding of immigrants who contravene british laws.
> And i would say that so long as the uk continues its tradition of welcoming immigrants from other countries then i would say that it behoves us to be understanding and tolerant of legal lapses caused by this culture gap.




It's probably not a coincidence that you find people thinking you may have slightly racist views. Personaly I find I am able to talk about race and peoples to any extent I feel is apropriate and never find myself being accused of racism. I also never feel that there are subjects that I cannot discuss for fear of being thought racist and I find it hard to see how anyone could have this problem unles what they were saying did indeed have racist overtones. How can I never have had this problem which you and some others seem to find so debilitating when talking about race or ethnicity?


----------



## Cyclopathic (23 Aug 2011)

I am white and British and I am sorry to shatter anybodies illusions but I have not and will not ever be pursuaded to wear a seatbelt on my bike.


----------



## Red Light (23 Aug 2011)

sunnyjim said:


> My reflectors are infinitely small.



Ah homeopathic reflectors  Do they comply with BS6102/2?


----------



## apollo179 (23 Aug 2011)

Cyclopathic said:


> It's probably not a coincidence that you find people thinking you may have slightly racist views. Personaly I find I am able to talk about race and peoples to any extent I feel is apropriate and never find myself being accused of racism. I also never feel that there are subjects that I cannot discuss for fear of being thought racist and I find it hard to see how anyone could have this problem unles what they were saying did indeed have racist overtones. How can I never have had this problem which you and some others seem to find so debilitating when talking about race or ethnicity?



Nice coming in on the tail of a complicated discussion and presenting yourself as mr perfect.


----------



## Ibbots (23 Aug 2011)

Some of my best friends are cyclists, odd habits and they talk funny but they don't know any better.


----------



## Cyclopathic (24 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Nice coming in on the tail of a complicated discussion and presenting yourself as mr perfect.




I speak as I find and the point I make is entirely relevant to what I read albeit at the tail end of a discussion. I never siad I was perfect just that I don't seem to have the problem of not being able to discus race without worrying about being called racist. At least I wasn't putting words into anybodies mouth eh?


----------



## Emmanuel Obikwelu (25 Aug 2011)

Cyclopathic said:


> It's probably not a coincidence that you find people thinking you may have slightly racist views. Personaly I find I am able to talk about race and peoples to any extent I feel is apropriate and never find myself being accused of racism. I also never feel that there are subjects that I cannot discuss for fear of being thought racist and I find it hard to see how anyone could have this problem unles what they were saying did indeed have racist overtones. How can I never have had this problem which you and some others seem to find so debilitating when talking about race or ethnicity?



To call someone a racist just because other people have seems irresponsible. Its a serious allegation and "no smoke without fire" reasoning is insufficient.
Just something to think about.


----------



## Cyclopathic (25 Aug 2011)

Emmanuel Obikwelu said:


> To call someone a racist just because other people have seems irresponsible. Its a serious allegation and "no smoke without fire" reasoning is insufficient.
> Just something to think about.




I am tired of hearing the same comment over and over, that it is impossible to talk about race because one immidiately gets labled a racist. This has not been my experience at all and I find that it is used as a blanket defense for people who espouse views that they can not defend in any other way. It is a catch all phrase used to try and change the perception of who is being singled out for discrimination. It is, as far as I'm concerned, about an effective and pursuasive a statement as saying that one cannot possibly be racist because one has friends who are black. 
It is also extremely difficult not to say anything when people are so facile as to say that (and I paraphrase) 'indians aren't entitiled to complain about prejudice because of the caste system' and 'Indians will always play the race card when challenged in any way'
You are right that an allegation of racism is serious. In this case I should probably pull up short of that specific allegation so to that end I apologise if I have overtly called anyone an out and out racist. However the tone and language of much of the latter parts of the discusion were couched in terms and language that certianly make a less than savoury interpretation of their content virtualy inevetable.
I'll make this the last comment I make on this as it is way off topic and not the sort of discussion I really want to have on a cycling forum but I felt that I could not remain silent. If anybody wishes to say anything to me about this or call me names or whatever then feel free to do so in a private message.


----------



## apollo179 (25 Aug 2011)

Cyclopathic said:


> I am tired of hearing the same comment over and over, that it is impossible to talk about race because one immidiately gets labled a racist. This has not been my experience at all and I find that it is used as a blanket defense for people who espouse views that they can not defend in any other way. It is a catch all phrase used to try and change the perception of who is being singled out for discrimination. It is, as far as I'm concerned, about an effective and pursuasive a statement as saying that one cannot possibly be racist because one has friends who are black.
> It is also extremely difficult not to say anything when people are so facile as to say that (and I paraphrase) 'indians aren't entitiled to complain about prejudice because of the caste system' and 'Indians will always play the race card when challenged in any way'
> You are right that an allegation of racism is serious. In this case I should probably pull up short of that specific allegation so to that end I apologise if I have overtly called anyone an out and out racist. However the tone and language of much of the latter parts of the discusion were couched in terms and language that certianly make a less than savoury interpretation of their content virtualy inevetable.
> I'll make this the last comment I make on this as it is way off topic and not the sort of discussion I really want to have on a cycling forum but I felt that I could not remain silent. If anybody wishes to say anything to me about this or call me names or whatever then feel free to do so in a private message.



Interesting you say you are "able to talk about race and peoples to any extent" and willing in a public forum to call me a racist but now are only willing to continue in private. MMhh.
I didnt say the comments that you quote above but i am the one you called a racist.
If you considered the opinions posted in more detail maybe you would be in a better position to cast a judgement.
I can stomach people calling me a moron (to some extent we are all morons) but racist (although i would say that by the same token we are all to some extent racist) i cannot accept. 
I would say to anyone who reads your post calling me a racist to judge for themselves not as you have done by thoughtless sheep mentality. Baaaaaa Baaaaaa


----------



## 4F (25 Aug 2011)

*No pedal reflectors here  

Exceptions and explanations*
Age brings privileges. To name but two: cycles manufactured before October 1990 can have any kind of white front lamp that is visible from a reasonable distance, and pre-October 1985 cycles don’t need pedal reflectors. 

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


----------



## Cyclopathic (25 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Interesting you say you are "able to talk about race and peoples to any extent" and willing in a public forum to call me a racist but now are only willing to continue in private. MMhh.
> I didnt say the comments that you quote above but i am the one you called a racist.
> If you considered the opinions posted in more detail maybe you would be in a better position to cast a judgement.
> I can stomach people calling me a moron (to some extent we are all morons) but racist (although i would say that by the same token we are all to some extent racist) i cannot accept.
> I would say to anyone who reads your post calling me a racist to judge for themselves not as you have done by thoughtless sheep mentality. Baaaaaa Baaaaaa



I was only trying to spare the general public from listening to this. I've got no reason to hide from anything. As far as I can tell I haven't called you a racist I have just said that considering the language and terminology you employ that I'm not surprised that some people might think you are. I also did not atribute the gross generalisations about indians to you either but I do notice that you waste no time in expressing your admiration of the forthright way in which that sentiment was put.
For the record I'm not saying you are or are not a racist. I would say that if you don't want their to be any confusion about the matter that you might choose your words more carefuly. I would urge you that if you want to continue in this matter that you do so privately. This is not to save my own blushes because I have none I just think stand up rows in front of everybody are a bit naff and I don't see the need to showboat.


----------



## apollo179 (25 Aug 2011)

Cyclopathic said:


> I was only trying to spare the general public from listening to this. I've got no reason to hide from anything. As far as I can tell I haven't called you a racist I have just said that considering the language and terminology you employ that I'm not surprised that some people might think you are. I also did not atribute the gross generalisations about indians to you either but I do notice that you waste no time in expressing your admiration of the forthright way in which that sentiment was put.
> For the record I'm not saying you are or are not a racist. I would say that if you don't want their to be any confusion about the matter that you might choose your words more carefuly. I would urge you that if you want to continue in this matter that you do so privately. This is not to save my own blushes because I have none I just think stand up rows in front of everybody are a bit naff and I don't see the need to showboat.


I said that i had more respekt for someone expressing an opinion in an open , frank and honest way than some sneaky insinuating pc sniper.
Im happy to end the matter other than to say choosing your words more carefully could be applied to you as well.
You will appreciate that when youve be publicly accused a private retraction is less than worthless - i have no desire to communicate in private. If you had wanted to communicate in private you might have considered doing so originally - as i would point out other more responsible forum members have done.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Aug 2011)

I carry clip on flats for my SPD's that have pedal reflectors on them. I will use them If I am cycling after dusk. When the law is changed I will stop carrying them as the are a pain in the arse.


----------



## apollo179 (25 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I carry clip on flats for my SPD's that have pedal reflectors on them. I will use them If I am cycling after dusk. When the law is changed I will stop carrying them as the are a pain in the arse.



Not during daytime ?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (25 Aug 2011)

If it's a legal requirement, why do they make it so hard to buy them?

I am trying to get some fro my SPD pedals for when I go France (they LOOOVE reflectors over there!)

Two shops have now told me that pedal reflectors aren't a legal requirement in ANY country, which is plainly not true, several shops have said they don't exist but i have finally found a shop willing to help, although they said they will have to "make" something out of reflective tape.

It's so frustrating!


----------



## Cyclopathic (25 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I said that i had more respekt for someone expressing an opinion in an open , frank and honest way than some sneaky insinuating pc sniper.
> Im happy to end the matter other than to say choosing your words more carefully could be applied to you as well.
> You will appreciate that when youve be publicly accused a private retraction is less than worthless - i have no desire to communicate in private. If you had wanted to communicate in private you might have considered doing so originally - as i would point out other more responsible forum members have done.



O.k then. You have made yourself absolutely clear and I see no reason to contiue this.


----------



## Cyclopathic (25 Aug 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> If it's a legal requirement, why do they make it so hard to buy them?
> 
> I am trying to get some fro my SPD pedals for when I go France (they LOOOVE reflectors over there!)
> 
> ...




I can perhaps sugest that you buy the cheapset pedals you can get your hands on (and that is pretty darned cheap) and you pry the reflectors out of them to fit onto your hopefuly better quality pedals.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Not during daytime ?



It is only a legal requirement between dusk and dawn.


----------



## Cyclopathic (25 Aug 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> If it's a legal requirement, why do they make it so hard to buy them?
> 
> I am trying to get some fro my SPD pedals for when I go France (they LOOOVE reflectors over there!)
> 
> ...




I can perhaps sugest that you buy the cheapset pedals you can get your hands on (and that is pretty darned cheap) and you pry the reflectors out of them to fit onto your hopefuly better quality pedals.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Aug 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> If it's a legal requirement, why do they make it so hard to buy them?
> 
> 
> 
> It's so frustrating!



It seems to be because the law is hardly ever / never enforced. There is one case I am aware of where contributory negligence through them not being used is being cited.


----------



## adds21 (25 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I carry clip on flats for my SPD's that have pedal reflectors on them. I will use them If I am cycling after dusk. When the law is changed I will stop carrying them as the are a pain in the arse.



So, are you saying if you cycle after dark, you'll clip in your flat adapters to your SPD pedals, and go non-clipless just to keep in line with the letter of the law?

What if you go somewhere during day light hours, and return when it's dark (eg, commuting in early autumn). Would you carry an extra pair of non-SPD shoes, or ride home in the dark, with SPD shoes and adapted flat pedals?

No offence friend, but you're mad if you do that, and I don't for one moment believe that anyone, IRL, is quite that anal!


----------



## apollo179 (25 Aug 2011)

Cyclopathic said:


> O.k then. You have made yourself absolutely clear and I see no reason to conti*n*ue this.



FTFY


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Aug 2011)

adds21 said:


> So, are you saying if you cycle after dark, you'll clip in your flat adapters to your SPD pedals, and go non-clipless just to keep in line with the letter of the law?
> 
> What if you go somewhere during day light hours, and return when it's dark (eg, commuting in early autumn). Would you carry an extra pair of non-SPD shoes, or ride home in the dark, with SPD shoes and adapted flat pedals?
> 
> No offence friend, but you're mad if you do that, and I don't for one moment believe that anyone, IRL, is quite that anal!



I use M520's (Double sided SPDs) The clip-ins are in my rucksack or saddle bag. It is the matter of a few moments to clip them in. I don't leave them on all the time because they look crap, are pretty flimsy, could be nicked,l at al.


----------



## adds21 (25 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> They are in my rucksack or saddle bag. It is the matter of a few moments to clip them in. I don't leave them on all the time because they look crap, are pretty flimsy, could be nicked,l at al.



Sure, I've got a pair somewhere for my M520's I think (never used them, never will!). But if you commute (do you commute?) and you ride into work on SPD's, would you _really_ ride home non-clipped in if it's dark?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Aug 2011)

adds21 said:


> Sure, I've got a pair somewhere for my M520's I think (never used them, never will!). But if you commute (do you commute?) and you ride into work on SPD's, would you _really_ ride home non-clipped in if it's dark?



The pedals are double sided! Why would I have to ride clipless on the way home. They clip in to one side and the very same shoes clip into the other side of the pedal. Why is this a difficult concept to understand?


----------



## apollo179 (25 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> It is only a legal requirement between dusk and dawn.


Gotcha - so you could start a journey legal and finish it illegal.


----------



## adds21 (25 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The pedals are double sided! Why would I have to ride clipless on the way home. They clip in to one side and the very same shoes clip into the other side of the pedal. Why is this a difficult concept to understand?



Ah! Okay. I understand. My mistake, I didn't realise the flat adapters would allow the clip of the other side of the pedal to be used (Not sure why I didn't "get that" - Makes perfect sense when you think about it!).

So, you're not quite as mad as I thought , but I'm still amazed you can be bothered to fit the flats when it's dark. I know I wouldn't, especially as it makes it harder to clip in as your double sided M520's have now become single sided.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Gotcha - so you could start a journey legal and finish it illegal.



No. I carry SPD clip ins in my saddlebag.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Aug 2011)

adds21 said:


> Ah! Okay. I understand. My mistake, I didn't realise the flat adapters would allow the clip of the other side of the pedal to be used (Not sure why I didn't "get that" - Makes perfect sense when you think about it!).
> 
> So, you're not quite as mad as I thought , but I'm still amazed you can be bothered to fit the flats when it's dark. I know I wouldn't, especially as it makes it harder to clip in as your double sided M520's have now become single sided.



 I am a cycling instructor so I need to be seen to do the right thing.


----------



## apollo179 (25 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> No. I carry SPD clip ins in my saddlebag.


Yes i presumed that you would go correctly prepared but someone else could start out legal and arrive home a law breaker.


----------



## adds21 (25 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am a cycling instructor so I need to be seen to do the right thing.



I'm a SVR, and I never have, and never will worry about pedal reflectors .


----------



## adds21 (25 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Yes i presumed that you would go correctly prepared but someone else could start out legal and arrive home a law breaker.



Just as they could by not having lights, or having flat batterys.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Yes i presumed that you would go correctly prepared but someone else could start out legal and arrive home a law breaker.



Apollo you are becoming so very tedious. You know the score but still seem to want to keep on rehashing the same crap. Do you you want to do, when you want to do it. As an adult it is your right. It is also your right to face the consequences of those actions.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Aug 2011)

adds21 said:


> Just as they could by not having lights, or having flat batterys.



Anyone can choose to break which ever law they wish. This is obvious.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Aug 2011)

adds21 said:


> I'm a SVR, and I never have, and never will worry about pedal reflectors .



You mean you are in the Russian Intelligence Service?


----------



## adds21 (25 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You mean you are in the Russian Intelligence Service?



Sustrans Volunteer Ranger, but I'd probably get more chicks if I was in the Russian Intelligence Service (Don't tell my wife I said that!).


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Aug 2011)

adds21 said:


> Sustrans Volunteer Ranger, but I'd probably get more chicks if I was in the Russian Intelligence Service (Don't tell my wife I said that!).



I used to be one as well. I stopped when I left my voluntary position with Mentro Allan.


----------



## apollo179 (25 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Apollo you are becoming so very tedious. You know the score but still seem to want to keep on rehashing the same crap. Do you you want to do, when you want to do it. As an adult it is your right. It is also your right to face the consequences of those actions.


If you do not want to discuss it thats fine - i dont see why you fly of the handle in such an irrational manner though.
I am rather disappointed in you.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> If you do not want to discuss it thats fine - i dont see why you fly of the handle in such an irrational manner though.
> I am rather disappointed in you.



What is irrational about thinking that a person who holds a UK driving licence should be aware of road law?


----------



## apollo179 (25 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> What is irrational about thinking that a person who holds a UK driving licence should be aware of road law?



Nothing - i was just concerned that i had upset you because you are usually such a marvelous level headed debater..


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Nothing - i was just concerned that i had upset you because you are usually such a marvelous level headed debater..



After a while your playground level of debating gets a little tiresome.


----------



## gaz (25 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> No. I carry SPD clip ins in my saddlebag.


That is just over the top IMO.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> That is just over the top IMO.



Fair enough.


----------



## apollo179 (25 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> After a while your playground level of debating gets a little tiresome.


Well whatever it was i said that upset you i hope you will accept my sincerest apologies.


----------



## Red Light (25 Aug 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> If it's a legal requirement, why do they make it so hard to buy them?
> 
> I am trying to get some fro my SPD pedals for when I go France (they LOOOVE reflectors over there!)
> 
> ...



Making them out of reflective tape won't work if its the legality you are worried about as they won't be certified to the relevant standard. They will therefore be just as illegal as no reflectors.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (25 Aug 2011)

Right that's it, I'm booking a flight to Japan and going kicking the crap out of Shimano until they make some fecking reflectors for their pedals, who's coming?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Aug 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Right that's it, I'm booking a flight to Japan and going kicking the crap out of Shimano until they make some fecking reflectors for their pedals, who's coming?



The CTC claim that Shimano sell clipins for al but their most expensive SPD's 


*Clipless pedal reflectors – 2002.11*
I am considering going clipless; however I cannot seem to find much in the way of clipless pedals with reflectors. I believe that reflectors are obligatory at night. If a single sided clipless pedal is chosen is it weighted so that it will always be the right way up? I don't want to have to look down to get it right whilst trying to negotiate a tricky roundabout. Since the pedal and shoe is one item, are the reflectors generally built into the shoes? I have a pair of SPD compatible shoes which don't seem to have them but they may be unusual. What are my options? 
*Geoff Streeter – Ascot, Berks*​ Reflectors are indeed obligatory at night, on the front and rear of every pedal, on all types of pedal cycle used on public roads, except those older than October 1985. Unfortunately the cycle trade (and many otherwise well-informed cyclists) prefer to ignore this inconvenient fact. So a lot of clipless pedals are imported without any means of using them legally at night. 

_*To their joint credit, Shimano offer add-on reflectors for almost all of their pedals (except the most expensive) and Madison import them – although many shops don’t even try to sell them.*_ Reflectors for double-sided (mountain-bike) SPDs come as part of a plastic platform that clips into one binding, providing instead a tread surface for normal shoes. Similar reflector platforms are available for some other brands of mountain-bike pedal (VP for example) and this is the one kind of clipless reflector accessory you _will_ find in bike shops. Unfortunately they make the pedals single-sided and do not sufficiently counterweight them to keep the vacant binding on top. And as pedalling surfaces, these platforms leave much to be desired. To attach and detach them without burring the plastic it’s best to slacken off the binding tension, but then it must be cranked up to maximum to stop the insert squirming around. A better idea, if you’re keen to be legal and often ride at night, or in normal shoes, is to fit a dual-purpose pedal such as the Shimano PD-M324, which is made with a binding on one side and a normal quill on the other, to which ordinary pedal reflectors can be bolted. Or consider the type of pedal that has “pop-up bindings” inside a large alloy or plastic cage: PD-M646, M545 or M424 in Shimano’s current range. These are double-sided for either cleated or normal shoes and can be fitted with reflectors that do not impede either use. These pedals are a bit heavy and chunky, but seem to combine all functions without compromising performance. Also the surrounding cage provides the lateral support that is missing from compact clipless pedals, but may be needed by big-footed riders and users of lighter-soled touring shoes. Surprisingly the finest of Shimano’s pop-ups, although billed as an off-road racing/BMX pedal, provides the simplest and neatest legal solution, as it comes complete with reflectors that can be bolted directly to its replaceable end-plates. The two cheaper models require additional outer reflector cages (SM-PD40), which are neither included nor elegant, but apparently work. Forget about single-sided so-called road pedals. There’s nothing about riding on road the makes them a better idea. They merely look pretty and save a few grams to appease roadie hang-ups over aesthetics, aerodynamics and weight. And their reflector accessories, if available, are a fig leaf. They hang off the bottom but do not counterweight the pedal, so this side is just as likely to be uppermost when you stamp away from the traffic lights – to the sound of splintering plastic! Whilst some cycling shoes do have reflective material on the heel, UK traffic law specifies the pedal, the colour and British or International Standard markings that guarantee a level of reflector performance that cannot, to my knowledge, be met by such small areas of this material. Besides: front pedal reflectors are also required. It is possible that ankle bands of Reflexite etc. might achieve the necessary performance and CTC has been campaigning for two decades for a change in the law. However I am a lone voice – since most cycle traders and the cyclists affected by this issue remain “in denial”. With the evenings becoming darker, now is a good time to write to your MP. 
*Chris Juden*


From http://www.ctc.org.u...aspx?TabID=3821


----------



## 4F (25 Aug 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Right that's it, I'm booking a flight to Japan and going kicking the crap out of Shimano until they make some fecking reflectors for their pedals, who's coming?



Just buy an older bike, pre 1985 and save your money on the flight


----------



## MissTillyFlop (25 Aug 2011)

True...but will it come with gyoza?


----------



## 4F (25 Aug 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> True...but will it come with gyoza?




There must be a Japanese restuarant closer to you than Osaka surely ?


----------



## adds21 (25 Aug 2011)

4F said:


> Just buy an older bike, pre 1985 and save your money on the flight



I wonder which part of the bike has to be pre-1985. Every single part? The frame? The saddle? A valve cap? 

I'm off to register Pre1985ValveCaps.co.uk for my new on-line business!


----------



## Cyclopathic (25 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> It seems to be because the law is hardly ever / never enforced. There is one case I am aware of where contributory negligence through them not being used is being cited.




Do you know if anybody has ever been cautioned by the police or admonished in any way by the law for not having reflectors on their pedals?


----------



## Red Light (25 Aug 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Right that's it, I'm booking a flight to Japan and going kicking the crap out of Shimano until they make some fecking reflectors for their pedals, who's coming?



Ah, TirryFrop-San, so des ne?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Aug 2011)

Cyclopathic said:


> Do you know if anybody has ever been cautioned by the police or admonished in any way by the law for not having reflectors on their pedals?



No I do not. I was reluctant to say never enforced though as chances are there will be one case somewhere!!!


----------



## twobiker (25 Aug 2011)

Could you not go to the recycle center/tip and pull some off an old bike?,ours has always got three or four bikes in,


----------



## apollo179 (26 Aug 2011)

twobiker said:


> Could you not go to the recycle center/tip and pull some off an old bike?,ours has always got three or four bikes in,



The tips guys seem to guard their operation quite protectively these days - recently the times ive asked about stuff ive allways had to pay for it , but good idea to go to the tip and give the tip guys a couple of quid for them.


----------



## oldroadman (26 Aug 2011)

It's an interesting reflection (pun intended) on the contributors that a thread can run to 11 pages which is basically a pedant charter. Oh dear, how did we all survive before pedal reflectors, silly front and rear reflectors, reflectors in the wheels, crash hats, reflective vests......maybe some common sense and decent lights?


----------



## apollo179 (26 Aug 2011)

oldroadman said:


> It's an interesting reflection (pun intended) on the contributors that a thread can run to 11 pages which is basically a pedant charter. Oh dear, how did we all survive before pedal reflectors, silly front and rear reflectors, reflectors in the wheels, crash hats, reflective vests......maybe some common sense and decent lights?



Are you suggesting its over officious government regulation gone mad ?


----------



## on the road (26 Aug 2011)

I can't seriously believe that anyone is worried about being done for having no pedal reflectors. Next you'll be worried that the sky will fall down.


----------



## wakou (26 Aug 2011)

Hi guys I have spd clipless one side, plats the other, AND reflectors. Pedals are these:
Wellgo 95b, pictures of reflectors to follow........


----------



## wakou (26 Aug 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> If it's a legal requirement, why do they make it so hard to buy them?
> 
> I am trying to get some fro my SPD pedals for when I go France (they LOOOVE reflectors over there!)
> 
> ...



Wellgo 95b cilpless SPD, flat AND reflector.... simples


----------



## Cyclopathic (26 Aug 2011)

4F said:


> Just buy an older bike, pre 1985 and save your money on the flight




I thought we could cycle most of the way.


----------



## Cyclopathic (26 Aug 2011)

oldroadman said:


> It's an interesting reflection (pun intended) on the contributors that a thread can run to 11 pages which is basically a pedant charter. Oh dear, how did we all survive before pedal reflectors, silly front and rear reflectors, reflectors in the wheels, crash hats, reflective vests......maybe some common sense and decent lights?




I think all bikes should be fitted with several large fluorescent balloons to make them more visible.


----------



## apollo179 (26 Aug 2011)

on the road said:


> I can't seriously believe that anyone is worried about being done for having no pedal reflectors. Next you'll be worried that the sky will fall down.



The poll would suggest that around 14% of forum members are concerned about pedal reflectors.
You might say a righteous minority.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Aug 2011)

4F said:


> Just buy an older bike, pre 1985 and save your money on the flight



Shhhh... I'm trying to get on a jolly here...


----------



## Black Sheep (26 Aug 2011)

I have had a police officer try and fine me over my lack of reflectors 

I think he was a bit upset about me overtaking him on a roundabout (two lanes for straight on, down hill to the 'bout) 

I politely pointed out that the bike was never fitted with reflectors due to it having been built in the late 1960's 

so what?

my car has no rear seatbelts as it was never fitted with them, but it is legal and passes the MOT each year

Yes...

so surely the same is true of my bike, it is not origional equipment and so isn't needed. I have lights fitted


----------



## apollo179 (27 Aug 2011)

Black Sheep said:


> I have had a police officer try and fine me over my lack of reflectors
> 
> I think he was a bit upset about me overtaking him on a roundabout (two lanes for straight on, down hill to the 'bout)
> 
> ...


Nightmare for the police to enforce a law where the legality pivots depending on if the bike was manafactured before or after 1985. 
Legally very untidy.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Nightmare for the police to enforce a law where the legality pivots depending on if the bike was manafactured before or after 1985.
> Legally very untidy.



You have a strange idea of a nightmare. That said you have strange ideas full stop.


----------



## smokeysmoo (27 Aug 2011)

Black Sheep said:


> so surely the same is true of my bike, *it is not origional equipment and so isn't needed*. I have lights fitted



If that's right then I'm laughing as it surely means that my 2011 Cannondale CAAD10, and 2010 Specialized Langster Steel are exempt as they were supplied without pedals, and my Peugeot winter bike came to me as just a frameset, so do your worst copper I'm exempt, Black Sheep says so 


IMHO I can't imagine the old bill wasting time trying to enforce this anyway, imagine the publicity they'd get for pursuing a cyclist for no pedal reflectors while some old woman gets burgled or mugged down the road


----------



## apollo179 (27 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You have a strange idea of a nightmare. That said you have strange ideas full stop.


If having some sympathy for the police and the difficulties they face doing their job makes me seem strange to you then so be it.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> If having some sympathy for the police and the difficulties they face doing their job makes me seem strange to you then so be it.



There is no need to have sympathy for the police on this issue. Unless the rider has no other lighting or reflectors the chances of a police officer stopping someone for having no reflectors is so close to zero as to not to matter.


----------



## twobiker (27 Aug 2011)

They did choose to go into the job, which would seem to entail enforcing laws, and not responding if someone vulnerable is being harrased by a mob of teenagers, oops went off topic there.


----------



## apollo179 (27 Aug 2011)

1514317 said:


> Yes but every time that they go out there is the prospect of having to enforce a myriad of laws, many of which are way more complex than the issue of a bike being made before a specific date. In the larger scheme of things it is but a pin prick.


Yes i agree but this topic is about pedal reflectors.
As you say in the larger scheme of things it is a tiny speck of the difficulties the police face.


----------



## apollo179 (27 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> There is no need to have sympathy for the police on this issue. Unless the rider has no other lighting or reflectors the chances of a police officer stopping someone for having no reflectors is so close to zero as to not to matter.


And what is your opinion of this.
Is selective enforcement of the law ok in your opinion ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> And what is your opinion of this.
> Is selective enforcement of the law ok in your opinion ?



Some laws are archaic, pedal reflectors being one. Provided a bike is adequately lit then there is on need for them.


----------



## apollo179 (27 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Some laws are archaic, pedal reflectors being one. Provided a bike is adequately lit then there is on need for them.


In what way is it archaic ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> In what way is it archaic ?



Are you for real?


----------



## apollo179 (27 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Are you for real?


No please explain.

In what way is it archaic ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> No please explain.
> 
> In what way is it archaic ?



Sighs, OK with modern bike lights and front and rear reflectors fitted to a bike pedal reflectors have become something of a relic. The law may still be on the books but the enforcement of it is so close to never as not to matter. As long as your bike is well lit no police officer in his right mind would pull you over for not having pedal reflectors. Couple that with the difficultly in getting even clipins for most SPD style pedals and the law is at best pointless. It will stay on the books for a long time to come and be laughed about like being fined for being a big endian egg eater (still on the books as well.)


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Aug 2011)

1514327 said:


> Really?



Allegedly yes although it was little endian instead!
*UK (some of these do not apply in Scotland or others in Wales):*​
 It is lawful to kill a Scotsman in York if he is carrying a bow and arrow.
 It is illegal for taxi drivers to carry rabid dogs or corpses.
 A taxi driver must ask passengers if they are suffering from plague or smallpox.
 A member of the House of Commons is not allowed to resign his seat. However, if one wants to leave the post, he applies for (and is automatically granted) the Stewardship of the Aylesbury Hundred, which is a job with no duties or pay but which makes him ineligible for membership of Parliament.
 Anyone entering the Houses of Parliament while wearing a suit of armour is liable to be arrested.
 It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament (I'm not sure what punishment is inflicted on offenders).
 Any whale washed up on the shore is the property of the Queen, so she can use its bones for her corset.
 In Hereford you can shoot a Welsh person on a Sunday, with a longbow, in the Cathedral Close.
 You can shoot a Welsh person with a bow and arrow in Chester, inside the city walls and after midnight.
 It is legal for a male to urinate in public, as long it is on the rear wheel of his motor vehicle and his right hand is on the vehicle.
 Women are permitted to go topless in Liverpool provided they work as a clerk in a shop selling tropical fish.
 A bed may not be hung out of a window.
 It is illegal for a lady to eat chocolates on a public conveyance.
 It is illegal to be drunk on licenced premises.
 _*Any person found breaking a boiled egg at the sharp end may be sentenced to 24 hours in the stocks. *_
 Any boy under the age of 10 may not see a naked mannequin.
 It is illegal to eat mince pies on 25th December.
 In London it is illegal to hail a taxi while suffering from bubonic plague.
 Sticking a postage stamp (showing the head of the queen, which they all do) on an envelope upside down is considered treason.
 It is illegal to go within 100 yards of the queen when not wearing hose, socks or stockings.
 It is illegal for any commoner's pet to have carnal knowledge of an animal belonging to the monarch.
 A pregnant woman may relieve herself anywhere she likes, including (if she requests) in a policeman's helmet.
 A hackney carriage (i.e. taxi) driver must (still) carry a bale of hay and a bucket to feed and water his horse [Thanks to Paula Wilde for reminding me of this one]
 It is illegal for a London taxi driver to take more than one day off work in any week unless he gives 10 days notice (presumably to the licensing authority).
 It is also illegal for a London taxi driver to pick up a passenger who flags him down, although he is permitted to display an illuminated sign saying he is available.
 Also in London you may not carry a plank, pole, ladder, wheel, hoop or tub along the footpath, although you can carry it across the path to load it into a vehicle.
 Children in London are forbidden to play any game, fly a kite or slide on ice or snow in the street.
 Under a 1906 act of Parliament it is illegal to go to a fancy dress party dressed as a soldier or sailor.
 In London it is an offence against the law to beat a carpet in the street, or to beat a doormat in the atreet after 8:00a.m.


----------



## growingvegetables (27 Aug 2011)

> It is illegal to eat mince pies on 25th December.



Oi - perfectly legal in Scotland and Wales, though!


----------



## smokeysmoo (27 Aug 2011)

growingvegetables said:


> Oi - perfectly legal in Scotland and Wales, though!


I think you might be surprised at just what is legal in Scotland and Wales


----------



## twobiker (27 Aug 2011)

It is illegal to Rlj unless you have pedal reflectors, as if you are caught by the police they cannot deal with more than one pointless offence at the same time.


----------



## apollo179 (28 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Sighs, OK with modern bike lights and front and rear reflectors fitted to a bike pedal reflectors have become something of a relic. The law may still be on the books but the enforcement of it is so close to never as not to matter. As long as your bike is well lit no police officer in his right mind would pull you over for not having pedal reflectors. Couple that with the difficultly in getting even clipins for most SPD style pedals and the law is at best pointless. It will stay on the books for a long time to come and be laughed about like being fined for being a big endian egg eater (still on the books as well.)



Ok i see. Outdated because of modern lights .
So is it ok to break this law.


----------



## gaz (28 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Ok i see. Outdated because of modern lights .
> So is it ok to break this law.



says you who jumps red lights?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (28 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Ok i see. Outdated because of modern lights .
> So is it ok to break this law.



Which law?
Out of interest Apollo, why do you no longer drive?


----------



## apollo179 (28 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Which law?
> Out of interest Apollo, why do you no longer drive?



The pedal reflector law.
To poor to afford petrol.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (28 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The pedal reflector law.
> *Too* poor to afford petrol.



I would never say that it is OK to break any law. What I will say is that the chances of the Police ever enforcing it are so remote as for it to be archaic. 

FTFY


----------



## apollo179 (28 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would never say that it is OK to break any law. What I will say is that the chances of the Police ever enforcing it are so remote as for it to be archaic.
> 
> FTFY



So you are saying it is not ok to break the pedal reflector law.
Do you think the police should enforce the pedal reflector law .


----------



## Angelfishsolo (28 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> So you are saying it is not ok to break the pedal reflector law.
> Do you think the police should enforce the pedal reflector law .



I think it is a law that should not be enforced if it is not possible to get reflectors for your pedals.


----------



## apollo179 (28 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I think it is a law that should not be enforced if it is not possible to get reflectors for your pedals.



Isnt the responsibility on the cyclist to get pedals that are compatible with reflectors.


----------



## smokeysmoo (28 Aug 2011)




----------



## Angelfishsolo (28 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Isnt the responsibility on the cyclist to get pedals that are compatible with reflectors.



No I'd say it is the responsibility of the manufacturers/shops to ensure they make and sell the add ons.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (28 Aug 2011)

smokeysmoo said:


>


----------



## apollo179 (28 Aug 2011)

So is it ok to break the pedal reflector law if it is not possible to get reflectors for your pedals.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (28 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> So is it ok to break the pedal reflector law if it is not possible to get reflectors for your pedals.




Best thing for you to do is talk to a solicitor. They will know all about the law.


----------



## apollo179 (28 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Best thing for you to do is talk to a solicitor. They will know all about the law.



You seem to know a fair bit so it was interesting bouncing a few ideas off you.


----------



## smokeysmoo (28 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Best thing for you to do is talk to a solicitor. They will know all about the law.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (28 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> You seem to know a fair bit so it was interesting bouncing a few ideas off you.



You know as well as I you are not "bouncing ideas of me" but rather trying to find a chink in my armour.


----------



## Moderators (28 Aug 2011)

Please refrain from personal attacks on this thread please. Stick to the debate and keep it civil.


----------



## on the road (28 Aug 2011)

I've ridden at night many times with both front and rear lights but no pedal reflectors and no front and rear reflector and never been stopped for not having any reflectors. At one time I had to ride through a police checkpoint, they held me up so they could let a car out that they had stopped but never pulled me up for having no reflectors. I've even had police drive passed me while I was out on the bike at night and never got pulled by them.

There's more serious crimes for them to deal with rather then spend their time on someone who had no pedal relectors.


----------



## apollo179 (28 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You know as well as I you are not "bouncing ideas of me" but rather trying to find a chink in my armour.



Willing to dish it out but cant take it yourself ?
Im dissappointed you resorted to offensive name calling that necessitated the intervention of the moderator.
I cant afford an expensaive lawyer - so im asking you.
Your opinion ?
Is it ok to break the pedal reflector law if it is not possible to get reflectors for your pedals.


----------



## dellzeqq (28 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> So you are saying it is not ok to break the pedal reflector law.
> Do you think the police should enforce the pedal reflector law .


no (albeit that the law has exceptions). They've got better things to do. Like nabbing RLJers


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1514354"]
You are an idiot without an opinion who on this thread and others has had nothing to contribute at all. Merely trying to score points with AFS much to the annoyance of other CCer's who have had to sift through pages of meaningless bullshit. 

As for your second question without the question mark. It's not ok and it is ok and as to the point that people don't really give a **** , just the same as the Police would not give a **** if they pulled you over. This was pointed out by Vike many many moons and pages ago. But you have missed this because of the above. 
[/quote]

I have an opinion that i express.
This opinion may be contrary to the majority on cycle chat.
A few narrow minded people seem to resent any view other than there own being expressed and like User3143 resort to cowardly name calling.
Angelfishsolo has been berating me about my opinions on rlj , bso etc from the day i joined cycle chat and i have with good humour replied and tried to defend myself.
I respond in the same way throwing a few questions at angelfishsolo and i get called all kind of names.
User3143 your posts have a history of being quite stupid and this one is no different.
I suggest all you hateful types just ignore my posts. 
If that is the outcome that the aggressive haters leave me alone then : job done - happy days.


----------



## lukesdad (29 Aug 2011)

Oh dear are we still at it ? Try and think outside the box for a moment some of you !
What about the peeps who insist on riding without lights. Bikes are not supplied with lights but are supplied with reflectors. There is a reason for the law and thats why its not archaic.

Another thing to ponder Criminals opperate at night and a lot of the time their chosen mode of transport is a bike without lights?

And another cyclist lying partially concealed on a country lane after an accident lights disloged or broken. Whats a car headlights going to pick up.

I dont care whether you use them or not, but please dont slate people, just because you havn t thought it through properly !


----------



## lukesdad (29 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> no (albeit that the law has exceptions). They've got better things to do. Like nabbing RLJers




Its a fall back safety law for the less enlightened


----------



## bedrock (29 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> We've had a long thread on the rights and wrongs of RLJing and whether its wrong because its the law or wrong because its wrong. So what about pedal reflectors? Its illegal to ride at night without pedal reflectors visible from the rear and a rear reflector. Which makes it illegal to ride with most clipless pedals at night or to ride a bent at all. So is it OK to break this law (I bet most of us do) or not?



I never realized it was the law to have reflectors but I'm pleased you pointed this out and I'll probably get some just in case. However, from a safety point of view, I'd think that a hi-vis jacket (which I also wear) would be much more effective both day and night.


----------



## theclaud (29 Aug 2011)

1514327 said:


> Really?



It is computed, that eleven thousand persons have, at several times, suffered death, rather than submit to break their eggs at the smaller end.


----------



## theclaud (29 Aug 2011)

1514360 said:


> One can only marvel at their collective resolve.



Tough cookies, Lilliputians...


----------



## TimO (29 Aug 2011)

Whilst I generally observe the law on the road scrupulously, so don't jump lights, and otherwise behave as all other road users tend to, unfortunately my bicycle lights are largely an exception to this.

A lot of bicycle lights currently being used, and easily available in the country are not legal bicycle lights. Pretty much every bicycle lights using LEDs is not legal, and most bright bicycle lights are not legal (Note, you can use these lights, they're not illegal, but they don't provide legal bike lights).

Since I want lights which make me visible to the average, slightly insane, London car driver, I use lights which aren't legal for use as the sole bicycle lights in this country. By and large, they're brighter and more visible than most legal bicycle lights. I also generally have spare lights (operating in the case of rear lights), and reflectors on my arms and ankles, and tend to wear light coloured visible clothing. I also have SPDs without reflectors, since I find the SPDs far more practical, safer, and easier to use (and I have to take my feet off the pedals a lot on my commute). Since pedals with reflectors aren't that dissimilar to ankle reflectors and reflective elements of my shoes I can live with it, even if not strictly legal.

Pretty much every police cyclists I've seen at night has not had legal bicycle lights. Most police officers won't know the exact details of the road vehicle lighting regulations as they relate to bicycles anyway, and I suspect those that do (the cycling officers) are likely to be willing to ignore them, so long as you have a reasonably working pair of lights.

Yes, I'm not legal as regards bicycle lights and reflectors. Do I think this is a problem? No. I try and achieve lighting and related fixings to a standard which is equivalent or in most cases, far exceeds those laws, but because the laws are outdated, or badly written in the first place, it's hard to conform to them, and virtually no one does.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

TimO said:


> Whilst I generally observe the law on the road scrupulously, so don't jump lights, and otherwise behave as all other road users tend to, unfortunately my bicycle lights are largely an exception to this.
> 
> A lot of bicycle lights currently being used, and easily available in the country are not legal bicycle lights. Pretty much every bicycle lights using LEDs is not legal, and most bright bicycle lights are not legal (Note, you can use these lights, they're not illegal, but they don't provide legal bike lights).
> 
> ...



Great post. One question - when you talk about the lights you use are you referring to the type you could MTB at night with? If so they are bright enough to blind a driver.


----------



## Red Light (29 Aug 2011)

TimO said:


> Whilst I generally observe the law on the road scrupulously, so don't jump lights, and otherwise behave as all other road users tend to, unfortunately my bicycle lights are largely an exception to this.



You can always fit a pair of legal lights in addition to the ones you use


----------



## Red Light (29 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Great post. One question - when you talk about the lights you use are you referring to the type you could MTB at night with? If so they are bright enough to blind a driver.



Depends very much on the particular light and how they are set up on the bike.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Depends very much on the particular light and how they are set up on the bike.



Valid. A better question would have been "What lights are you using?"


----------



## TimO (29 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Great post. One question - when you talk about the lights you use are you referring to the type you could MTB at night with? If so they are bright enough to blind a driver.


My lights are positioned and adjusted to point at the road. They're bright, buy they aren't Lupines, I'm not in that price bracket! They are still probably dimmer than most car drivers lights, and I tend to use them on the lowest settings when on road anyway, effectively "dipped".



Red Light said:


> You can always fit a pair of legal lights in addition to the ones you use


I could, but my handlebar space is already busy with lights, GPS, computer, and my hands!

Adding legal lights would just make me strictly legal, with no real useful gain to anyone. Arguably I could have issues with insurance companies in an accident, but I'm willing to stand up and say that my lights are more visible than legal bike lights, and get expert witnesses if necessary. I have chatted to a lawyer about this briefly!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

TimO said:


> My lights are positioned and adjusted to point at the road. They're bright, buy they aren't Lupines, I'm not in that price bracket! They are still probably dimmer than most car drivers lights, and I tend to use them on the lowest settings when on road anyway, effectively "dipped".



Cool. Just wanted to clarify


----------

