Approved legal lights?

[SatNavSaysStraightOn]

BS6102/2 applies to reflectors
BS6102/3 applies to the light

sadly some lights are marked BS6102/2 indicating that the light unit as a whole only adheres to the reflector standard, not the lighting standard.
(BS6102/1 used to apply to pedal reflectors)

Best quotes I can find are from here http://www.pedal-pedal.co.uk/bs-6102-bike-light-regulations
(my highlights)

The other parts (two and three) of BS6102 still exist, as they deal with bike reflectors (BS6102/2) and bike lights (BS6102/3) and are called up by the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations. Conforming to one of these standards ensures that a bike reflector or bike light is approved .

 

[Drago]

Should we be giving shyster lawyers ideas with threads like this?

 

[Hugh Manatee]

Father Dougal mode. Yes, it's legal now. No, it isn't, yes it is is, wait, no, yes.....etc.

 

[oldstrath]

Bumm Ixon iq and Core (for example http://www.rosebikes.co.uk/article/b--m-ixon-core-led-front-light/aid:703640) are STVZO approved battery front lights. Here is an STVZO compliant rear battery light http://www.rosebikes.co.uk/article/b--m-ixxi-diode-back-light/aid:703632. Realistically STVZO compliance is about as close as you'll get.

For what it's worth, I find the Core an inadequate light for dark road commuting. Unlike the Solarstorm X2 I usually use, my speed is limited by light throw rather than legs. But it's fine for being seen, complies with a magic book of words, won't annoy the cagers, almost certainly would avoid legal silliness, and is adequate for urban rides.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

Goodness me, I sorted this out before I went to work. And two more pages of stuff and opinions that's nowt to do with my question.

Re the lights legality....dead easy.....if you have one light that's legal or approved then you can have retina burning lights. As long as you don't cause a nuisance to other road users with the brightness.

Re flashing....if it's flashing only and not capable of steady mode AND above 4 candelas (which is not actually that bright) it is legal.
Dadaah! See I did know what I was on about, just needed a nudge towards Halfords.

For those of you who tried to help, I thank you.

For those of you who could start an argument in an empty room, thanks for bumping my thread.

Cheers guys.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

It just sounded like you'd read something about insurance claims being reduced, which is something I am interested in, so I wondered where you had read it. If you made that bit up, fair enough.

T'is on t'internet google search engine thing "contributory negligence cycle helmet" but I've also 1st hand experience of shyster lawyer trying it on.

 

[swansonj]

The Philips led front bike light is German certified so satisfies the legal requirements in the UK; bright (they say 220 lumen in the beam, but because the beam is shaped to put light on the road only, I reckon it puts as much light on the road as a nominally 1000 lumen magic shine); doesn't dazzle oncoming traffic because of the clever beam shaping optics; and uses AA cells for when it displays its one weakness, limited battery life, and you need to replace the batteries at the half way stop on a FNRttC.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

Sigh....read the first link that comes up with the search terms. Click on the legal link within the link.

Then get a cup of tea and a dictionary and a legal thesaurus and be prepared to be bored. The upshot being that insurers regularly agree to a tort deduction of 20-25% deduction in payouts to cyclists without helmets. Only the few that fight don't get deducted...tbh most of us wouldn't even know of this murky world solicitors deal in.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

I'll make it easy for you...

http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-helmets-and-contributory-negligence/recent-cases

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

Thank you, that's very interesting.

Pity you were so rude when Crankarm asked for the same information in post three on page one.

I don't like him.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

See now, I given you what you wanted, but you still feel the need to have a go. Why is that? What are you hoping to gain?

 

[Crankarm]

Perhaps you might consider how you come across if you want an answer to your questions.

So your anecdotal stories of damages being reduced in compensation claims was actually in cases where cyclists were not wearing helmets. Nothing about lighting or whether lights conform to BS standards. Just pointing this out.

 

[Crankarm]

To suggest that sometimes it is you who 'has a go' and causes strife by being unnecessarily obnoxious. A tendency that, ironically enough, you share with Crankarm.

Tea had gone the wrong way up my nose when I read your previous post which seamed to indicate some support of me. However this post of yours restores the previous status quo so normal flow is resumed.