Fitted lights & bike reflectors... How 'legal' are we all really?

[Rickshaw Phil]

Hence the use of the words "in terms of intensity" no claim was ever mad for beam patten

That's how I read your response to Totallyfixed:

I cannot see how it is beyond the wit of bike light manufacturers for them to produce a light that mimicks that of a car headlight i.e. dipped and main beam, you then have a light suitable for both road and off road.

They do, but are not BS standard!

You can (as previously) use some as they have a German "K" stamp, and are willing to argue the point

Mine is the Ixon IQ Premium... note the beam pattern

 

[totallyfixed]

The technology is certainly available for bike lights to emulate vehicles and has been for a number of years, the question is, why don't they?

 

[gavintc]

I could not give s sh*t if my lights are compliant and will not be checking. They are bright and ensure I can see and be seen. I wear reflective stuff as well.

 

[ManiaMuse]

I have a couple of Cateye HL-EL135s on the front which I believe meet the standard when in flashing mode but not when constant confusingly. Probably annoying in rear view mirrors but I don't care if motorists notice me.

A couple of different rear lights, one which flashes in a pattern with different brightnesses so probably doesn't meet the standard but the other one flashes at a constant rate. Again possibly annoyingly bright but I'd prefer to annoy drivers than not be seen.

No proper spoke reflectors but I've recently put some of those ones which clip onto a single spoke. I'm not sure how much they improve visibility but might help a bit at roundabouts etc. in the dark.

No proper pedal reflectors as have SL pedals. Shoes/overshoes have reflective bits though so could argue that if stopped I suppose. Have some trouser clips with flashing LEDs if I'm cycling in normal clothes/jeans as well :P

 

[RichK]

Couldn't find a kite mark on my pedal reflectors

 

[mjr]

I have a couple of Cateye HL-EL135s on the front which I believe meet the standard when in flashing mode but not when constant confusingly.

Very confusingly: if you mean the British Standard, it only applies to constant lights and then they'll have the BS6102-3 marked on them somewhere - do they?

Alternatively, the UK regulations controversially permit flashing lights as long as they are more than 4 candelas bright, but only if they don't have a constant mode and I think all Cateyes have a constant mode (which makes sense for riding dark roads IMO). So strictly speaking, if your flashers have a constant mode and are marked as BS or equivalent, you should have an approved light too, according to http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations

Couldn't find a kite mark on my pedal reflectors

Should be embossed on the lens, most likely saying "BS 6102-2" or "K~" then a number, rather than a kite mark.

 

[simon.r]

Retro roadsters are compliant AND cool

None of my bikes have reflectors* or lights (until I strap a few on for use in poor visibility or at night), except this one, which is fully legal:

Edit - *A couple that I use at night have reflective tape and spoke reflectors.

 

[ManiaMuse]

Very confusingly: if you mean the British Standard, it only applies to constant lights and then they'll have the BS6102-3 marked on them somewhere - do they?

Alternatively, the UK regulations controversially permit flashing lights as long as they are more than 4 candelas bright, but only if they don't have a constant mode and I think all Cateyes have a constant mode (which makes sense for riding dark roads IMO). So strictly speaking, if your flashers have a constant mode and are marked as BS or equivalent, you should have an approved light too, according to http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations

Ah I see, well they're probably illegal then as they have a constant mode as well if what you say is true but this is what it says on the manual which makes what you said even more confusing...

FOR UK CONSUMERS “When used in constant flashing (sic) mode this light complies with the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 2005 No. 2559. If used in constant mode, this light should be used in conjunction with a British Standard 6102/3 cycle light.”

They are decently bright and cheap enough lights for city commuting though so think I will continue to be illegal if it means I am seen.

 

[mjr]

Ah I see, well they're probably illegal then as they have a constant mode as well if what you say is true but this is what it says on the manual which makes what you said even more confusing...

Yep, sounds like they're interpreting the law differently to CTC. This stuff hasn't been tested in court, as far as I can tell, and I suspect it's highly unlikely that it ever will be. So rejoice in that.

Mini pedantry: the lights aren't illegal as long as they're not used in a dazzling way (aimed too high or front light on the back or whatever). They're just not enough to make your bike legal to use at night.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

My tourer/ commuter is the very model of a modern major-general



and complies with all the relevant laws regarding lighting and reflectors. As does my B.

I don't ride my other bikes at night.

 

[Davidc]

I don't really care about the rules, which are out-dated and inadequate, what I want is to see where I'm going and be seen by any other road used who isn't asleep or completely absorbed in their phone conversation so not looking.

Both my bikes have a dynamo and K standard lights so they're fully compliant. Having damaged the B&M CYO 60) on the tourer it's about to get a Herrman which is even brighter and also K standard, and I prefer the beam pattern.

I do have other lights (Hope Vision 1 and Smart Lunar R1 which aren't compliant but as far as I know that's not a problem as they're used with the ones that are) and always ride with 2 front and 2 back lit - .

The non-compliant ones get used in flashing mode in daylight, but since lights are not legally required then I presume it's irrelevant whether they're compliant or not.

 

[mjr]

I do have other lights (Hope Vision 1 and Smart Lunar R1 which aren't compliant but as far as I know that's not a problem as they're used with the ones that are) and

That's no problem as long as they're not "Used so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to other persons using the road" but I think you have to be a bit careful with Hope Vision 1 as it seems like a powerful torch more than a headlamp.

 

[Rickshaw Phil]

While helping to take the thread slightly off-topic earlier I neglected to mention the status of my own bikes:
Raleigh: Front and rear British standard reflectors + extra reflective tape + pedal reflectors + reflective sidewall tyres. Front lights: one BS compliant Hella lamp plus a B&M Ixon Premium lamp (very nice). Rear lights: one BS compliant Hella lamp plus an On One Phaart Bleep 0.5 watt.

Hawk (the famous knockabout bike): Rear British standard reflector + extra reflective tape front and rear + pedal reflectors + Tortec Reflex mudguards. Front lights: one Phaart Aeon 3 watt lamp plus a B&M Ixon Premium lamp (still very nice). Rear lights: one BS compliant Hella lamp plus a Phaart Bleep 0.5 watt.

 

[summerdays]

That's no problem as long as they're not "Used so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to other persons using the road" but I think you have to be a bit careful with Hope Vision 1 as it seems like a powerful torch more than a headlamp.

It's easy to angle it, and I rarely would use the brightest setting apart from on a unlit path or road. Apart from anything I want it to light up the road surface, not the air in front of me.

 

[Vertego]

I know that my lights are always compliant...I only ride when it's daylight .

Seriously, as a lawyer I've never encountered anyone argue that the lights fitted were not compliant with the RVLR and for that reason contributory negligence is appropriate, although I have encountered strong arguments when no lights are fitted. That's likely because a defence solicitor or insurer does not understand the regulations, or that such arguments have been made historically but without success. I'm sure that these arguments would be made if they had been successfully raised in the past. Insurers are always looking for ways to reduce the amount of compensation they may have to pay.