Front light

[mjr]

I want a light that works for me and the manufacturers of the lights don't seem to be that keen on getting them tested to meet the regulations.

Why would they? It costs money and few customers or reviewers seem to care about complying with the law.

I use bike lights on my bike not a torch strapped on so should they be allowed to sell lights that don't meet the regs?

As others often point out, as long as you've one compliant light, you can use all sorts of junk as "additional" lights. I think they should have to stamp something like "not for use as your only light" on them, though.

Actually I think the lighting regulations need to be looked at. There are some lights that are too powerful, and the law is miles behind where the technology is. I think the police should look at those without lights first (cars and bikes), then if they get that sorted they could waste their time checking to see if you had a regulation light.

The law is fine - it's the enforcement which is lagging behind. I think they should go after the nobbers using trail lights on the road before wasting their time on unlike bicycles because someone with a dazzling non-reg light is far more dangerous than someone without any light. (I live between a town and a good MTB track, so I see a variety of them.)

A hard-to-see non-reg light may also be worse than nothing because at least most of the ninjas assume that motorists haven't seen them and ride accordingly defensively, whereas someone with a non-reg light might think they've been seen when they haven't because of substandard side visibility, for example.

 

[summerdays]

I haven't got the space on my bars to waste on carrying an extra light, putting it on and off the bike each time I lock it up would be an additional faff. The lights are being sold to be used on the road, including those green LED ones that come up every now and again.

As for the dazzling light you've just implied they can have that in addition to their legal light if they have met the regulations with their first light. In which case surely the regs do need to be looked at?

Anyway as I've said previously I'm not bothered by them and just intend to buy my Volt lights at some stage for the next winter. Which I will probably run with my Hope light.

 

[mjr]

Actually it is - it allows more above-axis light than the BS. It may well be sensible to do so, indeed allowing more still may be sensible, but nevertheless it is laxer

The only aiming requirement in the BS or RVLR is "downwards", isn't it? So it's difficult to compare them like that and say either is laxer.

You'd have a hard time convincing many people that a marginally non-compliant light was as dangerous as mobile phone usage. ... there are situations where other lights work better.

I agree there are situations where other lights work better and that I've got a very hard time convincing people on these boards that cyclists should obey the reasonable lighting laws and not deliberately buy expensive-yet-still-non-compliant lights for road use.

 

[mjr]

I haven't got the space on my bars to waste on carrying an extra light, putting it on and off the bike each time I lock it up would be an additional faff.

I'm not saying you should. I was just explaining one reason why they can't stop the sale of bike-mounted torches: they only become illegal when used badly.

BTW, if handlebar space is a concern, use a fork-mounted light.

 

[MrGrumpy]

volt 300 best bang for buck? £36 is not a bad deal ? Assuming it's weather proof which is what let's all these Chinese lights down .

 

[Herbie]

There's an awfy nip in the air too...

I,ll be slipping on my vest soonish.

 

[rualexander]

Great wee Axa light currently on offer at £23.52 at Rosebikes http://www.rosebikes.co.uk/article/...riteo&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=criteo2
Their prices vary daily so it might not stay at that price for long. Postage wil add another £7.60 so worth combining something else into the order if you need anything.
I got one last winter at a similar price, very good light.