who are pavements for?

[Angelfishsolo]

I doubt your smart lights have the required eu regs or bs marks on to be legit.

You are probably correct.

 

[Dan B]

Many bike lights are also illegal due to their brackets: I'd have to look this up to check it, but am pretty sure that a BS-approved light bracket doesn't allow the beam to be pointed upwards or downwards without tools - i.e. any kind of "quick release" bracket probably doesn't conform

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1463449"]
No, it's discretion.

Your second paragraph is interesting. You seem to be more interested in catching lawbreakers than addressing the issues that those laws are in place to address.
[/quote]

How can it be discretion if there is no way of telling if a light conforms to a given standard or not?

My second sentence was simply an observation.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1463451"]
In which case you have been riding illegally.

Does that realisation give you a better view of the issue of law and discretion?
[/quote]

I ask again "How can it be discretion if there is no way of telling if a light conforms to a given standard or not?!" I can see how the policing of dim lights could work but beyond that.......

 

[gaz]

How can it be discretion if there is no way of telling if a light conforms to a given standard or not?

My second sentence was simply an observation.

It will state on the light and it's box if it conforms to the bs or eu standards.

There are only a handful which are legal.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

It will state on the light and it's box if it conforms to the bs or eu standards.

FFS - Once the light is out of the box and on the bike being used at night How can anyone tell if it complies with the requisite standards?

 

[Dan B]

How can it be discretion if there is no way of telling if a light conforms to a given standard or not?

But there is a way to tell: stop the cyclist and check his light for the kitemark.


If you're breaking the law then you're breaking the law. There's no get-out clause if you're breaking a law that can't easily be checked, otherwise it'd be OK to murder people provided you're clever enough to make sure nobody can pin the crime on you

 

[Angelfishsolo]

But there is a way to tell: stop the cyclist and check his light for the kitemark.


If you're breaking the law then you're breaking the law. There's no get-out clause if you're breaking a law that can't easily be checked, otherwise it'd be OK to murder people provided you're clever enough to make sure nobody can pin the crime on you

So the authorities use there discretion by not stopping any bikes? OK fair point.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

But there is a way to tell: stop the cyclist and check his light for the kitemark.


If you're breaking the law then you're breaking the law. There's no get-out clause if you're breaking a law that can't easily be checked, otherwise it'd be OK to murder people provided you're clever enough to make sure nobody can pin the crime on you

Also it is only illegal if riding between dusk and dawn

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1463459"]
If there was no discretion then the police would take a different approach. For example they would have campaigns, like mornings spent pulling up RLJers, where then stop all lit cyclists at night to check their lights.

They don't do this because that would be stupid. Instead, they look at the issue the law is there to address and respond accordingly.

How do you plead on your own law breaking?
[/quote]

Ok a valid point and well made. I concede you are correct

As for the charges, I do not ride my bike after dusk muh lord.

 

[MontyVeda]

But there is a way to tell: stop the cyclist and check his light for the kitemark.


If you're breaking the law then you're breaking the law. There's no get-out clause if you're breaking a law that can't easily be checked, otherwise it'd be OK to murder people provided you're clever enough to make sure nobody can pin the crime on you

I'd like to think the police have better things to do than pull up cyclists at night who have working lights on their bikes just to check if those working lights comply to some BS.

Pulling a cyclist at night with no lights, or very dim lights is a public service... but pulling a cyclist with 'visually compliant' lights is ridiculous.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I'd like to think the police have better things to do than pull up cyclists at night who have working lights on their bikes just to check if those working lights comply to some BS.

Pulling a cyclist at night with no lights, or very dim lights is a public service... but pulling a cyclist with 'visually compliant' lights is ridiculous.

Hence their apparent use of discretion.

 

[Dan B]

I'd like to think the police have better things to do than pull up cyclists at night who have working lights on their bikes just to check if those working lights comply to some BS.

Pulling a cyclist at night with no lights, or very dim lights is a public service... but pulling a cyclist with 'visually compliant' lights is ridiculous.

Personally I'd agree with you, but if you believe "the law is the law" then you can't have one standard of law enforcement for lights and another more or less slack one for pavements, because that's implicitly an admission that some illegal acts are more heinous than others,

 

[MontyVeda]

Personally I'd agree with you, but if you believe "the law is the law" then you can't have one standard of law enforcement for lights and another more or less slack one for pavements, because that's implicitly an admission that some illegal acts are more heinous than others,

I'm more than happy to admit that some illegal acts are more heinous than others.

 

[al78]

Personally I'd agree with you, but if you believe "the law is the law" then you can't have one standard of law enforcement for lights and another more or less slack one for pavements, because that's implicitly an admission that some illegal acts are more heinous than others,

There is a difference between complying with the spirit of the law, if not the exact letter (non BS lights), and ignoring the law altogether (pavement cycling).