E
elyob
Guest
Looking at getting a new rear light for my new racing bike. What's the best
one out there at the moment?
Thanks
one out there at the moment?
Thanks
D
dkahn400
Guest
elyob wrote:
> Looking at getting a new rear light for my new racing bike. What's
> the best one out there at the moment?
The Cateye AU100 is pretty good. Attaches easily to your seatpost and
includes a reflector so that it's almost legal. The Halfords own brand
ultra-bright rear light makes a good supplement to this. Use the AU100
on your seat post in steady mode and clip the Halfords one to your rear
pocket, set on flash. You'll be both bright and minimalist in true
roadie fashion.
--
Dave...
> Looking at getting a new rear light for my new racing bike. What's
> the best one out there at the moment?
The Cateye AU100 is pretty good. Attaches easily to your seatpost and
includes a reflector so that it's almost legal. The Halfords own brand
ultra-bright rear light makes a good supplement to this. Use the AU100
on your seat post in steady mode and clip the Halfords one to your rear
pocket, set on flash. You'll be both bright and minimalist in true
roadie fashion.
--
Dave...
E
elyob
Guest
"dkahn400" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> elyob wrote:
>> Looking at getting a new rear light for my new racing bike. What's
>> the best one out there at the moment?
>
> The Cateye AU100 is pretty good. Attaches easily to your seatpost and
> includes a reflector so that it's almost legal. The Halfords own brand
> ultra-bright rear light makes a good supplement to this. Use the AU100
> on your seat post in steady mode and clip the Halfords one to your rear
> pocket, set on flash. You'll be both bright and minimalist in true
> roadie fashion.
That's a decent light, yes. It's the one I was thinking of. Now I'm looking
for SPD pedals. I'll be using my MTB SPD shoes as I can't see myself getting
proper roadie shoes quite yet. There are some Ritchey Pro V3 MTB pedals with
65% off on wiggle, but am unsure. I will only be using cycle shoes with this
bike.
Finally, I don't even know what sort of inner tubes to buy.... erm ..
news:[email protected]...
> elyob wrote:
>> Looking at getting a new rear light for my new racing bike. What's
>> the best one out there at the moment?
>
> The Cateye AU100 is pretty good. Attaches easily to your seatpost and
> includes a reflector so that it's almost legal. The Halfords own brand
> ultra-bright rear light makes a good supplement to this. Use the AU100
> on your seat post in steady mode and clip the Halfords one to your rear
> pocket, set on flash. You'll be both bright and minimalist in true
> roadie fashion.
That's a decent light, yes. It's the one I was thinking of. Now I'm looking
for SPD pedals. I'll be using my MTB SPD shoes as I can't see myself getting
proper roadie shoes quite yet. There are some Ritchey Pro V3 MTB pedals with
65% off on wiggle, but am unsure. I will only be using cycle shoes with this
bike.
Finally, I don't even know what sort of inner tubes to buy.... erm ..
P
Peter Clinch
Guest
dkahn400 wrote:
> elyob wrote:
>
>>Looking at getting a new rear light for my new racing bike. What's
>>the best one out there at the moment?
"Best" requires definition of "best" of course: given that brightness,
compactness, battery life, ease of mounting etc. etc. are all
confounding factors it will mean different strokes for different folks.
> The Cateye AU100 is pretty good. Attaches easily to your seatpost and
> includes a reflector
Having said the above, I have one of these on the Brom and have been
very happy with it. I've recommended it a few times here and nobody has
confronted me with how useless the suggestion was yet...
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
> elyob wrote:
>
>>Looking at getting a new rear light for my new racing bike. What's
>>the best one out there at the moment?
"Best" requires definition of "best" of course: given that brightness,
compactness, battery life, ease of mounting etc. etc. are all
confounding factors it will mean different strokes for different folks.
> The Cateye AU100 is pretty good. Attaches easily to your seatpost and
> includes a reflector
Having said the above, I have one of these on the Brom and have been
very happy with it. I've recommended it a few times here and nobody has
confronted me with how useless the suggestion was yet...
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
J
Just zis Guy, you know?
Guest
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 13:10:53 +0100, "elyob" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Looking at getting a new rear light for my new racing bike. What's the best
>one out there at the moment?
There is no one right answer. But since two lights is better than
one, that is not a problem
I would make sure that you have at least one lamp kitemarked to BS6102
Part 3, the Cateye TL-AU100 meets this. At least one cyclist has been
held to be partly to blame for his own demise when hit from behind
when using a non-approved (flashing) rear light, so this lamp should
be mounted using the optional rigid mounting bracket, and used in
steady mode for maximum anti-weasel performance.
In addition I recommend a flashing light hung on your body (that's
legal, as is - supposedly - hanging it from the luggage of the bike).
The TL-LD600 works well for that. The more expensive TL-LD1000 is
very good and will work with one bank of LEDs flashing and the other
steady, but this lamp is too heavy to hang on your body (IMO) and is
not BS approved even in steady mode. The LD-600 is, to my eye, at
least as visible in flashing mode as the LD1000.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
wrote:
>Looking at getting a new rear light for my new racing bike. What's the best
>one out there at the moment?
There is no one right answer. But since two lights is better than
one, that is not a problem
I would make sure that you have at least one lamp kitemarked to BS6102
Part 3, the Cateye TL-AU100 meets this. At least one cyclist has been
held to be partly to blame for his own demise when hit from behind
when using a non-approved (flashing) rear light, so this lamp should
be mounted using the optional rigid mounting bracket, and used in
steady mode for maximum anti-weasel performance.
In addition I recommend a flashing light hung on your body (that's
legal, as is - supposedly - hanging it from the luggage of the bike).
The TL-LD600 works well for that. The more expensive TL-LD1000 is
very good and will work with one bank of LEDs flashing and the other
steady, but this lamp is too heavy to hang on your body (IMO) and is
not BS approved even in steady mode. The LD-600 is, to my eye, at
least as visible in flashing mode as the LD1000.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
P
Peter Clinch
Guest
elyob wrote:
> That's a decent light, yes. It's the one I was thinking of. Now I'm looking
> for SPD pedals. I'll be using my MTB SPD shoes as I can't see myself getting
> proper roadie shoes quite yet. There are some Ritchey Pro V3 MTB pedalswith
> 65% off on wiggle, but am unsure. I will only be using cycle shoes withthis
> bike.
If you're sticking with MTB shoes then at least consider Time ATACs.
The cleats will fit any SPuD compatible shoe but I find the pedals
engage more positively on the Times, there's no tension adjustment
necessary so one less thing to faff with and there's more float,
including lateral as well as rotational. They seem to be less prone to
popping out with worn cleats than SPuDs as well.
> Finally, I don't even know what sort of inner tubes to buy.... erm ..
Shouldn't really matter for a spare. Then when someone has a load in a
sale (EBC usually have a pile of Specialized ones every Summer Sale, for
example) for £1 or whatever, buy a bag full.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
> That's a decent light, yes. It's the one I was thinking of. Now I'm looking
> for SPD pedals. I'll be using my MTB SPD shoes as I can't see myself getting
> proper roadie shoes quite yet. There are some Ritchey Pro V3 MTB pedalswith
> 65% off on wiggle, but am unsure. I will only be using cycle shoes withthis
> bike.
If you're sticking with MTB shoes then at least consider Time ATACs.
The cleats will fit any SPuD compatible shoe but I find the pedals
engage more positively on the Times, there's no tension adjustment
necessary so one less thing to faff with and there's more float,
including lateral as well as rotational. They seem to be less prone to
popping out with worn cleats than SPuDs as well.
> Finally, I don't even know what sort of inner tubes to buy.... erm ..
Shouldn't really matter for a spare. Then when someone has a load in a
sale (EBC usually have a pile of Specialized ones every Summer Sale, for
example) for £1 or whatever, buy a bag full.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
D
dkahn400
Guest
Peter Clinch wrote:
> elyob wrote:
>
> > Now I'm looking for SPD pedals. I'll be using my MTB SPD shoes
> > as I can't see myself getting proper roadie shoes quite yet.
> > There are some Ritchey Pro V3 MTB pedals with 65% off on wiggle,
> > but am unsure. I will only be using cycle shoes with this bike.
>
> If you're sticking with MTB shoes then at least consider Time
> ATACs.
>
> The cleats will fit any SPuD compatible shoe but I find the pedals
> engage more positively on the Times, there's no tension adjustment
> necessary so one less thing to faff with and there's more float,
> including lateral as well as rotational. They seem to be less
> prone to popping out with worn cleats than SPuDs as well.
However, elyob already has SPDs on his other bike and wants to be able
to use the same shoes on both bikes, at least for now. The Ritchey
pedals he's looking at are a good deal and will be fine for what he
wants to do. Most roadies tend to prefer Looks, or a Shimano
alternative with a bigger platform than the SPDs, but the difference in
practice is not that great. The SPDs, like the Times, have the
advantage that you can get off the bike and walk around like a human
being rather than a duck.
--
Dave...
> elyob wrote:
>
> > Now I'm looking for SPD pedals. I'll be using my MTB SPD shoes
> > as I can't see myself getting proper roadie shoes quite yet.
> > There are some Ritchey Pro V3 MTB pedals with 65% off on wiggle,
> > but am unsure. I will only be using cycle shoes with this bike.
>
> If you're sticking with MTB shoes then at least consider Time
> ATACs.
>
> The cleats will fit any SPuD compatible shoe but I find the pedals
> engage more positively on the Times, there's no tension adjustment
> necessary so one less thing to faff with and there's more float,
> including lateral as well as rotational. They seem to be less
> prone to popping out with worn cleats than SPuDs as well.
However, elyob already has SPDs on his other bike and wants to be able
to use the same shoes on both bikes, at least for now. The Ritchey
pedals he's looking at are a good deal and will be fine for what he
wants to do. Most roadies tend to prefer Looks, or a Shimano
alternative with a bigger platform than the SPDs, but the difference in
practice is not that great. The SPDs, like the Times, have the
advantage that you can get off the bike and walk around like a human
being rather than a duck.
--
Dave...
D
davek
Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> I would make sure that you have at least one lamp kitemarked to BS6102
> Part 3, the Cateye TL-AU100 meets this. At least one cyclist has been
> held to be partly to blame for his own demise when hit from behind
> when using a non-approved (flashing) rear light, so this lamp should
> be mounted using the optional rigid mounting bracket, and used in
> steady mode for maximum anti-weasel performance.
On my Audax bike, I have two AU100s bolted on to a metal plate on the
back of the rack (ie "permanently" fixed for maximum legality). In
operation, I use one in flashing mode, one in steady mode. I also have
a rear dynamo light that came built in to the mudguard - that isn't
wired up, but I have been thinking of getting it connected just for
that extra bit of lighting overkill.
I'm not sure if the legality of the steady light is cancelled out by
the technical illegality of the flashing light, but I think at least I
have most bases covered.
d.
> I would make sure that you have at least one lamp kitemarked to BS6102
> Part 3, the Cateye TL-AU100 meets this. At least one cyclist has been
> held to be partly to blame for his own demise when hit from behind
> when using a non-approved (flashing) rear light, so this lamp should
> be mounted using the optional rigid mounting bracket, and used in
> steady mode for maximum anti-weasel performance.
On my Audax bike, I have two AU100s bolted on to a metal plate on the
back of the rack (ie "permanently" fixed for maximum legality). In
operation, I use one in flashing mode, one in steady mode. I also have
a rear dynamo light that came built in to the mudguard - that isn't
wired up, but I have been thinking of getting it connected just for
that extra bit of lighting overkill.
I'm not sure if the legality of the steady light is cancelled out by
the technical illegality of the flashing light, but I think at least I
have most bases covered.
d.
M
Mark Tranchant
Guest
Peter Clinch wrote:
>> The Cateye AU100 is pretty good. Attaches easily to your seatpost and
>> includes a reflector
>
> Having said the above, I have one of these on the Brom and have been
> very happy with it. I've recommended it a few times here and nobody has
> confronted me with how useless the suggestion was yet...
My only issue with it is that multiple battery replacements eventually
lead to cracking of the lens by the lever point.
--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/
>> The Cateye AU100 is pretty good. Attaches easily to your seatpost and
>> includes a reflector
>
> Having said the above, I have one of these on the Brom and have been
> very happy with it. I've recommended it a few times here and nobody has
> confronted me with how useless the suggestion was yet...
My only issue with it is that multiple battery replacements eventually
lead to cracking of the lens by the lever point.
--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/
M
Mark Tranchant
Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> The more expensive TL-LD1000 is
> very good and will work with one bank of LEDs flashing and the other
> steady, but this lamp is too heavy to hang on your body (IMO) and is
> not BS approved even in steady mode.
The '1000 has an extremely narrow beam. I wouldn't recommend this as a
sole rear light, but it makes an excellent supplementary light. Mount it
on the front and you can pretend to be KITT. ;-)
--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/
> The more expensive TL-LD1000 is
> very good and will work with one bank of LEDs flashing and the other
> steady, but this lamp is too heavy to hang on your body (IMO) and is
> not BS approved even in steady mode.
The '1000 has an extremely narrow beam. I wouldn't recommend this as a
sole rear light, but it makes an excellent supplementary light. Mount it
on the front and you can pretend to be KITT. ;-)
--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/
I
Ian Smith
Guest
On Wed, 06 Jul, Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I would make sure that you have at least one lamp kitemarked to BS6102
> Part 3, the Cateye TL-AU100 meets this. At least one cyclist has been
> held to be partly to blame for his own demise when hit from behind
> when using a non-approved (flashing) rear light, so this lamp should
> be mounted using the optional rigid mounting bracket, and used in
> steady mode for maximum anti-weasel performance.
But still not weasel-proof performance, because it's still not legal
directly, because it's not the 'right' BS6102.
Also, has anyone actually tried to purchase the bracket that makes it
comply with BS? I've a nasty suspicion you'd be well into
blank-looks-territory if you tried it in any LBS L to me.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
>
> I would make sure that you have at least one lamp kitemarked to BS6102
> Part 3, the Cateye TL-AU100 meets this. At least one cyclist has been
> held to be partly to blame for his own demise when hit from behind
> when using a non-approved (flashing) rear light, so this lamp should
> be mounted using the optional rigid mounting bracket, and used in
> steady mode for maximum anti-weasel performance.
But still not weasel-proof performance, because it's still not legal
directly, because it's not the 'right' BS6102.
Also, has anyone actually tried to purchase the bracket that makes it
comply with BS? I've a nasty suspicion you'd be well into
blank-looks-territory if you tried it in any LBS L to me.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
J
Just zis Guy, you know?
Guest
At 06 Jul 2005 20:18:16 GMT, message
<[email protected]> was posted by Ian Smith
<[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the following:
>> I would make sure that you have at least one lamp kitemarked to BS6102
>> Part 3, the Cateye TL-AU100 meets this. At least one cyclist has been
>> held to be partly to blame for his own demise when hit from behind
>> when using a non-approved (flashing) rear light, so this lamp should
>> be mounted using the optional rigid mounting bracket, and used in
>> steady mode for maximum anti-weasel performance.
>But still not weasel-proof performance, because it's still not legal
>directly, because it's not the 'right' BS6102.
A point I've made before. However, having a light certified as
complying with a later version of the standard cited might be
technically illegal, but it is very unlikely to be held to be
negligent. It is, after all, kitemarked BS6102/3, which is the
standard cited and noted in the Highway Code, and there is no
reference date on the moulding, so the degree of negligence actually
displayed by the cyclist could almost certainly be successfully argued
to be zero, since few if any cyclists could be expected to know the
difference.
>Also, has anyone actually tried to purchase the bracket that makes it
>comply with BS? I've a nasty suspicion you'd be well into
>blank-looks-territory if you tried it in any LBS L to me.
You may well be right. I've usually mounted mine on rigid light
mountings on racks.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
<[email protected]> was posted by Ian Smith
<[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the following:
>> I would make sure that you have at least one lamp kitemarked to BS6102
>> Part 3, the Cateye TL-AU100 meets this. At least one cyclist has been
>> held to be partly to blame for his own demise when hit from behind
>> when using a non-approved (flashing) rear light, so this lamp should
>> be mounted using the optional rigid mounting bracket, and used in
>> steady mode for maximum anti-weasel performance.
>But still not weasel-proof performance, because it's still not legal
>directly, because it's not the 'right' BS6102.
A point I've made before. However, having a light certified as
complying with a later version of the standard cited might be
technically illegal, but it is very unlikely to be held to be
negligent. It is, after all, kitemarked BS6102/3, which is the
standard cited and noted in the Highway Code, and there is no
reference date on the moulding, so the degree of negligence actually
displayed by the cyclist could almost certainly be successfully argued
to be zero, since few if any cyclists could be expected to know the
difference.
>Also, has anyone actually tried to purchase the bracket that makes it
>comply with BS? I've a nasty suspicion you'd be well into
>blank-looks-territory if you tried it in any LBS L to me.
You may well be right. I've usually mounted mine on rigid light
mountings on racks.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
M
Mark van Gorkom
Guest
On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:34:35 +0100, Mark Tranchant
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>>> The Cateye AU100 is pretty good. Attaches easily to your seatpost and
>>> includes a reflector
>>
>> Having said the above, I have one of these on the Brom and have been
>> very happy with it. I've recommended it a few times here and nobody has
>> confronted me with how useless the suggestion was yet...
>
>My only issue with it is that multiple battery replacements eventually
>lead to cracking of the lens by the lever point.
Very multiple battery replacements; you'd think 2 AA's would last a
bit longer...
Mark van Gorkom.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>>> The Cateye AU100 is pretty good. Attaches easily to your seatpost and
>>> includes a reflector
>>
>> Having said the above, I have one of these on the Brom and have been
>> very happy with it. I've recommended it a few times here and nobody has
>> confronted me with how useless the suggestion was yet...
>
>My only issue with it is that multiple battery replacements eventually
>lead to cracking of the lens by the lever point.
Very multiple battery replacements; you'd think 2 AA's would last a
bit longer...
Mark van Gorkom.
A
Ambrose Nankivell
Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> At 06 Jul 2005 20:18:16 GMT, message
> <[email protected]> was posted by Ian Smith
> <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the following:
>
>> But still not weasel-proof performance, because it's still not legal
>> directly, because it's not the 'right' BS6102.
>
> A point I've made before. However, having a light certified as
> complying with a later version of the standard cited might be
> technically illegal, but it is very unlikely to be held to be
> negligent. It is, after all, kitemarked BS6102/3, which is the
> standard cited and noted in the Highway Code, and there is no
> reference date on the moulding, so the degree of negligence actually
> displayed by the cyclist could almost certainly be successfully argued
> to be zero, since few if any cyclists could be expected to know the
> difference.
Unless someone goes and tells them it doesn't comply.
Is it not true that a light ratified to the standard of another EU country
(DIN being the norm) was considered as complying, or was that an
overoptimistic reading of the regulations that I heard?
--
Ambrose
> At 06 Jul 2005 20:18:16 GMT, message
> <[email protected]> was posted by Ian Smith
> <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the following:
>
>> But still not weasel-proof performance, because it's still not legal
>> directly, because it's not the 'right' BS6102.
>
> A point I've made before. However, having a light certified as
> complying with a later version of the standard cited might be
> technically illegal, but it is very unlikely to be held to be
> negligent. It is, after all, kitemarked BS6102/3, which is the
> standard cited and noted in the Highway Code, and there is no
> reference date on the moulding, so the degree of negligence actually
> displayed by the cyclist could almost certainly be successfully argued
> to be zero, since few if any cyclists could be expected to know the
> difference.
Unless someone goes and tells them it doesn't comply.
Is it not true that a light ratified to the standard of another EU country
(DIN being the norm) was considered as complying, or was that an
overoptimistic reading of the regulations that I heard?
--
Ambrose
J
Just zis Guy, you know?
Guest
At Thu, 7 Jul 2005 21:49:49 +0000 (UTC), message
<[email protected]> was posted by
"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]>, including some, all or
none of the following:
>Is it not true that a light ratified to the standard of another EU country
>(DIN being the norm) was considered as complying, or was that an
>overoptimistic reading of the regulations that I heard?
I think that is optimism.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
<[email protected]> was posted by
"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]>, including some, all or
none of the following:
>Is it not true that a light ratified to the standard of another EU country
>(DIN being the norm) was considered as complying, or was that an
>overoptimistic reading of the regulations that I heard?
I think that is optimism.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
P
Peter Clinch
Guest
Mark van Gorkom wrote:
[Cateye AU100]
> Very multiple battery replacements; you'd think 2 AA's would last a
> bit longer...
I get through a couple of sets in a typical /year/ for the one on the
back of the Brom. Sufficiently few that ICBA to look very seriously
into routing dynamo wiring from the SON that powers the front.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
[Cateye AU100]
> Very multiple battery replacements; you'd think 2 AA's would last a
> bit longer...
I get through a couple of sets in a typical /year/ for the one on the
back of the Brom. Sufficiently few that ICBA to look very seriously
into routing dynamo wiring from the SON that powers the front.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
I
Ian Smith
Guest
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Ambrose Nankivell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> > At 06 Jul 2005 20:18:16 GMT, message
> > <[email protected]> was posted by Ian Smith
> > <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the following:
> >
> >> But still not weasel-proof performance, because it's still not legal
> >> directly, because it's not the 'right' BS6102.
> >
> > A point I've made before. However, having a light certified as
> > complying with a later version of the standard cited might be
> > technically illegal, but it is very unlikely to be held to be
> > negligent. It is, after all, kitemarked BS6102/3, which is the
> > standard cited and noted in the Highway Code, and there is no
> > reference date on the moulding, so the degree of negligence actually
> > displayed by the cyclist could almost certainly be successfully argued
> > to be zero, since few if any cyclists could be expected to know the
> > difference.
>
> Unless someone goes and tells them it doesn't comply.
>
> Is it not true that a light ratified to the standard of another EU country
> (DIN being the norm) was considered as complying, or was that an
> overoptimistic reading of the regulations that I heard?
Nearly, I believe. It's not deemed to comply with the BS, but it is
legal, provided it's an equivalent standard. You can't, for example,
claim that as Greece permits you to cycle with no light, when you've
got no lights fitted you're displaying lights ratified to the standard
of Greece, and therefore legal.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> > At 06 Jul 2005 20:18:16 GMT, message
> > <[email protected]> was posted by Ian Smith
> > <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the following:
> >
> >> But still not weasel-proof performance, because it's still not legal
> >> directly, because it's not the 'right' BS6102.
> >
> > A point I've made before. However, having a light certified as
> > complying with a later version of the standard cited might be
> > technically illegal, but it is very unlikely to be held to be
> > negligent. It is, after all, kitemarked BS6102/3, which is the
> > standard cited and noted in the Highway Code, and there is no
> > reference date on the moulding, so the degree of negligence actually
> > displayed by the cyclist could almost certainly be successfully argued
> > to be zero, since few if any cyclists could be expected to know the
> > difference.
>
> Unless someone goes and tells them it doesn't comply.
>
> Is it not true that a light ratified to the standard of another EU country
> (DIN being the norm) was considered as complying, or was that an
> overoptimistic reading of the regulations that I heard?
Nearly, I believe. It's not deemed to comply with the BS, but it is
legal, provided it's an equivalent standard. You can't, for example,
claim that as Greece permits you to cycle with no light, when you've
got no lights fitted you're displaying lights ratified to the standard
of Greece, and therefore legal.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
J
Just zis Guy, you know?
Guest
At Fri, 08 Jul 2005 08:38:38 +0100, message
<[email protected]> was posted by Peter Clinch
<[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
following:
>> Very multiple battery replacements; you'd think 2 AA's would last a
>> bit longer...
>I get through a couple of sets in a typical /year/ for the one on the
>back of the Brom. Sufficiently few that ICBA to look very seriously
>into routing dynamo wiring from the SON that powers the front.
Agreed. With my previous 15 mile round trip commute a set of AAs in
the AU100 would last most of a year and I'd get through only two sets
in the RealLITE, which is visible with the naked eye from space.
The main thing is to have two lights so if one does go flat (or fall
off) you still have something back there.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
<[email protected]> was posted by Peter Clinch
<[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
following:
>> Very multiple battery replacements; you'd think 2 AA's would last a
>> bit longer...
>I get through a couple of sets in a typical /year/ for the one on the
>back of the Brom. Sufficiently few that ICBA to look very seriously
>into routing dynamo wiring from the SON that powers the front.
Agreed. With my previous 15 mile round trip commute a set of AAs in
the AU100 would last most of a year and I'd get through only two sets
in the RealLITE, which is visible with the naked eye from space.
The main thing is to have two lights so if one does go flat (or fall
off) you still have something back there.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
