But only if it is your sole light of that colour, and the kitemark needs to be BS6102/2.
6102/2 is for reflectors, not lights. However my earlier-mentioned Cateye flashers combine light and reflector but are only BS approved as reflectors.
Quoted message said:
Speaking to my tame plod, he was unaware that it a) was now legal to fit flashing bike lights and b) that it had ever been illegal and c) was not about to quibble with anyone who was showing any lights, irrespective of the letter of the law.
I don't have a copy of the standards any more, so I can't say this for certain, but I believe one part of the revision in 1989(?) was to allow LEDs as a light source rather than incandescent lamps. This could be Complete Bollocks, though.
So I believe, too. The previous ones didn't _intend_ to ban LED, it was just that they wanted to ban carbide lamps, so specified that the light source be an electrically heated filament bulb (or something to that effect).
Quoted message said:
Not surprised - ignorance on that one is widespread. And on the fact that some kitemarked lamps are only legit if fitted with an optional rigid bracket (and not even then, of course, due to the wrong year of BS). In practice it is going to be *much* easier to fit a front and rear blinkie and then carry on as before!
Depends what you mean by 'legit'. They're legitimately BS with the optional extra bracket, but not necessarily legitimately legal.
I submit that on or about 2 Oct 2005 06:10:45 -0700, the person known to the court as "David Martin" <[email hidden]> made a statement (<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's bundle) to the following effect:
Quoted message said:
A[1] BS compliant steady light or a flashing LED light with an output over 4 candela flashing... etc. are sufficient to meet the requirements for lighting on a cycle at night.
Yes. Specifically, if it does *not* flash it need sot be kitemarked, if it *does* flash, it need not be. A typical dog's breakfast, in other words.
Unless your bike was built before October 1990 (like 3 of mine)
I submit that on or about Sun, 02 Oct 2005 20:07:27 +0100, the person known to the court as MSeries <[email hidden]> made a statement (<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's bundle) to the following effect:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Yes. Specifically, if it does *not* flash it need sot be kitemarked, if it *does* flash, it need not be. A typical dog's breakfast, in other words.
Quoted message said:
Unless your bike was built before October 1990 (like 3 of mine)
Interesting. I read it as requiring the approval mark after that date, but requiring the standard before then - but you could be right. I really will have to ask Chris Juden!
I submit that on or about Sun, 02 Oct 2005 20:07:27 +0100, the person known to the court as MSeries <[email hidden]> made a statement (<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's bundle) to the following effect:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Yes. Specifically, if it does *not* flash it need sot be kitemarked, if it *does* flash, it need not be. A typical dog's breakfast, in other words.
Quoted message said:
Unless your bike was built before October 1990 (like 3 of mine)
Interesting. I read it as requiring the approval mark after that date, but requiring the standard before then - but you could be right. I really will have to ask Chris Juden!
I have only read CTC notes about this and IIRC it, that is the CTC information, says if ones bike was built before October 1990 any white light will do. I assume it means steady but doesn't mention the need for BS as all. I'd be interested in hearing what CJ says on this.
nless your bike was built before October 1990 (like 3 of mine)
160 of mine are less than 5 years old - I do have 2 which are older:-)
How old is my tandem? I built it last year but the frames it was built from are potentially more than 10 years old.
As old as you say it is... Technically, it's probably as old as the frame because comparing the frame number with the manufacturer's records would be the only way of proving its age.
But it really doesn't matter, does it? If you've got a white light, no policeman's going to be bothered whether it's BS marked or not. In the very unlikely case that one does and you say it's a pre-October 1990 bike, who's going to go to all the effort of trying to prove you wrong?
But it really doesn't matter, does it? If you've got a white light, no policeman's going to be bothered whether it's BS marked or not. In the very unlikely case that one does and you say it's a pre-October 1990 bike, who's going to go to all the effort of trying to prove you wrong?
Perhaps a lawyer on behalf of an insurance company who is trying to reduce the compo.
But it really doesn't matter, does it? If you've got a white light, no policeman's going to be bothered whether it's BS marked or not. In the very unlikely case that one does and you say it's a pre-October 1990 bike, who's going to go to all the effort of trying to prove you wrong?
Perhaps a lawyer on behalf of an insurance company who is trying to reduce the compo.
Perhaps a lawyer on behalf of an insurance company who is trying to reduce the compo.
How often does that happen?
Overall, rarely, but cycling is so safe lawyers rarely get a look-in anyway, so that's not particularly relevant.
In what proportion of cases does an insurance company try and weasel out of paying for the actions of their insured? This is a more relevant questions, and can more readily be compared with the toilet habits of bears, I think.
Perhaps a lawyer on behalf of an insurance company who is trying to reduce the compo.
How often does that happen?
Overall, rarely, but cycling is so safe lawyers rarely get a look-in anyway, so that's not particularly relevant.
In what proportion of cases does an insurance company try and weasel out of paying for the actions of their insured? This is a more relevant questions, and can more readily be compared with the toilet habits of bears, I think.
In what proportion of cases does the insurance company find witnesses who noted what lights you had on the bike at the time?
In any case, I prefer to concentrate on having whatever equipment *I* think is most suitable for the cycling I'm doing, and not having an accident in the first place, rather than letting my life be ruled by pure fear of litigation -- a growing general attitude that I think is spoiling this country/world.
In what proportion of cases does the insurance company find witnesses who noted what lights you had on the bike at the time?
In a fatal collision I would expect there to be a report from the police vehicle examiner on the condition of all the vehicles involved, including the bicycle. I wouldn't be surprised if they also got their own expert to examine it if it looks like being a big payout.
In what proportion of cases does an insurance company try and weasel out of paying for the actions of their insured? This is a more relevant questions, and can more readily be compared with the toilet habits of bears, I think.
In any case, I prefer to concentrate on having whatever equipment *I* think is most suitable for the cycling I'm doing, and not having an accident in the first place, rather than letting my life be ruled by pure fear of litigation -- a growing general attitude that I think is spoiling this country/world.
I'm surprised you consider fitting an extra light to your bike to be a lifetimes work, and I agree, in that case I probably wouldn't bother either.
I'm surprised you consider fitting an extra light to your bike to be a lifetimes work, and I agree, in that case I probably wouldn't bother either.
It's not the work in fitting another light but the space, weight and running cost of it in addition to the lights I prefer to use that bother me.
The law change re flashing lights makes things a bit easier, but still I don't think I would be "legal" if I had Lumicycle lamps switched on at the time with a Smart Polaris turned off, or no Lumis and Polaris in steady mode. I'm also not going to fit a legal rear reflector when I've got loads of reflective tape instead, nor legal pedal reflectors when my pedals can't take them.
In what proportion of cases does the insurance company find witnesses who noted what lights you had on the bike at the time?
In a fatal collision I would expect there to be a report from the police vehicle examiner on the condition of all the vehicles involved, including the bicycle. I wouldn't be surprised if they also got their own expert to examine it if it looks like being a big payout.
That is a good example, but I don't think there's much chance of me being involved in a fatal incident (and at night), at least where I wasn't the fatality. That's the chance I take anyway. Meanwhile I use lights that are at least as as visible as minimum BS lights to do my bit to help prevent crashes.
The law change re flashing lights makes things a bit easier, but still I don't think I would be "legal" if I had Lumicycle lamps switched on at the time with a Smart Polaris turned off, or no Lumis and Polaris in steady
What is the legal requirements now? I'm about to swap lights around for my winter bike. Any references for the changes from the horses mouth? (Or is it twojag's A***).
