No bell or reflectors on new bike.

[Marc Brett]

I've just bought a (superb!) new bike from a well-respected manufacturer for my
10 yro daughter, but it was delivered without a bell, white front reflector, red
rear reflector, or side (or spoke) reflectors.

They say this is a deliberate policy, as they would prefer to spend the money on
quality components than on accessories that most people would remove as soon as
the bike is delivered.

I had no intention of removing said components, and consider them sensible for a
10-year old who is likely to ride on shared-use paths and at night. I've just
come back from Halford's with a new bell & reflectors and feel a bit ripped off.

Do most people in this parish remove the bells and reflectors from their new
steeds? From their children's? Am I being a wet blanket expecting the supplier
to follow the law, or have I just been snowed?

Opinions?

 

[David Martin]

Marc Brett wrote:
> I've just bought a (superb!) new bike from a well-respected manufacturer for my
> 10 yro daughter, but it was delivered without a bell, white front reflector, red
> rear reflector, or side (or spoke) reflectors.
>
> They say this is a deliberate policy, as they would prefer to spend the money on
> quality components than on accessories that most people would remove as soon as
> the bike is delivered.
>
> I had no intention of removing said components, and consider them sensible for a
> 10-year old who is likely to ride on shared-use paths and at night. I've just
> come back from Halford's with a new bell & reflectors and feel a bit ripped off.
>
> Do most people in this parish remove the bells and reflectors from their new
> steeds? From their children's? Am I being a wet blanket expecting the supplier
> to follow the law, or have I just been snowed?
>
> Opinions?

Send the manufacturer a letter asking for the parts to be fitted as
required by law. They have broken the law and could well be fined. It
was illegal for them to sell you that bike in that state.

(though we have a catch 22 here. the legislation only applies to
complete bikes. If a bike does not have the reflectors and bells it is
not complete. The legislation therefore does not apply... m'lud)

...d

 

[Not Responding]

On Oct 21, 4:39 pm, Marc Brett <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've just bought a (superb!) new bike from a well-respected manufacturer for my
> 10 yro daughter, but it was delivered without a bell, white front reflector, red
> rear reflector, or side (or spoke) reflectors.
>
> They say this is a deliberate policy, as they would prefer to spend the money on
> quality components than on accessories that most people would remove as soon as
> the bike is delivered.
>
> I had no intention of removing said components, and consider them sensible for a
> 10-year old who is likely to ride on shared-use paths and at night. I've just
> come back from Halford's with a new bell & reflectors and feel a bit ripped off.
>
> Do most people in this parish remove the bells and reflectors from their new
> steeds? From their children's? Am I being a wet blanket expecting the supplier
> to follow the law, or have I just been snowed?
>
> Opinions?

If you're really hacked off and bought a bike /expecting/ and
/desiring/ those bits the law requires (and your trip to Halfords
indicates you did) and the LBS isn't interested in rectifying, then
there's an argument for reporting it to trading standards at the
Council.

OTOH, I'm quite grateful for my LBS flexible attitude to the law. Saves
me stripping the bell off later. Fore and aft reflectors and wheel
reflectors I'd keep unless/until I'd fitted lights and reflective bead
tyres.

 

[burt]

"Marc Brett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've just bought a (superb!) new bike from a well-respected manufacturer
> for my
> 10 yro daughter, but it was delivered without a bell, white front
> reflector, red
> rear reflector, or side (or spoke) reflectors.
>
> They say this is a deliberate policy, as they would prefer to spend the
> money on
> quality components than on accessories that most people would remove as
> soon as
> the bike is delivered.
>
> I had no intention of removing said components, and consider them sensible
> for a
> 10-year old who is likely to ride on shared-use paths and at night. I've
> just
> come back from Halford's with a new bell & reflectors and feel a bit
> ripped off.
>
> Do most people in this parish remove the bells and reflectors from their
> new
> steeds? From their children's? Am I being a wet blanket expecting the
> supplier
> to follow the law, or have I just been snowed?

Not completely sure, but I think the supplier was acting illegally, in that
they are required by law to supply a bell and fit front and rear reflectors
and pedal reflectors. Not sure about spoke reflectors. My advice would be
to keep the receipt from Halfrods and demand money with menaces from the
supplier, on pain of being reported to trading standards.

Who was the supplier?

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to David Martin:
> (though we have a catch 22 here. the legislation only applies to
> complete bikes. If a bike does not have the reflectors and bells it is
> not complete. The legislation therefore does not apply... m'lud)

The case to be heard by Mr. Justice Cocklecarrot, no doubt.

--
Mark, UK
"Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be believed."

 

[Mike Causer]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:39:51 +0100, Marc Brett wrote:

> I've just bought a (superb!) new bike from a well-respected manufacturer
> for my 10 yro daughter, but it was delivered without a bell, white front
> reflector, red rear reflector, or side (or spoke) reflectors.

> Do most people in this parish remove the bells and reflectors from their
> new steeds? From their children's? Am I being a wet blanket expecting
> the supplier to follow the law, or have I just been snowed?

Sadly childrens' bikes are exempted:

Exemptions from the Regulations

9. The new Regulations only apply to "adult" cycles likely to be used on
the roads.
10. They do not apply to:
* any bicycle with a saddle height less than 635 millimetres.
(Child bicycles are covered by separate legislation)
* a second-hand bicycle
* a competition bicycle
* a bicycle constructed to an individual person's design for use in
competitive events
* a bicycle intended for use outside the United Kingdom.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_612442.hcsp

I cannot find the equivalent point-of-sale guidance for children's bikes :-(


Reflectors, provided they're pointing in the right direction (!), are a
low-cost, low-weight backup to proper lights, and I leave them on my bikes
all the time. With the exception of side reflectors, which are useless,
and pedal reflectors which don't fit the pedals on 4 of my bikes -- I
wear reflecting ankle bands instead.


Mike

 

[Marc Brett]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 17:55:31 +0100, Mike Causer
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Sadly childrens' bikes are exempted:

Indeed. They'd benefit the most.

> Exemptions from the Regulations
>
> 9. The new Regulations only apply to "adult" cycles likely to be used on
> the roads.
> 10. They do not apply to:
> * any bicycle with a saddle height less than 635 millimetres.
> (Child bicycles are covered by separate legislation)
In this case, said 10 yro is tall for her age. Bike has 26" wheels and arrived
with 742 mm seat height.
> * a second-hand bicycle
'tis shiny and new.
> * a competition bicycle
Utility MTB, no suspension, delivered with road tyres, mudguards and rack
already fitted. I can't imagine a competitive rider wanting that.
> * a bicycle constructed to an individual person's design for use in
> competitive events
Said 10 yro decidedly non-competitive by nature. Off-the-peg design.
> * a bicycle intended for use outside the United Kingdom.
Delivered to a UK address.
>
>http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_612442.hcsp
>
>I cannot find the equivalent point-of-sale guidance for children's bikes :-(

 

[Paul Boyd]

On 21/10/2006 17:55, Mike Causer said,

> and pedal reflectors which don't fit the pedals on 4 of my bikes -- I
> wear reflecting ankle bands instead.

This brings up a point I've been wondering about. I believe it's
illegal not to have pedal reflectors on a bike (I'm sure someone will
correct me if I'm wrong), but I also have pedals that can't have
reflectors fitted to them. I have reflective patches on the backs of my
shoes, but despite being more visible than a reflector tucked underneath
my foot, probably don't count legally.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Mike Causer]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:31:23 +0100, Marc Brett wrote:


>> 10. They do not apply to:
>> * any bicycle with a saddle height less than 635 millimetres.
>> (Child bicycles are covered by separate legislation)

> In this case, said 10 yro is tall for her age. Bike has 26" wheels and
> arrived with 742 mm seat height.

Ah-ha! Back to the shop pronto. Perhaps taking a printed copy of the
DfT guidance will help them decide to do the right thing.


Mike

 

[Mike Causer]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:37:05 +0100, Paul Boyd wrote:

> On 21/10/2006 17:55, Mike Causer said,
>
>> and pedal reflectors which don't fit the pedals on 4 of my bikes -- I
>> wear reflecting ankle bands instead.
>
> This brings up a point I've been wondering about. I believe it's illegal
> not to have pedal reflectors on a bike (I'm sure someone will correct me
> if I'm wrong), but I also have pedals that can't have reflectors fitted to
> them. I have reflective patches on the backs of my shoes, but despite
> being more visible than a reflector tucked underneath my foot, probably
> don't count legally.

Correct on both counts, you scoff-law you! (And me, and probably more
than half the regulars here.)

As Chris Juden points out, if you have /some/ lighting and /some/
reflectors you are very unlikely to have trouble with the police
about it, and are going to be adequately visible to other traffic.
However if you are involved in an accident at night the land-sharks will
go into a feeding-frenzy about it :-(


Mike

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Marc Brett
('[email protected]') wrote:

> I've just bought a (superb!) new bike from a well-respected manufacturer
> for my 10 yro daughter, but it was delivered without a bell, white front
> reflector, red rear reflector, or side (or spoke) reflectors.
>
> They say this is a deliberate policy, as they would prefer to spend the
> money on quality components than on accessories that most people would
> remove as soon as the bike is delivered.
>
> I had no intention of removing said components, and consider them
> sensible for a
> 10-year old who is likely to ride on shared-use paths and at night. I've
> just come back from Halford's with a new bell & reflectors and feel a bit
> ripped off.
>
> Do most people in this parish remove the bells and reflectors from their
> new
> steeds? From their children's? Am I being a wet blanket expecting the
> supplier to follow the law, or have I just been snowed?
>
> Opinions?

Personally I'm hypocritical about reflectors. I don't have them on my good
bikes, because they are ugly; but when driving I find them very helpful in
positively identifying 'bike' at a good distance at night. The up-and-down
movement of both pedal and wheel reflectors is highly distinctive, and a
very good identification aid. In this context I'd particularly commend not
only pedal reflectors but sideways facing in-the-spokes reflectors. Plenty
of people in this thread will claim that these are pointless because
they're not visible from directly behind. This is missing the point. They
aren't visible from directly behind, but they are visible - and can be
very noticeable indeed - from only a few degrees off directly behind, and
on normally twisty British roads that's plenty to get you noticed.

Fixed red and white reflectors, back and front respectively, are much less
important because you should have decent lights on anyway.

So... reflectors on other people's bikes are a jolly good idea. And, to be
fair, I have them on my hack bike, which is the one I'm most likely to be
riding after dark anyway.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

X-no-archive: No, I'm not *that* naive.

 

[Sandy Morton]

In article
<[email protected]>, Mike
Causer <[email protected]> wrote:
> 9. The new Regulations only apply to "adult" cycles likely to be
> used on the roads. 10. They do not apply to: * any bicycle with a
> saddle height less than 635 millimetres. (Child bicycles are
> covered by separate legislation)

I ain't seen this before so - is 635mm a civil service height (from
the ground to the saddle) or a cycle dealers bicycle size height?

--
A T (Sandy) Morton
on the Bicycle Island
In the Global Village
http://www.millport.net

 

[Mike Causer]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:02:44 +0100, Sandy Morton wrote:

> In article
> <[email protected]>, Mike
> Causer <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 9. The new Regulations only apply to "adult" cycles likely to be
>> used on the roads. 10. They do not apply to: * any bicycle with a
>> saddle height less than 635 millimetres. (Child bicycles are covered
>> by separate legislation)
>
> I ain't seen this before so - is 635mm a civil service height (from the
> ground to the saddle) or a cycle dealers bicycle size height?

Probably the first. But as usual they fail to specify exactly what
dimension they mean. And just what is "saddle height" when the seat
consists of one part of the structure on which to put your bum and another
part against which your back rests? The lowest of any, the highest of
any, the median, the mean? Legislation is carefully drawn up by aspiring
lawyers to keep practicising lawyers in highly lucrative employment.


Mike

 

[[email protected]]

As I have posted before, although I take an interest in the law and
would like to obey it, if only to avoid the fear that a drivers
insurers might get their liabilty reduced, I have always found the laws
regarding bicycle lights and reflectors to refer to outmoded and often
obselete equipment.

Yuo can go out with a large bunch of extremely enthusiastic cyclists
and fail to spot one bike which is set up in accordance with the law
for night riding; although most or all would meet with the approval of
any reasonable person.

The last front light I bought from a very respectable manufacturing
shop that I shall not name.
The boss when asked said he was not absolutely sure of the law and
no-one pays it any attention.None of the lights I saw on display had a
bs or K mark, though all were obviously good; much better than anything
that used to carry the bs until that, now already rather old, cateye
led.
The kit we used in the 80's that was legal was rubbish and every bit as
good as the current british standard.The batteries were always fading.

You should at least be given reflectors to put on.How much could they
cost the manufacturers?


TerryJ

 

[Nigel Cliffe]

Mike Causer wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:37:05 +0100, Paul Boyd wrote:
>
>> On 21/10/2006 17:55, Mike Causer said,
>>
>>> and pedal reflectors which don't fit the pedals on 4 of my bikes --
>>> I wear reflecting ankle bands instead.
>>
>> This brings up a point I've been wondering about. I believe it's
>> illegal not to have pedal reflectors on a bike (I'm sure someone
>> will correct me if I'm wrong), but I also have pedals that can't
>> have reflectors fitted to them. I have reflective patches on the
>> backs of my shoes, but despite being more visible than a reflector
>> tucked underneath my foot, probably don't count legally.
>
> Correct on both counts, you scoff-law you! (And me, and probably
> more than half the regulars here.)

> As Chris Juden points out, if you have /some/ lighting and /some/
> reflectors you are very unlikely to have trouble with the police
> about it, and are going to be adequately visible to other traffic.

> However if you are involved in an accident at night the land-sharks
> will go into a feeding-frenzy about it :-(

Can anyone point to a case where damages have been reduced because of
specifics of BS markings in a UK case ?
Or is it part of the FUD which arises from "compensation culture".

I draw a big distinction between a cycle and rider being adequately
lit/reflectored as judged by an average person, and the specifics of BS
stamps.
A valid example would be, have damages ever been reduced for the absence of
BS marked pedal reflectors ? Yet red reflector and lights at night were
present and working, or ankle reflectors were worn.
An invalid example would be someone who had no lights, no reflectives and
then involved in an accident at night.


The police evidently take the pragmatic approach to cycle lights; if you've
reasonable lights (or what some might consider as barely adequate lights),
then they will take no interest in the legal markings.


- Nigel



--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

 

[Alistair Gunn]

Sandy Morton twisted the electrons to say:
> In article
> <[email protected]>, Mike
> Causer <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 9. The new Regulations only apply to "adult" cycles likely to be
> > used on the roads. 10. They do not apply to: * any bicycle with a
> > saddle height less than 635 millimetres. (Child bicycles are
> > covered by separate legislation)
> I ain't seen this before so - is 635mm a civil service height (from
> the ground to the saddle) or a cycle dealers bicycle size height?

How does the law treat the case, which must exist, of a bicycle whereby
when the saddle is fully down is below 635mm but when extended to the
maximum safe height is above 635mm?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

 

[Mike Causer]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 15:16:55 +0000, Alistair Gunn wrote:


> How does the law treat the case, which must exist, of a bicycle whereby
> when the saddle is fully down is below 635mm but when extended to the
> maximum safe height is above 635mm?

The standards use the maximum height to decide which is applicable.
So in your example the bike would be treated as an adult one.


Mike

 

[Alistair Gunn]

Mike Causer twisted the electrons to say:
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 15:16:55 +0000, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> > How does the law treat the case, which must exist, of a bicycle whereby
> > when the saddle is fully down is below 635mm but when extended to the
> > maximum safe height is above 635mm?
> The standards use the maximum height to decide which is applicable.
> So in your example the bike would be treated as an adult one.

Well that is, all things considered, rather sensibly defined. However it
might not bode well for recumbents[1], if it's interpreted as "the
highest point of the saddle at it's highest position" ...

[1] Most recumbents anyway, lowracers might be okay ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

 

[Marc Brett]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:05:08 GMT, "burt" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Not completely sure, but I think the supplier was acting illegally, in that
>they are required by law to supply a bell and fit front and rear reflectors
>and pedal reflectors. Not sure about spoke reflectors. My advice would be
>to keep the receipt from Halfrods and demand money with menaces from the
>supplier, on pain of being reported to trading standards.
>
>Who was the supplier?
>
I'd rather not say, as they are otherwise faultless.

In the end, I managed to scrounge all the required reflectors from older bikes
and cetera. A few stickers made an old Barbie bell into something acceptable
for the more mature lady. The receipt will be used to return the now-unneeded
new parts for cash, and the bike now lights up like a BS6102/3 Christmas tree.
Night-time rides to ballet classes -- here we come!

 

[burt]

"Marc Brett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:05:08 GMT, "burt" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>>Who was the supplier?
>>
> I'd rather not say, as they are otherwise faultless.
>
> In the end, I managed to scrounge all the required reflectors from older
> bikes
> and cetera. A few stickers made an old Barbie bell into something
> acceptable
> for the more mature lady. The receipt will be used to return the
> now-unneeded
> new parts for cash, and the bike now lights up like a BS6102/3 Christmas
> tree.
> Night-time rides to ballet classes -- here we come!

Glad you got it sorted, and you'll be using a bike for transport!

Radical idea, it'll never catch on.
>