Legal at night?

DIscuss anything relating to non-standard cycles and their equipment.
byegad
Posts: 3232
Joined: 3 Sep 2007, 9:44am

Legal at night?

Postby byegad » 2 Jul 2008, 9:00am

The current law states that pedal cycles must be equipped with a front and rear reflector, and pedal reflectors if used at night.
As recumbents have pedals that are not visible from behind and alligned in such a way as to point any pedal reflector fitted in a vertical plane, ask yourself what argument a car insurance firm is likely to make of the fact that your 'bent did not have them fitted, or if fitted, visible to the poor innocent driver?
Are 'bents now mainstream enough for us to expect a change in the law?
If we are then should we ask CTC to lobby for the necessary changes at the next opportunity?

User avatar
Wildduck
Posts: 1161
Joined: 24 Oct 2007, 7:28pm
Location: Southampton

Postby Wildduck » 2 Jul 2008, 10:28am

Agreed.

As stated in a thread before, the only thing pedal reflectors are good for is for visiting aliens in UFOs to spot us!

:shock:
Trice Q 2007 in inky blue (Quackers)
Bacchetta Corsa 26 ATT (The Mad Weeble)
Cube SL Team Cross (Rubberduckzilla)
Homebaked tourer (The Duck's Dream)
MTB mongrel (Harold the Flying Sheep)

workhard

Postby workhard » 2 Jul 2008, 11:27am

They can be seen quite clearly in my "What the f'?" experience by drivers approaching from the opposite direction. Seeing them thus on a 'bent made me realise that they were worthwhile on an upright.

User avatar
Yorkshireman
Posts: 352
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 6:59am
Location: North Hykeham, Lincoln.
Contact:

Postby Yorkshireman » 2 Jul 2008, 5:13pm

It was quite interesting to see the police accident reconstruction teams on tv last night. One of the accidents concerned a cyclist knocked down (in the dark) and quite badly injured by a large waggon. The police went to great lengths to reconstruct as much of the bicycle as possible - even performing a search on the nearby grass verge for a AA battery (only one was in the smashed back light) in order that it could be shown that the cyclist could have been showing illumination. They also conducted tests on his cycling top that showed how reflective it was. The rear tyre was also examined and the officer pointed out that whilst bald in many areas along the centre of the tread that would not have caused any problems in the dry conditions. The only things not checked/mentioned were the rear reflector and pedal reflectors :wink:
Colin N.
Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... but the wind is mostly in your face!
http://www.freewebs.com/yorkshireman1/

david143
Posts: 516
Joined: 11 May 2008, 9:37am

Postby david143 » 2 Jul 2008, 5:25pm

Knowing that pedal reflectors could never be seen from my bike (have a fairing), I do always have 4 reflectors facing front and 3 facing rear in compensation.

It is about time that the law does take in to account that not all cycles are the same in design, and as such a law made for a specific design of cycle can not be expected to be complied with with no regard for any other design.

drossall
Posts: 4590
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Postby drossall » 2 Jul 2008, 11:04pm

Yorkshireman wrote:The rear tyre was also examined and the officer pointed out that whilst bald in many areas along the centre of the tread that would not have caused any problems in the dry conditions.


Then it wouldn't cause problems in wet conditions either. It's a bike tyre, not a car one. Bikes aquaplane at 120mph+.

A bald tyre might puncture or blow out, but whether the roads are dry isn't so relevant to that.

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 46725
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Postby Mick F » 2 Jul 2008, 11:13pm

drossall wrote:Bikes aquaplane at 120mph+.
I'd better be careful coming down off Dartmoor !!
Mick F. Cornwall

User avatar
Yorkshireman
Posts: 352
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 6:59am
Location: North Hykeham, Lincoln.
Contact:

Postby Yorkshireman » 3 Jul 2008, 6:02am

drossall wrote:
Yorkshireman wrote:The rear tyre was also examined and the officer pointed out that whilst bald in many areas along the centre of the tread that would not have caused any problems in the dry conditions.


Then it wouldn't cause problems in wet conditions either. It's a bike tyre, not a car one. Bikes aquaplane at 120mph+.

A bald tyre might puncture or blow out, but whether the roads are dry isn't so relevant to that.


Yes I understood that to be the case (though the officer might not :? ), but I was pointing out that (as the OP was concerning pedal reflectors) the investigators didn't even mention reflectors (despite going into great detail about other parts/conditions)... either through ignorance of the law, or that reflectors are/were of no significance.
Colin N.
Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... but the wind is mostly in your face!
http://www.freewebs.com/yorkshireman1/

drossall
Posts: 4590
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Postby drossall » 3 Jul 2008, 7:33am

Actually, in fairness there's bald and bald anyway. If we mean down to the canvas, that would certainly have different braking properties from smooth rubber, which should be better than treaded rubber wet or dry. So if it was down to the canvas it could make a difference.

Which way, I'm not certain. I'm assuming that rubber is better than canvas for braking, but it's the risk of failures and punctures that makes me avoid worn tyres, not concern over stopping.

User avatar
Wildduck
Posts: 1161
Joined: 24 Oct 2007, 7:28pm
Location: Southampton

Postby Wildduck » 3 Jul 2008, 8:22am

> workhard wrote:

> They can be seen quite clearly in my "What the f'?" experience by
> drivers approaching from the opposite direction. Seeing them thus on > a 'bent made me realise that they were worthwhile on an upright.

I was refering to recumbents where the pedal is 45-90 degress off the horizontal (and therefore does not reflect light back to other road users in front/behind). Hence the UFO's comment :D
Trice Q 2007 in inky blue (Quackers)
Bacchetta Corsa 26 ATT (The Mad Weeble)
Cube SL Team Cross (Rubberduckzilla)
Homebaked tourer (The Duck's Dream)
MTB mongrel (Harold the Flying Sheep)

workhard

Postby workhard » 3 Jul 2008, 9:04am

wildduck, "quackers" is a UFO!

byegad
Posts: 3232
Joined: 3 Sep 2007, 9:44am

Postby byegad » 3 Jul 2008, 9:22am

workhard wrote:wildduck, "quackers" is a UFO!


I've heard rumours it has been, hence the ASBOs.

Can you confirm wildduck?

MrsWildduck
Posts: 92
Joined: 18 May 2008, 8:29pm

Postby MrsWildduck » 3 Jul 2008, 10:43am

I can confirm that Quackers is indeed a UFO*...........followed it from quite far behind last night as Wildduck sent it flying down a number of hills!

It did fly!!!!


*Unusual flying object
Sometimes a cycling widow due to Quackers!

byegad
Posts: 3232
Joined: 3 Sep 2007, 9:44am

Postby byegad » 3 Jul 2008, 10:57am

MrsWildduck wrote:I can confirm that Quackers is indeed a UFO*...........followed it from quite far behind last night as Wildduck sent it flying down a number of hills!

It did fly!!!!


*Unusual flying object


And the ASBOs??

MrsWildduck
Posts: 92
Joined: 18 May 2008, 8:29pm

Postby MrsWildduck » 3 Jul 2008, 11:00am

Wildduck has told me that when he gets a 3rd one that he will also then get a tag and a cufew.........

Perhaps that means I will see more of Wildduck!

Quackers seems to know he is at risk and is partaking more in rough play rather than risking another ASBO..........
Sometimes a cycling widow due to Quackers!