Bike shop salesman abuse for not wearing a helmet

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17179
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Bike shop salesman abuse for not wearing a helmet

Postby [XAP]Bob » 9 Feb 2016, 7:49am

TonyR wrote:
Bicycler wrote:The approval is just the reflector (ie BS 6102/2, not the light BS6102/3). AFAIK only Eurolight still make a BS 6102/3 light and it's the model EL156 http://www.eurolightcycling.com/products.aspx?id=2# If you trawl the internet you can just about still find shops with stock of old Cateye models such as the AU-100, LD260, EL300 and HL500 which were all made in BS variants. The AU100 is the only one which stands up well against current lights (in fact it's still my favourite rear light), the rest are now


BS6102 is being replaced by ISO6742-1:2015 to -5:2015. Its ISO6742-1:2015 that replaces BS6102/3 so that's what you need to look for now on a light.

ISO 6742-1
Cycles. Lighting and retro-reflective devices.
Lighting and signalling devices

ISO 6742-2
Cycles. Lighting and retro-reflective devices.
Retro-reflective devices

ISO 6742-3
Cycles. Lighting and retro-reflective devices.
Installation and use of devices

ISO 6742-4
Cycles. Lighting and retro-reflective devices.
Lighting powered by cycle movement

ISO 6742-5
Cycles. Lighting and retro-reflective devices.
Lighting not powered by cycle movement


Not until the RVLR is updated (unless they are considered "equivalent EU standard"s)
This is the trouble with the law nowadays - it's *so* slow to keep up with the pace of development - and they can't seem to specify what they want to achieve.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

Tangled Metal
Posts: 6471
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Bike shop salesman abuse for not wearing a helmet

Postby Tangled Metal » 9 Feb 2016, 8:37am

Would presumed liability solve this? If the motorist had to prove fault then would regulations like rvlr matter less? If the cyclist is visible through lights that are highly visible and the motorist can not prove fault, or blame or whatever the correct term I should use, then updating tired old regulations used for liability mitigation might become less of an issue.

Just a thought, because my only thought about getting a compliant lighting system is the scare stories of issues after an accident. I've got highly visible lights which do not dazzle others but can be seen in even the worst clag I reckon. Put it this way I often realise I have to adjust the beam direction when I spot the beam reflecting on a lamppost, three away from me. Plus it has a nice, medium centre spot with a lower intensity wider beam which IMHO gives you visibility far enough ahead with just the right side visibility. Just my opinion.

The rear is the x2 from Cateye which is very visible. Plus battery rear backup that's always on my bike. The spare front is now only being used as backup so it's off most of the time. It's an ALDI premium light that looks like a moon comet light just isn't that good due to charging and low charge warning issues.

The whole legal requirements for lights and reflectors annoys me. The whole purpose of regulations are surely to make things better. As far as I can tell these are not. Visibility is the main need, are the "non-legal" lights not visible or less visible than those BS standard lights?

Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Bike shop salesman abuse for not wearing a helmet

Postby Bicycler » 9 Feb 2016, 10:37am

BS compliant reflectors are easy to find. Most quality ones are BS marked, or at least marked to an equivalent standard.

Ensuring a minimum standard of visibility from behind would form part of any lighting standard, others might be things like side visibility, non dazzling, construction, waterproofing, and battery life. I'd argue that there is still a lot to commend the principle of a standard system, though no longer the BS. There are some very poor lights which are bright directly behind but shine next to nothing off axis and there are many which are difficult to use without causing undue dazzle. And what is the point of a bright light when it does not function? Many battery lights are prone to water ingress; some mounts are incredibly poor; there are some rechargeabke lights which prioritise light output yet have very low battery life requiring a lot of rechargeing diligence.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the RVLR don't need thoroughly updating, but a system of light regulation is preferable to the "brighter is better" anarchy which is starting to prevail.

I'm a stickler and obey the law. I obey it because it is the law and it is a crime for me to not do so. I don't harbour any significant fears about liability if I were to use any other decent lights. There has been a lot of speculation on this forum about this possibility, but there is no-one screaming blue murder across the internet about their insurer refusing to pay out or being found partially liable for using a non-compliant lamp.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17179
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Bike shop salesman abuse for not wearing a helmet

Postby [XAP]Bob » 9 Feb 2016, 11:45am

But saying in the law that "only lights to this standard, which we won't tell you about, and includes a requirement for a stamped label" you leave it always lagging.

There are other ways to define the lighting requirements - I mean, publishing the BS and ditching the "marked" requirement would be a good start.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Bike shop salesman abuse for not wearing a helmet

Postby Bicycler » 9 Feb 2016, 1:20pm

It's not helpful to us not to have access to the exact specifications of the standard, but I'm not sure that it presents any significant problem for your average consumer or the manfacturers. The former shouldn't need to know details of the standard; the latter can afford to pay for a copy. Some form of stamp or marking is the only way that compliance can be easily ascertained (and thus enforced) at the roadside, so IMV is necessary.

What we need is for laws to mandate an international standard which is then kept up to date. An international standard should be worthwhile enough for most manufacturers to produce compliant lights, particularly if we have some means of ensuring that lights sold as suitable for road use are compliant. This could be in the form of industry agreements between manufacturers or retailers. If that wasn't forthcoming it could be mandated (ideally at an EU rather than national level) that lights must be clearly labelled as legal for road use or only for off road use at point of sale.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17179
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Bike shop salesman abuse for not wearing a helmet

Postby [XAP]Bob » 9 Feb 2016, 4:41pm

It is helpful - in that it allows people to make their own lights...

Having a requirement for commercial lights to have a mark is fine, but there should be an allowance for people who can make things well enough themselves...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.