Lighting page updated (and CJ mentioned) but.....

For discussions about bikes and equipment.
SA_SA_SA
Posts: 1452
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Lighting page updated (and CJ mentioned) but.....

Postby SA_SA_SA » 21 Oct 2017, 1:00pm

https://www.cyclinguk.org/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations
It now seems to have added wrongness/vagueness....

In front lamp section:
It gives
for a guide, 1 candela approximates to 12 lumens
but mentions nothing about the effect of lens/reflector focusing* whether measured lumens or theoretical lumens etc
* which of course mean a central 4 cd spot/letterbox can be reached with a 7lumen filament bulb.....

In the Rear Lamp section it adds
You might have noticed that rear bike lights tend to have much lower lumen outputs than front lights. Firstly, is because we're unlikely to want to see where we're going with the rear light but it is also because our eyes react differently to red and white lights; to our eyes, a 50 lumen rear light has similar brightness as a 200 lumen front light

Errr, this seems to be a confusion of the fact that placing a red filter over the old fashioned cycle filament bulb(white) reduced the light to 25% of the unfiltered light.... And the lumens/candelas measurements mean the same perceived brightness for different colours (in daylight: in low light your eye finds blue brighter that but this is not accounted for in such values, and this line is comparing white to red.....).

In the Seriously Reduced visibility section following
So even if the cycle has lights fitted and is ridden into a bank of fog, for example, they do not have to be switched on.
the line 'It would nevertheless be a good idea to so so!' has been replaced by 'Yes, the law is strange'

In the Additional lamps and reflectors section:
the bit mentioning that one should avoid dazzling other road users has been removed.

Brucey
Posts: 26880
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Lighting page updated (and CJ mentioned) but.....

Postby Brucey » 21 Oct 2017, 1:25pm

so much for "progress"......

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PT1029
Posts: 463
Joined: 16 Apr 2012, 9:20pm

Re: Lighting page updated (and CJ mentioned) but.....

Postby PT1029 » 21 Oct 2017, 2:41pm

Can anyone clarify the difference between "legal" and "approved"? - namely in the flashing lights section ;-

"...any flashing lamp that is also capable of emitting a steady light is approved only if it conforms with BS6102/3 when switched to steady mode. Since most flashing lights do also have a steady mode, they're legal but not approved, so you'll probably need another lamp that is.

The problem for the cyclist today is that there are now very few (if any) lights available on the UK market that were designed and manufactured to conform with BS6102/3, so any lights you purchase are unlikely to be approved. There is a rear light that uses the term 'BS approved' but the approval is only for the reflector contained in the light rather than the light itself."

For a set of legal rules, it all seems rather, well, blurred, something a lawyer could have a field day with.
At least the standard no longer requires a filament bulb!

PH
Posts: 4848
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Lighting page updated (and CJ mentioned) but.....

Postby PH » 21 Oct 2017, 2:48pm

PT1029 wrote:Can anyone clarify the difference between "legal" and "approved"? - namely in the flashing lights section ;-

It's complicated isn't it! But in this instance it means there is no illegality in using one, but it doesn't satisfy your legal requirement to have an approved one.

PT1029
Posts: 463
Joined: 16 Apr 2012, 9:20pm

Re: Lighting page updated (and CJ mentioned) but.....

Postby PT1029 » 21 Oct 2017, 3:13pm

I guess when you say " it means there is no illegality in using one" you mean it does not contravene any regulations (which is slightly different from not complying/meeting regulations).
I wonder what the Cycling Silk makes of it all!

When the police in Oxford do their annual clamp down or 2 (just after winter time starts, so coming soon), they normally require the lights to be visible/bright enough and fixed to the bike itself. If you appear to meet those 2 requirements, they don't pull you over.
If they do pull you over, you get a fixed penalty fine, cancelled if you turn up within (I think) 2 weeks with a receipt from a bike shop saying they have fitted F + R lights (which usually is cheaper than the fixed penalty). Apparently quite a lot of people pay the penalty rather than the cheaper light option for some reason.

axel_knutt
Posts: 1453
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 12:20pm

Re: Lighting page updated (and CJ mentioned) but.....

Postby axel_knutt » 21 Oct 2017, 5:00pm

"Approved" is what's compulsory if you wish to cycle at night, legal is what's not prohibited (putting a red light on the front is prohibited, for example). In 2005, SI2559 revoked the ban on flashing lights, which was widely misinterpreted as making all flashing lights approved.

An approved lamp is one that meets:
a) BS6102/3
or
b) SI2559
or
c) an equivalent European spec. (CJ used to argue that there were never any test cases run through the courts to establish which European specs are equivalent, and there probably won't be now.)
“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

AdamS
Posts: 134
Joined: 22 Apr 2010, 4:06am
Location: Lancs

Re: Lighting page updated (and CJ mentioned) but.....

Postby AdamS » 21 Oct 2017, 5:48pm

As far as I can see absolutely nothing of substance has been added. The law hasn't changed at all since CJ last revised the article. There is more additional superlous information/opinion (for example about modern dynamos being efficient and ankle bands being a suitable (but not legal) substitute for pedal reflectors). The word 'racing' has worked its way into the article four times.

This paragraph is contradictory:
The Pedal Cycles (Safety) Regulations (PCSR) ensure that every new bicycle is sold with several extra reflectors, some of which are not required by RVLR (you may have seen bikes with yellow or white reflectors placed in the spokes). The reason why these 'extra' reflectors are supplied is that in other countries, notably Germany, they insist on them - and it is easier to supply all markets with the same specification bicycles.

Err, no, they are supplied because OUR law insists on them being fitted to new bikes, like the first sentence says.

Far more worrying is this irresponsible nonsense about lights:
The reference to '4 candelas' isn't very useful because most bike lights are given an output in 'lumens'; for a guide, 1 candela approximates to 12 lumens, so the tiny blinky flashing lights which usually put out around 25 lumens won't enough on their own; you'll need at least two of them.

No! 2 or more rubbish* dim lights do not satisy the legal requirements and it seems utterly bizarre that Cycling UK would encourage riding round with such a setup.

Overall I think this 'update' offers no updated information and no more details of the regulations. The unnecessary additions just confuse matters further.

[* minor edit 22/10/17 to remove a borderline swear word]
Last edited by AdamS on 22 Oct 2017, 10:39am, edited 1 time in total.

SA_SA_SA
Posts: 1452
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: Lighting page updated (and CJ mentioned) but.....

Postby SA_SA_SA » 21 Oct 2017, 8:16pm

AdamS wrote:....
Far more worrying is this irresponsible nonsense about lights:
The reference to '4 candelas' isn't very useful because most bike lights are given an output in 'lumens'; for a guide, 1 candela approximates to 12 lumens, so the tiny blinky flashing lights which usually put out around 25 lumens won't enough on their own; you'll need at least two of them.

No! 2 ...

But the lumens specification tells you nothing about how bright the lamp is (ie candelas at various appropriate points) as it ignores focusing etc:
meeting the 4cd and other test points of rear BS 6102/3 was possible with a red filtered 9lumen filament bulb (ie 9/4 = 2.24 lumens) or even the red filtered 3lumens filament bulb (ie 0.75 red lumens) of a that rare beast, a BS6102/3 dynamo rear filament lamp.

Manufacturers presumably use lumens because 'theoretical lumens' value cost nothing and actual measured lumens are presumably cheaper than full measurement of candelas at various angles.

I agree, two unapproved lamps doe not an 'approved'* lamp make.
Also, I failed to notice the pedal reflector stuff you noted.


*Where approved means lamp permits bike to be used when lights required by law...

SA_SA_SA
Posts: 1452
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: Lighting page updated (and CJ mentioned) but.....

Postby SA_SA_SA » 21 Oct 2017, 9:41pm

Its also a bit misleading to say 'Chris Juden and Simon Bever take a look at what the rules say'
when I suspect it would be accurate to say article originally written by Chris Juden, and updated (err broken :( ) by Simon Bever on xxxx 2017.

SA_SA_SA
Posts: 1452
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: Lighting page updated (and CJ mentioned) but.....

Postby SA_SA_SA » 28 Oct 2017, 11:45am

The intro has been updated to say 'Simon Bever takes a look at what the rules say.' with the mention that is updated from Chris Judens article remaining at the end but this seems the only slight improvement, there remains no link to the previous accurate Chris Juden article: it would be useful to have a web-page at which to point people (a good thing I saved a copy for me)...

The wrongness about lumens and also light colour brightness remains.

I think the fog bit has been extended but the bit about a it being a good idea to have any of your lights on is still replaced by 'the law is strange'.

The pedal reflector stuff seems unchanged and the use of 'racing' pedals rather than fair and accurate 'clipless pedal systems' remains..

The suggestion that dazzling others is bad remains missing..

All these things were pointed out.

And cycle clips links to another inaccurate lighting article which seems to have appeared.....

old_windbag
Posts: 1619
Joined: 19 Feb 2015, 3:55pm

Re: Lighting page updated (and CJ mentioned) but.....

Postby old_windbag » 28 Oct 2017, 12:10pm

Would it not be better to create your own article with all the information you feel relevant plus any hyperlinked articles and submit that to cycling uk suggesting that it become the item to link to from that page. Perhaps you could collaborate with CJ to produce/edit it.

It may be you could use most of the existing document but at least the resultant output would be correct in the areas you feel lacking at present.

SA_SA_SA
Posts: 1452
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: Lighting page updated (and CJ mentioned) but.....

Postby SA_SA_SA » 28 Oct 2017, 12:55pm

The law hasn't changed, so there was no need to change the article.

I expect some heavy paraphrasing would be needed for an alternate article due to copyright, and I would need to learn how to set up a website, but until the law changes there should be no need...

old_windbag
Posts: 1619
Joined: 19 Feb 2015, 3:55pm

Re: Lighting page updated (and CJ mentioned) but.....

Postby old_windbag » 28 Oct 2017, 1:55pm

SA_SA_SA wrote:I expect some heavy paraphrasing would be needed for an alternate article due to copyright, and I would need to learn how to set up a website,


I was looking at it with respect to you sort of collaborating with cycling uk to modify the item in areas you feel are wrong and maybe add things you feel important plus any old linked docs. Leave the website to them and suggest your changes with them.

Shy bairns get nowt as they say and they may be amenable to your input. Could be worthwhile, i'm not suggesting any financial return just voluntary help to change what you feel is wrong and maybe in line with others thoughts too. Change has to start somewhere.

PH
Posts: 4848
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Lighting page updated (and CJ mentioned) but.....

Postby PH » 28 Oct 2017, 2:01pm

I didn't get past this bit
However, if you're involved in an accident at night, any slight irregularity could be challenged in court and may be regarded as 'contributory negligence' (a polite way of saying that the accident is partly your fault!)

I don't know who wrote it, but contributory negligence and the regulations are two separate things. Not meeting the regulation isn't in itself a contributory factor, it has to have done just what it says and have contributed.

AdamS
Posts: 134
Joined: 22 Apr 2010, 4:06am
Location: Lancs

Re: Lighting page updated (and CJ mentioned) but.....

Postby AdamS » 28 Oct 2017, 2:46pm

That was in the original. I think the point is not that failure to comply is contributory negligence, but that it might be easier to argue contributory negligence where a non-legal setup is used. Remember the level of proof for civil cases is the balance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt.

For example, it might be asserted that a cyclist was negligent in using a light which was not bright enough for the driver to see or which was too bright and dazzled the driver. This line of argument would be fairly quickly dismissed if the lights complied to the standard for bicycle lights specified in the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations but might be given more of a hearing if emphasis was given to the victim 'cycling without the required lights' or 'cycling with non compliant lights'.

In the Allison (criminal) case the illegality of the lack of brakes did not of itself make him guilty of the charge, but the fact that it was illegal featured heavily in press reports and (judging by those reports) the prosecution case.