http://seesense: but did they?

For discussions about bikes and equipment.
SA_SA_SA
Posts: 1934
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: http://seesense: but did they?

Postby SA_SA_SA » 4 Oct 2014, 12:05pm

Given that the limited legal flash range is to protect against inducing epileptic fits, its would have been remiss not to include all cycle lamps in that rule.
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)

beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: http://seesense: but did they?

Postby beardy » 4 Oct 2014, 12:15pm

I think those rules do cover all cycle lights.

I dont think they respect our Cyos etc as headlights, if it is on the front or rear of a bike it is a road positioning lamp and nothing else. At least I think that is what Gaz has taught me today.

Though there are further amendments allowing flashing and moving lights connected to pedals, somewhere in the regulations.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17881
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: http://seesense: but did they?

Postby [XAP]Bob » 4 Oct 2014, 12:22pm

Crikey- so not only are most of the lights I see not "approved" and therefore only suitable as optional lights many are also actively illegal in that position!

I wonder what the law would say about lights with multiple components - with say 1 LED at 2Hz, 1 at 2.7, one at 2.9 etc
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.

SA_SA_SA
Posts: 1934
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: http://seesense: but did they?

Postby SA_SA_SA » 4 Oct 2014, 7:53pm

[XAP]Bob wrote:...I wonder what the law would say about lights with multiple components - with say 1 LED at 2Hz, 1 at 2.7, one at 2.9 etc

I don't think that would count as a simple 50% duty cycle*.

I wonder why they didn't place a limit of one flasher per direction (more could have the effect as above) or require multiple lamps to be synchronised.
But then they overlooked a max intensity on the grounds leds weren't yet bright enough to need one: farsighted :(

*from
Amendments to Part I of Schedule 10 (requirements relating to obligatory rear position lamps and to optional rear position lamps to the extent specified in Part II)

11. (1) Part I of Schedule 10 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In the right hand column of paragraph 5(e), for “sub-paragraph (c)”there shall be substituted “sub-paragraph (c), (d) or (e)”.

(3) After paragraph 12(a) there shall be inserted—

“(b)In the case of a rear position lamp capable of emitting a flashing light which is fitted to—

(i)a pedal cycle; or

(ii)a trailer drawn by, or a sidecar attached to, a pedal cycle

the light shown by the lamp when flashing shall be displayed not less than 60 nor more than 240 equal times per minute and the intervals between each display of light shall be constant.”
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)

edocaster
Posts: 409
Joined: 10 Apr 2013, 10:43pm

Re: http://seesense: but did they?

Postby edocaster » 4 Oct 2014, 10:54pm

The Smart Superflash and the Portland Design Works Radbot 1000 both have irregular flashes.

I see Smart put out the R1, which is like a Superflash but with regular flashes using the big and two small LEDs synchronised. Maybe to be 'street legal.' It's all a bit silly really, when the irregular flash patterns were one of the main selling points - flashing the big and small LEDs simultaneously seems wasteful.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17881
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: http://seesense: but did they?

Postby [XAP]Bob » 5 Oct 2014, 6:58am

Each LED would have a simple 50% duty cycle within the allowable frequencies, but they wouldn't be in sync...
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.

User avatar
RickH
Posts: 5225
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: http://seesense: but did they?

Postby RickH » 5 Oct 2014, 4:15pm

Why do bike LED lights have to have a regular even flash when many other vehicles with flashing LED lights (red &/or blue on emergency vehicles, orange on breakdown trucks, bin lorries, tipper trucks, etc.) don't seem to (they are often a pulse of 2 to 4 flashes then a slight pause)? Or are they just as illegal (but in widespread use) too?

Rick.

SA_SA_SA
Posts: 1934
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: http://seesense: but did they?

Postby SA_SA_SA » 5 Oct 2014, 6:58pm

[XAP]Bob wrote:Each LED would have a simple 50% duty cycle within the allowable frequencies, but they wouldn't be in sync...

But the RVLR refers to the lamp as a unit and taken together the leds will have a funny pattern, so I would have thought not: lawyer for one? :) .
RickH wrote:Why do bike LED lights have to have a regular even flash...

I presume it was thought either too distracting to have funny patterns or else a simple easy to recognise pattern (on/off) was desired.

I too wonder how legal some police etc blue/red flashing light bars are: they seem to flash faster than allowed for bikes.
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)

SA_SA_SA
Posts: 1934
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: http://seesense: but did they?

Postby SA_SA_SA » 12 Oct 2014, 3:38pm

It would seem no forum members have bought/seen one close up enough to tell whether they flash legally: :(

A version that switched between steady and a fixed legal flash rate would still seem more useful....
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17881
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: http://seesense: but did they?

Postby [XAP]Bob » 12 Oct 2014, 3:46pm

SA_SA_SA wrote:It would seem no forum members have bought/seen one close up enough to tell whether they flash legally: :(

A version that switched between steady and a fixed legal flash rate would still seem more useful....

Only if the steady is approved...
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.

SA_SA_SA
Posts: 1934
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: http://seesense: but did they?

Postby SA_SA_SA » 12 Oct 2014, 9:20pm

[XAP]Bob wrote:....Only if the steady is approved...

That would be better, but until then it could be used beside an approved steady lamp, and only flash when appropriate....
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)

oldstrath
Posts: 67
Joined: 21 Feb 2014, 2:00pm

Re: http://seesense: but did they?

Postby oldstrath » 16 Nov 2014, 8:27pm

Just back from Belfast, where I saw quite a few of these - legal or not they look like very effective, especially in the city, and a couple of lads I spoke to were very happy with them. I am puzzled, though, by why these should be illegal when equally weird patterned lights on bin wagons, for example, are common (and presumably legal).

SA_SA_SA
Posts: 1934
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: http://seesense: but did they?

Postby SA_SA_SA » 17 Nov 2014, 11:57am

I just don't see the advantage of rear lamps switching from slow to fast flashing over a lamp that simply flashes at/almost at the 4Hz maximum:

I do see an advantage to a rear lamp that switches between steady and fast flashing according to programmed user choice (or perhaps immediate commands). :)

Why bother with slow rear flashing at all (the rather low legal min is 1hz)?
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)

User avatar
CJ
Posts: 3076
Joined: 15 Jan 2007, 9:55pm

Re: http://seesense: but did they?

Postby CJ » 17 Nov 2014, 1:10pm

SA_SA_SA wrote:The law requires a simple on off flash mode ie 50% duty cycle.

I do not think that either phrase 'simple on/off' or 'equal flashes' necessarily implies a 50% duty cycle. And what this printed copy of SI 2005/2559 I have infrontame actually says is:
the light shown by the lamp when flashing shall be displayed not less than 60 nor more than 240 equal times per minute and the intervals between each display of light shall be constant.

So all the flashes have to be the same length as each other. And all the gaps have to be the same length as each other. But NOTHING says the flashes have to be the same length as the gaps.

That lamp you're talking about is nevertheless illegal because either the flashes or the gaps have got to vary, maybe both.

And another thing: it is a myth that photosensitive epilepsy cannot be triggered by flash rates slower than 7Hz. It is very rare for slower flashing to do that, and increasingly unlikely with reducing frequency, but there is not actually any lower limit below which flashing becomes perfectly innocuous. But as far as I know the upper limit of 30Hz still holds good.
Chris Juden
One lady owner, never raced or jumped.

redfacedbaldfatman
Posts: 97
Joined: 25 Aug 2012, 2:15pm

Re: http://seesense: but did they?

Postby redfacedbaldfatman » 17 Nov 2014, 3:11pm

SA_SA_SA wrote:Why bother with slow rear flashing at all (the rather low legal min is 1hz)?


The vid said to maximise battery life.