Lights anyone??

[cranky]

This is useful stuff to know about. Does this also mean that (for the sake of argument) French approved lights are approved in Britain? Actually, doesn't this open up a bit of a loophole? If there are particularly weak regulations approving a light, say (again for the sake of argument) in Poland then couldn't the same argument be made for Cunobelin's 1AAA battery mini-Maglite? In which case it would be legal to use that wouldn't it?

Only if said Maglite was approved in some part of the EU for said use.

I think

[fatboy]

More info at http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4071

Note the comment about EU countries

"Thanks to a European Directive of a few years ago, wherever a British Standard (BS) is referred to, equivalent standards from other EC countries must now also be recognised, but only if they provide an equivalent level of safety etc. It’s not exactly clear which do. However Germany has arguably the strictest cycle lighting laws in Europe so we consider it safe to use equipment that is marked accordingly, with a “K~number”."

[Peyote]

Cheers FB, I think "but only if they provide an equivalent level of safety etc." means that we can probably safely discount the pen light then!

[Cunobelin]

My apologies - the light was a deliberate extreme.

I am at the other end, I use a Dinotte tail light, and a USE head light.

The rear light emits some 12 times the required light and the front some thirty times.

These are these are technically illegal so I actually have a pathetic set of BS "legal lights" that are invisible beside the adjacent "backup" lights!

[kwackers]

I am sure some would find reason to complain if we did ever improve the legislation perish the thought that safety would be improved!

More legislation equals improved safety!

Type approved bicycles - that would improve safety, especially if everything bolted to them uses tamper proof fittings.
State dictated cycling wear, proven to be optimally visible, with kevlar inserts, elbow and knee pads.
Full face helmets - to motorcycle standards.
Make it illegal to put anything on a bicycle that may upset its approved design, panniers for example.
Make them self balancing - tricycles would obviously be safer, or even quads!
Ban bicycles from major roads, and/or perhaps limit the times of day they can use the roads - keep them off there during the busy periods.
Reduction of top speed, maximum legal gearing, increased weight and 'flat' spokes that act to induce drag.

If anyone can explain why the above wouldn't make cycling safer us I'd like to hear your objections...

[dan_b]

You missed mirrors, minimum tyre tread depth, airbags and seatbelts (if you're tethered to the bike, obviously you won't fly down the road as far in a collision). Without crumple zones it's hard to see how a bicycle could possibly get type approval, though

Perhaps we should all just use cars

[petercook80]

I am sure some would find reason to complain if we did ever improve the legislation perish the thought that safety would be improved!

More legislation equals improved safety!

Type approved bicycles - that would improve safety, especially if everything bolted to them uses tamper proof fittings.
State dictated cycling wear, proven to be optimally visible, with kevlar inserts, elbow and knee pads.
Full face helmets - to motorcycle standards.
Make it illegal to put anything on a bicycle that may upset its approved design, panniers for example.
Make them self balancing - tricycles would obviously be safer, or even quads!
Ban bicycles from major roads, and/or perhaps limit the times of day they can use the roads - keep them off there during the busy periods.
Reduction of top speed, maximum legal gearing, increased weight and 'flat' spokes that act to induce drag.

If anyone can explain why the above wouldn't make cycling safer us I'd like to hear your objections...

Yes that would all be safer, but as usual you have gone about 132 steps to far and got very very silly.

I don’t think that trying to improve the standard of cycle lights is much to ask really!

[kwackers]

Yes that would all be safer, but as usual you have gone about 132 steps to far and got very very silly.

I don’t think that trying to improve the standard of cycle lights is much to ask really!

Indeed I have.

I'm just wary of any so called legislation that would be enforced to improve our safety.
Legislators in general are great at overstepping the remit. What starts out as a good idea quickly becomes overly bureaucratic nonesense.

Before you know it, non approved lights are illegal (regardless of how good they are), the height/position becomes fixed etc etc.

There are plenty of examples were what sounds like a good idea simply doesn't work the way it was intended once it's implemented.

[petercook80]

Yes that would all be safer, but as usual you have gone about 132 steps to far and got very very silly.

I don’t think that trying to improve the standard of cycle lights is much to ask really!

Indeed I have.

I'm just wary of any so called legislation that would be enforced to improve our safety.
Legislators in general are great at overstepping the remit. What starts out as a good idea quickly becomes overly bureaucratic nonesense.

Before you know it, non approved lights are illegal (regardless of how good they are), the height/position becomes fixed etc etc.

There are plenty of examples were what sounds like a good idea simply doesn't work the way it was intended once it's implemented.

This is very true, but as we already have laws saying we have to use BS std. lights, and most people seem to think they are very poor, it would seem logical to improve the standard (the other option would be to get rid of it altogether, perhaps thats the more logical step!)
My personal approach is to buy and use whatever lights I think are best for the job, and I don't really care if they are BS stamped or not as I dont think it will ever be an issue. I know others will post dire warnings of possible law suits etc. but I am not bothered.