Pedal reflector law fixes

[meic]

I think they would have to be given powers to enforce one particular chunk of a law or is that a single law, I am not sure? Not just aspects of it.

The lights and reflectors are the same offence, how could it have been split without lots of work?

I think in reality the PCSO's will only try and enforce it in the cases where no lights are fitted and ignore reflectors as they always have done.

Anyway, no fine for me. Just lots of hassle pointing out it was "no offence to answer"

[snibgo]

Reading the regulation, and from what little I know of recumbents, a reflector on the pedal can't be "plainly visible to the rear". But I think it could be "plainly visible to the front", if it was on the base of the pedal.

As we saw recently, a cyclist doesn't have to pay a FPN, in which case it goes to court.

I fear that a magistrate couldn't avoid the conclusion, "If your cycle can't comply with night-time regs, it mustn't be ridden at night."

Perhaps the CDF has some spare cash.

[Geriatrix]

But I think it could be "plainly visible to the front", if it was on the base of the pedal.

If night time head on collisions of un-lit recumbent cyclists were statistically relevant, I may accept that as a valid argument. I rather suspect that its about the same as taking precautions against the risk of meteor strike.

[snibgo]

Agreed. Although I'd like the light and reflector regs brought somewhere closer to real life, I don't think the problem is urgent, so long as the rozzers don't start clobbering us for technical infringements.

[[XAP]Bob]

I fear that a magistrate couldn't avoid the conclusion, "If your cycle can't comply with night-time regs, it mustn't be ridden at night."
.

You're not the only one with that fear.

However it doesn't appear that there is any specified height from which they must be visible, nor is it specified whether they should be visible with or without a rider...

The "bottom facing forward" is easy enough to achieve, the top facing back is harder - if only I could see the stupid Cow Faeces (BS) then I might be able to vome up with something...

[snibgo]

... nor is it specified whether they should be visible with or without a rider...

Ah, yes, well spotted. They don't call you "Mr Loophole of cycling" for no reason.

[SA_SA_SA]

For recumbents etc, to avoid most FPNs from PCSOs etc, perhaps, you could fit some fixed non-rotating dummy rear pedals with pedal reflectors to be visible from the rear.

That doesn't satisfy the current law's demand that all pedals have visible reflectors so the law still needs fixed/deleted, but hopefully most PCSOs won't know that amount of detail...

[meic]

I think that after their first few embarrassing court appearances, they will read up on it.
Before that ever happened I imagine a few innocent cyclists could have been issued FPNs and have paid up.

I seem to recall there was a cock-up about speeding fines on a motorway and all the fines and points had to be revoked. I wonder if a similar result could occur with pedal reflectors (except of course there is not going to be any noticeable amount of FPNs issued about reflectors anyway, it is all hypothetical).

[BeeKeeper]

...except of course there is not going to be any noticeable amount of FPNs issued about reflectors anyway, it is all hypothetical).

Still filled 13 pages so far though!

[thirdcrank]

Here's my take on the fixed penalties from PCSO's strand (I've not been following the discussions over how to deal with the regs.)

I suspect a lot of the thinking behind this is the same as tickets for pavement cycling: give them something simple but which will please the baying mob. (And I do know that enforcing s 72 of the Highways Act 1835 isn't always simple.) PCSO's are only cheaper because they are paid less: they aren't more cost-effective if they can't do much. The difficulty lies in finding powers to give them that don't involve lengthy and therefore expensive training. On that basis, I fancy this will generally target riders without any lights at all, rather than those who largely comply but with shortcomings (eg no pedal reflectors.) Having said that, any enforcement would be for failing to comply with the lighting regs, rather than separate infringements for lights and reflectors. (ie Riding afyter dark with no lights or reflectors at all, at all,is the same offence as having no pedal reflectors when legally required.) I'll predict that anybody with decent lights front and rear and preferably a rear reflector will be OK. No Kitemark waffle etc. OTOH, there could be some crackdowns on riders entirely without light, conducted for the benefit of the media.

On the wider subject of PCSO's, I've no idea of figures but in the present atmosphere of cuts, they must be vulnerable. The introduction of PCSO's was a long-term strategy to reduce the police pay bill, but the short term expedient must be to cull them. Apart from anything else, although there have been plans floated to change it, police officers cannot be made redundant.

[Vorpal]

The bill is still in progress, but as far as I can tell, the only new power added to the things that PCSOs can do, is the power to stop cyclists who are cycling in contravention of the Road Vehicle Lighting regulation.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collectio ... olice-bill

[AlaninWales]

The only time I have been stopped for lights, was (pre 2005) by a police van:
"Your lights are flashing, which is illegal"
"Well you saw the flashing one didn't you; you didn't see the legal one though"
"Where? Oh"
"Can I go now please?"

[SA_SA_SA]

1) What about a MovoBright style amber reflective device hung from the rear of the pedal cycle as an alternative:

it would move to attract attention, and they are already used by vulnerable (possibly slow) road users.
?

http://www.movobright.co.uk/movobright.html

2) Also, why not define an SPD/ shoe combination in law as equivalent to a pedal, allowing an approved pedal reflector to be fitted to the heel of the shoe (presumably not that involved on a synthetic/moulded shoe?). This assumes the law is also updated to only require pedal reflectors to be visible from the rear when in use.

EDIT "why define" corrected to "why not define"

[Geriatrix]

2) Also, why define an SPD/ shoe combination in law as equivalent to a pedal, allowing an approved pedal reflector to be fitted to the heel of the shoe (presumably not that involved on a synthetic/moulded shoe?). This assumes the law is also updated to only require pedal reflectors to be visible from the rear when in use.

That's an interesting point. Some of the pedal reflectors I have seen are designed to cleat into the SPD clip on one side of the pedal in the same way a shoe would. There is therefore no difference in principle between a reflector on a shoe and one purpose built. There would need to be appropriately coloured reflectors on each side of the shoe though, and I don't know of any shoes like that.

[SA_SA_SA]

Also, why not define an SPD/ shoe combination in law as equivalent to a pedal, allowing an approved pedal reflector to be fitted to the heel of the shoe (presumably not that involved on a synthetic/moulded shoe?). This assumes the law is also updated to only require pedal reflectors to be visible from the rear when in use.

That's an interesting point.....There would need to be appropriately coloured reflectors on each side of the shoe though, ....

No, if when the law updated, it is corrected so that, in use, pedal reflectors are only required to be visible from the rear (as in the italic underlined bit of my quote) then reflectors would only be required on the heel of the shoe.
However, it would either require some new designs of shoe or some creative use of glue