Pedal reflector law fixes

SA_SA_SA
Posts: 2358
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: Pedal reflector law fixes

Post by SA_SA_SA »

Hang on .... I've got an idea :) :

Some people are incapable of riding an upright pedal cycle due to injury or some sort of disability, so instead ride a recumbent, which probably can't comply with the pedal reflector law:

surely this means the government is discriminating against the disabled with that law, and therefore the government is probably required to update that law by its own disability legislation? Does this offer any leverage in forcing a change in the law?


hopefully this earlier idea was good too
http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=81180&p=738488#p738488
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)
michael42
Posts: 219
Joined: 19 May 2012, 6:42pm

Re: Pedal reflector law fixes

Post by michael42 »

Geriatrix wrote:Question for the legal eagle's out there. Could I as a recumbent rider contest a FPF for not having pedal reflectors, given that there is no way traffic approaching from the rear could see them anyway?

I know that magistrates are bound to interpret the law in the common meaning of its wording but surely reason plays SOME part?


TBH, no one can answer your question. The only way to find out is to get fined for it, plead not guilty and wait until they get bored and throw it out for lack of evidence or you or they take it via appeals to the house of lords (depending on who wins at each stage)

Really, that's it. No legal advice or opinions or what the police think or what a magistrate court might decide matters a jot.
Except that, you could argue that some legal advice is better than others - but no lawyer worth his salt will say "this case will be found this way" - they know better
than to speak in absolutes like that.

The only thing that matters is what happens on the day in court when the judge(s) hear your argument and then in any subsequent appeals and make their judgements
and, of course, whether higher courts have heard cases in the past and created precedent.

Most of all though, what we, the CTC or some magazine article think or say is neither here nor there. We could be right or wrong.
We can all read the legislation and decide.

I would suggest though that no one is ever stopped or fined for this. Does anyone know of a case? To me it seems a bit like
the act that used to say men of a certain age from Nottingham had to practise archery. Or the law on motorcycle helmet visors
when it appeared (that the police more or less said they wouldn't enforce)

I would guess if you were given a fixed penalty, decided to contest it that the magistrates would find you guilty.
i.e step 1, the police - if they decide to issue tickets are probably not going to be persuaded not to. So be polite
say as little as possible and take the ticket.
Step 2 - the magistrates. Well, if you've watched an episode of law and order UK you're as a qualified as they are.
So, they are likely to find against you imo rather than delve into points of law.

After that, you've got to decide whether to appeal and go on. At which point I'd say there are some reasonable arguments that the law isn't intended
to be applied to certain things that we might use as pedals today - and maybe even certain bikes.

What I would say though is, think about anything these reflectors might achieve and try and achieve the same thing. i.e if there's
any safety to be had by having pedal reflectors don't throw that benefit away when we throw the pedals our bikes come with in the shed and
fit something else (or at least some of them come with)

But I wouldn't lose any sleep over whether your bike has pedal reflectors or not from a legal point of view.
User avatar
Tigerbiten
Posts: 2503
Joined: 29 Jun 2009, 6:49am

Re: Pedal reflector law fixes

Post by Tigerbiten »

michael42 wrote:But I wouldn't lose any sleep over whether your bike has pedal reflectors or not from a legal point of view.

The lack of reflectors will probably only be called into account by insurance companies to reduce payment if someone crashes into you.
Somehow I don't see the police bothering if you have good lights.
SA_SA_SA
Posts: 2358
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: Pedal reflector law fixes

Post by SA_SA_SA »

I am nearly ready to send a letter:

1) I quite like my MovoBright style amber reflective device hung from the rear of the pedal cycle as an alternative (could be made up out of BS pedal reflectors on a single axis pivot).

http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=81180&p=738488#p738488

Anyone?

2)The original TRL report seems to have not bothered testing the performance of static pedal reflectors against moving ones:
that seems like a flaw: if pedal reflectors provide identification then surely that identification should be relatively consistent whether or not the cyclist is freewheeling.

In my opinion the presence of amber and red static reflectors should still make you think cyclist ahead.
Its really annoying that they didn't test static pedal reflectors...

While trying to find research on static pedal reflectors I came across this document:
http://www.anec.eu/attachments/ANEC-R&T ... AF-002.pdf

On page 36 is a (in the dark) photo of a bike with red reflector and amber pedal reflectors:

if you saw that pattern in your dipped headlamps would you recognise it as a cycle? It seems recognisable to me. A static amber reflector could be required to be bigger (eg 2 or more BS "pedal reflectors" forming one bigger one).
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)
SA_SA_SA
Posts: 2358
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: Pedal reflector law fixes

Post by SA_SA_SA »

The TRL LR1108 report found the reflective jacket effective as identifying the cyclist from their side to side motion and pattern (outline of cyclist)...

The reflective jacket was
also effective, observers quickly recognised the cyclist by the side to side motion and outline of the cyclist


so that would seem to indicate that a pattern of two tall/large amber reflectors either side of the central red one should identify a cyclist---
Both the two tall vertical strips (eg ECE70 boards) suggested earlier or two larger area amber reflectors arranged to mimic a freewheeling cyclist's pedal reflectors would seem to satisfy that.

The reflective jacket was detected sooner than pedal reflectors(284m against 182m for pedal reflectors)
but "full 100% recognition as a cyclist" a bit later (102m vs 124m for pedal reflectors)---
in old money 102m is 334feet i.e. greater than the 315 feet braking distance given in the highway code for 70mph...

surely thats acceptable?
EDIT I mean surely that's acceptable performance from the largish reflective pattern (jacket) which would imply that my the previously suggested pedal-reflector mimic-ing large area amber reflector pairs should be acceptable: I was not suggesting a reflective jacket requirement!!

(even driving at 60 on dipped headlamps in an unlit road seems negligent to me).

(The distances seem impressive to me, I can't see anything wrong with the experiment, and its the same logic that gave us the pedal reflector law).
Last edited by SA_SA_SA on 13 Jan 2014, 3:38pm, edited 3 times in total.
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20697
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Pedal reflector law fixes

Post by Vorpal »

Tigerbiten wrote:
michael42 wrote:But I wouldn't lose any sleep over whether your bike has pedal reflectors or not from a legal point of view.

The lack of reflectors will probably only be called into account by insurance companies to reduce payment if someone crashes into you.
Somehow I don't see the police bothering if you have good lights.


The problem of this is covered in the 'legal lights' thread viewtopic.php?f=5&t=81117&start=90
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
SA_SA_SA
Posts: 2358
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: Pedal reflector law fixes

Post by SA_SA_SA »

For the approved flashing light alternative pedal reflector option:

is the combination with an additional approved steady lamp really the only choice?

Rear flashing lights are allowed on their own:

perhaps in addition to the approved flashing and steady rear lamp alternative,
a approved flashing rear lamp in conjunction with TWO approved red rear reflectors, vertically separated to give fine tuning of distance estimation on approach. i.e. a flashing approved lamp and extra approved reflector would be acceptable.
There would be nothing stopping the cyclist fitting extra backup lamps (perhaps best used in steady modes unless they become the "main" one)
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)
User avatar
CJ
Posts: 3405
Joined: 15 Jan 2007, 9:55pm

Re: Pedal reflector law fixes

Post by CJ »

SA_SA_SA wrote:For the approved flashing light alternative pedal reflector option:

is the combination with an additional approved steady lamp really the only choice?

Rear flashing lights are allowed on their own:

perhaps in addition to the approved flashing and steady rear lamp alternative,
a approved flashing rear lamp in conjunction with TWO approved red rear reflectors, vertically separated to give fine tuning of distance estimation on approach. i.e. a flashing approved lamp and extra approved reflector would be acceptable.
There would be nothing stopping the cyclist fitting extra backup lamps (perhaps best used in steady modes unless they become the "main" one)

My philosophy is to keep it simple, so it's easier for the authorities to say "oh alright then".

I also want to keep it underpinned by logic.

My logic is that conspicuity is a three stage process, analagous to the millitary theory of target aquisition and the inverse of camoflage theory. The three stages are:

1. Detection
2. Identification
3. Location & tracking

Camoflage seeks to frustrate each stage of that process. Conspicuity aids seek to facilitate each stage. A flashing light beats a steady light at stage 1 and 2, but the steady is best for stage 3.

So the trade-off for excusing lack of pedal reflectors is a lighting solution that delivers the full rear conspicuity package.
Chris Juden
One lady owner, never raced or jumped.
User avatar
CJ
Posts: 3405
Joined: 15 Jan 2007, 9:55pm

Re: Pedal reflector law fixes

Post by CJ »

SA_SA_SA wrote:The TRL LR1108 report found the reflective jacket effective as identifying the cyclist from their side to side motion and pattern (outline of cyclist)...

But pedal reflectors were a bit more effective.

Be careful what you wish for with your ankle bands and jacket suggestions. Could be the thin end of a pernicious wedge.

In France it is already illegal to cycle at night without wearing a hi-viz top in conformance with EN471. The French police don't enforce it much but ours surely would. It'll be a great thing to catch us for whenever letters to the paper trigger a crack-down on those silly risk-taking cyclists!

Very few of the tops and jackets presently sold to and worn by cyclists conform with EN471, brightly coloured and graced by reflective stripes though they may be. So that'll be an expense and an imposition and will make it perfectly clear to anyone thinking of cycling to work in the winter that it's just as crazily hazardous as putting out cones on the motorway. And none of the ankle bands conform. You'd have to wear a pair of road-worker's trousers.

At present it is not a simple matter to add ankle bands and jackets to the lighting regulations, because they're all about the vehicle and nothing about the clothing of the driver or rider. But you can see how it would be much more worth the trouble of a major amendment or entirely new legislation about the clothing of cyclists, if several items were to be included - maybe headgear too!!!
Chris Juden
One lady owner, never raced or jumped.
SA_SA_SA
Posts: 2358
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: Pedal reflector law fixes

Post by SA_SA_SA »

SA_SA_SA wrote:The TRL LR1108 report found the reflective jacket effective as identifying the cyclist from their side to side motion and pattern (outline of cyclist)...

Replying, CJ wrote:But pedal reflectors were a bit more effective.
Be careful what you wish for with your ankle bands and jacket suggestions. Could be the thin end of a pernicious wedge.


Sorry, I definitely wasn't suggesting reflective ankle bands/jackets etc again (you had already explained the Dft would not like specifying clothing): I was trying to show some evidence of the effectiveness of a larger but more static recognisable reflector pattern: unfortunately, I failed to articulate that part of my thinking much(thus failing to link the post's 2 paragraphs).

And also, while not quite as good as moving pedal reflectors, the jacket was pretty good ( recognised at 102m/ 334feet i.e. greater than the braking distance given in the highway code for 70mph), and its pattern based effectiveness would seem more consistent (less reliant on pedaling):
indicating that the much larger area static amber reflector pairs (I suggested much earlier) to mimic the pedal reflector arc/pattern would be a good and consistently effective alternative.
Also, the lower mounting of my pedal-reflector alternatives should improve their performance from dipped beams compared to the jacket. The larger area of my suggested large amber reflector area pairs would make them brighter (than actual pedal reflectors) to compensate for the lack of movement).

I freewheel a lot more in the absence of streetlamps (to stay within the range of my headlamp):
I still think TRL should have tested a freewheeling cyclists pedal reflectors: their research is incomplete until that is done.

Is the sole use of a flashing rear lamp as an approved lamp to be revoked due to distance judgement issues? Could any worries about distance judgement not be avoided by reducing any approved flashing range to 3-4Hz (1-2Hz is also the same as car indicators which seems a mistake to me ).
The faster 3-4Hz flashing lamps seem OK to me, 1Hz a bit slow.

The TRL1108 mentioned an earlier 1952 report suggesting distance judgement from a single steady red lamp could also have errors (and the later report mentioned reflectors (presumably separated from lamp by a gap) as an aid to correcting that judgement).

Could the Dft be persuaded to simply add a temporary "where practical" clause?
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)
bretonbikes
Posts: 682
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 12:35pm
Contact:

Re: Pedal reflector law fixes

Post by bretonbikes »

CJ wrote:
SA_SA_SA wrote:The TRL LR1108 report found the reflective jacket effective as identifying the cyclist from their side to side motion and pattern (outline of cyclist)...

But pedal reflectors were a bit more effective.

Be careful what you wish for with your ankle bands and jacket suggestions. Could be the thin end of a pernicious wedge.

In France it is already illegal to cycle at night without wearing a hi-viz top in conformance with EN471. The French police don't enforce it much but ours surely would. It'll be a great thing to catch us for whenever letters to the paper trigger a crack-down on those silly risk-taking cyclists!

Very few of the tops and jackets presently sold to and worn by cyclists conform with EN471, brightly coloured and graced by reflective stripes though they may be. So that'll be an expense and an imposition and will make it perfectly clear to anyone thinking of cycling to work in the winter that it's just as crazily hazardous as putting out cones on the motorway. And none of the ankle bands conform. You'd have to wear a pair of road-worker's trousers.

At present it is not a simple matter to add ankle bands and jackets to the lighting regulations, because they're all about the vehicle and nothing about the clothing of the driver or rider. But you can see how it would be much more worth the trouble of a major amendment or entirely new legislation about the clothing of cyclists, if several items were to be included - maybe headgear too!!!


The French law is that a vest has to be worn only outside towns (no street lights?) after sunset and in poor visibilty - which like most French legislation is so vague as to be worthless and totally ignored by most French cyclists.

From the government site - Le port d’un gilet rétroréfléchissant certifié est obligatoire pour tout cycliste (et son passager) circulant hors agglomération, la nuit, ou lorsque la visibilité est insuffisante. Note that this states that a baby in a baby seat needs to wear one as well;-)

In France they tried to pull the same trick with motorcyclists - 100,000 turned up in Paris and burnt them in the street...

Though I'm a fan outside towns myself - http://www.bretonbikes.com/generalartic ... afety.html
38 years of cycletouring, 33 years of running cycling holidays, 8 years of running a campsite for cyclists - there's a pattern here...
SA_SA_SA
Posts: 2358
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: Pedal reflector law fixes

Post by SA_SA_SA »

bretonbikes wrote: ...EN471...


This is a red herring:
I wasn't suggesting legally requiring jackets or ankle bands, just trying to show that the jacket was a large reflective recognisable pattern, detected earlier than pedal reflectors, but 100% recognised a bit later than those but still from an impressive distance away (334 feet):

thus there is some evidence to support a large area (brighter) static pair of amber reflectors used as "pedal reflector mimics" would be a useful alternative to real pedal reflectors:
http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=81180&p=742203#p742203 (clarified post)
http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=81180&p=743970#p743970 (more clarification)

EDIT Hmm, perhaps wasn't clear enough: note I am not saying there is direct evidence for static 'amber pedal reflectors' just that there is evidence for the concept of a recognisable reflective pattern being useful, so why would a different pattern that drivers already come across not work? And why would they not learn it the same way they learned other patterns? I suppose a bigger area might be better for static reflectors.
Last edited by SA_SA_SA on 10 Oct 2016, 1:15pm, edited 1 time in total.
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)
User avatar
CJ
Posts: 3405
Joined: 15 Jan 2007, 9:55pm

Re: Pedal reflector law fixes

Post by CJ »

SA_SA_SA wrote:I wasn't suggesting legally requiring jackets or ankle bands, just trying to show that the jacket was a large reflective recognisable pattern, detected earlier than pedal reflectors, but 100% recognised a bit later than those but still from an impressive distance away (334 feet):

thus there is some evidence to support a large area (brighter) static pair of amber reflectors used as "pedal reflector mimics" would be a useful alternative to real pedal reflectors:

No there isn't.

Humans are social animals and most quickly recognise the shape of a fellow human. And a characteristic pattern of movement, or flashing, is infinitely more distinctive than anything steady and static.

And I've only ever heard of one person who wanted to fit a static pair of amber reflectors to his bike.
Chris Juden
One lady owner, never raced or jumped.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Pedal reflector law fixes

Post by mjr »

CJ wrote:And I've only ever heard of one person who wanted to fit a static pair of amber reflectors to his bike.

A relatively new newcomer to the KLWNBUG day trips has static amber reflectors on the back of his bike (above/beside the red I think). I would have used red there, but I guess you use what you have.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
SA_SA_SA
Posts: 2358
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: Pedal reflector law fixes: no more

Post by SA_SA_SA »

SA_SA_SA wrote:...just trying to show that the jacket was a large reflective recognisable pattern, detected earlier than pedal reflectors, but 100% recognised a bit later than those...:
thus there is some evidence .....

Replying, CJ wrote:No there isn't.
Humans are social animals and most quickly recognise the shape of a fellow human. And a characteristic pattern of movement, or flashing, is infinitely more distinctive than anything steady and static.

The colour and pattern of pedal reflectors always seemed important to my observations of other cyclists at night (looking for effective lights/reflectors): I had thought pedal reflectors should have existed long enough for that colour/pattern association to be widespread.

I didn't think pedal reflectors were about attention grabbing but mainly recognition: I assumed such laws have to made on the assumption of others (drivers) being a tiny bit attentive/competent, otherwise it distorts how drivers/in-surer-ants companies think etc.

There is no direct evidence due to TRL not testing a freewheeling cyclist (which I think was an oversight).
But I accept if direct evidence is all that will do for the Dft, then I have lost the argument for those suggestions until TRL or someone else re-runs the pedal reflector test with the additional of a "freewheeling" cyclist test and a "pedal-reflector-mimic" patterns test.

EDIT I think my thinking has also affected by my indecision about flashing lights:
I am currently only using one for particular situations.

So I concede, there is no point in sending such options to the Dft. Bows. :)
Nevertheless, if I had a recumbent I would still fit a pair of pedal-reflector mimic-ing amber reflective areas irrespective of any other RVLR compliance.
At the least, amber reflectors will be brighter than red reflectors. :)

Replying, CJ wrote:And I've only ever heard of one person who wanted to fit a static pair of amber reflectors to his bike.
I suppose that would be me then. :)

I suppose that's the end of this thread. :)
Last edited by SA_SA_SA on 16 Jan 2014, 1:10pm, edited 1 time in total.
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)
Post Reply