Lighting regs and Brexit

[marquis26]

Ok, thanks for prompt reply- think I’ll move it over…

[PH]

And for those pressed for time: in a collision, a driver’s insurer could wriggle out of paying for your lifelong care needs because you didn’t have legal lights

Has that EVER actually happened?! Genuine question. Same as the supposed stuff about pedal reflectors - since no clipless pedals have them, that's a lot of people that are technically "illegal" but I've never once heard it used as an argument.

Not only has it never happened, it never will. If the inadequacy of the lights, or reflectors, contributed to the collision, that would be taken into consideration, but their legality in itself would not.
That works both ways, if the lights don't meet the required legal standards, you have committed an offence however good any non legal lights are. It wouldn't be a defence to argue that the lights are good enough for everyone to see you.

[mjr]

And for those pressed for time: in a collision, a driver’s insurer could wriggle out of paying for your lifelong care needs because you didn’t have legal lights

Has that EVER actually happened?! Genuine question. Same as the supposed stuff about pedal reflectors - since no clipless pedals have them, that's a lot of people that are technically "illegal" but I've never once heard it used as an argument.

Not only has it never happened, it never will. If the inadequacy of the lights, or reflectors, contributed to the collision, that would be taken into consideration, but their legality in itself would not.

But remember that drivers are required to drive so they don't hit unlit objects, so your lights are never going to be a get out, unless they're dazzling.

[Nearholmer]

Probably not a complete “get out”, but you could find that having inadequate lighting and reflectors is found to be a contributory factor, resulting in a reduction in compensation on an “apportionment of blame” basis.

[PH]

Not only has it never happened, it never will. If the inadequacy of the lights, or reflectors, contributed to the collision, that would be taken into consideration, but their legality in itself would not.

But remember that drivers are required to drive so they don't hit unlit objects, so your lights are never going to be a get out, unless they're dazzling.

I don't know how you made the leap from my saying it would be taken into consideration to it being some sort of "get out"?
This isn't some theoretical scenario, such cases of contributory negligence are commonplace. Here's the first one Google threw up, a compensation reduction of 25% for the rider not having lights, despite riding slowly uphill under street lighting:
https://barcankirby.co.uk/compensation- ... ut-lights/

That wasn't the point I was addressing, which is that had the cyclist in the above case been using light/s, the consideration would have been how visible those made them rather than if they conformed to the appropriate regulations.

[edocaster]

Not only has it never happened, it never will. If the inadequacy of the lights, or reflectors, contributed to the collision, that would be taken into consideration, but their legality in itself would not.

But remember that drivers are required to drive so they don't hit unlit objects, so your lights are never going to be a get out, unless they're dazzling.

I don't know how you made the leap from my saying it would be taken into consideration to it being some sort of "get out"?
This isn't some theoretical scenario, such cases of contributory negligence are commonplace. Here's the first one Google threw up, a compensation reduction of 25% for the rider not having lights, despite riding slowly uphill under street lighting:
https://barcankirby.co.uk/compensation- ... ut-lights/

That wasn't the point I was addressing, which is that had the cyclist in the above case been using light/s, the consideration would have been how visible those made them rather than if they conformed to the appropriate regulations.

Interesting.

There is caselaw on lights, and the absence thereof. See: https://12kbw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/ ... thbert.pdf

There's some stuff about helmets too...

The case mentioned there, Phethean-Hubble v Coles, apparently went to the Court of Appeal. The original trial judge did not find the absence of a rear light had contributed to the situation 'since the road was well lit'. That would seem to suggest that it is possible for the absence of lights to be contributory negligence, even if it wasn't in this case. Which is probably why the insurers in the quoted link were confident that contributory negligence was something to bargain over.

[PH]

The case mentioned there, Phethean-Hubble v Coles, apparently went to the Court of Appeal. The original trial judge did not find the absence of a rear light had contributed to the situation 'since the road was well lit'. That would seem to suggest that it is possible for the absence of lights to be contributory negligence, even if it wasn't in this case. Which is probably why the insurers in the quoted link were confident that contributory negligence was something to bargain over.

That threw me enough to look it up - Your conclusion is wrong and I don't understand why that link has it listed as a lights issue. The judge rightly said that the lack of light hadn't contributed to the accident and no reduction has been made for it. The only contributory negligence arises from the claimant riding off the pavement in front of the car which was travelling too fast and the defendant not paying enough attention.
You can read the judgement here, the contributory negligence has it's own paragraph near the bottom. The original judge reduced the reduction from 50% to a third on the basis that the claimant at 16 should not be treated as an adult, this is the only aspect that was overturned on appeal.
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5 ... 7f57ea727e

[mjr]

This isn't some theoretical scenario, such cases of contributory negligence are commonplace. Here's the first one Google threw up, a compensation reduction of 25% for the rider not having lights, despite riding slowly uphill under street lighting:
https://barcankirby.co.uk/compensation- ... ut-lights/

A solicitor accepting such a reduction seems incompetent but maybe motornormativity has infested the courts. It certainly never used to be upheld, for many reasons including that someone pushing a bike across the road would not necessarily be lit.

[edocaster]

The case mentioned there, Phethean-Hubble v Coles, apparently went to the Court of Appeal. The original trial judge did not find the absence of a rear light had contributed to the situation 'since the road was well lit'. That would seem to suggest that it is possible for the absence of lights to be contributory negligence, even if it wasn't in this case. Which is probably why the insurers in the quoted link were confident that contributory negligence was something to bargain over.

That threw me enough to look it up - Your conclusion is wrong and I don't understand why that link has it listed as a lights issue. The judge rightly said that the lack of light hadn't contributed to the accident and no reduction has been made for it. The only contributory negligence arises from the claimant riding off the pavement in front of the car which was travelling too fast and the defendant not paying enough attention.
You can read the judgement here, the contributory negligence has it's own paragraph near the bottom. The original judge reduced the reduction from 50% to a third on the basis that the claimant at 16 should not be treated as an adult, this is the only aspect that was overturned on appeal.
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5 ... 7f57ea727e

The point I was making wasn't that this case's conclusion hinged on lighting ('the original trial judge did not find the absence of a rear light had contributed to the situation '), and I didn't mean to suggest the Court of Appeal challenged that. But it seems clear from the original judgment that 'since the road was well lit' leaves open the chance that lighting could be relevant in different circumstances. It is also notable that the defendant had already conceded that he had seen the unfortunate victim anyway.

So, the concept of visibility and appropriate lighting doesn't seem to be that controversial a topic. Or, to put it another way, why would Barcan Kirby (and their 'expert cycling accident solicitors') accept reduced damages for their client - and the withering scorn of MJR of this parish - instead of challenging this in court?

Arguably, there is a distinction between the two cases above, in that in Phethean-Hubble v Coles the bike went off the pavement and across the traffic lane, with the driver prior to that movement doing nothing out of the ordinary (debates about their speed aside). Whereas for the other case, and presumably many others, a junction or road user lane change is involved, where appropriate observation by the driver prior to the interaction is expected.

Regarding MJR's comment that 'someone pushing a bike across the road would not necessarily be lit'. Then the situation would be as per a pedestrian crossing a road - contributory negligence could indeed be very possible, depending on how they conducted their crossing (not at a crossing, suddenly, etc) and, indeed, visibility. Though it may pain us all to read it, here is a case where dark clothing seems to have been referred to as part of the contributory negligence: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5 ... 6b9e1983d2

[plancashire]

Which is what I’d come here to ask: my handlebars have maybe a couple of inches each side of the stem on which to mount a headlight (before they start rising). That close to the stem, does it really matter if the light is mounted nearside or offside? Thoughts from the room? Thanks

You could also mount your battery (assumed) light on the forks above the tyre and below the bottom steering bearing. There is often a hole there used to fix the front brakes and mudguard. Busch+Müller make an adapter for IXON Core battery headlamp. I have a couple of these (actually a similar model).

[PH]

So, the concept of visibility and appropriate lighting doesn't seem to be that controversial a topic. Or, to put it another way, why would Barcan Kirby (and their 'expert cycling accident solicitors') accept reduced damages for their client - and the withering scorn of MJR of this parish - instead of challenging this in court?

Apologies, I'd misunderstood your point, we are in agreement.

[PH]

A solicitor accepting such a reduction seems incompetent but maybe motornormativity has infested the courts. It certainly never used to be upheld, for many reasons including that someone pushing a bike across the road would not necessarily be lit.

That one party is in the wrong does not absolve the other of any responsibility. It used to be the case, up until the law changed sometime in the 1940's, that the party with the greater responsibility was entirely liable, but the idea of split liability has been well established since.

[ed_b]

There is caselaw on lights, and the absence thereof. See: https://12kbw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/ ... thbert.pdf

Thanks for this, and all other replies. And sorry for disengaging: I accepted the challenge to read all the caselaw on lighting regs at bailii.org, and never got round to writing the digest up. Still on the to-do list...

The 12KBW document is great, and quotes the relevant statute, S38(7) Road Traffic Act 1988:

A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.

So my read of it is, by not following regs, you open yourself to having your failure to follow the regs relied on against you.

If you do follow the regs, you may yet be found contributorily negligent for some other reason (eg, mud-covered lights are semi-obscured) - but the defendant won't have statute on their side saying it's automatically relevant. Why hand them a stick to beat you with?

12KBW doc also makes clear (slide 4) that the assessment of contributory negligence is in equity, not in law; in other words the court can do whatever it thinks is fair, and in principle has complete discretion in that (although is also bound by prior decisions).

[Brucey]

...my handlebars have maybe a couple of inches each side of the stem on which to mount a headlight ....

conveniently such handlebars are usually 7/8"diameter. It is not especially challenging to install something of similar diameter to your bike, which (provided that it was sufficiently robust) can then be used to mount a light. Good brackets of this sort have been made using such things as wooden dowel, wine bottle corks, handlebar offcuts, plastic overflow pipe etc. Any of these may be combined with other materials such as M6 studding, which is very inexpensive and available in stainless steel.

Often, you can use another bracket as your starting point; eg. a Busch and Muller (or similar) fork crown bracket (eg made from 4mm stainless steel wire) is easily spread so as to accept a short length of something about 7/8" diameter, thus making an excellent accessory bracket.

[edocaster]

There is caselaw on lights, and the absence thereof. See: https://12kbw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/ ... thbert.pdf

Thanks for this, and all other replies. And sorry for disengaging: I accepted the challenge to read all the caselaw on lighting regs at bailii.org, and never got round to writing the digest up. Still on the to-do list...

The 12KBW document is great, and quotes the relevant statute, S38(7) Road Traffic Act 1988:

A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.

So my read of it is, by not following regs, you open yourself to having your failure to follow the regs relied on against you.

If you do follow the regs, you may yet be found contributorily negligent for some other reason (eg, mud-covered lights are semi-obscured) - but the defendant won't have statute on their side saying it's automatically relevant. Why hand them a stick to beat you with?

12KBW doc also makes clear (slide 4) that the assessment of contributory negligence is in equity, not in law; in other words the court can do whatever it thinks is fair, and in principle has complete discretion in that (although is also bound by prior decisions).

In the context of lighting, for a bike I would say the two potential issues are insufficient lighting, or dazzling lighting. It's only a guess, but I would think that not strictly following regs alone, without either of the two issues, would be a very hard case to show contributory negligence in partially causing or exacerbating the accident.

On the subject of dazzle, at least for motor vehicles, you can see this raised here: https://tgchambers.com/wp-content/uploa ... n-2024.pdf (search for 'dazzle'). While the judgment doesn't cover this, it is of note that the claimant's case is that 'on being confronted with these headlights, if D1 had been driving in accordance with the Highway Code, he should have “slowed to a crawl or stopped."' The question seems to remain whether the accident would have been avoided or not even if D1 did slow down. Note this is also talking about dazzling lights obscuring a pedestrian (disembarked passenger) - crashing into the source of the dazzle would seem to be an even less reasonable action.

On the other hand, insufficient lighting can be a primary cause of an accident. Beyond the numerous cases alleging that a pedestrian's sartorial choices were a form of contributory negligence, there seem to also be many cases about car lighting. Even the much lauded 'dipped beam' can actually be insufficient, and judged as one of the causes of an accident: https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.c ... +(Trinder) Obviously, a car always has the option of dipped and full. But could one imagine the owner of one of those fancy new StVZO lights with both dipped and high beams being sued in an accident for NOT using the high beam? It could happen...