Rear light - how many lumens do I need?

[cycle tramp]

Do you seriously think many cyclists on here think the amended 1989 lighting law is good about bike lights and shouldn't be revised?

Lacking your telepathic abilities, I can speak only for myself; the law on cycling lighting is of no interest at all to me.

The much improved lighting available since 1989, including my excellent helmet mounted light, is, however, very much of interest. Indeed, I would argue that the improved lights since 1989 is far more beneficial to cyclists than any other technological improvement in that time.

Indeed, we now have lights which have the capability of blinding other road users. I am not sure how beneficial a blinded road user is, but that's technology for you. Eventually it turns everything into an arms race.
No doubt the next technological advance would be some sort of microwave technology which knocks out the other fellas' lights allowing you to blind them, without the inconvenience of them blinding you.

[roubaixtuesday]

Do you seriously think many cyclists on here think the amended 1989 lighting law is good about bike lights and shouldn't be revised?

Lacking your telepathic abilities, I can speak only for myself; the law on cycling lighting is of no interest at all to me.

The much improved lighting available since 1989, including my excellent helmet mounted light, is, however, very much of interest. Indeed, I would argue that the improved lights since 1989 is far more beneficial to cyclists than any other technological improvement in that time.

Indeed, we now have lights which have the capability of blinding other road users. I am not sure how beneficial a blinded road user is, but that's technology for you. Eventually it turns everything into an arms race.
No doubt the next technological advance would be some sort of microwave technology which knocks out the other fellas' lights allowing you to blind them, without the inconvenience of them blinding you.

I'm sure you can find some old ever ready lights on ebay if you prefer them

[drossall]

I'm conscious that some (front) lights produce beams more suited to off-road, i.e. illuminating overhanging branches as well as the path ahead. Even though it's not the least suitable, I make limited road use of my Cateye Volt 1200 for that reason, preferring a 400 or 700 that is more road-friendly.

That's a long way from wanting to go back to Never Ready lights.

[edocaster]

Going back to the original point about rear lights, I echo the above recommendation for two separate rear lights. Moreover, it is best if one has unregulated output and is not powered by lithium-ion batteries. With unregulated output the light will continue to dim as the battery winds down, which gives plenty of warning before it stops lighting completely. Whereas lithium-ion almost always cuts out when close to empty, sometimes without enough warning (as voltage can suddenly dip in cold weather). Regulation exacerbates this by trying to draw more current as the voltage drops.

Fortunately, most AA/AAA lights will suffice.

[axel_knutt]

I'm sure you can find some old ever ready lights on ebay if you prefer them

That's about what the law would have you do as it currently stands.

When I bought my non-approved front lamp, it was a choice between either that or a BS approved one that was bigger, heavier, dimmer, shorter battery life, and more expensive.

The 1989 law is of great interest to nerds on forums. Not to anyone else.

Well said. I don’t know about what would happen in Court or not (but doubtless someone will) but the important thing is to never to end up either there or in a Hospital - and in particular its mortuary. As such the OP just needs to fit something that’s affordable and in common use and then get on with using it … and checking that whilst in (his) use it does what’s needed of it.

If a driver knocks you off the bike and leaves you in a wheelchair, then claims in court that it was your fault for not using an approved lamp, the only choice you'll have had in the whole matter is whether you bought an approved or unapproved lamp in the first place.


"It’s very likely that just having a white light at the front and a red light at the rear will be enough to prevent any negative police attention. However, if you’re involved in an incident at night, any slight irregularity could be challenged in court and may be regarded as ‘contributory negligence’ (a polite way of saying that the incident was partly your fault).

So it’s useful to be aware of the minimum legal requirements, especially as some of them are on the complicated side and some appear downright perplexing."

[cycle tramp]

Lacking your telepathic abilities, I can speak only for myself; the law on cycling lighting is of no interest at all to me.

The much improved lighting available since 1989, including my excellent helmet mounted light, is, however, very much of interest. Indeed, I would argue that the improved lights since 1989 is far more beneficial to cyclists than any other technological improvement in that time.

Indeed, we now have lights which have the capability of blinding other road users. I am not sure how beneficial a blinded road user is, but that's technology for you. Eventually it turns everything into an arms race.

I'm sure you can find some old ever ready lights on ebay if you prefer them

What I would very much like, and I suspect the same is said of other road users is not to be blinded.
There is a difference of having a set of well adjusted lights on your vehicle by which you can see by and be seen, and that of military style lazers.
There comes a point where having a light which is too bright becomes self defeating - that is to say your eyes react to your own light and let less light in.

[cycle tramp]

I'm sure you can find some old ever ready lights on ebay if you prefer them

That's about what the law would have you do as it currently stands.

When I bought my non-approved front lamp, it was a choice between either that or a BS approved one that was bigger, heavier, dimmer, shorter battery life, and more expensive.

The 1989 law is of great interest to nerds on forums. Not to anyone else.

Well said. I don’t know about what would happen in Court or not (but doubtless someone will) but the important thing is to never to end up either there or in a Hospital - and in particular its mortuary. As such the OP just needs to fit something that’s affordable and in common use and then get on with using it … and checking that whilst in (his) use it does what’s needed of it.

If a driver knocks you off the bike and leaves you in a wheelchair, then claims in court that it was your fault for not using an approved lamp, the only choice you'll have had in the whole matter is whether you bought an approved or unapproved lamp in the first place.


"It’s very likely that just having a white light at the front and a red light at the rear will be enough to prevent any negative police attention. However, if you’re involved in an incident at night, any slight irregularity could be challenged in court and may be regarded as ‘contributory negligence’ (a polite way of saying that the incident was partly your fault).

So it’s useful to be aware of the minimum legal requirements, especially as some of them are on the complicated side and some appear downright perplexing."

It's why I use two sets of lights.. dynamo for the stamped e.u. regulations and a set of rechargeable.

[Carlton green]

The 1989 law is of great interest to nerds on forums. Not to anyone else.

Well said. I don’t know about what would happen in Court or not (but doubtless someone will) but the important thing is to never to end up either there or in a Hospital - and in particular its mortuary. As such the OP just needs to fit something that’s affordable and in common use and then get on with using it … and checking that whilst in (his) use it does what’s needed of it.

If a driver knocks you off the bike and leaves you in a wheelchair, then claims in court that it was your fault for not using an approved lamp, the only choice you'll have had in the whole matter is whether you bought an approved or unapproved lamp in the first place.


"It’s very likely that just having a white light at the front and a red light at the rear will be enough to prevent any negative police attention. However, if you’re involved in an incident at night, any slight irregularity could be challenged in court and may be regarded as ‘contributory negligence’ (a polite way of saying that the incident was partly your fault).

So it’s useful to be aware of the minimum legal requirements, especially as some of them are on the complicated side and some appear downright perplexing."

In an earlier post I said: “ buy something that’s passed UK or EU standards checks and then give it a go”. I still stand by that, some form of certification is important … and if the certified light is considered dim then what’s to stop you using a second light.

It’s impossible to cater for every eventuality, hence my primary focus is towards taking practical measures to ensure that no accidents happen; with such measures including how I use my bike and having lights that are at least sufficient for my obvious functional needs.

Who here really knows what a Court might decide? If you’re awarded compensation for an event then most of us would prefer not to have the event and would likely regard even full compensation as insufficient and too easily swallowed up by costs and life in general.

[rareposter]

If a driver knocks you off the bike and leaves you in a wheelchair, then claims in court that it was your fault for not using an approved lamp, the only choice you'll have had in the whole matter is whether you bought an approved or unapproved lamp in the first place.

Genuine question but has this *ever* actually happened? It gets brought up all the time (especially on here!) as a possibility but I've never heard of it being referenced in any manner.

Sorry m'lud, I was proceeding along the road and spotted a red light ahead of me but as it obviously didn't comply with BS 12345 or EU Directive 98765 I drove straight into it.

Sorry m'lud, I didn't see the cyclist.
Ah, well, Good Honest Driver, as the cyclist's multiple highly visible lights did not comply with a law written in 1980 and one pedal reflector was obscured by mud, I find you innocent of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, leaving the scene and then claiming you'd hit a deer.

[Bmblbzzz]

People concerned about this possibility should also note that the EU equivalence clause has not yet been tested in court.

[cycle tramp]

Indeed...
However with a reflective strip around my (unbelievably huge*) helmet, and hi-viz vest, it should be apparent that I have made every attempt to make myself visible..
..having done so, I would argue that the attention of the driver fell short of the required level expected of them and as such should face the attentions of the law.


(*Ade Edmondson, Ryk Mayall)

[cycle tramp]

People concerned about this possibility should also note that the EU equivalence clause has not yet been tested in court.

Perhaps because there is no reason for it to be tested...

[Jdsk]

Who here really knows what a Court might decide?

Anyone who has read the relevant laws and had a quick look at the previous discussions of courts.

As always it would be a good idea to separate civil and criminal law in the discussion.

Jonathan

[mjr]

If a driver knocks you off the bike and leaves you in a wheelchair, then claims in court that it was your fault for not using an approved lamp, the only choice you'll have had in the whole matter is whether you bought an approved or unapproved lamp in the first place.

Genuine question but has this *ever* actually happened? It gets brought up all the time (especially on here!) as a possibility but I've never heard of it being referenced in any manner.

Sorry m'lud, I was proceeding along the road and spotted a red light ahead of me but as it obviously didn't comply with BS 12345 or EU Directive 98765 I drove straight into it.

Sorry m'lud, I didn't see the cyclist.
Ah, well, Good Honest Driver, as the cyclist's multiple highly visible lights did not comply with a law written in 1980 and one pedal reflector was obscured by mud, I find you innocent of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, leaving the scene and then claiming you'd hit a deer.

As you're hinting, the last time I looked for cases testing this in court, probably more than 10 years ago, any driver's (or probably the driver's insurer's lawyer's) argument that the collision would have been avoided if the victim's lights had been better was always pretty much shot down because drivers are required to drive so they can stop safely within what they can see to be clear. It doesn't matter whether what the driver hit was legally lit, had failed lights, or was something like a fallen tree that didn't even have lights to begin with.

Similar findings happened in civil cases too, but I think sometimes they also relied on the unlit/mislit vehicle being stopped or proceeding straight ahead with priority and the vehicle making what I'd call the less normal movement (often overtaking) being more liable, so not needing to rule on the lights.

I think there were relatively few cases reaching court since judgments were published online, so I widened the search to include ones involving motorcycles too. And sadly, in motorist-involved collisions where cyclists were killed or seriously injured at night near me (so I got all the local reporting at the time and sometimes spoke with reporters or activists who attended court), any bike light seems to have been either destroyed or lost due to the force of the impact. In one case, an 80+mph collision in a 50mph zone, even the bike and rider were thrown far enough from the road that it took more than an hour for them to be found.

So I suspect claims of unapproved or weak lights don't reach court very often. I don't worry too much about those. My main reason for supporting StVZO lights is that I think it's the easiest way to get a decent non-antisocial light, not to worry about what lawyers might say if things go wrong. That said, it might be interesting to look for recent cases involving claims of being dazzled, as lights have kept getting brighter. Even involving illegal car LED upgrades. The courts have probably drawn a line somewhere if legislation was vague.

[Bmblbzzz]

People concerned about this possibility should also note that the EU equivalence clause has not yet been tested in court.

Perhaps because there is no reason for it to be tested...

It's very unlikely any aspect of adherence to lighting regs will ever be tested in court, other than lights being absent, faulty or manifestly inadequate. The worryguts carping about finding lights certified to BS6102 pt 3, or whatever it is, should bear in mind that not only do the police hand out non-certified, non-compliant lights, but lawyers use them.