Cycling UK Forum

Petrol is alot cheaper source of energy than batteries!

Not if you use rechargeables (or dynamos to harness human power) and if you try and consider outlay costs, remember car batteries and alternators arent cheap either.

Though I agree with who ever pointed out the energy saving of flashing mode, which I do take into account by having my rear higher power light flashing and my lower power light on constant, as well as the front "sidelight" flashing until it is dark enough that it annoys me.

meic wrote:

Petrol is alot cheaper source of energy than batteries!

Not if you use rechargeables (or dynamos to harness human power) and if you try and consider outlay costs, remember car batteries and alternators arent cheap either.

Rechargeables work out about 6 times the price of petrol, including the electricity but not the charger. I don't think the cost of the alternator is very relevant, it's already paid for when you bought the car and its life will be determined by bearing wear as much as electrical load. The running lights are powered by the alternator not the car battery while the vehicle is in use.

Yes but just like you have an alternator anyway, you have the rechargeable batteries anyway. They are an essential part of the bike which is used at night.

The only comparison should be the fuel, especially as this is about turning them on when you already have them.

The cost of using my lights is too low to register, I only conserve batteries to get more lifetime out of them on longer journeys.

Even on electricity alone it's more expensive, but the batteries are consumables, the alternator isn't.

I have an 18 year old car with its original alternator, how common is that? Though the belt was replaced.
A quick google gives 13.5 years average car life expectancy.
Some of the rechargeable batteries that I have in my lights are 8 years old.

Most of the NiMH battery failures that I know of are from lack of use, it probably saves you money if you discharge and recharge then more frequently by using them.

Anyway aside from that we are talking pennies per battery cycle (including, well almost entirely capital battery costs) which can be 60 hours of light.
If a car has cheaper light sources it will not have any influence on my cycle lighting use.

axel_knutt wrote:I agree, this is the argument from risk compensation, the more confused they are the more risk they perceive, and the more care they take. In his book Traffic, Vanderbilt makes the same point about cyclists who don't signal.

...but that doesn't mean you'd also advocate not signalling, surely? Or would you? How confused is confused enough, and how much is too much?

meic wrote:I have an 18 year old car with its original alternator, how common is that?

We have two, aged 26 and 27 years (Not a statistically significant result though.... )

PaulCumbria wrote:...but that doesn't mean you'd also advocate not signalling, surely? Or would you?

It's a question I've asked myself. In the case of turning left, definitley, yes. When it comes to turning right, the issue is how do you confuse a driver rather than surprising him....

meic wrote:I have an 18 year old car with its original alternator, how common is that? Though the belt was replaced.
A quick google gives 13.5 years average car life expectancy.
Some of the rechargeable batteries that I have in my lights are 8 years old.

Most of the NiMH battery failures that I know of are from lack of use, it probably saves you money if you discharge and recharge then more frequently by using them.

Anyway aside from that we are talking pennies per battery cycle (including, well almost entirely capital battery costs) which can be 60 hours of light.
If a car has cheaper light sources it will not have any influence on my cycle lighting use.

First scratch my last post, I forgot to allow for engine efficiency. It still works out cheaper when you include battery price though. I think I've had about four alternator failures in 28 years of motoring (some repaired rather than replaced). NiMH battery life is between 500 and 1000 cycles, I estimated on the basis of 750. Battery efficiency is about 70%, and I assumed that the charger was 100% because I couldn't be bothered estimating it.

I think a battery life of 750 cycles is being optimistic, I doubt that I have ever made 500.

I would reckon a real life average nearer 200. Which with Lidl batteries would be 1p per battery cycle per blinky.

Fixed dynamo led on front. Fixed rear plus flashing rear. The law on flashing lights came about on October 21st 2005 from memory. Lights fixed to bike must be British Standard 6102/3 or equivalent European I.e. German k mark. If they are not fixed to bike then no applicable law applies regards lighting. Rear must be red and front white. My wife sometimes drives past me on commute home. She says very noticible and visible and no problems judging distance to me.

Unlikely to be stopped anyway if you have decent lights.

Interestingly I have a mountain bike light that has pulse mode. So it varies in intensity but is never off, so not flashing. Regulations don't say anything about that.

Interestingly I have a mountain bike light that has pulse mode. So it varies in intensity but is never off, so not flashing. Regulations don't say anything about that.

So it's not steady...and it's not flashing? So, it's not mentioned and shouldn't be on a bike? Right?



____________
Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.
Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24

De Sisti wrote:

PaulCumbria wrote:
I don't want a driver distractedly trying to gauge what I am, how far away I am and how fast I'm moving. Because while my flashing lights are grabbing a disproportionate amount of his attention, he might miss something else which also requires attention - perhaps another cyclist, or a pedestrian, or the fact that he's drifting towards the oncoming traffic.

When he drags his eyes away from your confusing and mesmerising blinking lights and sees the other hazard, it could be curtains for the other cyclist, the pedestrian, the driver himself - or you. It's bad if a driver crashes into you, but it can be just as bad if he crashes into something else when you're close by.

How do you know that the situation you've mention applies to anyone other than yourself?

I want drivers on the road to be giving their full attention to the whole road situation, not just me. That's why I hate flashing lights - I KNOW they distract me from staying as fully attentive as I can be to EVERYTHING that's going on around me, and I reckon they do the same to other road users, too.

Do you have a source that proves that flashing lights distract other road users, and if so, how many (percentage wise)?

Please click on my reference to the ''moth effect' above

PhilWhitehurst wrote:The law on flashing lights came about on October 21st 2005 from memory.

That's Statutory Instrument 2559.

Lights fixed to bike must be British Standard 6102/3 or equivalent European I.e. German k mark.

The regs require that you use an "approved" light. Approved is defined as
a)BS6102/3, or
b)SI2559, or
c)an equivalent European Spec.

The last I heard from CJ, there had been no test cases to establish which European specs are legally deemed equivalent. SI2559 is only applicable to lamps that have no continuous mode, and thus can't be type approved to BS6102/3. Even Cateye misunderstood this, their lamps used to claim that they met SI2559 until I reported them to Trading Standards in 2006. Now they rightly point out that they must be used in conjunction with an approved lamp.

My interpretation is that the relevant bit of the regulation is here

g)a front position lamp capable of emitting a flashing light (whether or not it is also capable of emitting a steady light) which is fitted to—

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005 ... ion/6/made

That does not seem to mean the same as the bit I've highlighted in red below:-

axel_knutt wrote:The regs require that you use an "approved" light. Approved is defined as
a)BS6102/3, or
b)SI2559, or
c)an equivalent European Spec.

The last I heard from CJ, there had been no test cases to establish which European specs are legally deemed equivalent. SI2559 is only applicable to lamps that have no continuous mode, and thus can't be type approved to BS6102/3. Even Cateye misunderstood this, their lamps used to claim that they met SI2559 until I reported them to Trading Standards in 2006. Now they rightly point out that they must be used in conjunction with an approved lamp. (My emphasis)

My layman's translation of the rest of the regulation (which is in my link for anybody retaining the will to live) is that the only requirement in flashing mode is that it should be capable of emitting 4 Mandela . (Or something like that )