CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
not resolvedA challenge - can anyone provide a link to in-stock-and-available British Standards Approved front and rear cycle lights?
('Conforms to BS' weasel words don't count; lights must actually be approved and marked as such. For the sake of argument let's ignore the 'equivalent CE' approval thing as that's rather vague.)
"it must be marked as conforming to BS6102/3 or an equivalent EC standard."
http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations
From that document...
"...equivalent standards from other EC countries must now also be recognised - but only if they provide an equivalent level of safety. It’s not exactly clear which do."
Well the old EverReady pale grey chunky plastic glow-worms from the eighties had BS markings if I remember correctly. Absolutely terrifying things that would do a Tinkerbell at the drop of a rainy winter Friday hat.
I thought I would check what BS6102/3 requires, but it costs £104.00. I'm not that keen.
I would reckon that most decent lights would be tested against Danish, Dutch or German standards - as they are huge cycling markets compared to the UK. I'm not sure how these standards measure up to the UK one, but I would happily go with anything the Germans were okay with.
@Morningsider
Yes, I was astonished to find that British Standards are commercial secrets too.
I can tell you that the BS for a bicycle wheel allows it to be out of true by 2mm in any direction, which counts as square for any self-respecting wheel builder.
"I would reckon that most decent lights would be tested against Danish, Dutch or German standards"
AFAIK most lights (esp. dynamo driven ones) conform to German regulations as they are the strictest.
@IWRATS I paid for a couple of Standards a few years ago and was sent photocopies. It's really stupid.
CatEye's TL-AU100BS sounds promising for the rear but it's probably just because it has an integral reflector.
Aside from lights, I believe the law (Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations) requires two amber pedal reflectors on each pedal for a bike to be ridden after dark. That pretty much rules out any bike with clipless pedals.
You should also keep the fore and aft reflectors supplied with the bike which 99% of people discard almost immediately.
wingpig nearly wins half the challenge; TL-AU100BS is a candidate rear light but is mostly out-of-stock except in some backwoods suppliers.
The spd pedal reflector issue can be easily solved for the winter with these:
SHIMANO SM-PD 22 adapter with reflector
...which have the advantage of weighting the pedal so that the clipless clippy thing is always facing up.
While the TL-AU100BS might be standards compliant it's a PITA to use due to the non standard batteries it uses...
Shimano also now have a range of SPD pedals with integrated reflectors - CLICK'R
The TL-AU100BS takes standard AA batteries.
I think the law actually says something about pedal reflectors "visible from the rear" which means that it is illegal to ride a bike with panniers or a recumbent in the dark...
+1 the reflectors must not be obscured, so panniers are illegal at night (either front or rear).
A rack top bag is OK though.
If you can find a red light that doesn't have a steady mode that's also a candidate for a legal rear light, since the standard only applies to lights with steady mode. I can't remember the exact wording of the get-out. 4 candela?
the old EverReady pale grey chunky plastic
The horror... the horror...
Just had a quick skim over BS6102-3 (one of the benefits of the uni VPN is access to lots of useful things).
From what I can understand:
Front lights should be minimum 400cd at 3.5 degrees down facing forward (and meet lots of other test points too) but not more than 70cd above the horizontal plane.
Rear lights only need to be 4cd minimum.
Not seeing anything about steady/flashing lights though...
What I'd like to do is buy a set of BS6102-3 approved lights. How hard can it be?
That'll do, thank you!
I should note that there are much better options for a comparable price here - even if all you wanted was a minimally-legal blinkie (although they probably won't flash!)
Even the caveats make British Standards look laughable, for instance StVZO is so comprehensive that some lights are only legal when used with 1.5V - i.e. non rechargeable - batteries, or bikes under a certain weight (!).
Does anyone have a fully compliant bike then? Including front and back reflectors and pedal reflectors?
@ARobComp - I think my bike is compliant. Front and rear lights are dynamo lights compliant with German standards and therefore falling into the 'equivalent to British Standard' category. Rear red reflector is built into the rear light. Four amber reflectors on my SPD-compatible pedals.
No front reflector (not required, I think) and no reflectors on the wheel (ditto).
I've put a bit of effort into this over the past couple of years because I've been influenced by Chris Juden's comments that the niceties don't matter until you are involved in a collision, when it will start being used by the other party as an excuse for claiming contributory negligence on my part.
That's what I've been considering really. But to what level will the nits be picked?
My shoes for example have a reflective strip down the back as do my shoe covers. Do they count?
I don't let the contributory negligence thing worry me too much.
Consider that the maximum reduction for contributory negligence for not wearing a seatbelt at all is 25% - only when the court is confident that 100% of the injuries would otherwise have been prevented.
Now consider the situation where you have a light which is brighter than the British Standard but does not comply with it. What's the contributory negligence defence? The other party claims that if your light was a crappy halogen bulb the collision would not have occurred? I find it hard to give this much credit.
@ARobComp - It's a lawyer's job to pick nits (with apologies to any lawyers who may be listening). If the law says 'four orange reflectors marked with BSxxxx', then it doesn't matter how reflective your shoes are, they aren't four orange reflectors. If I were the lawyer I'd pick nits at whatever level I needed to to get my client off.
@Dave - but how about the reverse: "I would have avoided the cyclist but his light was so bright that I was dazzled and hit him. Had his light been compliant with BSxxxx, I would not have been dazzled. Therefore it's the cyclist's fault" For me it's one less thing to worry about. Are the lights compliant? Yes. Move on: you'll need to see if you can find some different nits to pick (in my case it would be the lack of a h*lm*t, I fear, but the difference with that one is that it's not a legal requirement in the way lights are).
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts