Re: Cyclist without lights

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Budstaff said:

But you _were_ off-road, and therefore he had no obligation to show
lights,

The OP does not specify what kind of path was involved. Does "off-road"
mean not on a public highway at all or just not on one shared with cars
? I think from the context that it was a public highway not available
to motor vehicles.

If the path was still a public one (e.g. a bridleway or a public cycle
path) or was in a private place where the public have free access in or
on vehicles (i.e. same status as a car park open to the public) then
are not lights still obligatory? AIUI vehicles (and horses-riders,
herders, etc) must show lights at night on all public highways,
regardless of whether or not the highway is used by motor traffic, with
only pedestrians being allowed to go about without them.

Jon

The path was both "off road" non tarmac but a public bridleway and a
designated "National Cycle Route".

The moonlight was visible, but due to the hill and shading of trees,
anything above walking pace would be unwise.

I don't give a monkeys about how bright my lights are considering at best, I
have 10 or 20 watts, cars have up to 200 watts. I am simply lighting my
route in accordance with the recommendations of common sense and The Highway
Code, and indeed with the lights St John's Cycles makes available through
retail.

I am more peeved that an otherwise beautiful evening is marred by the bad
language and aggression of a fool who demands courtesy from others (freely
on offer) but acts like a loud-mouthed Neanderthal who's spent 5 years in
some trench-war.

How are you supposed to spot these lunatics...

Heracles Pollux said:

The path was both "off road" non tarmac but a public bridleway and a
designated "National Cycle Route".

So lighting compliant with the RVLR1985(amended 2005) is required.

Quoted message said:

I don't give a monkeys about how bright my lights are considering at best, I
have 10 or 20 watts, cars have up to 200 watts. I am simply lighting my
route in accordance with the recommendations of common sense and The Highway
Code, and indeed with the lights St John's Cycles makes available through
retail.

So you were not legally lit then? And you then berate someone else for
being not legally lit (and dazzle them to boot, which is
corntraindicated in the HC).

Whilst I empathise with you wrt the bad language and attitude, the
ultimate problem was perhaps precipitated by a less than thoughtful
orientation of your lights.

...d

"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Heracles Pollux said:

The path was both "off road" non tarmac but a public bridleway and a
designated "National Cycle Route".

So lighting compliant with the RVLR1985(amended 2005) is required.

Quoted message said:

I don't give a monkeys about how bright my lights are considering at
best, I
have 10 or 20 watts, cars have up to 200 watts. I am simply lighting my
route in accordance with the recommendations of common sense and The
Highway
Code, and indeed with the lights St John's Cycles makes available through
retail.

So you were not legally lit then? And you then berate someone else for
being not legally lit (and dazzle them to boot, which is
corntraindicated in the HC).

Whilst I empathise with you wrt the bad language and attitude, the
ultimate problem was perhaps precipitated by a less than thoughtful
orientation of your lights.

I'll jump in here too .. I've got lumi's 10 & 20W and never use the wide
beam 20W anywhere around here except in exceptional circumstances. On
off-road paths I cover point my 10W downwards when approaching someone. This
is for cyclists and pedestrians. The reason : I don't want to spoil their
nightvision. Whether the language used was appropriate or not, I don't know.
But I do know I have come across other cyclists who have dazzled me with
their lights and taken no consideration to anyone else but themselves.

Is that enough fuel on the fire?

Tosspot said:

I'm confused. Was it legal or illegal to use lights off road?

Legal / Unregulated.

Quoted message said:

Btw, I suppose the offending rider could have slowed down a bit.

I don't think that anyone is directly supporting the behaviour of the
other rider, just expressing the idea that the OP might not have been
entirely in the right either.

Jon

Andy Leighton said:

I was just following up Dave Martin's original post. I think when you
are off the public highway network (including bridleways and paths) you can
do what you want. On the public highway you should use a lamp that meets
the appropriate BS standard which specifies a maximum power (or so I
understand) as discussed a number of times on this group in the past.

There's a maximum power specification? What is it as I can't find it in
the HWC or in the RVLR?

Laters,

Marz

"Marz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Andy Leighton said:

I was just following up Dave Martin's original post. I think when you
are off the public highway network (including bridleways and paths) you
can
do what you want. On the public highway you should use a lamp that meets
the appropriate BS standard which specifies a maximum power (or so I
understand) as discussed a number of times on this group in the past.

There's a maximum power specification? What is it as I can't find it in
the HWC or in the RVLR?

Probably in the appropriate british standard, which the other leglislation
will point to.

I think the rules are you should have a legal lamp (ie BS/kitemarked or
equivalent), but you're allowed others if you want.

cheers,
clive

elyob said:

It's not illegal to use overpowered lights off road, AFAIK. In fact, there
are no rules for using lights except on the public highway. So both were in
the right.

This term "off-road" is confusing the issue, since it can mean 'not on
a hard-surfaced route used by motor traffic' or 'not on a public
highway'.

There is no law about use of lights in any place which is not a public
highway or a place with free public access (e.g. a car park is not a
highway, but it might be open to the public).

AIUI, on all public highways, including bridleways, cyclepaths, and in
fact anywhere where we can cycle by right rather than by the landowners
permission, cyclists must show approved lights at night, just as all
other kinds of vehicle must.

As the unlit rider in the OP was on a bridleway, he was in the wrong.

I know nothing about maximum light output from cycle lights; as far as
I know there is no upper limit, probably because until recently
technological limits meant the problem never arose.

To establish whether the unlit rider's complaint of being dazzled was
reasonable, I suggest we would need to know whether the light involved
had a worse effect upon him than would a dipped car/motorcycle
headlight - as showing such a light is obviously normal practice on
highways. Some, but very few, cycle lights have that kind of power.

Jon

Quoted message said:

elyob said:

It's not illegal to use overpowered lights off road, AFAIK. In fact, there
are no rules for using lights except on the public highway. So both were in
the right.

This term "off-road" is confusing the issue, since it can mean 'not on
a hard-surfaced route used by motor traffic' or 'not on a public
highway'.

There is no law about use of lights in any place which is not a public
highway or a place with free public access (e.g. a car park is not a
highway, but it might be open to the public).

AIUI, on all public highways, including bridleways, cyclepaths, and in
fact anywhere where we can cycle by right rather than by the landowners
permission,

[except in Scotland where other more liberal rules apply]

Quoted message said:

cyclists must show approved lights at night, just as all
other kinds of vehicle must.

Quoted message said:

As the unlit rider in the OP was on a bridleway, he was in the wrong.

I know nothing about maximum light output from cycle lights; as far as
I know there is no upper limit, probably because until recently
technological limits meant the problem never arose.

RVLR states that you MUST have front and rear position lamps which must
comply with the appropriate british standards as well as RVLR. You may
also have additional auxilliary lights which must comply with the
colour and position rules for said lamps.

So your Lumicycles are not illegal. What is not legal, irrespective of
how many auxilliary lamps you have, is to cycle without an approved
position lamp at night.

Law <---- Spot the difference ---> Ass

Quoted message said:

To establish whether the unlit rider's complaint of being dazzled was
reasonable, I suggest we would need to know whether the light involved
had a worse effect upon him than would a dipped car/motorcycle
headlight - as showing such a light is obviously normal practice on
highways. Some, but very few, cycle lights have that kind of power.

Not at all. Showing car headlights on bridleways (which are public
highways) is not common. If the lights were oriented to be able to
shine in the eye of an observer 3 ft off the ground and 27ft away
(IIRCTICRWTCF) then it is incorrectly adjusted.

Having said all that, if you have a bright white light facing
forwards, a red one facing back you are unlikely to be stopped for
incorrect lights. It might appear strange but being able to recite
chapter and verse of the cycle lighting regulations is not a high
priority for your average cop (though it is de rigeur for urc nerds).

My bike is probably in breach of RVLR on at least three counts so I am
as guilty as the next man.

...d

elyob said:

"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Heracles Pollux said:

The path was both "off road" non tarmac but a public bridleway
and a designated "National Cycle Route".

So lighting compliant with the RVLR1985(amended 2005) is required.

Quoted message said:

I don't give a monkeys about how bright my lights are considering
at best, I have 10 or 20 watts, cars have up to 200 watts. I am
simply lighting my route in accordance with the recommendations
of common sense and The Highway Code, and indeed with the lights
St John's Cycles makes available through retail.

So you were not legally lit then? And you then berate someone else
for being not legally lit (and dazzle them to boot, which is
corntraindicated in the HC).

Whilst I empathise with you wrt the bad language and attitude, the
ultimate problem was perhaps precipitated by a less than thoughtful
orientation of your lights.

I'll jump in here too .. I've got lumi's 10 & 20W and never use the
wide beam 20W anywhere around here except in exceptional
circumstances. On off-road paths I cover point my 10W downwards when
approaching someone. This is for cyclists and pedestrians. The reason
: I don't want to spoil their nightvision. Whether the language used
was appropriate or not, I don't know. But I do know I have come
across other cyclists who have dazzled me with their lights and taken
no consideration to anyone else but themselves.

Is that enough fuel on the fire?

<passes can, winks>

--
Lesley
CBR600FW
SBS#11 (with oak-leaf cluster)
BOTAFOT#101A UKRMHRC#12
BONY#54P BOB#18
Real burds don't take hormones, they rage naturally

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Some, but very few, cycle lights have that kind of power.

Oh mate, you've not seen the Lumi's at their best, and mine are the
cheapies!

Honestly, they are bloody & fantastically bright. Fantastico!

Heracles Pollux said:

I give up. You're all stark raving mad...

I refer the member to my previous post: If we're going to go down this
route, it is about time we were all given ID cards, helmets, number plates,
and made to apply for a licence to pedal cycle.

You're Bonkers!

Some of us probably are, some possibly not. The lighting regulations
definitely are. I have to say though that the patent bonkers-o-meter is
showing a definite reading when I point it at some of your posts.

--
Dave...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is no need for this kind of hostility and aggression nor
legalistic beaurocracy to solve such a simple problem.

Indeed. If you'd relied on the available light, you might have seen him
sooner. Bright lights tend to provide a well-illuminated spot at the cost
of vision outside that area.

Not going to happen, mate. I will not be "negotiating" on my right to use,
or indeed the common sense value of, using lighting, that is unless
motorvehicles are too be encouraged to do the same.

On 04/05/2006 Heracles Pollux wrote :

Quoted message said:

How are you supposed to spot these lunatics...

In the moonlight, the bolts on the neck normally give them away!

--
"He plays four-and-a-half-hour sets. That's torture.
Does he hate his audience?" (On Bruce Springsteen.)
- John Lydon

Heracles Pollux said:

Not going to happen, mate. I will not be "negotiating" on my right to use,
or indeed the common sense value of, using lighting,

Common sense is often wrong. Having spent a good deal of time in my
youth running around forests at night involving both Seeing, Being Seen,
and Not Being Seen, I would point out from experience that the best way
of seeing things *at a distance* is to not have any lights at all but to
rely on natural lighting, the Mk 1 eyeball, and the Mk 1 ears. Seeing
things at close range often required a torch; however, the more powerful
the flashlight used, the harder it got to see anything outside of the
beam due to it buggering your night vision, and the harder it got to see
anything /in/ the beam due to vicious contrasts and unusual shadows.

R.

Heracles Pollux said:

Not going to happen, mate. I will not be "negotiating" on my right to use,
or indeed the common sense value of, using lighting, that is unless
motorvehicles are too be encouraged to do the same.

But your doing so (In this very specific set of circumstances) inflicted
the same scenario onto a fellow cyclist that a car would inflict upon you.

No-one's trying to stop you using your lights. We're just making it clear
why the reaction that you got might have occurred.

Jon

Richard said:

Common sense is often wrong. Having spent a good deal of time in my
youth running around forests at night involving both Seeing, Being Seen,
and Not Being Seen, I would point out from experience that the best way
of seeing things *at a distance* is to not have any lights at all but to
rely on natural lighting, the Mk 1 eyeball, and the Mk 1 ears. Seeing
things at close range often required a torch; however, the more powerful
the flashlight used, the harder it got to see anything outside of the
beam due to it buggering your night vision, and the harder it got to see
anything /in/ the beam due to vicious contrasts and unusual shadows.

The very flat, very cold light that was emitted by my LED bike light
(Combined with being at close to head height on the bent) made for very
uncomfortable lighting of cycle ways at night. I never got around to
making a bracket to mount it lower, and my other un-realised plan involved
a second unit with a colour filter to introduce obvious contrasts and thus
(hopefully) increase depth perception.

Jon

Quoted message said:

Not going to happen, mate. I will not be "negotiating" on my right to
use [...] lighting,

No one has suggested that you do.

"Heracles Pollux" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To establish whether the unlit rider's complaint of being dazzled was
reasonable, I suggest we would need to know whether the light involved
had a worse effect upon him than would a dipped car/motorcycle
headlight - as showing such a light is obviously normal practice on
highways. Some, but very few, cycle lights have that kind of power.

Jon

I don't consider this a right or wrong issue or a legal issue.

I didn't see the youth. Had I seen him I would have dipped my lights.

Driving without due care and attention.

"Jon Senior" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Heracles Pollux said:

Not going to happen, mate. I will not be "negotiating" on my right to
use,
or indeed the common sense value of, using lighting, that is unless
motorvehicles are too be encouraged to do the same.

But your doing so (In this very specific set of circumstances) inflicted
the same scenario onto a fellow cyclist that a car would inflict upon you.

No-one's trying to stop you using your lights. We're just making it clear
why the reaction that you got might have occurred.

Jon

Car's don't drive usually drive around with lights off at night.

I will not be cycling with my lights off as a result of this.

If you leap out in front of me in the dark, it's your tough [censored] for being
so stupid.