"Dave Larrington" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Matt B said:
"Dave Larrington" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Matt B <[email hidden]> wrote:
> "Dave Larrington" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> >> Thinking about this, none of my stable may legally be ridden at >> night which, I think, demonstrates that in this case the /La/ is a >> donkey. > > Do you ever ride any of them at night?
Frequently and with vigour. Except Cosimo, who is ill-equipped for Nocturnal Tomfoolery.
You obviously feel comfortable taking responsibility for you own safety decisions. Would you be happy for all regulations to do with vehicle construction to be disregarded?
The chances of someone else being killed because any of my four multiply-lit and reflectorised machines doesn't have pedal reflectors are this: vanishingly small.
So, a self assessed risk, below a certain threshold, is required before the rules can be disregarded.
Quoted message said:
[...]
Quoted message said:
There is a wealth of difference between not fitting an entirely useless reflector and, say, not being arsed to have working brakes
Yes, we could all itemise our favourite silly laws.
Quoted message said:
or legal tyres.
Although, apparently, smooth (illegal) tyres are safer under certain circumstances.
You obviously feel comfortable taking responsibility for you own safety decisions. Would you be happy for all regulations to do with vehicle construction to be disregarded?
So, a self assessed risk, below a certain threshold, is required before the rules can be disregarded.
In this case it is realising the blindingly obvious that the requisite law was not drafted by people familiar with recumbent bikes and it isn't a matter of disregarding the rules as noticing they are irrelevant.
Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
One assumes you are tongue-in-cheek; reflector fitting, not visibility, is the requirement.
"Such that the reflector on the leading edge of each pedal is plainly visible to the front and the reflector on the trailing edge of each pedal is plainly visible to the rear"
rather suggests otherwise...
Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
No, because the law specifies that the pedal reflectors must be fitted
"Such that the reflector on the leading edge of each pedal is plainly visible to the front and the reflector on the trailing edge of each pedal is plainly visible to the rear"
which is clearly impossible on most recumbents; see
It's possible provided there is no rider installed.
Solution: get a pre1985 bit on your bike. How is 'manufactured before 1985' interpreted anyway?
Do you need any pre-1985 bit at all? If, as with George Washington's axe (or was it Grandad's broom?), you'd changed all the components one by one, including the frame, you could still argue it was the original bicycle.
You could argue that. Whether you'd win is another matter.
Solution: get a pre1985 bit on your bike. How is 'manufactured before 1985' interpreted anyway?
Do you need any pre-1985 bit at all? If, as with George Washington's axe (or was it Grandad's broom?), you'd changed all the components one by one, including the frame, you could still argue it was the original bicycle.
You could argue that. Whether you'd win is another matter.
Has anyone ever had to? Are there any cases of anyone being done for lacking pedal reflectors on an otherwise road-worthy and well-lit bike (or trike, 'bent, hpv...)?
Solution: get a pre1985 bit on your bike. How is 'manufactured before 1985' interpreted anyway?
Do you need any pre-1985 bit at all? If, as with George Washington's axe (or was it Grandad's broom?), you'd changed all the components one by one, including the frame, you could still argue it was the original bicycle.
To borrow the phrase applied to the Avro Shackletons, most of my bikes are collections of spare parts in very close formation.
-- Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
Solution: get a pre1985 bit on your bike. How is 'manufactured before 1985' interpreted anyway?
Do you need any pre-1985 bit at all? If, as with George Washington's axe (or was it Grandad's broom?), you'd changed all the components one by one, including the frame, you could still argue it was the original bicycle.
To borrow the phrase applied to the Avro Shackletons, most of my bikes are collections of spare parts in very close formation.
Maybe intent has to be proved. If you had a pre 1985 part and then added other parts to it to get a bike, it would be pre-1985. If however you had a substantially intact bike and added a pre1985 part to it, it would be a newer bike with an old bit attached.
"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Matt B said:
So, a self assessed risk, below a certain threshold, is required before the rules can be disregarded.
In this case it is realising the blindingly obvious that the requisite law was not drafted by people familiar with recumbent bikes and it isn't a matter of disregarding the rules as noticing they are irrelevant.
Nice one! I consider that a major contribution to road safety...
But the reflector is not attached to the trailing edge of the pedal, so does not comply with the regulations. So /nul points/ for legality.
And for Matt B's next trick, he will find a way to put useful pedal reflectors on *these*... http://www.velomobiel.nl/
Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Nice one! I consider that a major contribution to road safety...
But the reflector is not attached to the trailing edge of the pedal, so does not comply with the regulations. So /nul points/ for legality.
And for Matt B's next trick, he will find a way to put useful pedal reflectors on *these*... http://www.velomobiel.nl/
The idea of construction regulations is that they be incorporated into the design, not that you are exempt if they don't fit in with your concept. Car designers have no option but to incorporate many appendages (lamps, reflectors, number plates, mirrors) , which, from a streamlining point of view, they may be better without, but do you see cars on the roads with these missing from the design?
Nice one! I consider that a major contribution to road safety...
But the reflector is not attached to the trailing edge of the pedal, so does not comply with the regulations. So /nul points/ for legality. And for Matt B's next trick, he will find a way to put useful pedal reflectors on *these*... http://www.velomobiel.nl/
The idea of construction regulations is that they be incorporated into the design, not that you are exempt if they don't fit in with your concept. Car designers have no option but to incorporate many appendages (lamps, reflectors, number plates, mirrors) , which, from a streamlining point of view, they may be better without, but do you see cars on the roads with these missing from the design?
The original Mazda MX5 left something to be desired in the ease of fitting a front number plate, having been styled in California where such things are not required.
On 22 Nov 2005 03:34:47 -0800, "sothach" <[email hidden]> said in <[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
You obviously feel comfortable taking responsibility for you own safety decisions. Would you be happy for all regulations to do with vehicle construction to be disregarded?
Quoted message said:
If it's just his own safety we're talking about here, then he and only he should take responsibility for it (e.g., helmets, seatbelts). However, regulations relating to how the vehicle may effects the safety of third parties are another matter.
There is also the fact that to obey the leur is, in this case, physically impossible on at least two of the Larrington machines, as it is for one of mine. I also have one bicycle which is old enough not to require pedal reflectors, and others which are not.
Thus, recumbents may not _legally_ be used at night.
and Marz responded:
Quoted message said:
Surely this is a situation where the law is behind the times. Other laws were changed to adapt to the use of LEDs so is it likely this law will be changed to reflect new road users and technology?
It really ought to have been taken into consideration when last month's changes to the lighting regs were drafted. ISTR that Guy mentioned it in his response to the consultation, I think I did too.
