Highwaycode and pedals question

in message <[email hidden]>, Just zis Guy,

you know? (') said:

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.

Frankly, you know, this isn't an excuse. It seems to me it's exactly as
illegal to ride a recumbent on the road at night (or any other bicycle
without pedal reflectors, for that matter, which includes all mine) as
to do many of the normal-but-illegal things our motoring compatriots do
in their cars. Which leaves the moral high ground where, precisely?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Ye hypocrites! are these your pranks? To murder men and give God thanks?
Desist, for shame! Proceed no further: God won't accept your thanks for
murther
-- Roburt Burns, 'Thanksgiving For a National Victory'

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:32:31 +0000, Simon Brooke
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Frankly, you know, this isn't an excuse. It seems to me it's exactly as
illegal to ride a recumbent on the road at night (or any other bicycle
without pedal reflectors, for that matter, which includes all mine) as
to do many of the normal-but-illegal things our motoring compatriots do
in their cars. Which leaves the moral high ground where, precisely?

It leaves us in the same position as the man doing 31mph in a 30
limit, only with the small additional danger applying solely to
ourselves.

And if we wear shoes or overshoes with reflective patches, and apply
reflective tape to the cranks (as I have done on my 'bent), we are at
least showing willing. To say nothing of having at least double the
mandated complement of lights on most of my bikes.

In fact, it leaves us in the position of people who actively want to
obey the law, but can't do so for technical or practical reasons. I'd
say that was pretty singular as a class of offence :-)

For the record, it is now a year or more since I rode an "illegal"
bike at night; my tourer is old enough that Spuds are legal and the
Brom has pedal reflectors.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

dkahn400 said:

David Martin said:

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.

IMBW but is it not the case that these items only needed to be fitted
to new bikes (like a bell and wrong/right way round brakes) after a
certain date; what you do with the bike after purchase is up to you as
long as it conforms to regs which apply to all bikes. My excuse will be
that I had to change the pedals to Looks.

Just zis Guy said:

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.

ITYAM. It is perfectly possible to obey the law. It is not however
possible to ride the cycle at night AND obey the law.

...d

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:43:43 -0000,

Matt B said:

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

Quoted message said:

sothach said:

Matt B wrote:

Quoted message said:

>I can't see the problem, have a look at how:
>http://tinyurl.com/8m62v
>:-)

Quoted message said:

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?

Except that the law is extremely slow at catching up with bicycle
technology. The situation we are in with pedal reflectors would be like
having had a law in 1850 "All wheeled vehicles with pedals must have
pedal reflectors" and then expecting that to apply to cars. Or "all cars
must have crossply tyres" and then ignoring the existence of radial
tyres completely. AIUI Look commercialised the first clipless pedal in
1984, Hinault won the tour-de-France with them in 1985. 20 years later
we STILL haven't got a botched law sorted out.

I could imagine a (rather peculiar) pedalling action that would mean
that the pedal reflector could never be seen from behind when the rider
was on the bike. Would that make the rider illegal. Or perhaps it would
be legal because if the rider wasn't on the bike they could be seen. In
which case what about my pedals which (ok they don't have reflectors)
when nobody is on the bike hang so that what I would call the leading
edge is at the top. If I want to make them legal then where should I fit
the reflector. Now what about that strange (disabled?) rider who's heel
always obscures the reflector on their bike. The reflector on my pedal
now can't be seen with the rider on or off it.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

Just zis Guy said:

In fact, it leaves us in the position of people who actively want to
obey the law, but can't do so for technical or practical reasons. I'd
say that was pretty singular as a class of offence :-)

But I know many a driver who can't obey the speed laws for technical
or practical reasons - because they're got a lead right foot that's
practically impossibly to lift of the acellerator, and they're
technically complete and utter twunts. ;-) :-)

--
Nobby

Just zis Guy said:

For the record, it is now a year or more since I rode an "illegal"
bike at night; my tourer is old enough that Spuds are legal and the
Brom has pedal reflectors.

Do Cateye LD500 rear lights count as reflectors as well, If so, then the
fixer /is/ legal after all, as some[1] of it predates the 1985 wossname.

If this /is/ the case then cane someone arrange to transport the Trice for
during the night sections of Audaxen, as I'd /hate/ to fall foul of the /La/
just because my five front lights, three rear lights and rack bag positively
awash with reflective material prevent the Motor-ist from seeing my feet.

1 - frame, seat post, bars, stem

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
The thing about Tony Parsons, though, the defining aspect of his
personality, is that he is a complete [censored].

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:32:31 +0000, Simon Brooke
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Frankly, you know, this isn't an excuse. It seems to me it's exactly as
illegal to ride a recumbent on the road at night (or any other bicycle
without pedal reflectors, for that matter, which includes all mine) as
to do many of the normal-but-illegal things our motoring compatriots do
in their cars. Which leaves the moral high ground where, precisely?

It leaves us in the same position as the man doing 31mph in a 30
limit,

No, it leaves you defiantly and deliberately disregarding a law in a
premeditated fashion.

Quoted message said:

only with the small additional danger applying solely to
ourselves.

And the plight of other road users, who may end up swerving, or being hit by
someone swerving, or whatever, because they didn't see you as soon as they
might otherwise have, is to be disregarded? Is that a responsible attitude
for _any_ road user to have?

Quoted message said:

And if we wear shoes or overshoes with reflective patches, and apply
reflective tape to the cranks (as I have done on my 'bent), we are at
least showing willing.

"if".

Quoted message said:

To say nothing of having at least double the
mandated complement of lights on most of my bikes.

So if I engineer the front of my car to perform in an impact at 40 mph as
"normal" cars do at 30 mph I can disregard 30 mph limits?

Quoted message said:

In fact, it leaves us in the position of people who actively want to
obey the law, but can't do so for technical or practical reasons. I'd
say that was pretty singular as a class of offence :-)

No. It leaves you as a criminal. You can choose to leave the vehicle at
home.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

It leaves us in the same position as the man doing 31mph in a 30
limit,

No, it leaves you defiantly and deliberately disregarding a law in a
premeditated fashion.

Precisely the same then.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

only with the small additional danger applying solely to
ourselves.

And the plight of other road users, who may end up swerving, or being hit by
someone swerving, or whatever, because they didn't see you as soon as they
might otherwise have, is to be disregarded? Is that a responsible attitude
for _any_ road user to have?

To be travelling so fast they can't see an unlit object? not
responsible at all. If you cannot see an unlit cyclist in good time
then you are travelling too fast. (just swap 'deer' or 'pedestrian' or
'fallen tree' for cyclist if you disagree).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To say nothing of having at least double the
mandated complement of lights on most of my bikes.

So if I engineer the front of my car to perform in an impact at 40 mph as
"normal" cars do at 30 mph I can disregard 30 mph limits?

No. Secondary protection is no excusse for ignoring primary protection.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In fact, it leaves us in the position of people who actively want to
obey the law, but can't do so for technical or practical reasons. I'd
say that was pretty singular as a class of offence :-)

No. It leaves you as a criminal. You can choose to leave the vehicle at
home.

So, what is the category of offence for failing to have pedal
reflectors according to the highways act 1989? How does this compare to
the penalties for speeding?

Anyway, I accept that if I ride home tonight with no pedal reflectors,
then I am breaking the law. If I am stopped and fined will I complain?
No, unless they give me a separate fine for every breach of the
regulations[1]. Do I think the law is an ass in this respect? Yes.
Will I campaign for the regulations to be changed? Possibly.

...d

[1] Which would be as many as 4. I'll leave you to guess which ones
they might be.
[2] I do not recollect any size requirements for the pedal reflectors.
It may be possible to get some BS6102/2 reflectors that are small
enough to stick on the axles or front/rear faces of SPD/Look pedals.

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

It leaves us in the same position as the man doing 31mph in a 30
limit,

No, it leaves you defiantly and deliberately disregarding a law in a
premeditated fashion.

Precisely the same then.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

only with the small additional danger applying solely to
ourselves.

And the plight of other road users, who may end up swerving, or being hit by
someone swerving, or whatever, because they didn't see you as soon as they
might otherwise have, is to be disregarded? Is that a responsible attitude
for _any_ road user to have?

To be travelling so fast they can't see an unlit object? not
responsible at all. If you cannot see an unlit cyclist in good time
then you are travelling too fast. (just swap 'deer' or 'pedestrian' or
'fallen tree' for cyclist if you disagree).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To say nothing of having at least double the
mandated complement of lights on most of my bikes.

So if I engineer the front of my car to perform in an impact at 40 mph as
"normal" cars do at 30 mph I can disregard 30 mph limits?

No. Secondary protection is no excusse for ignoring primary protection.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In fact, it leaves us in the position of people who actively want to
obey the law, but can't do so for technical or practical reasons. I'd
say that was pretty singular as a class of offence :-)

No. It leaves you as a criminal. You can choose to leave the vehicle at
home.

So, what is the category of offence for failing to have pedal
reflectors according to the highways act 1989? How does this compare to
the penalties for speeding?

Anyway, I accept that if I ride home tonight with no pedal reflectors,
then I am breaking the law. If I am stopped and fined will I complain?
No, unless they give me a separate fine for every breach of the
regulations[1]. Do I think the law is an ass in this respect? Yes.
Will I campaign for the regulations to be changed? Possibly.

...d

[1] Which would be as many as 4. I'll leave you to guess which ones
they might be.
[2] I do not recollect any size requirements for the pedal reflectors.
It may be possible to get some BS6102/2 reflectors that are small
enough to stick on the axles or front/rear faces of SPD/Look pedals.

Matt B said:

My view on this particular issue is that if the law is demonstrably wrong
then campaign for a change.

Why bother, when those who are enforcing the law realise it's stupid and
don't target "offenders". As with flashing LED bike lights up to a few
weeks ago. When they first came out Lothian Police thought they were
great, and their officers freely stated that opinion.

Quoted message said:

Meanwhile, as with other ridiculous laws, we
are stuck with them.

And as long as they enforced by spirit rather than letter, that doesn't
really matter. The spirit of speeding laws and pedal reflectors for
recumbent laws are two very different things, and you're being pretty
dumb if you want to trot them out as directly comparable.

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/

David Martin said:

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

It leaves us in the same position as the man doing 31mph in a 30
limit,

No, it leaves you defiantly and deliberately disregarding a law in a
premeditated fashion.

Precisely the same then.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

only with the small additional danger applying solely to
ourselves.

And the plight of other road users, who may end up swerving, or
being hit by someone swerving, or whatever, because they didn't see
you as soon as they might otherwise have, is to be disregarded? Is
that a responsible attitude for _any_ road user to have?

To be travelling so fast they can't see an unlit object? not
responsible at all. If you cannot see an unlit cyclist in good time
then you are travelling too fast. (just swap 'deer' or 'pedestrian' or
'fallen tree' for cyclist if you disagree).

In any case, we are not referring to /unlit/ cyclists. Or I wasn't and nor
was Guy. The least well-illuminated machine I use has a light front and
rear and panniers with reflective materials thereupon. Plus an extra front
and rear light mounted upon my MartleHat. Other machines have more.

However, it is interesting to note that TrollB is in favour of abolishing
speed limits and letting the legions of "socially responsible motorists"
decide what constitutes a safe speed for both themselves and crucially,
other road users and yet cries "hypocrisy" at people who do not fit
unobtainable pedal reflectors to machines where they would serve No Useful
Purpose Whatsoever.

Which merely confirms my suspicion that he is indeed a stooge for
uk.tosspot.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Me, I wanna be an anglepoise lamp, yeah!

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

Quoted message said:

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

It leaves us in the same position as the man doing 31mph in a 30
limit,

No, it leaves you defiantly and deliberately disregarding a law in a
premeditated fashion.

Precisely the same then.

Except for the "defiantly and deliberately" and "premeditated fashion" bits,
yes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

only with the small additional danger applying solely to
ourselves.

And the plight of other road users, who may end up swerving, or being hit
by
someone swerving, or whatever, because they didn't see you as soon as
they
might otherwise have, is to be disregarded? Is that a responsible
attitude
for _any_ road user to have?

To be travelling so fast they can't see an unlit object? not
responsible at all. If you cannot see an unlit cyclist in good time
then you are travelling too fast. (just swap 'deer' or 'pedestrian' or
'fallen tree' for cyclist if you disagree).

Yes, we _all_ know that, and we _also_ know that such road users exist. Now
how does that change my point that the lack of pedal reflectors may lead to
other road users being subject to a higher risk than would be the case if
the reflectors were present?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To say nothing of having at least double the
mandated complement of lights on most of my bikes.

So if I engineer the front of my car to perform in an impact at 40 mph as
"normal" cars do at 30 mph I can disregard 30 mph limits?

No. Secondary protection is no excusse for ignoring primary protection.

As other lights don't remove one's duty to have reflectors.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In fact, it leaves us in the position of people who actively want to
obey the law, but can't do so for technical or practical reasons. I'd
say that was pretty singular as a class of offence :-)

No. It leaves you as a criminal. You can choose to leave the vehicle at
home.

So, what is the category of offence for failing to have pedal
reflectors according to the highways act 1989? How does this compare to
the penalties for speeding?

Do you think that it is as serious as speeding?

Quoted message said:

Anyway, I accept that if I ride home tonight with no pedal reflectors,
then I am breaking the law. If I am stopped and fined will I complain?
No, unless they give me a separate fine for every breach of the
regulations[1]. Do I think the law is an ass in this respect? Yes.
Will I campaign for the regulations to be changed? Possibly.

You'll disregard a law in a premeditated fashion. You reserve the right to
pick and choose, based on your own assessment.

--
Matt B

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

Quoted message said:

Yes, we _all_ know that, and we _also_ know that such road users exist.
Now how does that change my point that the lack of pedal reflectors may
lead to other road users being subject to a higher risk than would be the
case if the reflectors were present?

Quantify.

clive

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

Quoted message said:

Matt B said:

My view on this particular issue is that if the law is demonstrably wrong
then campaign for a change.

Why bother, when those who are enforcing the law realise it's stupid and
don't target "offenders". As with flashing LED bike lights up to a few
weeks ago. When they first came out Lothian Police thought they were
great, and their officers freely stated that opinion.

Quoted message said:

Meanwhile, as with other ridiculous laws, we are stuck with them.

And as long as they enforced by spirit rather than letter, that doesn't
really matter.

Ah. The spirit of the pedal reflector law being to do with safety I
presume.

Quoted message said:

The spirit of speeding laws and pedal reflectors for recumbent laws are
two very different things,

No, I think the porported spirit of the speeding laws are also safety.

Quoted message said:

and you're being pretty dumb if you want to trot them out as directly
comparable.

They are at odds in that pedal reflectors always add to road safety at
night, whereas speed limits may lead to more dangerous roads in some
circumstances.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Ah. The spirit of the pedal reflector law being to do with safety I
presume.

Yes, so if the bike is basically safe and has pedals that can't be seen
on which reflectors would be pointless and the pedals have no trailing
or leading edge to attach them to in any case then nobody will be
prosecuting recumbent riders for this "breech". As is indeed the case.

Quoted message said:

No, I think the porported spirit of the speeding laws are also safety.

But you're daft enough to confuse the safety of the public at large with
the safety of a single cyclist.

Quoted message said:

They are at odds in that pedal reflectors always add to road safety at
night

Not if they can't be seen they don't. *Duh*.

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/

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

Quoted message said:

In any case, we are not referring to /unlit/ cyclists. Or I wasn't and
nor was Guy. The least well-illuminated machine I use has a light front
and rear and panniers with reflective materials thereupon. Plus an extra
front and rear light mounted upon my MartleHat. Other machines have more.

We were referring to the sanctity of the law of the land, and whether there
are circumstances when we can disregard them.

Quoted message said:

However, it is interesting to note that TrollB

Isn't it an established fact that ad hominems are often used to bolster a
weak case.

Quoted message said:

is in favour of abolishing speed limits and letting the legions of
"socially responsible motorists" decide what constitutes a safe speed for
both themselves and crucially, other road users

I am in favour of more enlightened, productive, imaginitive and effective
ways of ensuring the safety of our roads, yes. Is that a bad thing then?

Quoted message said:

and yet cries "hypocrisy" at people who do not fit unobtainable pedal
reflectors to machines where they would serve No Useful Purpose
Whatsoever.

Those who support an enforcement action on no stronger grounds than because
"it is the law" are hypocrites if they then defend their own law breaking on
the grounds that poor laws should not be enforced.

Quoted message said:

Which merely confirms my suspicion that he is indeed a stooge for
uk.tosspot.

Sheesh.

--
Matt B

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

Quoted message said:

Matt B said:

Ah. The spirit of the pedal reflector law being to do with safety I
presume.

Yes, so if the bike is basically safe and has pedals that can't be seen on
which reflectors would be pointless and the pedals have no trailing or
leading edge to attach them to in any case then nobody will be prosecuting
recumbent riders for this "breech". As is indeed the case.

I'm not supporting the drafting of that particular law. I'm reflecting the
attitude of members of this group a few days ago who were arguing that if a
law exists it is reasonable to expect it to be enforced with _no_
flexibility whatsoever.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, I think the porported spirit of the speeding laws are also safety.

But you're daft enough to confuse the safety of the public at large with
the safety of a single cyclist.

Are you daft enough to think that a cyclist who is not as conspicuous as he
might be poses _no_ extra risk to anyone else?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They are at odds in that pedal reflectors always add to road safety at
night

Not if they can't be seen they don't. *Duh*.

Exactly. Like brakes don't add anything if _they_ don't work either.
*Doh*.

--
Matt B

Matt B twisted the electrons to say:

Quoted message said:

They are at odds in that pedal reflectors always add to road safety at
night, whereas speed limits may lead to more dangerous roads in some
circumstances.

If my 'bent actually had pedal reflectors, then when I was riding the
bike they would be at an angle of about 20degrees from horizontal (ie:
really good at reflecting light coming in straight up/down!). Also, my
body means that the pedals are never visible from the rear of bike.

Please explain why the presence of reflectors in this bike would
"always add to road safety at night"?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

MartinM said:

IMBW but is it not the case that these items only needed to be fitted
to new bikes (like a bell and wrong/right way round brakes) after a
certain date; what you do with the bike after purchase is up to you as
long as it conforms to regs which apply to all bikes. My excuse will be
that I had to change the pedals to Looks.

You are wrong in this case. Highway Code Rule 46. My H.R. Morris is
exempt, but all our other bikes are caught.

"At night your cycle MUST have front and rear lights lit. It MUST also
be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if
manufactured after 1/10/85)."

--
Dave...