Police mistakenly stop cyclist for flashing rear light

MartyMcCann wrote:

Funnily enough this issue came up at work yesterday. My manager was trying to wind me up talking about cyclists on the road (to be fair she was only trying to get a rise out of me and not serious) but another colleague did chip in mentioning her husband's experience (again not from an anti-cyclist perspective). She stated that he was in a car which met a group of riders coming the opposite way and they all had flashing front lights. He had to ask the driver to pull over because he could feel an epileptic episode coming on, triggered by the lights. Is this something others have heard about?

To be honest I had never considered this (normally I have two lights , one steady and one flashing, on both my handlebars and seat post but having heard this may reconsider the flashing or at least try and find out which pattern is least likely to trigger an episode in someone).

Photo epilepsy is a real, but rather rare, thing.  If it was genuine he should  write this up, there haven't  (I  think ) been any published  reports of this as a trigger.

Things that puzzle me though:

How does he manage behind tractors, bin wagons etc.?

Why not  just shut his eyes and turn his head away?

I hope he doesn't have a driving licence. 

muppetteer wrote:

Does anybody know if amber reflective paint would satisfy the need for pedal reflectors? Or is it that they have to phsycially be reflectors on the pedals? 

 

You legally need everything that the RVLR requires. Otherwise you might get a fixed penalty notice. And that's about it. But, provided you comply with the spirit of the regs you are unlikely to get stopped, much less issued with a ticket.

The main issue is how a breach of the Regs would translate into contributory negligence in the event of you being hit. As yet untested. My view is that if you are lit up like the proverbial Xmas tree the chances of con neg because you had no reflectors, or no BS standard lights, are slim to non existent.

'Flashing lights are more effective at gaining attention'

Not true.

'which is why aircraft don't use steady lights. '

Not true.

'...flashing lights are better - the are recognizable as not being car rear lights. '

Absolute nonsense.

It's easy, this topic. Apply any of common sense, logic, science, a knowledge of how the human eye and/or brain works, and you'll come up with the right answer. Apply 'it's what I think so it must be right', and you're probably wrong.

andyp wrote:

 '...flashing lights are better - the are recognizable as not being car rear lights. '

Absolute nonsense. ...... 

I don't much care who is right or wrong in this argument but I am intrigued by the above statement.  If I spotted a red, flashing light up ahead my first thought would not be, "Hello, there's a car."

Why, pray, am I talking absolute nonsense?

mike the bike wrote:

andyp wrote:

 '...flashing lights are better - the are recognizable as not being car rear lights. '

Absolute nonsense. ...... 

 

I don't much care who is right or wrong in this argument but I am intrigued by the above statement.  If I spotted a red, flashing light up ahead my first thought would not be, "Hello, there's a car."

Why, pray, am I talking absolute nonsense?

1) flashing lights are not better*, simple science backs this up. Ergo nonsense.

2) They are recognisable as not being car rear lights - correct. This statement on its own, without being appended to the earlier fallacy, would stand up, but would then raise the question - why would you *want* to be recognised as 'not a car'? What possible benefit is there, other than for a poor driver to think 'oh, when I get closer, I won't need to give them as much room as I first thought'...?

*other than for extending battery life, but that wasn't the crux of your argument.

andyp wrote:

mike the bike wrote:

andyp wrote:

 '...flashing lights are better - the are recognizable as not being car rear lights. '

Absolute nonsense. ...... 

 

I don't much care who is right or wrong in this argument but I am intrigued by the above statement.  If I spotted a red, flashing light up ahead my first thought would not be, "Hello, there's a car."

Why, pray, am I talking absolute nonsense?

 

1) flashing lights are not better*, simple science backs this up. Ergo nonsense.

2) They are recognisable as not being car rear lights - correct. This statement on its own, without being appended to the earlier fallacy, would stand up, but would then raise the question - why would you *want* to be recognised as 'not a car'? What possible benefit is there, other than for a poor driver to think 'oh, when I get closer, I won't need to give them as much room as I first thought'...?

*other than for extending battery life, but that wasn't the crux of your argument.

Mmmm.  Methinks you are muddying the water here in order to escape from a trap of your own making.  In the space of a couple of paragraphs you have described the statement as both correct and absolute nonsense.  

I'm afraid I don't believe in parallel universes and I'm definitely not convinced it can be both of those things so we'll call it a day at this point.

andyp wrote:

'Flashing lights are more effective at gaining attention'

Not true.

 

So why do all the cranes and dumper trucks being used near me on the A9 dualling have flashing yellow lights on the roof? As camouflage? 

veseunr wrote:

I suspect they could have arrested him for not having a bell though??!!

 

I don't think so, whilst a bike must be sold with a bell as far as I'm aware there is no law to say you can't remove it as soon as you leave the shop, or even that a shop can't remove a bell from a bike, as long as it's not at the same time as it's being bought.

Personally I'm not complaining about the police no knowing the law on bike lights correctly, as I suspect very few people on here have got pedal reflectors fitted, and a lot probably don't have the required rear reflector either!!! But as has been said above, more attention being payed to people with no lights, or no effective lights, would be time better spent.

usedtobefaster wrote:

It was the case that LED lights were illegal as they didn't conform to the BS standard for bicycle lights which stipulated a filament type bulb had to be used.  Has the law been changed on this does anyone know?

 

The law has been changed MANY times since then, the most relevant bit is what i posted above. White to front, red to back and if flashing more than 4 candela. It doesn't matter what creates the light. 

mrmo wrote:

usedtobefaster wrote:

It was the case that LED lights were illegal as they didn't conform to the BS standard for bicycle lights which stipulated a filament type bulb had to be used.  Has the law been changed on this does anyone know?

 

 

The law has been changed MANY times since then, the most relevant bit is what i posted above. White to front, red to back and if flashing more than 4 candela. It doesn't matter what creates the light. 

Where did you find a 2015 amendment? I've checked and the last amendment to that bit was 2005. Did you mean 2005?

I think that the law now recognises flashing but we still have this awkward thing whereby if a flashing light is ALSO capable of emitting a steady light then it has to conform to BS standard. So, if this light was the only light and wasn't BS then it's technically illegal. Though that was not the challenge here.

bendertherobot wrote:

 

Where did you find a 2015 amendment? I've checked and the last amendment to that bit was 2005. Did you mean 2005?

One of those days, misread the list, 2005 is the latest for the mainland, there is a 2015 for NIreland. 

The BS is actually, IMO a red herring, as if you read a standard, not just BS applies, if you got german k mark you should be ok as equivalent. 

Mind you in my friday state, amendment 6 and 7 of the 2005 seem to conflict with each other, one is saying flash ok regardless the other is saying flash is bad if both....

mrmo wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

 

Where did you find a 2015 amendment? I've checked and the last amendment to that bit was 2005. Did you mean 2005?

One of those days, misread the list, 2005 is the latest for the mainland, there is a 2015 for NIreland. 

 

The BS is actually, IMO a red herring, as if you read a standard, not just BS applies, if you got german k mark you should be ok as equivalent. 

 

Mind you in my friday state, amendment 6 and 7 of the 2005 seem to conflict with each other, one is saying flash ok regardless the other is saying flash is bad if both....

 

 

 

 

Yeah, problem is very few of any of them (front or rear) are BS standard or equivalent. But, whilst I don't think it's a red herring, I do think that that part of the Regulations is outdated and pretty much irrelevant. 

In theory you could be done for having a single flashing rear but that would be quite overzealous indeed. 

usedtobefaster wrote:

It was the case that LED lights were illegal as they didn't conform to the BS standard for bicycle lights which stipulated a filament type bulb had to be used.  Has the law been changed on this does anyone know?

 

i dotn think it has been changed, as i bought some lights recently and they said they didnt conform to the satndard as they were LED