Should cyclists be required to wear High-Visibility Vests or Jackets?

[Berberis 10]

i know, that's the point.

 

it isn't a requirement.

 

you'd think BritishCycling, et al, might mention that...

 

In fact BritishCycling reference the The Road Vehicles Lighting and Goods Vehicles (Plating and Testing) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 but these make no changes to the requirements of lights (to my knoweldge). Its the The Road Vehicles Lighting (Amendment) Regulations 2005 that brought in the requirement for a front position lamp capable of emitting a flashing light.

 

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/knowledge/bike-kit/article/izn20130902-Buying-bike-lights-0

 

---------- Post added 13-07-2017 at 16:08 ----------

 

yes, that's a quote from the legislation, but it doesn't say what you think it does.

 

it's an amendment/addition, to a body of text in the full 1989 version.

 

what does the *full* text say?

 

here you go, section 13, paragraph 2: "no vehicle shall be fitted with a lamp which automatically emits a flashing light"

 

the text

 

But that section has been amended by the 2005 amendments.

[ads36 219]

er, exactly?

 

in 1989, flashy lights were stated as illegal on vehicles, apart from exceptions, like indicators.

 

in 2005, bike lights were included in the exceptions.

 

the language is *horrible*, as these things often are.

 

in exactly the same way that indicators are allowed to flash, but not all car lights are required to flash. so bike lights are allowed to flash, but not all bike lights are required to flash.

Edited July 13, 2017 by ads36

[stifflersmom 11]

In fact BritishCycling reference the The Road Vehicles Lighting and Goods Vehicles (Plating and Testing) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 but these make no changes to the requirements of lights (to my knoweldge). Its the The Road Vehicles Lighting (Amendment) Regulations 2005 that brought in the requirement for a front position lamp capable of emitting a flashing light.

 

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/knowledge/bike-kit/article/izn20130902-Buying-bike-lights-0

 

---------- Post added 13-07-2017 at 16:08 ----------

 

 

But that section has been amended by the 2005 amendments.

Faceplam.

Try reading the original 1989 section 13 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/regulation/13/made) and the 2005 amendments (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2559/regulation/6/made) together.

[Becky B 31]

Faceplam.

Try reading the original 1989 section 13 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/regulation/13/made) and the 2005 amendments (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2559/regulation/6/made) together.

 

There's also an explanatory memo attached to the 2005 amendments, which explains the amendments permit a flashing light to be attached to a bicycle...

[Cyclone 10]

Well there we have it.

None cyclists wrong about laws regarding cycles. But has to motorsplain it to all the cyclists (that's like mansplaining in case the neologism wasn't clear).

Presumably still hoping that being wrong about flashing lights will somehow prove that new legislation forcing you to wear things isn't somehow a barrier to cycling, despite the evidence from multiple territories of Australia.

[willman 10]

I do find it quite strange that since I took my cycling proficiency test nothing has changed.

 

You needed lights back 30 years ago and you need them now,you shouldn't ride on the pavement etc nothing has changed. So how can it still be an argument.

 

To ride after dark you need lights who gives a stuff if they're flashing disco lights or a fixed light as long as you have one or the other.

 

The cost of cycling is no barrier to the sport - my wife bought a Raleigh hybrid last year for £70 from a cycle shop(independent and a cycle club member) in first class condition and far superior to High St shops. I've just purchased a new hydrid for less than the cost of a new i phone.

I've not invested in hi vis or helmets - 'cos i have no intention on riding on the roads or in the dark. (where i do see a helmet as beneficial)

I have however purchased quality gloves - thats the bit that'll hit the floor first(especially at the speed i'll be going).

Edited July 14, 2017 by willman

[TimmyR 10]

I do find it quite strange that since I took my cycling proficiency test nothing has changed.

 

You needed lights back 30 years ago and you need them now,you shouldn't ride on the pavement etc nothing has changed. So how can it still be an argument.

 

To ride after dark you need lights who gives a stuff if they're flashing disco lights or a fixed light as long as you have one or the other.

 

The cost of cycling is no barrier to the sport - my wife bought a Raleigh hybrid last year for £70 from a cycle shop(independent and a cycle club member) in first class condition and far superior to High St shops. I've just purchased a new hydrid for less than the cost of a new i phone.

I've not invested in hi vis or helmets - 'cos i have no intention on riding on the roads or in the dark. (where i do see a helmet as beneficial)

I have however purchased quality gloves - thats the bit that'll hit the floor first(especially at the speed i'll be going).

 

Quite a lot has changed regarding the cycling proficiency. The training is much better these days and is called the national cycling standard. The cycling proficiency was crap.

Edited July 14, 2017 by TimmyR

[Berberis 10]

er, exactly?

 

in 1989, flashy lights were stated as illegal on vehicles, apart from exceptions, like indicators.

 

in 2005, bike lights were included in the exceptions.

 

the language is *horrible*, as these things often are.

 

in exactly the same way that indicators are allowed to flash, but not all car lights are required to flash. so bike lights are allowed to flash, but not all bike lights are required to flash.

 

I expect this is down to the interpretation of the law. Mine is as was the site I linked that it is a legal requirement. The article did go onto state the police are not interested in enforcing these regulations, you cannot say it has been tested, however to err on the side of caution, you are probably correct when you say it's not legally required, but rather now allowed.

 

---------- Post added 14-07-2017 at 09:00 ----------

 

Well there we have it.

None cyclists wrong about laws regarding cycles. But has to motorsplain it to all the cyclists (that's like mansplaining in case the neologism wasn't clear).

Presumably still hoping that being wrong about flashing lights will somehow prove that new legislation forcing you to wear things isn't somehow a barrier to cycling, despite the evidence from multiple territories of Australia.

 

Do not assume you know another OP's life enough to tell them they are or are anything.

 

I stand by the evidence from Australia. Between 1985/86 and 2011 there was a rise in the number of miles cycled in all but one territory. That is the data I have seen.

[ads36 219]

things we should be talking about:

 

cheap ways to increase capacity on our creaking transport system.

reducing congestion

improving air quality

increasing physical activity - not forgetting kids

reducing wear of our expensive roads

 

spending a relatively small amount, improving cycle-routes really will tick all the boxes. With the positive effect on public health and road maintenance, it may even save us money.

 

but what *do* we talk about? chuffing hi-viz and the finer points of illumination legislation.

Edited July 14, 2017 by ads36

[cgksheff 44]

I expect this is down to the interpretation of the law. Mine is as was the site I linked that it is a legal requirement. The article did go onto state the police are not interested in enforcing these regulations, you cannot say it has been tested, however to err on the side of caution, you are probably correct when you say it's not legally required, but rather now allowed.....

 

Quite simply ..... wrong.

No interpretation required.

The law, regulations and schedules are perfectly clear.

[Berberis 10]

Quite simply ..... wrong.

No interpretation required.

The law, regulations and schedules are perfectly clear.

 

there is always one

 

---------- Post added 14-07-2017 at 12:41 ----------

 

things we should be talking about:

 

cheap ways to increase capacity on our creaking transport system.

reducing congestion

improving air quality

increasing physical activity - not forgetting kids

reducing wear of our expensive roads

 

spending a relatively small amount, improving cycle-routes really will tick all the boxes. With the positive effect on public health and road maintenance, it may even save us money.

 

but what *do* we talk about? chuffing hi-viz and the finer points of illumination legislation.

 

Being seen is still going to be a problem even if every car was eradicated as cyclists would need to see each other also.

[cgksheff 44]

there is always one ..../..

 

Actually, there are many.

Yet you appear to wish to persist in your ignorance.