Scozzie Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 (edited) Why don't cyclists have an mot for riding on roads? You'd think there would be a minimum road safety requirement if they are going to use the roads 1. Lights 2. Reflective gear/accessories 3. Helmet. There is another thread going at the moment where a cyclist has been cautioned by police for running a red light, so it seems the cops are being pro active towards road users who need to brush up on the highway code. Edited January 1, 2015 by Scozzie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodie Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 could you perhaps indictate where it covers lights on the side please? This might be easier. Click the link for what I've copied and pasted below. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/schedule/9/made Requirements relating to obligatory side marker lamps and to optional side marker lamps to the extent specified in part ii Schedule 9 part 1 7. Colour: Amber or, if within 1 m of the rear of the vehicle it may be red or, if the vehicle is a trailer manufactured before 1st October 1990, it may be white when viewed from the front and red when viewed from the rear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 If the cyclist was making an illegal manouevre (and regardless of what you consider to be right, running a red light is contravening the highway code), then the consequences are down to his choices, not to any vaguely perceived negligence on the part of the driver. No-ones saying otherwise than the cyclist was responsible- I've pointed that out several times already- I agree with you that the cyclist was in error. You may be correct in saying that having a red light on the side of a trailer is in breach of the highway code- quickest way to settle it is for you, or someone else, to just post a link proving that to be the case. The OP has said there are running lights along the side of the flatbed, so it is already lit. They actually said 'from memory visible from the sides', which implies a lack of certainty, and, to my knowledge, have not posted that they've checked to verify that they are visible from the sides. ---------- Post added 01-01-2015 at 11:49 ---------- Why don't cyclists have an mot for riding on roads? You'd think there would be a minimum road safety requirement if they are going to use the roads 1. Lights 2. Reflective gear/accessories 3. Helmet. There is another thread going at the moment where a cyclist has been cautioned by police for running a red light, so it seems the cops are being pro active towards road users who need to brush up on the highway code. There is a legal requirement for lights on cycles. Helmets are optional, and the majority of cycle advocacy organisations want it kept that way, due to the absence of evidence that helmets are usefull, and, cold hard statistics showing that every country that has enacted compulsory helmet laws, has seen an increase in cycling injuries and fatalities. The main theory as to why being that compulsory helmet laws lead to a reduction in the numbers of cyclists on the roads, and, it has been established that the more cyclists are on the roads, the safer it is to cycle. In places like the netherlands, where cycle numbers are very high, and there is exceptional provision for, and encouragement of, cycling, most cyclists do not wear helmets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodie Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 quickest way to settle it is for you, or someone else, to just post a link proving that to be the case. Check above (post 82) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 This might be easier. Click the link for what I've copied and pasted below. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/schedule/9/made Requirements relating to obligatory side marker lamps and to optional side marker lamps to the extent specified in part ii Schedule 9 part 1 7. Colour: Amber or, if within 1 m of the rear of the vehicle it may be red or, if the vehicle is a trailer manufactured before 1st October 1990, it may be white when viewed from the front and red when viewed from the rear. Thanks, that does clarify things- always good if people provide actual evidence when they make claims about what's legal/illegal Though, as you point out, red lights are legal if within 1m of the rear- so that does allow the placing of the pound shop lights, as long as they're on the back 1m of the trailer. (worth pointing out that, to those of you on the thread who claimed that 'red lights on the side are illegal', you were wrong- perhaps a lesson to be learned there about the value of actually looking up the law, rather than relying on heresay etc. I have observed that neurotypicals are very prone to making dogmatic claims that often, when checked, turn out to be false). I'll make clear that that's not directed to Bodie, who, to my knowledge made no claims about lights being illegal, but simply posted a link claryfying the law- I say this cos I've noticed that neurotypicals frequently get offended or wrongly assume that I'm being critical of them when I'm not. Also, I noticed the first line of the link says 'Requirements relating to obligatory side marker lamps and to optional side marker lamps to the extent specified in part ii' Which seems to imply that, for some vehicles in some circumstances, side lights are obligatory. I don't know the details,and currently don't have the energy to trawl through more legalise, but, to any flat bed trailer owners who don't currently have any lights on the sides, might be in your best interests to follow it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 1, 2015 Author Share Posted January 1, 2015 They actually said 'from memory visible from the sides', which implies a lack of certainty, and, to my knowledge, have not posted that they've checked to verify that they are visible from the sides. Rubbish. I was unsure as to the number of lights, not to the fact they are fitted. I've no intention of fitting more lights, and if some cyclist wants to break the rules and not look, tough luck to them. They should learn the laws of the road and obey them like everyone else. As for your unbelievably holier than thou spouting about how people should spend their money (and break the law with wrong coloured lights) all I can say is it's typical of your attitude that cyclists are always downtrodden by nasty motorists. Most of the time, people co exists side by side peacefully. Sometimes they don't. In that situation, cyclists screw up and motorists do. Neither side as a whole is blameless. ---------- Post added 01-01-2015 at 12:07 ---------- Thanks, that does clarify things- always good if people provide actual evidence when they make claims about what's legal/illegal Though, as you point out, red lights are legal if within 1m of the rear- so that does allow the placing of the pound shop lights, as long as they're on the back 1m of the trailer. (worth pointing out that, to those of you on the thread who claimed that 'red lights on the side are illegal', you were wrong- perhaps a lesson to be learned there about the value of actually looking up the law, rather than relying on heresay etc. I have observed that neurotypicals are very prone to making dogmatic claims that often, when checked, turn out to be false). I'll make clear that that's not directed to Bodie, who, to my knowledge made no claims about lights being illegal, but simply posted a link claryfying the law- I say this cos I've noticed that neurotypicals frequently get offended or wrongly assume that I'm being critical of them when I'm not. Also, I noticed the first line of the link says 'Requirements relating to obligatory side marker lamps and to optional side marker lamps to the extent specified in part ii' Which seems to imply that, for some vehicles in some circumstances, side lights are obligatory. I don't know the details,and currently don't have the energy to trawl through more legalise, but, to any flat bed trailer owners who don't currently have any lights on the sides, might be in your best interests to follow it up? You said down the side. I said I *think* they are illegal and down the side of a 4 meter trailer they would be. As for your comments about NT - all I can say is you are arguing with another person on the spectrum and making yourslef look even more foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 I get why a cyclist would have no front lights, technically he shouldn't need them as It's never going to be so dark that he can't see and he shouldn't really be in any kind of position or situation where he's needing a front light to announce his presence. ....other than the thousands of junctions there are out there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 As for your comments about NT - all I can say is you are arguing with another person on the spectrum...Then you'll realise how common it is for misunderstandings to arise due to imprecise language? Rubbish. I was unsure as to the number of lights, not to the fact they are fitted. The running lights are amber LED's five down each side from memory visible from the sides. As for your unbelievably holier than thou spouting about how people should spend their money (and break the law with wrong coloured lights) all I can say is it's typical of your attitude that cyclists are always downtrodden by nasty motorists.. I've made no claims whatsoever about how people should spend their money. Simply pointed out to those who would be interested in making their trailers more visible, that there's a cheap easy way to do so. It's up to them if they wish to or not. And, cyclists do have the sh**ty end of the stick on our roads- they're at constant risk of being mown down by motorists on mobiles, or motorists who overtake dangerously- and, if a cyclist is killed, the motorist generally gets away with it. Consequences of a bike/car collision invariably leave the cyclist far, far more badly hurt than the motor vehicle driver. It doesn't have to be this way- places like the Netherlands have shown what is possible, if there is a recognition of the vast inequality, and, the will to puts things right. In the UK, the gross inequality is so entrenched that it's simply not acknowleged or recognised by the majority. You said down the side. I said I *think* they are illegal and down the side of a 4 meter trailer they would be. Down the entire side, yes. Put them within 1 meter of the rear, and it's totally legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Down the entire side, yes. Put them within 1 meter of the rear, and it's totally legal. Are you sure that applies to trailers or is it just vehicles that applies to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Are you sure that applies to trailers or is it just vehicles that applies to? Links here- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/schedule/9/made it appears to refer to trailers, but, like most legal documents the language is pretty convoluted, so, have a look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts