Forum menu
The B&M light I've got isn't focused to one particular side but it's got a very sharp cutoff at riders' and drivers' eye level. With my Hope Vision 4 focused about 20m in front of me I can see the tops of the trees I'm riding past, with the B&M I can just see the road.
The German StVZO regs are very good and the most stringent in the world AFAIK - all my lights are German and they're much better for the road than any UK light - and I doubt you'd run into any trouble convincing a UK court that such a setup is legal. The only tricky bit is pedal reflectors. When using clipless pedals I use reflective tape - but it's white.
"[i]It's certainly been used before, there was one definite example where a judge ruled 25% contributory negligence from the cyclist for not wearing a helmet. I can't find the case at the moment though but it's a very dangerous precedent.[/i]"
Wasn't that the one where the chap was on an organised (and, IIRC, competitive) company event and refused the helmet he was asked to wear, then himself caused a crash and sued the company? (Or something like that.) - If so I *think* the contributory negligence bit was due to his refusal to heed their specific advice rather than for simply not wearing a helmet per se.
But even if contributory negligence has not managed to actually reduce damages, there is precedent of the consideration that it (in the eyes of the law) does so, which is the Smith v Finch case:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/outrage-at-ruling-on-helmets-for-cyclists-1645736.html
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/smith-v-finch-jorgensen-v-moore-reviews-cases-involving-cycle-helmets-and-contributory-negligence
http://www.access-legal.co.uk/legal-news/cycle-helmets-a-legal-update-lu-3863.htm
So, there is a clear risk of damages being reduced for not wearing a helmet even in a non-fault incident. I think it's massively misguided, but there you go.
"[i]though presumably points the light in the wrong direction for UK use?[/i]"
As MrAgreeable says, they send the light down to the road (and send more light to longer ranges) but they're laterally symmetrical.
I think we need maximum power or beam shape controls. I am a total transportation cycling advocate, yet even I [let-alone car drivers] am fed-up with being blinded by 1000 Lumen LED lights with no beam control on bikes....
Even when I use an Aldi LED as a head torch [where the ??*? is my Hope 1 hiding in the flat?] I look away when I pass a car so I don't blind them.
There's more detailed commentary on Smith v Finch here:
Obiter dicta remarks are not considered binding law, they might be persuasive under the right circumstances.
It's scary to hear that many claimants are now accepting reductions to settlements for not wearing a helmet, even though there's no binding law on the subject.
At te risk of turning this thread into another helmet debate, leading Counsel's opinion on the legal need to wear bicycle helmets can be found [url= http://www.2tg.co.uk/assets/docs/article_documents/cycle_helmets_a_duty_to_wear_-_7_3_12.pdf ]here (PDF).[/url].
Echoing [b]Bez[/b]'s comment, I use German-approved dynamo lights, and would argue that heel reflectors on either shoes or overshoes would cover the pedal reflector requirement.
The Pedal reflectors - have reflective panels on heel of one pair of shoes and have wrapped the end of the cranks in reflective tape.