I received the attached documents regarding a consultation on changes to the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations (RVLR).


Chris Juden of the CTC has written an excellent Position Paper on the subject which I urge you to read:

(contents is copyright CTC, please contact them for further details).

This is my response to the consultation. You can respond too - the deadline is 13 April, 2003, so hurry!:

Consultation exercise: Proposed Amendment to the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989

In responding to the consultation document I would like first to comment on the issues themselves, rather than the Department’s proposals. These proposals, or at least those relating to cycling, have notable deficiencies and I hope it is not too late to remedy these. At least one of these issues, that of pedal reflectors, has been raised by the CTC, and by me in letters to the Department and to my MP, Jane Griffiths. It is disappointing that at this late stage no recognition has been made of the undoubted fact that the law relating to pedal reflectors is currently unworkable and widely ignored. Clearly no solutions can be proposed until the problems are first acknowledged, and I see no sign of that acknowledgement in this consultation.

A number of recent statements from the Government make it clear that the UK has no wish to move towards the US position of regarding bicycles, from a legislative standpoint at least, primarily as toys or leisure equipment Cyclists are a boon in any urban context - reducing congestion and pollution, and at the same time improving their own health and fitness. It is vital, therefore, that road vehicle legislation underpins utility cycling rather than undermining it.

I will therefore take the sections out of order, addressing those issues which I feel are not fully addressed in the proposed options:

Conspicuity of pedal cyclists (B)

This section is of particular interest to me, a regular cyclist. In order for you to fully understand my perspective, I offer the following information:

I ride something over four thousand miles per year, and for at least four months of the year I ride in darkness at least once per day. I have three bicycles. Of these one meets the current standards as laid down in the RVLR, one is legal to ride at night solely by virtue of having been manufactured before October 1985, and one cannot be made to comply. The total value of lights fitted to these cycles is in excess of £600 - nearly 20% of the value of the bicycles themselves. I consider that I am reasonably representative of the keen cyclist in that I take my safety seriously, and view lights as an essential piece of safety equipment. Furthermore, I take steps to keep abreast of the law and will as a general rule comply with the law where I am able.

There are two issues which interfere with that compliance, one which renders it impossible for one of my bikes to comply, and one which causes inconvenience and additional cost.

Pedal Reflectors:

In the consultation document you refer to the fitment of steady and possibly flashing LEDs on the pedals of pedal cycles. Please excuse me if I dismiss this as irrelevant. While not opposed to such a measure, I know of no demand for it. On the other hand, the existing regulation regarding pedal reflectors is in urgent need of revision.

Recumbent Cycles
Recumbent cycles place the rider in a comfortable, supine position with the pedals to the front. They are particularly suitable for long distance touring, randonneuring and audax riding (long distance timed rides of 100km – 1400km) and for those who have joint mobility or other problems. They are available with two or three wheels. Below is a picture of the Windcheetah, a British made recumbent designed by Mike Burrows, who also designed Chris Boardman’s record breaking Lotus bike. Other makes powered solely by the arms is marketed for the disabled rider. There are a number of recumbent manufacturers in Europe and several shops in the UK which specialise in these machines.

I quote Schedule 20 Part 1 of the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations, 1989:

1. Number:	Two reflectors on each pedal
2. Position- (a) Longitudinal:	On the leading edge and the trailing edge of each pedal
3. Angles of visibility:	Such that the reflector on the leading edge of each pedal is plainly visible to the front and the reflector on the trailing edge of each pedal is plainly visible to the rear

Items 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive for any recumbent cycle. Item 3 is physically impossible for most recumbent cycles. The picture below I believe illustrates the point satisfactorily. Note the orientation of the pedals: vertical rather than fore-and-aft; also note that the rider’s feet and body, and the seat, effectively prevent the pedals being visible from the rear. This bike was made in Holland and supplied by Future Cycles in Forest Row, near East Grinstead.


In this view you may also note that the pedals, even were they visible, would add nothing to the conspicuity of a recumbent cycle (and indeed the luggage on a loaded tourer or tandem, or bike towing a trailer, might obscure the pedal reflectors equally effectively). The picture above right shows the effect of reflective material which has been applied to this bike. Yet it is still not legal to ride it at night.

Also made in Britain is the AVD range of human powered delivery vehicles, which is supplied to private and municipal buyers in the UK and overseas, with, as options, electric assist and a front fairing which renders the pedals invisible from the front, reflectors or no reflectors (the pedals are invisible from the rear in any case). AVD also make pedicabs on a similar chassis. And finally, recumbents (and indeed upright cycles) may be enclosed in fairings to provide lower wind resistance or to improve weather protection. Such vehicles are normally known as Human Powered Vehicles (HPVs) or, if fully enclosed in hard fairings, velomobiles. Below is a group of Leitra velomobiles, made in Denmark, which are particularly suitable for use as all-weather commuters. These are fully enclosed and the pedals are not visible from the outside at all. The world of HPVs is diverse and limited only by human ingenuity.

Keen Cyclists
The world of recumbents and HPVs may be a relatively small one, but the world of keen cyclists is not. As you are doubtless aware, many keen cyclists use clipless pedal systems which simply do not allow the fitting of reflectors. These pedal systems significantly improve safety as well as efficiency. Some of us use reflective leg bands (larger by far than pedal reflectors), retro-reflective material built into the shoes, sometimes reflective tape on the pedal cranks themselves where practicable - yet, if we are injured or killed, a lawyer can successfully claim contributory negligence because we don't have the legal figleaf of pedal reflectors. This is perverse. You may choose to dismiss these keen cyclists by virtue of rarity, but I would suggest that many of those who ride daily through the winter - those who are particularly concerned with lighting and visibility, and most likely to be motivated to comply in other respects - will fall into this category.The pictures below show some common clipless pedals, in this case the Shimano SPD, Crank Brothers Eggbeater and Look systems.



You may choose similarly to dismiss recumbents as relatively rare, but they do exist and they are available in a tricycle format which is particularly suitable for use in winter riding, so these will again be statistically over-represented among those who actually ride regularly at night.

I cannot see, though, how one may defend a regulation which requires the physically impossible of certain types of cycle, and which makes the majority of keen cyclists into lawbreakers precisely because they want to improve safety. If the law is to be respected it must be respectable.

I would urge that the regulations be amended to take these into account. A form of words would be easy to devise - simply adding "where practicable" would work, although explicitly permitting the use of suitable alternative reflectors may be preferable - but there would be no obvious standard to apply, and these would still not necessarily be relevant to recumbent cycles. A simpler alternative might be to require the fitting of a second rear light (allowing for a flashing model) where pedal reflectors are not used.

Front Lights

At present the standards for front lights require compliance with the relevant British Standard, BS 6102 Part 3, and the proposed revisions continue this by reference to AMD 8438. The problem here is that large numbers of excellent rechargeable light systems do not meet the British Standard, and continue not to meet the Amended standard. These lights may fail because they are used with rechargeable battery packs which fail the endurance requirement, their beam pattern may be wrong, or for other reasons (in at least one case, apparently, because the writing on the battery case is the wrong size).

High power lights
High power lights are not illegal, but an additional lamp must fitted which meets the BS requirement. This begs the question: if a cyclist has 20W or more of halogen lighting on their bike, what on earth is the point of also requiring them to fit a less bright lamp? Lamps meeting the British Standard are woefully insufficient for night riding outside built-up areas. A standard 2.4W incandescent dynamo lamp is legal, but a 3,500 cd metal halide lamp is not. One solution is to allow the replacement of the legally mandated lamp with a flashing LED (option B4). Although this is not ideal it does address the urban cyclist’s requirement for a lamp which aids visibility but need not contribute to vision, and concerns about reduced conspicuity may well be misplaced. Most cyclists are already either using lights which outperform the Standards, or using no lights at all.

A better and more sustainable solution would be to legislate the performance criteria rather than a British Standard which is fixed in time and whose criteria are simply not required in any other significant cycle market, making it unlikely that manufacturers will ever be interested in complying. This would also introduce a measure of control over the lights which are fitted, which are currently uncontrolled as long as they are additional to a BS approved lamp - though it is important to remember when considering the risk of dazzling that cycle lights are for the most part relatively low power compared to car lights. The popular rechargeable lights are sufficiently bright that most motorists will dip their headlights as they approach, which they commonly fail to do when confronted by a cyclist with a British Standard compliant 3W halogen dynamo lamp. When dazzling is being done, it's rarely the bikes who are doing it - and if it is, just as with car lights, incorrect operation and adjustment cause most of the problems.

I understand that Chris Juden of the CTC has suggested some appropriate performance criteria. I support his suggestions. A bicycle light should be no brighter than the light fitted to a car or a motorcycle, it should be pointed below the horizontal, and it is clearly straightforward to define minimum average intensity over certain zones. This would ensure that lights which are both visible and effective will not be illegal, while low-power lights which are of no practical use on, say, an offroad bike path, will not be required. It will allow cyclists to capitalise on the advances in lamp and battery technology without waiting for changes in the law.

As an aside I would also be wary of the assertion that the cycle light manufacturing industry is not characterised by rapid technology change in product design. In the last two years we have seen the introduction of metal halide lamps and blue-white LED lamps capable of meeting minimum standards for front lights; the intensity of LEDs per unit power consumption has improved significantly; and in recent years the cost of hub dynamos has been cut from hundreds of pounds to tens through manufacturing advances. The cycle lighting industry is dynamic and responsive to technological advances, and by writing a dated British Standard into the RVLR rather than specifying performance criteria, the Department is potentially excluding British cyclists from these benefits.

Dynamo lights
Another area where the regulations are lagging behind both reality and the state of the market is in respect of dynamo lighting. This is, once again, a problem mainly for the regular or keen cyclist - who is of course the most likely to have invested in a dynamo lighting system.

The wording of the current regulations, with its requirement to keep to the left side of the carriageway when "unlit," is firmly rooted in the past. Modern dynamo lights have standlights built in which continue to provide illumination, albeit at a reduced level, when the dynamo is not running. The problem, of course, is that the reduced level of lighting does not necessarily meet the Regulations, and is therefore not legal. The impracticality of keeping left whenever stationary is fairly easy to see in any situation where a road has more than one lane, or when undertaking any one of a number of easily foreseeable traffic manoeuvres. In effect the regulations require us to behave in a manner completely contrary to best practice, as outlined in the Cyclecraft (John Franklin, 1997, The Stationery Office) and other publications.

Once again the required change to the wording should not be particularly difficult to draft; merely allowing an exception where a standlight of appropriate colour is fitted (usually a yellow or blue-white LED to the front and a red LED to the rear), and with a brightness not less than (say) half the stated minimum for a steady rear light in either case, would be entirely consistent with products now on the market, and as a collateral benefit would encourage dynamo users still using older lamps to upgrade to newer, better equipment.

Flashing red warning lamps for breakdown vehicles (A)

This section appears to be a response to valid concerns about the safety of recovery operators. However, I am not convinced that this is best addressed by placing further lights on the recovery vehicles. These vehicles are typically large, brightly painted, liberally covered with high grade retro-reflective materials, and displaying orange beacons and hazard warning lights. Short of a full marching band it is hard to see how they could be a lot more obvious.

Since only police vehicles are currently allowed red flashing lamps there may be parallels with recent research on motorcycle conspicuity which proved that the chances of being noticed increased the more the motorcycle and rider resembled a police bike. If this is really what the operators are after the solution is clear: the return of white paint and "jam sandwich" stripes on recovery vehicles. And a very dim view taken of motorists who think of obeying the rules only when they think they are being observed by police.

I take issue with this proposal because the fundamental problem here is not with the conspicuity of the recovery vehicles at all - it is the inappropriate reactions of drivers who fail to slow down and take more care when confronted by a situation which they clearly find confusing. Changing the colour of the lamps will not materially affect that. Driver education might, as might stronger penalties for drivers who recklessly speed past working recovery vehicles. In the end a flashing amber beacon sends a clear and unambiguous message: caution. Am I alone in detecting an element of irony in motoring organisations campaigning to protect their recovery operators from those who are, in the end, their members?

The intended change will take red flashing lights, currently becoming recognised as a hallmark of vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians, some hundreds of whom are killed on the roads annually, and applying them to a vehicle which is itself manifestly not vulnerable. Let the operators use flashing LEDs on their person, by all means, allow them to place road cones with orange beacons to protect the scene, but please don’t pretend that putting additional red flashing lights on a vehicle which is already lit up like a Christmas tree is a contribution to the safety of those who are alongside it.

Proposed options

To respond in turn to the options in Section 3:

A. Safety of breakdown operators
Option A1: Do nothing. Or rather, do nothing at a legislative level. Encourage recovery operators to make more use of the devices which already exist to protect themselves and the scene of their operations; and encourage those who operate the largest recover fleets - the motoring organisations - to work with their members to increase driving standards. It is simply not acceptable to claim that accidents involving recovery personnel are the result of insufficient conspicuity - they are the result of factors such as driver negligence, inappropriate speed and poor hazard perception.

B. Conspicuity of pedal cyclists
Option B4: Further deregulate by allowing flashing lamps of the correct colour to replace any obligatory lamp or reflector. This is an incomplete solution as it fails to address the pedal reflector issue adequately, and fails to address the headlight issue fully (although the requirement could then at least be met with a small, lightweight, low cost LED in addition to the many times brighter rechargeable system).

C. Safety of Customs and Excise personnel
Option C2: Allow the use of blue beacons under certain circumstances. This is uncontentious in my view.