Lights

After getting caught in the rain today, in conditions where I'd normally put
my car headlamps on, I decided I ought to get my arse in gear and get some
lights.

Has anyone any idea how good the BS marked lights are? Ideally I'd like a
decent wattage halogen front light or two, and some very bright LEDs at the
back, perhaps something homebrew. The problem is that I can't seem to find
many (any?) rechargeable lights with BS marks. I could run normal lights on
rechargeables, but I understand that Halogens are fairly voltage sensitive,
so running them on a couple of NiMH cells or worse, four will cause a
voltage drop and a disproportionate drop in light.

I suppose the other option is get a set of cheapo BS marked lights (anyone
got any examples?) and get some seperate proper lighting for actually seeing
with. Thinking along the lines of the Smart 10/2.4W twin lamp system, Cateye
HL-RC230 twin lamp or ABS 10 or the RC220 single lamp for the front. Anyone
got any experience of these? Is the top of the range Cateye rear lamp any
good?

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 20:27:34 +0100, Doki wrote:

Has anyone any idea how good the BS marked lights are? Ideally I'd like a
decent wattage halogen front light or two,

Well, those two are a contradiction immediately. The maximum wattage
permitted for a halogen bulb in teh legal BS is a eye-searing (oh yes)
2.4W. If you go with 'plain' bulbs (I can't remember exactly how they
describe them) you can go up to 3.6W, but that's probably less bright
than teh 2.4W halogen.

and some very bright LEDs at the back, perhaps something homebrew.

Obviously, that won't be BS, because the BS requires a sample of
production run to pass some tests.

The problem is that I can't seem to find
many (any?) rechargeable lights with BS marks.

Any. I believe teh BS does not allow rechargeable lights, but I'm not
sure if that's because they don't have teh performance or because teh
BS explicitly outlaws them. The 'preformance' issue is that the BS
does have a battery life requirement - and rechargeables generally
have less energy in them than non-rechargeables. It might be an
accidental banning - for example, the testing spec might require that
the lights be fitted with batteries of spec xyz for teh testing, and
rechargeables don't fall within xyz.

I could run normal lights on
rechargeables, but I understand that Halogens are fairly voltage sensitive,
so running them on a couple of NiMH cells or worse, four will cause a
voltage drop and a disproportionate drop in light.

Not necesarily, 'cos the NiMH have a lower internal resistance than
non-rechargeables - and teh effect will be more marked at higher
current levels.

Incidently, lights that comply with teh BS aren't necesarily legal -
the law requires them to be a particular (now superseded) revision of
teh BS. For example, teh few 'BS' LED rear lights may well be BS
(though all teh ones I've seen aren't when used with teh supplied
bracket), but they are no more legal than a non-BS LED.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

In message , Doki
writes
After getting caught in the rain today, in conditions where I'd normally put
my car headlamps on, I decided I ought to get my arse in gear and get some
lights.

Personally I think this is a waste of time, unless you go for some
serious wattage in the lights. Even then I've seen people riding around
with Lumi's, Smarts etc. in the daytime, even in poorish light and it
really seem to make no difference. In these sort of conditions I think
good fluorescent gear is much more useful.

But I take it you are also thinking of night time use as well.

Has anyone any idea how good the BS marked lights are?

Depends on what you want, I find a dynamo powered front lamp fine,
though the output of the bulbs may not seem so high, with decent optics
they put much more of the light where you want it. The typical MR16(?)
bulbs in the rechgargeables send light out all over the place.

Thinking along the lines of the Smart 10/2.4W twin lamp system, Cateye
HL-RC230 twin lamp or ABS 10 or the RC220 single lamp for the front. Anyone
got any experience of these? Is the top of the range Cateye rear lamp any
good?

SJSC are selling the smart set for about GBP 25.00 at the moment.

For rear lights I like to use one of the German/Dutch rear led lights
(B&M Toplight, Hella R whatever it is, Axa Optica) if they are up to a
German /Dutch standard then they should be suitable for legal use here
(lights to an equivalent standard are allowed) AIUI, BS standard LED
lamps such as the Cateye AU100 (a good light) technically are still not
legal lamps as the relevant BS hasn't been replaced in the legislation
(TICBW).

I usually supplement this with another LED or two,
--
Chris French, Leeds

Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 20:27:34 +0100, Doki
wrote:

Has anyone any idea how good the BS marked lights are? Ideally I'd
like a decent wattage halogen front light or two,

Well, those two are a contradiction immediately. The maximum wattage
permitted for a halogen bulb in teh legal BS is a eye-searing (oh yes)
2.4W. If you go with 'plain' bulbs (I can't remember exactly how they
describe them) you can go up to 3.6W, but that's probably less bright
than teh 2.4W halogen.

Bloody hell.

and some very bright LEDs at the back, perhaps something homebrew.

Obviously, that won't be BS, because the BS requires a sample of
production run to pass some tests.

I know a homebrew light won't have a BS mark, I'd be using it in conjunction
with something that does.

The problem is that I can't seem to find
many (any?) rechargeable lights with BS marks.

Any. I believe teh BS does not allow rechargeable lights, but I'm not
sure if that's because they don't have teh performance or because teh
BS explicitly outlaws them. The 'preformance' issue is that the BS
does have a battery life requirement - and rechargeables generally
have less energy in them than non-rechargeables. It might be an
accidental banning - for example, the testing spec might require that
the lights be fitted with batteries of spec xyz for teh testing, and
rechargeables don't fall within xyz.

So it looks like I'm on the hunt for a pair of normal (ie ****e) BS marked
battery powered lamps. Anyone know where to be looking?

So it looks like I'm on the hunt for a pair of normal (ie ****e) BS marked
battery powered lamps. Anyone know where to be looking?

Most of my local shops seem to have examples of their lights already opened
that you can play with, so you can choose one that seems trustworthy.

AC

Chris Malcolm wrote:

The law in respect of bicycle lamps is such a dreadful mess of
incompetent bureaucrats not understanding physics trying to help Every
Unready to survive nasty foreign competition that I think it the moral
duty of every responsible cyclist to ignore it.

Provided they are happy to spend the rest of their lives fighting a claim of
contributory negligence should they be hit, of course...

However, if you do insist of being legal, note that it is legal in the
UK to use a non-BS approved lamp if it has been approved by another EU
nation.

Correct. The Busch & Muller rear lights are a case in point.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Chris Malcolm wrote:


The law in respect of bicycle lamps is such a dreadful mess of
incompetent bureaucrats not understanding physics trying to help Every
Unready to survive nasty foreign competition that I think it the moral
duty of every responsible cyclist to ignore it.


Provided they are happy to spend the rest of their lives fighting a claim of
contributory negligence should they be hit, of course...

Urban myth and/or scaremongering, unless you know better of
course...surely there are enough real problems to worry about without
making up new ones.

James

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 20:27:34 +0100, "Doki"
wrote (more or less):

After getting caught in the rain today, in conditions where I'd normally put
my car headlamps on, I decided I ought to get my arse in gear and get some
lights.

Has anyone any idea how good the BS marked lights are? Ideally I'd like a
decent wattage halogen front light or two, and some very bright LEDs at the
back, perhaps something homebrew.

Why not have the big Cateye BS-approved LED front lamp at the front?

It really is quite bright, and so visible even in daylight.


The problem is that I can't seem to find
many (any?) rechargeable lights with BS marks.

It takes 4 AA batteries, so you can use standard rechargables (NiCads
or NiMHs) with it.

I do agree with an earlier coment that fluorescent clothing is better
in daylight - after all, it's brightness is powered by the Sun! Which
has a bit more wattage than four AA batteries...


Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
Provided they are happy to spend the rest of their lives fighting a
claim of contributory negligence should they be hit, of course...

James Annan wrote:
Urban myth and/or scaremongering, unless you know better of
course...surely there are enough real problems to worry about without
making up new ones.

In the case of Peter Longbottom he did not in fact spend the rest of his
life fighting the case, since he was dead after the impact. The judge held
him to be 50% to blame for his own demise because he used a non-BS
(flashing) rear light. The DfT has figures which show flashing rear lights
are four times as visible as steady ones.

I advocate at least one legally approved light at each end of the bike
because insurance companies employ lawyers.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

In message , James Annan
writes
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Chris Malcolm wrote:

The law in respect of bicycle lamps is such a dreadful mess of
incompetent bureaucrats not understanding physics trying to help Every
Unready to survive nasty foreign competition that I think it the moral
duty of every responsible cyclist to ignore it.
Provided they are happy to spend the rest of their lives fighting a
claim of
contributory negligence should they be hit, of course...

Urban myth and/or scaremongering, unless you know better of
course...surely there are enough real problems to worry about without
making up new ones.

I'm not aware of such a case regarding lack of BS lighting, however I
think it is only a matter of time.

There have been a number of cases of people insurance companies trying
it on with the contributory negligence thing for cyclists involved in
accidents not wearing helmets (successfully fought with the help of the
CTC).

Sooner or later one of them will twig the lighting thing, and with BS
lights being a requirement, they would have a better chance of winning
it.
--
Chris French, Leeds