Cycle-path defect claim

Mr.Generous

Well the OP got told where to get off AND we know a bit more about bike lamps. Excellent Smithers.

Herbalus

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

For what it’s worth, I have the cateye volt 800 and I don’t see a huge amount of difference between the 800 and 400 lumen setting, so I run on 400, but then the helmet torch is a bright spot (exposure link plus) so I can extend the reach of the main beam of the cateye and see a little further ahead.

1200 plus 600 is better than 1800. I’m not sure of any reputable brands doing 1800 lights.

Nasqueron

Herbalus wrote: »

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

For what it’s worth, I have the cateye volt 800 and I don’t see a huge amount of difference between the 800 and 400 lumen setting, so I run on 400, but then the helmet torch is a bright spot (exposure link plus) so I can extend the reach of the main beam of the cateye and see a little further ahead.

1200 plus 600 is better than 1800. I’m not sure of any reputable brands doing 1800 lights.

There is a large difference to me from the 1200 mode to 600 on my main one (Cateye Volt 1200) though I only use it away from streetlights. I also have a Cateye 600 (backup) doing blink/normal (it has 2 independent lights, something I think they should have used on the 1200) which combined is fine for roads.



Wiggle sell 11 brands with output of 1500-2999 lumen including the basic brand LifeLine and Exposure / Cateye among others. I wouldn't pay that much but Exposure Toro has 2650 lumen output for £215 supposedly with 3 hours run time or the Diablo with 1750 for £185. Cateye do the Volt 1700 for £112.



The problem really is that the Chinese ebay specials have come to dominate the market and have convinced everyone that lumen is the best output measure, hence the 5000+ ones around which are really designed as head mounts as they don't focus the light down properly.


Trying to find lights that do lux output is difficult. Really it's best to just get photos of the output, guy on ebay called Torchy the battery boy has some good ones.

gardner1

Biker_Di wrote: »

I regularly cycle on a local cycle path to/from work. On one occasion I rode over unseen raised tarmac (due to tree root/shrubbery pushing tarmac upwards) and Jarred my back. The result leaving me in extreme pain and off work for 3+ weeks, requiring physio as recommended by GP.

After approaching the local council to report the fault and that a repair was required, I submitted a claim to cover the cost of the physio treatment. The council have responded notifying me they are not liable as ...... “ the location did not meet the intervention levels (20mm) for footway defects so no action was taken to repair it. I am aware from previous legal cases of this nature that a difference in level of less than 25 mm is not considered by the Courts as so serious as to give rise to liability on the part of the County Council”.

Ok, so why did they mark/highlight the area and return the following day and fill the affected area with tarmac (I have photographed the area before and after) Surely this accepting liability?? Which I find interesting as other sections of the cyclepath have much more severe areas of concern.

Where do I stand on this? Any advice gratefully received.

OP sounds like the sort of person who would ride through a country park on mountain bike and complain about tree roots and branches