*
Just in case anyone finds this relevant or interesting... I live in the state of Washington in the United States, and I sent the Washington State Patrol this email to see what they'd say:
Here are three questions:
(1) Is it OK to use more than one red LED flasher on the rear of my bicycle? RCW 46.61.780 says that a steady red taillight and a red light-emitting-diode flashing taillight are both permitted. RCW does not explicitly say whether it's OK to use more than one LED flasher at a time, however. I currently have three, and two of them are quite powerful, so I'm wondering if this is a no-no on the basis of it looking something like an emergency vehicle.
(2) How about front flashers on bicycles? In addition to a very good headlight, I have a small LED "blinkie" facing frontwards on my bike to improve front-&-side visibility. It has a clear lens and amber LED lights that blink. The RCW doesn't say anything in the bicycle-related section about front LED flashers (yet).
(3) In the event that either #1 or #2 are not technically permitted, then is it OK to work around the issue by attaching flashers to one's helmet, clothing or backpack rather than to the bicycle? RCW doesn't say anything one way or the other on this one, that I could see.
They sent me this reply:
(1) – Only one flashing lamp may be used in conjunction with a red reflector to the rear of the bicycle.
(2) – Flashing white lamps are only prohibited [I think they meant to say "permitted" instead of "prohibited"] for use on emergency vehicles; amber flashing lamps approved for use on construction/maintenance vehicles; pilot cars; public utility vehicle; tow trucks; animal control vehicles; hazardous materials response team vehicles; rural newspaper carrier vehicles; oversize units. Bicycle lighting may be similar to a motorcycles lighting – yes they have amber lamps in front, however they do not flash unless they activate the “hazard” lights.
(3) – There is not any rule (which I could find) saying you cannot attach flashers to your helmet, clothing, or backpack. You are cautioned to not use any neon lighting (prohibited for use while in motion on public roadways) or the color blue. The type of light may be similar or same as those used by runners to be seen.
In the event that someone hits me with their car, I don't want them to be let off on a technicality, so I guess I'll have to pick one blinkie to do my blinking and set the others steady. Or I can attach them to myself rather than to my bike, I guess.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
Only one flashing lamp may be used in conjunction with a red reflector to the rear of the bicycle.
I guess I can understand the reasoning - multiple flashing red lights might give the perception of a public safety vehicle? Grasping at straws here.
Wonder if one flashing and multiple solid lights are ok?
Bekologist
Thanks for finding that out and sharing it, Mecbgon. I'm going to run one red solid and one red flashing in back on my most rural bicycle, and see if I get any flak. Hope not. Usually round town its just one flashing red in back for me, and a flashing whitish/greenish (kind of) light on front, that can be set to solid. maybe just pretend your blinkie was set to steady if you have to defend your riding lights in court?
And, if the state patrol decides to start citing all the bikers around the sound that use front cateye blinkies are hosed. 70% of us around Seattle would be guilty, seems like.
slvoid
I think the real reason why you can't have multiple lights on blinking mode is to prevent people from seizing while they're behind you.
Other than that.. I've never seen a runner with blue lights before.
vrkelley
Dang...I've got large amber strobe on the front and one on the back...works great.
supcom
In the event that someone hits me with their car, I don't want them to be let off on a technicality...
"Your honor, my client should not be held responsible for striking the bicyclist with his automobile. Because of the blinking white light, my client honestly believed he was ramming into a police car, not a bicycle."
filtersweep
*
In the event that someone hits me with their car, I don't want them to be let off on a technicality, so I guess I'll have to pick one blinkie to do my blinking and set the others steady. Or I can attach them to myself rather than to my bike, I guess.
I wouldn't worry about it... besides, if you want to split hairs, is my 5 LED tail light ONE of FIVE blinking lights?
Merriwether
A word of caution. I wouldn't trust the police here. Police will sometimes tell you something is illegal when they know it isn't. They think the law *should* be one way rather than another, for example. Or they are simply mistaken.
If WA's statute is like those in other states, it does not rule out more than blinkie. In that case, even if the police are telling you otherwise, they are mistaken.
Why don't you post the text of the law itself?
Before anyone starts saying that we shouldn't give "legal advice", bear in mind that the police will be the first to tell you that they do not give legal advice. The police's interpretation of the law has no official weight, as you would discover if you ever relied on an incorrect interpretation of some law offered by a police officer and faced charges anyway. (It's not going to happen in this case, but it has happened in other, more serious, matters, like gun possession crimes, or tax evasion, where the law can be quite obscure.)
No one here should offer you legal advice, that is, authoritative comments on how to conduct legal proceedings, but anyone can read for himself.
mechBgon
Here's the actual text for analysis:
RCW 46.61.780
Lamps and other equipment on bicycles.
(1) Every bicycle when in use during the hours of darkness as defined in RCW 46.37.020 shall be equipped with a lamp on the front which shall emit a white light visible from a distance of at least five hundred feet to the front and with a red reflector on the rear of a type approved by the state patrol which shall be visible from all distances up to six hundred feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful lower beams of head lamps on a motor vehicle. A lamp emitting a red light visible from a distance of five hundred feet to the rear may be used in addition to the red reflector. A light-emitting diode flashing taillight visible from a distance of five hundred feet to the rear may also be used in addition to the red reflector.from the state website (http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=46.61.780&fuseaction=section)
I do think there's room for improvement in the wording and logic. For example, the optional "lamp emitting a red light." If it's optional equipment in the first place, then there's no point in them specifying 500 feet of visibility. Maybe I'll drop our state cycling advocacy group an email and see if they can simply get the law tweaked to explicitly allow for multiple LED flashers and front LED flashers. The mention of LEDs in this section of state law is not that old itself.
HereNT
Honestly, I'd use as many LEDs as you have - I have 10 rear LEDs (all blinking) in two lights and up to 9 front ones if I wear my helmet light (6 blinking, 1-3 solid, 3 lights/) I get compliments on my visiblility from people all over - peds, other bikers, people in cars (yes, they've stopped and asked about the lights, or just slowed to tell me 'Thanks for being easy to see!')
It may be against the laws (though I really doubt it) but the thing is - you need to worry about the laws for something like lights after an accident. If the problem is that you were OVERlit, I have the feeling that a judge would overlook anything you were doing that's technically illegal.
Also, the actual wording of the law doesn't actually exclude more than one light. Actually, it sounds like you could have at least two lights - one 'in addition to' and one 'replacing.' But it doesn't say 'No more than two lamps can be used.'
Then again, I'm just drunk typing on bikeForums at 2:30am...
Merriwether
Thanks for the post. You make a good point that the visibility requirements for the optional blinkers are strange. Strictly speaking, the state can claim that it is permitting only those taillights and blinkers with minimum visibility requirements. As you wonder, though, it's not clear why the state would do that given that a rider has the option of using only the reflector and no taillight or blinker.
Another item of note: as I read the statute, its wording allows for both a taillight *and* a blinker in addition to a reflector. After all, the last sentence says that you may "also" use a flashing taillight in addition to a reflector, instead of saying "alternatively" you may use a flashing taillight.
Finally, there is the fact that the statute does not forbid more than one taillight, or more than one blinker.
So, I think the police are just wrong about the law here. That, of course, is no guarantee of what would happen if you contested a ticket for too many taillights.
Savas
That's why lawyers suck. They write laws with just enough incomprehensibility to make people have to discuss what they meant. I'll bet this is purposely done, so that two lawyers can spend thier client's money, jousting in court about the interpretation of that gibberish. Like, what consitutes a light; is it and/ or or instead of a blinker; are more lights than what it states in the law allowed; provide an expensive test to see if a light was really visible from x-number of feet, so on and so forth.
I-Like-To-Bike
That's why lawyers suck. They write laws with just enough incomprehensibility to make people have to discuss what they meant. I'll bet this is purposely done, so that two lawyers can spend thier client's money, jousting in court about the interpretation of that gibberish. Like, what consitutes a light; is it and/ or or instead of a blinker; are more lights than what it states in the law allowed; provide an expensive test to see if a light was really visible from x-number of feet, so on and so forth.
Actually the only people jousting over the multiple blinkie laws appear to be lawyer wanna-be's on the Bike Forum. I seriously doubt that "too many rear blinkies" has ever been a problem for a real life cyclist, or a real life law enforcement official on a real street.
chipcom
Actually the only people jousting over the multiple blinkie laws appear to be lawyer wanna-be's on the Bike Forum. I seriously doubt that "too many rear blinkies" has ever been a problem for a real life cyclist, or a real life law enforcement official on a real street.
Yeah, but since we're all obviously fake cyclists, your point is not relevant. I wonder if slvoid or any of the other NYC cyclists would want to comment about the nitpicky things those real life law enforcment folks might do on a real street, unless of course they are all fakes too.
Bekologist
I couldn't stop myself, I belted out "It's Beginning to Look a Lot..Like..Christmas.." To a rider last night that was wearing a blinking safety vest.
I-Like-To-Bike
Yeah, but since we're all obviously fake cyclists, your point is not relevant. I wonder if slvoid or any of the other NYC cyclists would want to comment about the nitpicky things those real life law enforcment folks might do on a real street, unless of course they are all fakes too.
Anybody in NYC, or anywhere else, EVER get in trouble over multiple blinkies? No? I didn't think so.
Could something happen? Yea, ANYTHING is possible to a cycling worry wort willing to fantasize hard enough.
supcom
Assuming there is no case law to the contrary, an interpretation of this law, as written, to prohibit multiple blinking taillights would apply equally to prohibit multiple rear reflectors. The stated text refers to both reflectors and taillights in the singular form.
LittleBigMan
Dang...I've got large amber strobe on the front and one on the back...works great.
I'm not in Washington, but I use a powerful amber strobe. I pass through more police jurisdictions than I can count on one hand, but none of them ever bother me.
chipcom
Anybody in NYC, or anywhere else, EVER get in trouble over multiple blinkies? No? I didn't think so.
Could something happen? Yea, ANYTHING is possible to a cycling worry wort willing to fantasize hard enough.
Worry wort? OMG Mr. Perfect made a typo - ARMAGEDDON IS UPON US!!!!
mechBgon
The city police, county sherrifs and State Highway Patrol have never ticketed me. I'm guessing that if they stopped me, they'd let me off with a warning after I switched excess blinkies to steady mode.
The real concern, as I mentioned, would be what weaknesses a defense attorney could find in court if I were suing for damages after an obliviot managed to right-hook me and get me under the rear wheels of his SUV or something. If that makes me a worry wort [sic] then I guess that's what I am, but having been hit & injured by cars a couple times (and even a cyclist), I sort of prefer to be labelled a fatalist or something :D
vrkelley
I'm not in Washington, but I use a powerful amber strobe. I pass through more police jurisdictions than I can count on one hand, but none of them ever bother me.
P,
I have those same strobes and pass cops also. Things only get sticky when the cop has to assign fault at the time of the accident. If the cop can get you on a technicality, they will. Like if your bike has Christmas lights, but back no reflector, you'll be "considered partially at fault".
DCCommuter
Well, here's what 46.37.215 says:
Any vehicle may be equipped with lamps for the purpose of warning other operators of other vehicles of the presence of a vehicular traffic hazard requiring the exercise of unusual care in approaching, overtaking, or passing.
Vehicular hazard warning signal lamps used to display such warning to the front shall be mounted at the same level and as widely spaced laterally as practicable, and shall display simultaneously flashing amber light: PROVIDED, That on any vehicle manufactured prior to January 1, 1969, the lamps showing to the front may display simultaneously flashing white or amber lights, or any shade of color between white and amber. The lamps used to display such warning to the rear shall be mounted at the same level and as widely spaced laterally as practicable, and shall show simultaneously flashing amber or red lights, or any shade of color between amber and red. These warning lights shall be visible from a distance of not less than five hundred feet in normal sunlight.
Certainly multiple blinkies fit into the spirit of this law, if not the letter due to the visibility requirements. Although again it's curious to have requirements for optional equipment.
Keep in mind that this is Internet legal advice, worth exactly what you paid for it.
lyledriver
I run Cat eye LD170 LED strobes on my bike front and rear.
However, I've replaced the Amber LEDs in my front one, with 430nm UV blue LEDs.
I've never had a problem with Johnny Law, even though I'm flashing red and blue.
I-Like-To-Bike
P,
I have those same strobes and pass cops also. Things only get sticky when the cop has to assign fault at the time of the accident. If the cop can get you on a technicality, they will. Like if your bike has Christmas lights, but back no reflector, you'll be "considered partially at fault".
Does ANYONE have ANY evidence of ANY cyclist ever having difficulty of ANY kind, ANYWHERE, with the law or in dealing with a liability claim due to a technicality or weird interpretation of law over too many lights or blinkies? If so please speak up. Yes, I know all things are possible, but I am asking about evidence of an actual event not a WAG.
2manybikes
I have had COMPLIMENTS for having to much lighting on my bike. I accidentally shined my 16 watt HID light into an officers eyes at a crosswalk once.
I apologized to him, his response was "It's OK, don't worry about it It's safer to have good lights."
After thinking about his response I realized that he has very similar visibility problems when he is standing in the road directing traffic. He may have had problems with not being seem as well. My guess is that any officer who has experience standing in the road directing traffic, would be sympathetic to a cyclists need to be seen.
Wouldn't that be be practically all policemen?
Savas
That sounds good. Over where I am, no one enforces squat. People bike all the time with no lights or reflectors while wearing black clothes. It's like friggin ninjas on wheels. Matter of fact, the few that glint somewhat reflectively are the ones on bikes carrying several HUGE clear gargabe bags chock full of cans and bottles.
chipcom
Does ANYONE have ANY evidence of ANY cyclist ever having difficulty of ANY kind, ANYWHERE, with the law or in dealing with a liability claim due to a technicality or weird interpretation of law over too many lights or blinkies? If so please speak up. Yes, I know all things are possible, but I am asking about evidence of an actual event not a WAG.
WTF cares about what you're asking? What are you, Judge Wapner?
I can tell you from plenty of experience actually being IN CHARGE of a police department that the letter of the law is often applied for nitpicky stuff in an effort to 'pile on' when other offenses are sketchy. The accident scenario mentioned is valid...nobody here has time to go digging around for cites to satisfy your forever skeptical little mind.
This crap is also routinely enforced to make some kind of political point or to send a message that, while maybe not always enforced, the behavior is still technically illegal, or to just plain collect fine revenues, either of which I believe is the case in NYC, which is why I pointed it out to you earlier, but you were too dense to get the point. Want examples you might understand? Look no farther than speed limit laws and seat belt laws, which are not commonly strictly enforced, but at times part of strict crackdowns.
mechBgon
Does ANYONE have ANY evidence of ANY cyclist ever having difficulty of ANY kind, ANYWHERE, with the law or in dealing with a liability claim due to a technicality or weird interpretation of law over too many lights or blinkies? If so please speak up. Yes, I know all things are possible, but I am asking about evidence of an actual event not a WAG.The thread over in Commuting about AIG insurance is similar in nature. Look at how they're trying to yank that guy around as "40% responsible" for being run down by a car. And on what grounds? That the photos of his wrecked bike don't show the headlight present (because he took it off to use on a different bike to get around with). That's not an example of too much blinkie per se, but it's an example of the brand of hardball that I expect insurance companies and lawyers to play. If I have a technical weakness in my case, I'd expect them to find it and make use of it.
Merriwether has a great point, the WSP is not in a position to hand down judgements. But since the Washington government's website has a particular email link for questions pertaining to vehicle equipment and lighting, I thought "what the heck, I'll bounce this off of them" and so I did. :)
Feldman
For bargain hunters: Vetta (remember them?) used to market a red rear blinker/steady light combination. When I see them anymore they're in $5 bargain bins in bike stores.
Mine is still going strong after ten years.
I-Like-To-Bike
The thread over in Commuting about AIG insurance is similar in nature.
Wonderful, just let me know when you find any reference that relates to the issue at hand, legal repurcussions from TOO MANY lights.
I-Like-To-Bike
WTF... etc.
I assume that means a big fat no to the question about ANY problems EVER encountered by ANYBODY over too many lights on a bike..
Treespeed
I cannot seriously imagine a Los Angeles Police Officer, or a Washington State Trooper for that matter pulling over a cyclist for being too visible at night. This makes absolutely no sense. The only reason you would ever get hassled is if you put some ridiculous blue lights on your bike or were impersonating an officer on your bike. I think most cops have better things to do than hassle cyclists, NYC notwithstanding. In my opinion a very silly issue to write to the WSP about.
Daily Commute
It's good to know what the law is. "It's never enforced" is a really dumb reason to keep a dumb law on the book. Your local cycling advocates could use the blinkie rule (or the confusion over the blinkie rule) as a reason to do a more complete overhaul of your bike statutes.
I-Like-To-Bike
It's good to know what the law is. "It's never enforced" is a really dumb reason to keep a dumb law on the book. Your local cycling advocates could use the blinkie rule (or the confusion over the blinkie rule) as a reason to do a more complete overhaul of your bike statutes.
Who but a few BF worryworts with a vivid imagination is worried OR confused about some wacky interpretation of the "blinkie rule"?
vrkelley
WTF cares about what you're asking? What are you, Judge Wapner?
OK let's keep it in check. Several questions are on the table for discussion without ridicule.
mechBgon
I cannot seriously imagine a Los Angeles Police Officer, or a Washington State Trooper for that matter pulling over a cyclist for being too visible at night. This makes absolutely no sense. The only reason you would ever get hassled is if you put some ridiculous blue lights on your bike or were impersonating an officer on your bike. I think most cops have better things to do than hassle cyclists, NYC notwithstanding. In my opinion a very silly issue to write to the WSP about.If you'll notice, I didn't ask out of fear of getting pulled over. I'm more interested in the legal aspect in its own right, not repercussions from violating it. Is that clearer? It's like the difference between asking them "how far over the speed limit can I go on my favorite descent before I get a ticket" and "how do speed-limit laws apply to bicyclists." I don't have any concerns about being stopped or hassled by the police, sherriffs or WSP, it would've happened by now if it was likely to happen.
Wonderful, just let me know when you find any reference that relates to the issue at hand, legal repurcussions from TOO MANY lights.I'll make sure to do that :)
I-Like-To-Bike
If you'll notice, I didn't ask out of fear of getting pulled over. I'm more interested in the legal aspect in its own right, not repercussions from violating it. Is that clearer? It's like...
OK, I get it now. Just curious and a strictly hypothetical question; no foul, no problem. Just like calling your local library to settle a bet about who was the best crimefighter of all time Batman or Superman. Questions like that are lots of fun, especially after a drinking all night in bar with your pals.
Only problem is that some people take such silly questions as serious statements of a real problem; i.e. see the responses received from a few worryworts.
mechBgon
Batman for sure. He's a mortal human guy, not some indestructible dude from another planet :beer: Oh, and I do have an expert's word on that. Just ask my sister: http://www.superpony.com/Ponyfied.html :eek:
I-Like-To-Bike
Batman for sure. He's a mortal human guy, not some indestructible dude from another planet :beer:
But I bet ya VC Man could wrassle him down him with rhetorical babble more dazzling than anything in his utility belt and the Batman beacon combined!
mechBgon
Yeah, VC Man has tentacles composed of pure Rhetorium, and he also has a Pedantic Ray that's powerful enough to wither almost any opponent! :eek:
;)
genec
Yeah, VC Man has tentacles composed of pure Rhetorium, and he also has a Pedantic Ray that's powerful enough to wither almost any opponent! :eek:
;)
OK, let's hear it for "Pedantic Ray," but does the dude have a cape? That is the really important question.
chipcom
OK, I get it now. Just curious and a strictly hypothetical question; no foul, no problem. Just like calling your local library to settle a bet about who was the best crimefighter of all time Batman or Superman. Questions like that are lots of fun, especially after a drinking all night in bar with your pals.
Only problem is that some people take such silly questions as serious statements of a real problem; i.e. see the responses received from a few worryworts.
Edit for niceness:
The only 'worrywort' I see is you...I don't understnad why you have such a problem with hypotheticals.
Back to your question, The point is that if a law is on the books it 'can' be enforced. If a law is vague, it is open to endless interpretation by both law enforcement and the courts. Speculation about what is possible is entirely relevant without citing instances of actual action. I don't see why you have a problem with that...has anyone stated that they are worried about it being enforced?
mechBgon
OK, let's hear it for "Pedantic Ray," but does the dude have a cape? That is the really important question.VC Man has a cape, but he doesn't wear it. And you know why, is because it gets caught in the rear wheel a lot. Also, it can hide his hand signals if the wind is going the wrong way.
I didn't really set out to make any big point with this thread, just to share the info that I got back from the WSP and maybe touch on the question of "how important are these technicalities?" I guess they can't be too big of a deal to the police or else we would've heard reports to that effect from some of the people who use several high-powered blinkies (and you know who you are :p). And no one has jumped in to say that it was used against them in court either, so maybe I am indeed just worrying about nothing. I've been in "worry mode" all week with the combined threats of Mytob, Sober and Bagle. :mad:
All the same, I might ask the Bicycle Alliance if there's any interest in getting the law updated to specifically allow multiple blinkies and front blinkies. I can't imagine the update running into opposition.
randya
...I've never seen a runner with blue lights before.
If you read it carefully, I don't think this is what they are saying. Blue lights are typically prohibited on all vehicles except police and emergency vehicles. On the other hand, the local transit agency in Portland was handing out blue blinkies to bus riders (peds) a couple of years back...I've often wondered about blue reflectors; I use these on my bikes in conjunction with other colors, their reflectivity is lower than white, red or amber, but I think they get noticed because of the different color - blue is for bikes - and I've never been stopped or questioned for using them...
randya
VC Man has a cape, but he doesn't wear it. And you know why, is because it gets caught in the rear wheel a lot..
He should get rid of his unobtanium racing bike and get a Dutch commuter bike with one of those cape, er skirt guards, and he wouldn't have this problem anymore... ;)
All the same, I might ask the Bicycle Alliance if there's any interest in getting the law updated to specifically allow multiple blinkies and front blinkies. I can't imagine the update running into opposition.
Oregon recently updated their laws to allow white front blinkies in addition to steady white lights, to allow passing on the right, and to allow exceptions to 'must ride in bike lane if one is present'.
http://www.bta4bikes.org/info/legis/sb0938.en.pdf
I-Like-To-Bike
VC Man has a cape, but he doesn't wear it. And you know why, is because it gets caught in the rear wheel a lot. Also, it can hide his hand signals if the wind is going the wrong way.
It won't matter if the hand signals are hidden by the cape; the movement of the cape can give secret clues to the other drivers of vehicles. AND the cape would be a big clue about VC Man's super duper attitude. AND it probably would weigh less than waving a 600 pages book at the other drivers.
Bekologist
If it's a Barbour cape, VC man merits instant recognition and telepathic communication with drivers in low light situations, where more blinkies might benefit mere mortals.
JoMo
Here is my thought, I would rather deal with the cost of a ticket then the cost of medical bills. If a law can get you killed then its not much of a law----Right?
Bekologist
RCW doesn't specify the front light is solid or intermittent; I'm not going to change anything in my lighting systems, but I bet a white emitting headlamp set on intermittent (cateye front blinkies) fits the technical legal definition of 'white light' as defined for the RCW.
I-Like-To-Bike
Here is my thought, I would rather deal with the cost of a ticket then the cost of medical bills. If a law can get you killed then its not much of a law----Right?
Even better, the cost of all the tickets that would be issued when San Diego, Lemon Grove or any other warm weather locale, freezes over is much, much less costly than a single medical bill.