Advocacy & Safety - Should taillights be mandatory?

Yesterday night I didn't see a ninja cyclist who was riding at the extreme right edge of the road until the last second. I believe said cyclist had the standard reflectors, and nothing else on a very busy 2 lane road (N Campbell Station for you locals).

So, should taillights be required safety equipment for night riding?

Yes, but I think they already are required in most places.

Yes, but I think they already are required in most places.

Here's what California CVC 21201 says:

2) A red reflector on the rear that shall be visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful upper beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle.

A front light is required as of Jan 2009 I think.

Yesterday night I didn't see a ninja cyclist who was riding at the extreme right edge of the road until the last second. I believe said cyclist had the standard reflectors, and nothing else on a very busy 2 lane road (N Campbell Station for you locals).
Maybe YOU need a better headlight or new glasses. Why not start a poll about people who can't see what is in front of them?

taillights are surprisingly useful on bright sunny summer days when the cyclist is in the shade of a tree. the drivers pupils are constricted due to the bright sun, so the cyclist in the shade is invisible.

Sure, but I seriously doubt that you would suddenly see increased use of same. Laws don't make people smarter, they make people arrogant.

Sure, but I seriously doubt that you would suddenly see increased use of same. Laws don't make people smarter, they make people arrogant.

so, if passing a law isn't going to make it happen, then why bother? to give the local pd yet another thing to write tickets for?

if you REALLY want to get people to put on tail lights, run an education campaign and hand a bunch out for free. criminalizing people for behaving unsafely is intrusive and counter productive.

No. Dammit.

After that it's just a slippery slope. Mandatory taillights, mandatory signal lights, mandatory saftey certification, U-Locks that won't open unless you pass their built-in breathalizer test. No thank you, I'd much rather we stave off the descent into regulated hell as long as possible.

so, if passing a law isn't going to make it happen, then why bother? to give the local pd yet another thing to write tickets for?

if you REALLY want to get people to put on tail lights, run an education campaign and hand a bunch out for free. criminalizing people for behaving unsafely is intrusive and counter productive.

I wonder the same thing every day.

It pains me to admit I voted yes.

However:

Mandatory BICYCLE BELLS and FOUR 2"X12" STRIPS OF REFLECTIVE TAPE are already required equipment for bikes in Ontario (No, reflective tape on bags and clothes doesn't count). If I ever find a usable application for a bicycle bell on a 70kph arterial road, I'll let you guys know.

Given the high number of motorist-overtaking accidents that Toronto-area cyclists seem to have compared to other jurisdictions, and the high number of aggressive motorists we have without functional headlights, I think a working tail light is more important then most or all of our already-required equipment, including helmets.

of course, motorists should be able to see objects in the road that are not illiminated. If they can't, they are probably, like almost all drivers, outrunning the headlights or not watching closely enough.

As mentioned, I also see, on average, far, far more CARS on busy roads without working lights that bikes at night. New rules have no value when old rules remain unenforced and unenforceable.

I'll add that it's occurred to me a few times that if more cyclists are lit up like Christmas trees and more pedestrians wear reflective gear, drivers may be tempted to go faster and pay LESS attention since the "road hazards: are so clearly marked.... until they come across some guy wearing dark clothes. Suffice to say I'm not willing to be that guy, but we have to do better than this from a standpoint of general community safety.

Every ride that I take, I turn on my Planet Bike superflash taillight, even in broad daylight, any little thing to make me potentially more visible is a good thing

Every ride that I take, I turn on my Planet Bike superflash taillight, even in broad daylight, any little thing to make me potentially more visible is a good thing
Sounds like a reason for some BFers to propose a mandatory law that cyclists turn on Planet Bike superflash taillights, even in broad daylight, since any little thing to make cyclists potentially more visible is a good thing.

"Should taillights be mandatory for night riding?"
I didn't vote. Florida requires: "a lamp and reflector on the rear each exhibiting a red light visible from a distance of 600 feet to the rear".
Italics mine.
Some states require both. I don't know of any that don't have at least a light requirement.

Ninjas are really only putting themselves in danger by not having a light.

I don't think it should be required, but it is in many places.

Denver just requires a front light and rear reflector:


Sec. 54-578. Lamps and reflectors.
Every bicycle or motorized bicycle, when in use at night time, shall be equipped with a lamp on the front which shall emit a white light visible from a distance of at least five hundred (500) feet to the front and with a red reflector on the rear of a type which shall be visible from all distances from fifty (50) feet to three hundred (300) feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful upper beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle. A lamp emitting a red light visible from a distance of five hundred (500)feet to the rear may be used in addition to the red reflector.

taillights are surprisingly useful on bright sunny summer days when the cyclist is in the shade of a tree. the drivers pupils are constricted due to the bright sun, so the cyclist in the shade is invisible.

Bingo. In fact, what makes cars vehicles and bicycles not (no matter what silly legal claptrap can be cited as such) is that cars/vehicles have (1) an assortment of lights, brake lights, turn signals (among other things) which fully inform other roadway users of the drivers intention; and (2) bumpers, fenders, airbags, and other safety features designed to fully protect drivers and passengers in the event that these signals are overlooked or ignored.

roughstuff

Yesterday night I didn't see a ninja cyclist who was riding at the extreme right edge of the road until the last second. I believe said cyclist had the standard reflectors, and nothing else on a very busy 2 lane road (N Campbell Station for you locals).

So, should taillights be required safety equipment for night riding?

Reflectors work best when illuminated from directly behind, therefore the cyclist would have been more visible either by having a tail light, or by riding further from the 'extreme right edge of the road'. I ride with an obnoxiously bright taillight (dinotte), but do not feel that they should be required.

Ninjas are really only putting themselves in danger by not having a light.


I'd have to disagree,

When the motorist swerves to avoid the Ninja, it puts everybody around the Ninja at risk.

If I ever find a usable application for a bicycle bell on a 70kph arterial road, I'll let you guys know.You can throw it at a car that passed you too closely.

(Personally, I think required bells are silly. I can yell a lot louder than a bell. But I can't throw my voice at a car ... but a bell, I can throw that!)

Ninjas are really only putting themselves in danger by not having a light.

OK, so if hit a ninja while on a bike or swerve to avoid one and get hit by a car or run into a pedestrian, or whatever then what? What about damage his bike and body would cause to a car and what about all the driver's legal and other related problems and time wasted. That all doesn't matter?

A.

Maybe YOU need a better headlight or new glasses. Why not start a poll about people who can't see what is in front of them?

Come on now. Certainly at some time or another you've been startled or surprised by something at the last second while driving haven't you? Not arguing for or against requiring tail lights mind you.

Bingo. In fact, what makes cars vehicles and bicycles not (no matter what silly legal claptrap can be cited as such) is that cars/vehicles have (1) an assortment of lights, brake lights, turn signals (among other things) which fully inform other roadway users of the drivers intention; and (2) bumpers, fenders, airbags, and other safety features designed to fully protect drivers and passengers in the event that these signals are overlooked or ignored.

roughstuff
Fully protect? Yeah, right. Why is it then that over 40,000 a year die in auto crashes?
Nope, that doesn't wash and neither does any cross-eyed idea that a car is more of a vehicle just because it has an engine.

Yesterday night I didn't see a ninja cyclist who was riding at the extreme right edge of the road until the last second. I believe said cyclist had the standard reflectors, and nothing else on a very busy 2 lane road (N Campbell Station for you locals).

So, should taillights be required safety equipment for night riding?

Here is section 8 from F.S. 316.2065 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statuTes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0316/Sec2065.HTM)

(8) Every bicycle in use between sunset and sunrise shall be equipped with a lamp on the front exhibiting a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the front and a lamp and reflector on the rear each exhibiting a red light visible from a distance of 600 feet to the rear. A bicycle or its rider may be equipped with lights or reflectors in addition to those required by this section.

I think that most states have pretty much the same requirements.

Some reflectors are very bright - I use a combination of red and yellow automotive reflectors on the back of my trunk bags - but the stock rear reflectors mandated by the CPSC are very small and too dim, in my opinion, for good visibility from behind on high speed arterials. I'd rather see the CPSC regulation changed to increase the performance of these rear reflectors than anything else.

Tail lamps fail. I've had a couple of them snap their mounts or spill their batteries riding over bumps. I've also forgotten to turn them on once or twice. Fortunately I have the big reflectors as backup.

I don't think a tail lamp requirement is an onerous burden for cyclists. LED lights are very affordable and their batteries last a long time, or they put minimal additional drag on a dynamo. Tail lamps are brighter than reflectors at long distances and at angles.

I therefore believe the best policy is to require both a rear light and a rear reflector (in addition to the front headlamp of course). But will the public learn about a stricter lighting law, or care enough to comply?

Maybe YOU need a better headlight or new glasses. Why not start a poll about people who can't see what is in front of them?

The rider in question was a ninja making his/her detection that much harder. Any motorist can be forgiven for not seeing a ninja, on top of that said ninja according to the OP was a curb hugger/gutter bunny making it even harder to see said ninja.

Tail lamps fail.
Yes, they can. In addition to what you mentioned I've also had them simply fall off. Which is why I normally ride with three at night; one on the helmet, two on the bike. Five if I'm pulling a trailer; one on each rear corner of the trailer.

I'd have to disagree,

When the motorist swerves to avoid the Ninja, it puts everybody around the Ninja at risk.

+1,000

I'd have to disagree,

When the motorist swerves to avoid the Ninja, it puts everybody around the Ninja at risk.


OK, so if hit a ninja while on a bike or swerve to avoid one and get hit by a car or run into a pedestrian, or whatever then what? What about damage his bike and body would cause to a car and what about all the driver's legal and other related problems and time wasted. That all doesn't matter?

A.

Ever hear of the thin end of the wedge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)?

You're assuming that a ninja cyclist has that much effect on his/her surroundings.

Essentially, if you're going so fast that when you come up on a hazard in the road and have to swerve into oncoming traffic or other traffic in order to avoid it, you are simply traveling too fast. Do we blame the deer standing in the middle of the road if a driver hits it? No, we blame the driver for not driving with due care.

Same goes for cyclists approaching ninja. If you approach one at such a speed that you have to swerve into traffic to avoid it, then you were traveling too fast. What do you do for deep potholes, branches in the road, cats, dogs, etc?

Yes, its a good idea for cyclists to have tail lights and head lights; however forcing their use is entirely beyond the scope of the law in my opinion.

Every hear of the thin end of the wedge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)?

You're assuming that a ninja cyclist has that much effect on his/her surroundings.

Essentially, if you're going so fast that when you come up on a hazard in the road and have to swerve into oncoming traffic or other traffic in order to avoid it, you are simply traveling too fast. Do we blame the deer standing in the middle of the road if a driver hits it? No, we blame the driver for not driving with due care.

Same goes for cyclists approaching ninja. If you approach one at such a speed that you have to swerve into traffic to avoid it, then you were traveling too fast. What do you do for deep potholes, branches in the road, cats, dogs, etc?

Yes, its a good idea for cyclists to have tail lights and head lights; however forcing their use is entirely beyond the scope of the law in my opinion.

Something tells me that if I were to hit this ninja cyclist and were traveling the speed limit, the law would not have any issue with me. Doesn't seem right if we're supposed to be able to avoid this type of thing as you suggest. Do you agree or do you think the driver would be prosecuted?

Something tells me that if I were to hit this ninja cyclist and were traveling the speed limit, the law would not have any issue with me. Doesn't seem right if we're supposed to be able to avoid this type of thing as you suggest. Do you agree or do you think the driver would be prosecuted?
We don't prosecute drivers for running into deer do we? (Really, I don't know, do we?)

Driver hits a bicyclist without lights, if the driver stayed on the scene and tried to assist the bicyclist, no, we should not prosecute them. A cyclist without lights at night is a hazard on the road. As such, drivers should take precautions to avoid hazards. However, in the event one does hit such hazard, you should almost never prosecute the driver who hit the hazard provided they were exercising proper due care. If the cyclist is determined to have been the cause of the accident, hold him/her responsible.

Throw another law onto the books though requiring all bicycles be equipped with taillights? Seems like a terrible idea.

Every hear of the thin end of the wedge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)?

You're assuming that a ninja cyclist has that much effect on his/her surroundings.

Essentially, if you're going so fast that when you come up on a hazard in the road and have to swerve into oncoming traffic or other traffic in order to avoid it, you are simply traveling too fast. Do we blame the deer standing in the middle of the road if a driver hits it? No, we blame the driver for not driving with due care.

Same goes for cyclists approaching ninja. If you approach one at such a speed that you have to swerve into traffic to avoid it, then you were traveling too fast. What do you do for deep potholes, branches in the road, cats, dogs, etc?

Yes, its a good idea for cyclists to have tail lights and head lights; however forcing their use is entirely beyond the scope of the law in my opinion.

You don't think that ninja cyclists have that much effect on his/her surroundings? By their very nature they are next to impossible to see. Hell I've I'd dare say that most pedestrians are likewise next to impossible to see.

So it's the driver who is traveling at the or below the posted speed limit when they come across a ninja cyclist and have to swerve to avoid them? No, we don't which is why in areas with a deer "problem" there are signs posted every 1/4 mile or so warning that one is traveling in an area known to have deer crossing the street.

What about ninja taking responsibility not to be so hard to see?

I think that most states have pretty much the same requirements.Most have something similar, but the details may differ.

Texas, for example, requires a white light up front and either a reflector or a red light on the back, and everything must be visible at 500 feet. It also says nothing about additional lights and reflectors (which basically means they're permitted.)

Most have something similar, but the details may differ.

Texas, for example, requires a white light up front and either a reflector or a red light on the back, and everything must be visible at 500 feet. It also says nothing about additional lights and reflectors (which basically means they're permitted.)

King County, which is where Seattle is located, has the same requirement. I'm not sure if it's state wide.

Hell I've I'd dare say that most pedestrians are likewise next to impossible to see.

I'd say that they are quite easy to see, actually. Un-Illuminated pedestrians, sometimes wearing dark clothing, are a reasonable expectation when cycling or motoring in an urban environment. If the streetlights are insufficient on the roadway I am traveling to reveal them, I slow down enough that I can rely on my headlight(s). Un-Illuminated cyclists that are otherwise following the rules of the road are even easier to avoid, since their forward motion gives me more time to change lanes upon seeing them and safely overtake.



No, we don't which is why in areas with a deer "problem" there are signs posted every 1/4 mile or so warning that one is traveling in an area known to have deer crossing the street.

I see plenty of random animals crossing the road with nay a warning sign in sight. When I do drive in northern Ontario, it is a reasonable expectation that a 1800-lb moose, which will not be wearing reflective gear or lighting, will stride onto the highway at any time. Regardless of what the signs by the side of the road say. Hence I slow down at night. Others drivers do not, at their peril.


What about ninja taking responsibility not to be so hard to see?


That's a good idea too.


But we as vehicle users can't expect giant potholes, errant trash cans, busted car bumpers, and moose to take these responsibilities as seriously. Thus we shouldn't operate vehicles ASSUMING the road is clear whenever there isn't flashing lights and dancing reflective stripes ahead.

No, we don't which is why in areas with a deer "problem" there are signs posted every 1/4 mile or so warning that one is traveling in an area known to have deer crossing the street.
There are tons of areas with deer problems that don't have signage. The point is to be looking for hazards and not need to be preemptively warning driver of every possible hazard on the roads.

When one is in the mountains, one would reasonably assume deer may cross the road.

When one is driving in the city, one would reasonably assume there would be unlighted pedestrians and possibly unlighted cyclists (maybe not cyclists in some cities, but you do expect them in Denver).


What about ninja taking responsibility not to be so hard to see?
Never said the ninja shouldn't take responsibility. If the driver was exercising due care, then yeah, the ninja should take responsibility. After all, the ninja was responsible for being a road hazard.

Shouldn't abolish the person who hit the ninja of any and all responsibility either. They should be looking for hazards.

I'm against a law that requires all bicycles to be equipped with taillights, which is what the OP asked.

Maybe YOU need a better headlight or new glasses. Why not start a poll about people who can't see what is in front of them?

For some reason this post reminds me of a fellow who was arrested while walking backwards down the boulevard with his fly open. When asked about his motive he replied that he was "Trolling for fe11atrixes".

Maybe YOU need a better headlight or new glasses. Why not start a poll about people who can't see what is in front of them?

Aaaaaaand we hear from grumplestiltskin.

If the rider had full legal reflectors and you had your lights on then the reflectors (red on the back, yellow on the pedals, and white on the sides of the wheels) should have shown up very well. If nothing was in the way, they show at quite a distance.
To me a ninja cyclist has taken off the reflectors.

Taillights are an extremely good idea for night riding.
Requiring taillights opens a new can of worms.
What are the penalties for failure to comply?
Since they are required in some situations shall we require that all bicycles sold be so equipped?
If so will the additional cost of cycle purchase and ownership decrease cycle sales?
Will militant environmentalists decry the increased use of disposable batteries and demand that cycles be equipped with dynamos?
Will the increased cost cause cycles to be even more attractive as targets of theft and thus decrease their attraction as pure transportation?

IMHO many folks are far too quick to say "There oughta be a law".

If the rider had full legal reflectors and you had your lights on then the reflectors (red on the back, yellow on the pedals, and white on the sides of the wheels) should have shown up very well. If nothing was in the way, they show at quite a distance.
To me a ninja cyclist has taken off the reflectors.

Excellent question. The fact that said cyclist did not appear visible until the last second was probably due to the following. First, the fact that there were many cars on the road, and the car tail and brake lights had drowned out whatever visibility said ninja had. Second, the ninja was riding at the extreme right edge, making it such that any reflectors did not have light shined directly upon them. And yes, in retrospect it's certainly possible that the reflectors were removed (I'll never know for sure.)

Tail lights or reflectors in NC

20-129. Required Lighting Equipment of Vehicles
(e) Lamps on Bicycles. Every bicycle shall be equipped with a lighted lamp visible up to three hundred feet in front when used at night and must also be equipped with a taillight or rear reflector that is red and visible for up to two hundred feet from the rear when used at night.

In SC:


SECTION 56-5-3470. Lamps and reflectors on bicycle. A bicycle when in use at nighttime must be equipped with a lamp on the front which must 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 that must be visible from distances from fifty feet to three hundred feet to the rear.

I typically run two tail lights; a generator powered tail light (some have stand lights) and a PB Superflash in strobe mode. People need to be educated and receive tickets for not being properly lighted. Ditto cars with with equipment deficiencies.

Aaron:)

Front, rear and pedal reflectors at all time, as well as a front and rear lights at night are already mandatory here.

Yes, but I think they already are required in most places.


so, if passing a law isn't going to make it happen, then why bother? to give the local pd yet another thing to write tickets for?

if you REALLY want to get people to put on tail lights, run an education campaign and hand a bunch out for free. criminalizing people for behaving unsafely is intrusive and counter productive.

Where I live, they ARE required for the period of time "1/2 hour after dusk until 1/2-hour before dawn". No new law needed, as in most places -- just not all.

It DOES also need to be applicable in LOW-LIGHT conditions -- cloudy, foggy, raining, etc. Likely a PD judgment call.

Those that have said no -- 1st, check your local laws to see if you have something similar to what I quoted from my state. 2nd, a question -- is it just the 'law' idea, or is it the tail light you object to? I'm just curious....

Aaaaaaand we hear from grumplestiltskin.

For some reason this post reminds me of a fellow who was arrested while walking backwards down the boulevard with his fly open. When asked about his motive he replied that he was "Trolling for fe11atrixes".
For some reason these posts make me think of proposing a mandatory law about wack-a-doodles who post with nothing intelligent to say.

For some reason these posts make me think of proposing a mandatory law about wack-a-doodles who post with nothing intelligent to say.

LOL And you would recognize something intelligent how? You have a handbook?
"The Complete Idiot's Guide to Recognizing Intelligent Conversation" perhaps?

You can throw it [the mandatory bell] at a car that passed you too closely.

ROFL :D

Regarding the original topic: "So, should taillights be required safety equipment for night riding?"

I say yes. That's a reasonable requirement for what amounts to a road-going vehicle: that it emits red light rearward so it can be seen in low light and darkness, even when the viewer doesn't have headlights turned on (unlike reflectors). If taillights make sense as a legal requirement for autos, they make even more sense for bicycles, since overtaking vehicles could be overtaking the cyclist with a speed differential of 30-50mph / 50-80kph.

In Virginia:

Equipment

Every bicycle ridden between sunset and sunrise must have at least one white headlamp with the light being visible at least 500 feet to the front. The bicycle must have a red reflector on the rear visible at least 600 feet to the rear. On roads posted with speed limit of 35 mph or greater, the bicyclist must additionally be equipped with at least one red taillight visible from 500 feet to the rear. Taillights may be steady or blinking, are allowed under all conditions, and may be attached to the cycle or rider.

Bicycles ridden on highways must have brakes which will skid the wheels on dry, level, clean pavement.

Reference: §§46.2-1015,46.2-1066 ^TOPICS

LOL And you would recognize something intelligent how? You have a handbook?
"The Complete Idiot's Guide to Recognizing Intelligent Conversation" perhaps?
It doesn't include people who post absolutely nothing on a thread and then jump in to gratuitously lambaste another poster as a dummy without responding to the content of the alleged dummy's post. Usually it is just some name calling, or an ad hominem argument such as I ignore whatever the dummy posted because he is a dummy, therefore whatever he posted must be dumb. Everybody else should do the same.

Pick Me!! Pick Me!! I wanna play too!!

In Virginia:

Equipment

Every bicycle ridden between sunset and sunrise must have at least one white headlamp with the light being visible at least 500 feet to the front. The bicycle must have a red reflector on the rear visible at least 600 feet to the rear. On roads posted with speed limit of 35 mph or greater, the bicyclist must additionally be equipped with at least one red taillight visible from 500 feet to the rear. Taillights may be steady or blinking, are allowed under all conditions, and may be attached to the cycle or rider.

Bicycles ridden on highways must have brakes which will skid the wheels on dry, level, clean pavement.

Reference: §§46.2-1015,46.2-1066 ^TOPICS

Of course no one whines about mandatory brakes. Not surprizing in the least. It's been a question for me since I was just a tiny kid, and yes on the mandatory tail light. I honestly couldn't care less about laws. I didn't add to this poll. Most users with even a slight bit of a sense of self preservation would have this all figured out, but then there are, as we already know, those who hate laws for the sake of laws. If our government is going to run our lives, they'll start with tail lights on our bikes. :rolleyes:

For some reason these posts make me think of proposing a mandatory law about wack-a-doodles who post with nothing intelligent to say.

That's alright...
All of your posts make me wonder if you're getting enough fiber.