Originally Posted by
lostarchitect
I love how so many of you are acting like the OP said you don't need lights, when all he said is reflectors are useful. The two are not mutually exclusive. Typical A&S, I guess, gotta fight about something!
Except in this case they
were mutually exclusive. The rider that Milton Keyness saw didn't have lights and was relying on reflectors only. The rider was probably under the impression that since the bike came with reflectors that was all he needed to ride at night. The Consumer Product Safety Commission may not
want to be sending that message but that is the message being received.
Originally Posted by
Leisesturm
I don't know... how many cyclists actually go out of their way to remove the very useful and life saving reflectors that come attached (very) securely to the spokes of their wheels? Furthermore, more than a few lights and flashers on the market are fairly effective reflectors by design, when not under power. Is the o.p. addressing a legitimate issue of cyclists purposely removing reflectors, whether to mount lights instead, or simply to experience the Ninja rush first hand? Also it must be said that a number of tires found on the kinds of bikes most likely to wind up ridden in traffic at night have highly reflective sidewalls. Just saying.
A large number of them based on my experiences with seeing hundreds of wheels at my local bicycle co-op. We see bicycles of nearly every vintage you can think of and a significant number are missing the wheel reflectors. Some have been purposefully removed and some have broken off. Not all of them are high end, although there are fewer high end bikes with wheel reflectors than with them.
As for the reflectors being "life saving", read the CSPC report I linked to. Even they found them to be ineffective.