Missing bike reflectors
 

I've noticed while reading different threads containing photos that very few bikes have reflectors in the spokes, and mounted front and rear. Why? Is it not intended for safety?

Lights work better than reflectors, including spoke lights.

I don’t ride at night. I use daytime lights to help to be seen. Also, my shoes and clothing all have reflective bits on them.

If I rode at night, I would use reflectors.

Reflective Tape
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...3e5b047a1b.jpg

Know what your state and local laws require. Some require certain reflectors even it you have lights. Others you can use lights in lieu of reflectors. There also can be differences whether it's night or day. So in general, it makes it hard to give a blanket answer to cover the USA, much less the entire world that comes to BF also.

Reflectors sometimes are more noticeable than lights. For certain when I see bright yellow lights going up and down, I know I'm very likely to be coming upon a cyclist with yellow reflectors on their pedals. And besides, if nothing else, they're a good backup for lights that might fail on the trip. So I'm not sure why some are so vehemently opposed to them and blast any that mention the word reflector here. Though that hasn't started... yet.

I endorse front and rear lights for night or day. Probably a thousand times better than any reflector.
More than a few motorists exclaimed to me that my flashing rear light amazed them.
And a flashing front routinely causes a double-take on my rides, including one today!
The wheel reflectors or lights never made sense to me. Like the driver will see me a split second before smashing into me?
Amassed around 200,000 miles in my lifetime without reflectors & zero stops by law enforcement. Toss 'em in the trash.

Wheel reflectors in general are ineffective in warning traffic coming up from the side of a bicyclist's presence. If a bicyclist is at risk of an angle crash from cross traffic, for nearly all that time the bicyclist will be viewed by the crossing driver from the front, not the side, and the wheel reflectors will have little effect. This is compounded by the fact the headlamp(s) on the crossing vehicle are shining forward and not much at all to the side, and not in the direction of the approaching bicyclist.

If a bicyclist rides in front of a driver at a separation where the reflectors are clearly visible, it's nearly always the case that a collision is very unlikely to happen as the distance is such to allow the bicyclist to clear the crossing vehicle's path. If the crossing vehicle and bicyclist are close enough to collide, then the wheel reflectors typically only become visible in the headlight path an extremely short time before impact, and with insufficient time for the crossing driver to react.

This is why a good working headlamp on a bicycle is probably the most important piece of equipment to increase safety when riding at night (behind having a rider on the bicycle who has skills and awareness.) You need that light to shine out and let crossing traffic know of your presence so they can avoid collision (and maybe even see the roadway) - and front reflectors alone suffer from all the same performance problems as wheel reflectors. All other reflectors except for rear-facing ones aren't going to perform that task - and worse, many riders believe they do, which means they may think they're in a better situation regarding conspicuity and safety than they actually are.

All that being said, some of my bicycles have (rather vivid) wheel reflectors. Mostly for fun. But I clearly understand they are absolutely no substitute for a good headlamp.

Here's an animated GIF that helps to illustrate the issue.
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...ec6c794e63.gif

???

The wheel reflectors are oriented to 90' from the head/tail orientation of the bicycle. They do require to be illuminated by the cross traffic. But they only work for "traffic coming up from the side".

???

This bizarro GIF is showing a bicyclist running into a car.

The car isn't "coming up from the side". The car is in front (on the right) of the cyclist and not moving at the start.

The only way the cyclists would be seen by the driver is by having an front light. Reflectors (any reflectors) would be useless in such a situation.

--------------------------------------------



https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...4e1993e24d.png

This is the situation that wheel reflectors are intended for. In this situation, a front light isn't that useful.

They are not intended to be a substitute for a headlamp. They are intended for a different purpose (one that headlights tend to be not good for).

Reflectors work at night. Most people don't ride during the day. Ergo, they don't need reflectors.

Reflectors need to be illuminated. So, they only work when the cyclist is in front of the car headlights. Ergo, they are not sufficient for "safety" (you need lights too).

The crossing driver entered the intersection because they saw no conflicting traffic; e.g. the bicyclist. I could have very easily redone the graphic with the crossing vehicle striking the bicyclist from the side, noting that the wheel reflectors aren't illuminated by the headlights until just before impact - or if they are illuminated with enough distance to avoid an impact, the crossing vehicle is far enough back that a collision is unlikely.

We're talking about the same issue. We agree that reflectors are not a substitute for a good front light - and yet I've lost count of the people who ride bikes who do think the CPSC 360 degree reflector requirement supplants the need for a light, and that the reflectors alone are sufficient.

My recollection of my reading about the original 1970s testing was that the agency had bicyclists ride in figure 8s in darkness at a distance in front of illuminated motor vehicle headlamps, and that success was measured by some reflector being visible at any viewing angle. So the criteria (360 degree retroreflection) looked good theoretically, but doesn't match up well with any likely realistic crash scenario (overtaking, pull-out from side, turn across path from front, etc.) Reflectors designed for these real-life risks would look much different from the current CPSC regulations - and would probably resemble many commuters' typical setup (large directly-facing rear reflector, pedal reflectors, not much else in the way of reflection, but good lights front and rear).

Should the CPSC mandate lights instead? As noted by the most recent reply, many cyclists don't ride at night. And although LEDs are anazing in durability and brightness, they're still not foolproof. I just think the overreliance on passive retroreflection in the standards can suggest to many casual riders that they're safer than they might actually be.

As a driver, I've noticed the side wheel lights are useful in the city to reduce pull outs. Especially if you're riding on the sidewalk (not something I generally recommend but in urban areas there are places where it makes perfect sense for short distances). I've had a few instances at night where I saw riders well in advance when I wouldn't otherwise have seen them until the last second due to signs and bushes. Reflectors would be worthless in that situation.

Can’t remember the last bike I bought that came with reflectors, and I wouldn’t say I’ve been missing them, Bob. :D

As an illustration of wheel reflectors, the diagram is wrong and makes no sense. It would have been fine as an illustration of the benefits of using a headlight (which has nothing to do with wheel reflectors).
​​​​​​
You are saying (as an analogy) that a hammer is not a "good substitute" for a wrench. This is wrong. It's two tools for two different purposes.

The CPSC is in a weird place to make these sorts of requirements. The states have their own laws (not all the same) and the states would be the ones enforcing compliance.

The CSPC did a study on reflectors in 1996. The study reached this conclusion about the effectiveness of side reflectors:

The CSPC rejected the findings on side reflectors ineffectiveness and most states still require some kind of side reflector.

​​​​​​
RCMoeur’s illustration makes perfect sense. Many people think that side reflectors do a good job of providing warning to a motor vehicle in a “crossing path scenario”. They are ineffective and give a false sense of effectiveness. The CSPC study that I linked to above states this clearly. The crossing path cyclist wasn’t recognized in the study except in a very narrow (15° to 20°) range. At 20 mph, bicyclists were noticed as bicyclists in crossing path situations at a mean distance of about 140 feet compared to 600+ feet in a parallel path situation. The study was done in the best conditions as well. There were no fences or other obstacles blocking the illumination from the automobile. Most suburban roads will have fences and/or landscaping that would reduce the range of recognition to far less than 15°.

A better analogy would be that wet pasta isn’t a good substitute for a wrench. The pasta is useless. Reflectors…especially side reflectors…are useless. Active lighting is far better. In fact, reflectors give some riders the impression that is all that is needed.

The CPSC at least gives a lowest common baseline for the states to work from. The reflectors required by federal regulation are barely better than nothing but at least they are barely better.

Now you've done it...

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...15563480e8.jpg

No, it doesn't. There are two "crossing path scenarios". The diagram manages to show the wrong one.

I doubt anybody knows how many people think this.

But he wasn't making this argument. He wasn't showing where the didn't work. He was showing where they couldn't ever work. This is wrong.
(I would not have had an issue if he made this argument.)

Of course, active lighting is better. The CSPC agrees with this too.

"In fact", I suspect there are very few of those people here.

I always use lights and have always thrown away the CPSC reflectors on my bicycles. I used automotive reflectors on the rear in the past for emergency backup. With those old incandescent bulbs a backup was a good idea. The automotive reflectors work better than the CPSC reflectors. My modern taillight has a built in reflector. It also has a stand light. The Wheel reflectors never served a useful purpose to me. My tires have the reflective strip so I meet California law as if that matters. I never go anywhere without my handlebar pack so I have the front reflector on it.

The CPSC rule or law for reflectors being all you need was a suckup to the bicycle manufacturing industry. John Forister was involved in a lawsuit over this subject. When I lived in Germany most bicycles came with lights or wired for them. In addition to bicycle shops the hardware stores stocked all the light components. I found the neatest thing one day in a bicycle shop in Frankfurt. Im calling it the predecessor to the stand light. A silver box with 4 D cell batteries that you hooked up to your light set. When you were near stopped your heard a loud noise and your lights would go out then come on full power. The noise was a mechanical relay I think. The lights in those days were as some would say were not any better than using a cheap flashlight. The benefit of the lights then was you were visible to the motorists. They surely didn't do enough for traveling at speed in the dark.

Lights obviously make it safe. Due to culture or just plain stupidity. Lights are only enforced on motor vehicles, in the USA. I was last in germany in Nov of 1981 I wonder what the bicycle light situation is like there now.

1. John Forester was involved in a lawsuit on this subject - so what is that supposed to indicate?

2. I bought several new bikes in Germany for myself and family between 1986-2002. They all came with lights AND a full set of installed reflectors (wheels, front and rear facing and pedals). Every bike in the various stores I visited in Germany and The Netherlands was similarily equipped.

3. What new light law do you want do you want to see enforced on bicycle sellers in the USA?

The results are the same…and for the same reasons. The wheel reflector only works if the light hits it. In a “crossing path” scenario, a cyclists has to be almost directly in front of a vehicle for the reflectors to be seen. A motorist pulling out from an intersection could either pass in front of the cyclist, resulting in the cyclist crashing into the car or the bicyclist could pull out in front of the car resulting in the car crashing into the bicyclist. Both scenarios are due to the ineffectiveness of side reflecting reflectors. The area of detection is just too small for the cyclist be see in time. Add in landscaping and/or fences and the angle of detection can be reduced to zero.


Look at the number of people who in this thread alone have done over the top side reflecting treatments…including RCMouer. Just about every state has a requirement for side reflectors. CSPC still requires them even when they have been to shown to be ineffective.


As I pointed out above either scenario results in about the same result. The CSPC study showed that “crossing path” illumination in the very best conditions occurs at less than 140 feet. Let’s look at an example of what a fence does to the sight angle. This is an intersection in my neighborhood. (Stop signs have been removed since this picture was taken). Ignore the car going around me and assume that my shadow is in the position that a car traveling forward. A bicycle coming from the right during the day is hidden by the fence. At night no light from the car would illuminate any reflector on the bicycle until the bike is about 10 feet from the intersection. Bicycles are hidden from the cars in daylight. If no light hits the reflector, it is a useless piece of plastic and in most “crossing path” situations light is never going to hit the reflector until it is too late for the car to avoid the bicycle.


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...f2722ce5d.jpeg

“Here” is an enthusiast club. We think about bicycle issues a whole lot. The general population…which is most of the population of the world…sees reflectors on the bike and think that is enough. Most fatalities occur from dark to dawn and a large percentage of those fatalities are on unlighted bicycle.

Again, no. The first diagram shows they don’t understand how they are supposed to work. The “not a substitute for a headlight” equally shows they don’t understand how they are supposed to work.

All the more reason to reject incorrect explanations.
One’s credibility is weakened by using an incorrect explanation.

One person said he found them useful. Using an example that shows “you” don’t have any idea about them isn’t going to sway hem at all.

This is a “it’s not perfect” argument. Nothing is perfect.

The CSPC link is more convincing.

Forester \CPSC


​​​​​​​Lights on bicycles

As I did note earlier, the side retroreflection on my bicycles is primarily for looks and not in any expectation of improved safety. The greater concern are the riders who think side reflectors are effective and in doing so choose not to use headlamps - which are required across the US by state statutes.

This cite does not indicate what Forestor's objection to the CPSC's regulation on reflectors was, nor the outcome of the case.
Can you provide a summary? Lots of people instigate lawsuits for lots of reasons, some of them have a case, others are frivolous and just blowing smoke.

Edited to add:
Does this CPSC press release provide the outcome of Forestor's lawsuit on the subject of reflectors?"Office of Information and Public Affairs Washington, DC 20207

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 3, 1977 Release # 77-057

CPSC Announces Court Decision On Bike Regulation WASHINGTON, D.C. (June 3) -- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) today expressed satisfaction at a court decision which affirmed its authority to regulate bicycles under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). In a decision handed down June 1, 1977, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the Commission's authority to issue design and performance standards that ban those products which do not meet the specifications was upheld, as was the Commission's action to regulate full-size bicycles as "articles intended for use by children." The Court also upheld specific provisions of the bicycle regulation which took effect last year. These include provisions on reflectors, stopping distance brake requirements, wheels and tires. Finding insufficient justification in the record, the Court order remanded several provisions of the bicycle regulation to the Commission for further consideration. These include brake pad material, handle bar width, pedal construction and protusions. The Commission's staff is currently studying the remanded sections and will make their recommendations to the Commission as soon as possible. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission protects the public from unreasonable risk of injury or death from 15,000 types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction. To report a dangerous product or a product-related injury and for information on CPSC's fax-on-demand service, call CPSC's hotline at (800) 638-2772 or CPSC's teletypewriter at (800) 638-8270. To order a press release through fax-on-demand, call (301) 504-0051 from the handset of your fax machine and enter the release number. Consumers can obtain this release and recall information or report product hazards to info cpsc.gov."

I never heard anyone say, or ever read a direct quote from anyone who actually claimed, that side reflectors are an effective substitute for headlamps; have you?