tadawdy

A few questions regarding specifics of Illinois cycling law regarding lights. I have read law cards and searched but can't find these specific answers.

1. The law says, paraphrasing, that a red rear reflector is required, but that a rear light visible from 500 ft can be used in addition to a reflector. The specific wording makes it sound like a rear reflector is required regardless of having a light, but the visibility restriction makes it sound like an acceptable light can replace the reflector. otherwise, why the visibility requirement? Thoughts on this? I have a Superflash Stealth, and if cars don't notice that from a mile away, they won't notice anything short of police sirens and lights and a reflector is not going to make a bit of difference.

2. I haven't seen anything regarding whether headlights and taillights have to be continuous, or if it is permissible to have them flashing. I always use them flashing, because this seems more noticeable to me, and that is their intended purpose (not to mention extending battery life). I probably wouldn't flash a 500 lumen light, but the 30 lumen one I have is for others to see me and not the other way around. Is it legal for them to flash? I think on cars, they must be continuous. I suppose if there is no specific law for bikes, then the car law applies. Anyone know any different?

grumpy606

Hi

I am in the UK.

But I have not seen any laws that state lights are a legal requirement. But flashing red lights are reserved for police, so they would be ilegal on a bike. In the UK.

G

ItsJustMe

Reflectors are required because batteries fail. I assume the distance requirement is either a suggestion or is just because they lifted the verbage from elsewhere.

I believe that I have read that some countries have laws against flashing lights, even flashing taillights, but I don't think I've heard of this in the US. There are laws limiting the colors you can have; no blue at all unless you're a cop, no red allowed up front are usual rules.

John E

Other than the blue lights for cops and red in front prohibitions, I have never heard of anyone in the U.S. being busted for having excessive and/or flashing lights. Most blinkie taillights also act as reflectors, so this may suffice in that department, although I have always had lights and reflectors, plus red-and-white striped reflective tape.

The Human Car

Every rear bike light that has a red cover also acts as a red reflector as far as I am aware of.

SlimAgainSoon

I put a small red reflector on my seattube, aimed to the rear, and a small white reflector of the front of my helmet.

Why? Not because I thought it would do anything, because I doubt you can see it over the two PB SuperFlashes out back and the lumen-load out front.

I did in case of an accident ... so I'm clear with the law.

I didn't want a driver getting off, or the driver's lawyer trying to spread the liability my way, because I didn't have all that the law required.

BarracksSi

Only a few do, actually. Of several rear lights I own, just two have an honest-to-goodness reflector -- a rebadged Viewpoint Flashpoint and a Serfas Stop Sign. The Superflash may look like it has a reflector, but it's not -- the little grid pattern only disperses light from its LEDs and doesn't reflect at all (if you've got one, try it for yourself).

As far as what the law allows or requires, it varies by jurisdiction. Here in DC, for example, a taillight can substitute for a reflector.

In some other countries, bikes are required to have generator-powered front and rear lights, although consideration is given to "sport bikes" that aren't normally used for daily transportation and can use battery-powered lights instead.

ItsJustMe

Well, it might reflect light, but most of the cheap bike lights that I've had might have something that kind of looks like a reflector, but they're definitely not DOT compliant - very poor reflectivity. Compared to the proper reflectors that come on a bike, they're not very visible and I would NOT ride if all I had was that with no battery in it.

I have a 4" x 1.5" DOT truck reflector mounted on the back of my rack, reflective tape on a bunch of my frame, and reflective tape on half of my rear wheel, the standard white reflector up front, and if it's at all dark I wear a reflective vest. This is in addition to the 140L in the back, a Planet Bike SuperFlash on the back of the helmet, and now a MagicShine 500 lumen headlight in front (was a Dinotte 200L before today - I may use the 200L on the helmet now).

njkayaker

For the US.

The reflector requirement makes sense because it is cheap and simple and (fairly) effective. All bicycles in the US are required to be sold with reflectors (it's a federal level law).

For riding at night, having lights is a common (nearly universal) requirement at the state level (keep in mind that there may be local/municiple laws too). Since many people don't ride at night, making lights a requirement for all bicycles isn't reasonable. As other people have said, reflectors always work.

In the US, it seems that none of the laws specifically excludes having a light that blinks. I think blinking lights are more noticible. A small, steady light can get "lost" in places (urban areas) with lots of other lights around.

I think, techncally, you might have to comply-with what cars have to do but having any lights (with or without reflectors) puts you well ahead of most other cyclists riding at night.

If you have (working) lights, I suspect that cops won't care if you have reflectors or not or whether or not the lights are flashing. For riding at night, a flashing front light might not work that well for you. It might be better to use a lower power flashing front light in addition to a brighter steady light. (Of course, red in the rear and white in the front. Years ago, there was a yellow/amber rear flasher sold in the US but I haven't seen anything other than red at the present. Some rear lights have yellow/amber side lights in addition to the red rear light.)

I think most of the rear lights are poor reflectors. The Niterider Cherrybomb has a built-in reflector. I have no idea how good the reflector is.

===========

The rules in other countries (eg, in Europe) are different. In some (all?) Eurpean countries, flashing is not allowed. In Switzerland (I believe) all bicycles need lights and they have to be powered by a generator.

(According to Wikipedeia, flashing red rear is now legal in the UK.)

===========

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_lighting
https://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/..._enrolled.html
https://chicagobikelaw.blogspot.com/
https://www.stc-law.com/bikelighting.html

The Illinois "Bike Card".

https://www.bikelib.org/enforcement/bikelawcard2007.pdf

For night riding, a front white light is required, a rear red reflector is required. A rear red light is optional but it's in addition to the reflector.

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs...s+Vehicle+Code.

The Human Car

You may be correct about the Superflash but it has to be not working in order for anyone to notice that. In MD the law for the rear of the bike is reflector OR reflector and light OR light that can also act as a reflector (red in all cases)

The minimum standard for bike reflectors is extremely poor compared to that for motor vehicle reflectors, it really does not take much to satisfy the law for a bike reflector. I would rather see people get the Superflash then something of lower visibility just to satisfy the reflector bit in case the batteries run out.

ChipSeal

Reflectors are cheap and simple, but they are not effective. In fact, they are pretty much useless for conspicuity at night, and it is because of the nature of reflectors and how they work.

The reflectors need to be within a very narrow angle to both the light source and the "eyes" we want to see us. This angle range is wider with reflective films than with rigid reflectors. A clear and brief explanation can be found here.

Rigid reflectors effectiveness drops off the greater the angle, reaching zero by thirty degrees!

Furthermore, and even more ominous, reflectors are completely worthless to help prevent the most common bicycle/car collision types, that of crossing movements at intersections and junctions.

In other words, by the time reflectors alert motorists to the presence of a bicycle, it is too late to avoid a collision.

Headlamps and cyclist being alert for these crossing conditions is our only real protection.

tadawdy

Thanks guys. In any case, I suppose putting a bit of reflective tape here and there can't hurt. Red on the seat stays, white on the head tube in addition to lights (maybe some on the heel of my shoes). The thing about having only a rear reflector, and not a light, is that I am constantly surprised by how many people drive at night without their headlights on. I typically ride in well-lit areas, so I suppose you could not notice that your lights aren't on. Makes reflectors ineffective, obviously.

Regardless of liability in this case, I would just rather not be hit.

njkayaker

Everything is a trade-off. Given how cheap they are, reflectors are vastly better than nothing.

For people really concerned about being safe, reflectors are not at all sufficient. I wasn't recommending them.

Rear/front reflectors would certainly be useless in such a case. That's one reason side reflectors are required to be included by the US law.

The original post wasn't asking about what was best. But I don't disagree with your statement!

============

You really need/want a rear light. A rear reflector isn't enough. Note that a failure of a rear light is not going to be noticed by the rider (unlike the failure of a headlight). That's one reason for the "in addition" phrasing of the law.

I think reflectors on things that change like the wheels and pedals/shoes is going to be more noticible. Your torso is also a big piece of real-estate.
Your first concern is not getting hit. Not getting hit also avoids any liability issues (which are an overrated risk anyway).

The only point for reflectivity in a rear-light is if the light fails for some reason.

Yes, get a good rear light (something that flashes, in my opinion) and not worry if it's reflective or not. (But keep in mind that you'll generally have no idea if it has failed.)

BarracksSi

In MD, then, a Superflash doesn't meet even the minimum requirements. My PBSF doesn't reflect worth a darn, and Planet Bike doesn't even claim that it has a reflector portion.

Niterider says that the Cherry Bomb mentioned a few posts back has a "reflector insert", but it may only be referring to the chromed plastic piece inside. The red cover doesn't look like a CPSC reflector at all; in fact, it looks more like the PBSF's light-dispersing grid. I'd have to find one and test it out to say for sure, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

At any rate, a reflector needs to be shined upon to work, and even standard seatpost-mounted reflectors might be too high to be fully effective. Car headlights are designed to not spread light above their midpoint when on low beam (if anyone's unsure about this, look at the horizontal cutoff of the headlight pattern against a wall if you get a chance). The lower, the better, and this is part of why pedal reflectors can be really effective, too.

njkayaker

I own one (and like it) and I pretty-much expect the light is worthless without being on!

Note that rear-lights are also useful when it isn't quite dark enough for reflectors to work.

Car lights spread out much more than you think. Also, the effect is related to distance too. Reflective signs (mounted higher than reflectors on bicycles) show up fine in low car head-lights.

A big deficiency with red reflectors is that there are many red reflectors around. Anyway, no one (here) is suggesting here that reflectors are enough to keep safe.

These work very well (more because they move and they identify the object as a cyclist).

ItsJustMe

Regardless of whether they are effective or not (or whether they make you safer if you also have a light), if the law requires reflectors, put one on. Two reasons; if your light fails, at least you'll have SOMETHING. Sure, a 1" reflector isn't as visible as a SuperFlash, but I've certainly at least SEEN reflectors on bikes while I was driving a car WELL before I would have seen them without a reflector.

Second, if you do get in an accident, even if you have a dozen taillights on the bike, the lawyer of the guy that hit you may be able to convince the court that if you didn't have a reflector as required, you were partly at fault for not having legally required safety gear.

prathmann

Agreed, and I'd also mention that I see many cyclists using a red blinking tail light with very weak batteries. In some cases I've seen the little reflective tab on their shoes well before I've been able to spot the blinking light - and this is in the beam of my bike headlamp which is much weaker than that of a car.

Especially with rechargeable batteries which go dead much more suddenly than alkalines, there's always the chance that your rear light is no longer putting out as much light as you think it is. A decent rear reflector costs and weighs very little and provides much better visibility than a light with dead batteries or that has failed for some other reason.

sauerwald

My Dinotte 140 tail light has no reflector.

tadawdy

I do use a rear light and headlight. I have just been wondering about whether it is enough, legally and practically. So, I'll add some reflective tape and be done with it. Of course, the bit about preferring not to be hit was an understatement. I guess I should also have said that I didn't want to be "at fault" should I be hit (that's the real question here, I guess) instead of liability, which means slightly different things colloquially and legally.

ChipSeal

We agree, but there is much misinformation floating around because the Consumer Product Safety Commission ignored objections to their conclusions and made recommendations for bicycles assuming they were only to be used as toys. I used your comment as a springboard to warn of reflectors ineffectiveness.

That being said, I use a lot of reflective films on my bikes, but I am doubtful as to their ability to make me stand out at night.


At the risk of being pedantic, the requirement does not show efficacy. In fact, as quoted in a previous post, the study was UNABLE to improve visibility to crossing traffic with ANY reflector configuration! To crossing traffic at night, unless you have positive light sources in your bicycle or person, you are INVISIBLE to crossing traffic. It is impossible for reflectors to improve that situation.

It is gravely important for nighttime cyclists to understand this and to adjust their behavior to account for it when encountering cross traffic.

njkayaker

It would be interesting to see what lights work well for crossing traffic. A headlight or helmet-mounted light might be a little bit of help but not a lot.

Absolutely.

BarracksSi

The way I think of it is that if I'm planning to cross a street and I wait until they're close enough that they'd have to brake for me, any visibility enhancement of mine won't count if the driver isn't paying attention. Wheel reflectors, side lighting, reflective sidewalls, a bright helmet light, whatever -- if a driver is busy texting or something, they won't see it.

I won't disavow side visibility, but I won't recommend that anyone depend on it, either.

The other basic scenario where side visibility might make a difference is when a car is stopped and waiting to enter or cross a street, and the cyclist is approaching. This time, it's plain to see () that the car's headlights aren't pointing towards the cyclist at all, and no reflector will ever be effective. Bike lights are definitely needed here. Then, when the cyclist passes in front of the waiting car, it's only for a brief second, and besides, the driver would have (hopefully) seen the bike's headlight anyway.

BarracksSi

Oh yeah --

Just wanted to add that I, too, have been driving and seen a bike's reflectors before spotting its dim, poorly-aimed blinky.

There isn't a much more effective way to render even a Superflash totally useless than to clip it to a backpack and have it blink into space.

ChipSeal

Good point BarracksSi. LED lights (Which I use exclusively) have made light and bright battery powered lights possible, and I like the flashing modes. But they tend to have very narrow beams, so proper placement and orientation are a necessary condition for usefulness.

PBSF are wasted if they are mounted on helmets, clothing or backpacks.

njkayaker

Since there's nothing one can do to keep other drivers from being distracted (except, maybe, with noise), this is another discussion than the one about lighting systems.

The first responsibility for keeping you safe is yourself. This is true in every situation where you are active (ie, not a passive passenger). The role of safety equipment, like lights, airbags, etc, is secondary. One is being irresponsible to "depend" on it. That is, they serve as backups to failures of the primary safety "device" (people including you).

I think that bicycle lights are always required at night when riding in traffic. Reflectors still might help in the scenario you describe (as would bright clothing). There is much more scatter from car head lights than people are saying.