|
Light Laws
For some reason Iowa's light law when it comes to bicycles is a light on the front that has to be seen form a certain distance by others, but only a reflector is required for the rear. There is nothing that says the light on the front has to have the ability to effectivley light up what is in front of the bike enough for the rider to see.
I am not looking to change this. If I announced I was I'm sure I'd be pounced on by others here like they pounce on people when it comes to helmet laws. What I would like to know is does this make sense to you? Doesn't using a flashing rear red light make you easier to be seen, thus make it safer for you to ride at night? Do you think using a light vs. reflector is a personal choice like with a helmet vs. not wearing one? Do you think using a light vs. reflector makes riding at night safer? For the record I use 5, yes I said 5, red flashing tail lights when I ride at night. |
I personally think lights should be mandatory. However, I would note that having a reflector on the back of a bike, but requiring a headlight makes a lot of sense.
Having a head light makes you visible to cross traffic. If somebody is coming off of a cross street, and planning to go across the intersection, or turn right - a front reflector is useless, because their headlights will not be pointing toward you. Which means they will not see you coming. On the other hand, a rear reflector will be reflecting light anytime somebody is behind (assuming they have their lights on). If somebody makes a right turn onto the street behind you, their lights will reflect off of your reflector. If somebody is crossing the intersection, you're already passed - it's a lot different than if they can't see you coming. So having a headlight is extremely important, a taillight is better than just a reflector, but I feel the need for the a headlight is even greater. |
Originally Posted by Square & Compas
(Post 9996830)
For some reason Iowa's light law when it comes to bicycles is a light on the front that has to be seen form a certain distance by others, but only a reflector is required for the rear. There is nothing that says the light on the front has to have the ability to effectivley light up what is in front of the bike enough for the rider to see.
I only have two blinkies a reflector and reflective tape in back. I'm feeling some blinky envy about your five! Speedo |
While I would certainly recommend the use of rear lights in addition to reflectors, I don't think the law needs to be changed. The technical reasons why reflectors are more effective on the back of the bike than on the front. And even though I think adding rear lights is safer, the danger is primarily to the rider and therefore the decision should be his to make. OTOH, a cyclist without a front light could easily run into a pedestrian and cause injury, therefore the law mandating front lights is justified.
I'd also be opposed to adding more lighting requirements since I think they'd just be adding to the laws we already have that are rarely enforced. In California, in addition to the front light and rear reflector we also have requirements for pedal and side reflectors, yet many cyclists have no lights or reflectors at all and there seems to be minimal enforcement. |
Same law in Michigan. Front light, 500 feet visibility required, rear reflector, 100 to 600 feet visibility with low beams pointing at it, red light optional.
Personally, I think rear lights AND reflectors should be required. Lights work in situations where reflectors don't, but reflectors work without batteries. I have a Magicshine up front, a Dinotte and a Superflash in the back, a 4" DOT truck reflector and about 8 feet of white reflective tape all over the frame, and I wear a reflective vest, so I think I'm covered. I'm thinking about picking up a NiteRider Cherry Bomb, putting that on my helmet, then putting my two Superflashes on the seat post angled out at close to 90 degrees, with the Dinotte pointing straight back. In addition to reflectors. |
Colorado's law is pretty much similar. I think its quite common to require a headlight in the front and reflector in the rear.
|
Originally Posted by Square & Compas
(Post 9996830)
For some reason Iowa's light law when it comes to bicycles is a light on the front that has to be seen form a certain distance by others, but only a reflector is required for the rear. There is nothing that says the light on the front has to have the ability to effectivley light up what is in front of the bike enough for the rider to see.
I am not looking to change this. If I announced I was I'm sure I'd be pounced on by others here like they pounce on people when it comes to helmet laws. What I would like to know is does this make sense to you? Doesn't using a flashing rear red light make you easier to be seen, thus make it safer for you to ride at night? Do you think using a light vs. reflector is a personal choice like with a helmet vs. not wearing one? Do you think using a light vs. reflector makes riding at night safer? For the record I use 5, yes I said 5, red flashing tail lights when I ride at night. Lights and reflectors on bicycles, etc. (17) When on a highway at any time from one-half hour before sunset to one-half hour after sunrise and at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 150 metres or less, every motor-assisted bicycle and bicycle (other than a unicycle) shall carry a lighted lamp displaying a white or amber light on its front and a lighted lamp displaying a red light or a reflector approved by the Ministry on its rear, and in addition white reflective material shall be placed on its front forks, and red reflective material covering a surface of not less than 250 millimetres in length and 25 millimetres in width shall be place on its rear. 2009, c. 5, s. 28 (1). I'll admit, I have the lights, but other then a wheel reflector, I don't have the reflective material. |
It is common. The reason there is no 'illumination' requirement (as in being able to read a newspaper at 20ft) is that for cycling speeds there is no chance of overrunning your light, so even running balls out you can see where you are going. A car can easily go fast enough that by the time you see something in the lights, you don't have enough time to react. (if it takes you one second to react to something you see, at 20mph you have one second to react to something you see 30ft ahead, at 50 mph you need to see something at around 80 ft away to react in the same second.)
The important thing is that a driver can see your light, simply because a point source of light can be seen much farther away than that same light can illuminate. Ken. Edit: visibility requirements mean how far away the light can be seen from, not how far you can see using that light. The coast guard requires 2 mile visibility for anchor lights, that requirement would be prohibitive on boats, (and require a light that could travel 4 miles, from source to illuminated object, and back to source) |
Originally Posted by Square & Compas
(Post 9996830)
For some reason Iowa's light law when it comes to bicycles is a light on the front that has to be seen for. . . .For the record I use 5, yes I said 5, red flashing tail lights when I ride at night.
|
The laws (headlight in front, reflector in rear) set a minimum standard. Most cyclist who ride at night and care about their visibility realize the minimum is too little.
I have mixed feelings about increasing the minimum - more important at this point is getting better compliance to it. |
Most state bicycle laws read very much the same.
When the standard law was written that most states picked up on, there were NO nice little red blinky bicycle lights that you could go out and buy. Therefore the reflector. The white headlight selection was limited, but they were available, and most only provided enough light to be seen. By the way, one or two of your rear lights should be on steady mode. Blinky lights make it much harder for a motorist to judge the distance they are from you. |
Personally, I think it should be criminal to sell a bike to anyone over 16 without lighting. Since we can't depend on people asking for years in a coma, I'ld also require reflective sidewalls on all tires sold in USA.
If we argue a bike is a vehicle, then it should have similar vehicle laws. At night: headlight, tail light and side clearance lights. I know some will disagree, so I'll stop now, but simply make up your minds: are bike vehicles or toys. Your answer to that question will direct your answer to this question |
Originally Posted by HiYoSilver
(Post 9997649)
Personally, I think it should be criminal to sell a bike to anyone over 16 without lighting.
|
I think the real effort is getting folks to comply to the existing lighting laws. Having greater requirements will only dilute that and lead to more harassment style stop for those who are mostly complying vs. the many who don't at all. It will also lead to more legal issues for those who were intending to comply after an incident where the other party involved was at fault independent of the lighting the cyclist was using.
Get to the point where I can go out at night and see at least half of cyclists with front lights or a reflector of any kind I may start to change my mind. Having greater equipment requirements is not going to get more cyclists to at least get a marginal front blinky and a rear reflector let alone an adequate front and rear light. |
Originally Posted by HiYoSilver
(Post 9997649)
Personally, I think it should be criminal to sell a bike to anyone over 16 without lighting. Since we can't depend on people asking for years in a coma, I'ld also require reflective sidewalls on all tires sold in USA.
If we argue a bike is a vehicle, then it should have similar vehicle laws. At night: headlight, tail light and side clearance lights. I know some will disagree, so I'll stop now, but simply make up your minds: are bike vehicles or toys. Your answer to that question will direct your answer to this question Also I don't see why I should pay for some "lights" that barely meet some low "standard" that I will never use. As for reflective side walls. I sure wouldn't want to ride on them. I don't think their grip on the corners is as good as on regular tires. There is a reason why some higher end tries come only come in black... UD |
Originally Posted by HiYoSilver
(Post 9997649)
Personally, I think it should be criminal to sell a bike to anyone over 16 without lighting. Since we can't depend on people asking for years in a coma, I'ld also require reflective sidewalls on all tires sold in USA.
If we argue a bike is a vehicle, then it should have similar vehicle laws. At night: headlight, tail light and side clearance lights. I know some will disagree, so I'll stop now, but simply make up your minds: are bike vehicles or toys. Your answer to that question will direct your answer to this question |
Originally Posted by noisebeam
(Post 9997678)
It would be criminal to have me pay for lights I won't use too. Well 'criminal' may be a bit over the top.
|
Most bikes are never ridden at night. And if you sold them with lights, the batteries would never get replaced and they'd be useless anyway.
People who are going to use and maintain lights will buy them. The rest, even if you gave them lights, they'd either throw them away or not keep them running anyway. Reflectors make sense; at least they don't need maintenance to keep running. |
Originally Posted by CB HI
(Post 9997731)
I think you should be required to buy a $500 Nightrider light just like I use, otherwise, your not a "real" cyclist like me and are just on a toy!;)
|
One day when I rode in to work, one of my co-workers pointed to my flashing lights and said I couldn't run them since I wasn't driving an emergency vehicle. I later searched the Illinois vehicle code and found that red lights facing forward are prohibited, as are flashing lights on most motor vehicles, but couldn't find anything specifically prohibiting flashing front or rear lights on bicycles. Does this mean they are always allowed?
|
Originally Posted by HiYoSilver
(Post 9997649)
Personally, I think it should be criminal to sell a bike to anyone over 16 without lighting. Since we can't depend on people asking for years in a coma, I'd also require reflective sidewalls on all tires sold in USA.
If we argue a bike is a vehicle, then it should have similar vehicle laws. At night: headlight, tail light and side clearance lights. I know some will disagree, so I'll stop now, but simply make up your minds: are bike vehicles or toys. Your answer to that question will direct your answer to this question |
Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy
(Post 9998209)
What about bikes sold for racing? Should they be required to be sold with a light set and reflectors, etc.?
|
Lights are fine, but, we have got to stop trying to MANDATORY everything on cycles. The point should be to not only encourage cycling, but to encourage low tech cycling. All forms of cycling can be done safely without all the extra "mandatory" gear, whether it be lights, bells, mirrors, helmets. For every extra "mandatory" item, there is a drop in number of cyclists and a phenomenon of "habitual non compliance" or "habitual criminality". This is a phenomenon observed with very young offenders. If they experience legal backlash for behavior at a young age, instead of acting as a deterrent, the legal actions act as habituation, leaving the person in a constant state of assessment of self as criminal, increasing innapropriate benavior even more. An excess of unnecesrary laws onto cyclists has a similar effect in that the masses get used to not complying to any rules since there are too many, and so no safety gets achieved anyway.
At the very basic end of law making, laws are there to protect us from dangers, cycling is simply not dangerous, and to me NO laws that impede cycling in ANY way are desirable. Motorised vehicles are inherently dangerous, and they need as many laws as needed to impede their murderous ways. The trick to have more people cycling is to have cycling be easier, safer (meaning less car induced deaths, instead of contentment with less percentage of skull scratches), cheaper (vs more gadgets to purchase), and more accessibility. Rear lights are often an invisible joke! I suspect that 80% of rear lights sold are useless anyway. I did use a red laser beam as self defense last year though, amazingly, the annoying little red beam stopped several uncoming motorists from cutting me off. I'd carry the key laser around my neck and as soon as I saw someone about to cut me off (night riding in SE Florida), I'd point the beam at their windshield and they stop immediately. Loved it! |
Originally Posted by tallard
(Post 9998795)
Lights are fine, but, we have got to stop trying to MANDATORY everything on cycles. The point should be to not only encourage cycling, but to encourage low tech cycling. All forms of cycling can be done safely without all the extra "mandatory" gear, whether it be lights, bells, mirrors, helmets. For every extra "mandatory" item, there is a drop in number of cyclists and a phenomenon of "habitual non compliance" or "habitual criminality". This is a phenomenon observed with very young offenders. If they experience legal backlash for behavior at a young age, instead of acting as a deterrent, it the legal actions act as habituation, leaving the person in a constant state of assessment of self is criminal, reducing innapropriate benavior even more. An excess of unnecesrary laws onto cyclists has a similar effect in that the masses get used to not complying to any rules since there are too many, and so no safety gets achieved anyway.
At the very basic end of law making, laws are there to protect us from dangers, cycling is simply not dangerous, and to me NO laws that impede cycling in ANY way are desirable. Motorised vehicles are inherently dangerous, and they need as many laws as needed to impede their murderous ways. The trick to have more people cycling is to have cycling be easier, safer (meaning less car induced deaths, instead of contentment with less percentage of skull scratches), cheaper (vs more gadgets to purchase), and more accessibility. Rear lights are often an invisible joke! I suspect that 80% of rear lights sold are useless anyway. I did use a red laser beam as self defense last year though, amazingly, the annoying little red beam stopped several uncoming motorists from cutting me off. I'd carry the key laser around my neck and as soon as I saw someone about to cut me off (night riding in SE Florida), I'd point the beam at their windshield and they stop immediately. Loved it! |
Originally Posted by tallard
(Post 9998795)
Lights are fine, but, we have got to stop trying to MANDATORY everything on cycles. The point should be to not only encourage cycling, but to encourage low tech cycling. All forms of cycling can be done safely without all the extra "mandatory" gear, whether it be lights, bells, mirrors, helmets. For every extra "mandatory" item, there is a drop in number of cyclists and a phenomenon of "habitual non compliance" or "habitual criminality". This is a phenomenon observed with very young offenders. If they experience legal backlash for behavior at a young age, instead of acting as a deterrent, the legal actions act as habituation, leaving the person in a constant state of assessment of self as criminal, increasing innapropriate benavior even more. An excess of unnecesrary laws onto cyclists has a similar effect in that the masses get used to not complying to any rules since there are too many, and so no safety gets achieved anyway.
At the very basic end of law making, laws are there to protect us from dangers, cycling is simply not dangerous, and to me NO laws that impede cycling in ANY way are desirable. Motorised vehicles are inherently dangerous, and they need as many laws as needed to impede their murderous ways. The need for a license, registration, insurance... have all kept the automobile from becoming as popular as it should be. The trick to have more people cycling is to have cycling be easier, safer (meaning less car induced deaths, instead of contentment with less percentage of skull scratches), cheaper (vs more gadgets to purchase), and more accessibility. Rear lights are often an invisible joke! I suspect that 80% of rear lights sold are useless anyway. I did use a red laser beam as self defense last year though, amazingly, the annoying little red beam stopped several uncoming motorists from cutting me off. I'd carry the key laser around my neck and as soon as I saw someone about to cut me off (night riding in SE Florida), I'd point the beam at their windshield and they stop immediately. Loved it! |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:52 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.