achoo

Because if you're festooned with lights the little red reflectors that meet CPSC guidelines and are the types required by law are superfluous.

Rest assured if you don't have an "approved" reflector on your bike, it WILL be held against you if you're hit at night. Even if you're lit up like a Christmas tree.

I-Like-To-Bike

I've heard that urban legend before, can you validate it by pointing to a single case where lack of a reflector "was held" against a well lit cyclist?

Mos6502

If you're smart enough to have a tail light, then why would you care if there was a law requiring you to have one?

It's not like this is a slippery slope, and next thing you know bikes are going to have airbags and seat belts.

mikeybikes

Because its just one more law for our judicial system to handle and police to enforce.

Also, where do you draw the line? The argument is that lights make it easier for a car to see you. Sure, I'll give you that. So do reflective vests. So does reflective tape all around your bike. So does three taillights.

If all these make it easier for a car to see you, then why not have a law?

You're right though, requirements like those would be ludicrous, but if you ride with those, why wouldn't you care?

crhilton

You forgot the sirens. I'm pretty sure sirens would help.

I-Like-To-Bike

Why not; as well as mandatory tire studs for slippery conditions. And mandatory "training" by "certified" trainers to ride a bicycle in the approved manner.

Goes without saying what the mandatory safety wear should be on cyclist heads at all times. Anyone who doesn't agree with additional mandatory safety requirements shouldn't be allowed to ride anyway,eh?

mikeybikes

As long as they don't mandate spandex.

joejack951

Or ban it.

Wogster

The standard reflectors are fine, if the motor vehicle is at the correct angle from the bicycle, like some of the older LCD monitors, it's directly behind or within a few degrees. Given this, tail lights should be required, but there should also be a federal standard for bicycle tail lights, like there is for automotive tail lights, effectively the tail light would act like a reflector when not lit.

Mos6502

What if they just mandate common sense?

Ngchen

Reason is that a reasonable level of safety benefits everyone. No one wants to wreck with anyone else, even if the other person were a ninja. Ninjas getting killed skew the statistics on cycling safety to be more dangerous than it really is or should be. The exact amount of skew is probably unknown at the present.

That being said, IMHO the law should mandate a basic level of safety, and no more. You're correct in that safety vests, training, and such probably do make people safer, but they would go "beyond" the basic level IMO and would make cycling more expensive and less accessible, not to mention take away from people's sense of style. Consider the extreme in the other direction - no rules whatsoever. No brakes, no reflectors, nothing. Would such be a good idea?

dynodonn 

That's not going to happen, if it was possible, because it seems everybody's version of common sense tends to be a little different. I had a former employer who tried to tell me that working for him would be easy as long as one used their common sense. I tried like hell for several years to figure out what his version of common sense was, but only to end up resigning my employment with him in total frustration.

mikeybikes

Well, what's wrong with the current basic level of safety?

Some states require both a front light and rear light. Other states only require a front light and rear reflector. Is there a large gap in the number of traffic collisions between these states to justify a requirement of a rear light? These things all have to be considered.

If "ninjas" with only rear reflectors are so much of a threat to public safety, then why haven't more municipalities mandated rear lights?

mikeybikes

Common sense is almost never common nor sensible.

wahoonc

No need to reinvent the wheel...so to speak.

Aaron

Ngchen

FWIW the Cateye TL-LD500 also is a combined taillight/reflector. I am of the opinion that it's far more important that one has a taillight that works, than to worry about which light to get although some taillights are undoubtedly superior to others.

wahoonc

A lot of tail lights have a combination reflector, IMHO most should have a reflector or only be used as a secondary. FWIW the two lights I pictured above meet the fairly stringent standards for use on German, Dutch and Danish roadways/cyclepaths. And yes they will ticket you for not having one or an inoperative one. Something that probably should be done with more regularity in the US. The laws are on the book and need to be enforced.

Aaron

Mr Danw

Aren't tail lights required on other vehicles? They even have them on Amish buggies.

Wogster

The reason for a certification, is to make it easier to buy a decent tail light, and easier for states/provinces to word laws requiring them. For example a state requirement for a tail light that meets federal certification, is easier then expecting one to know whether a specific unit is visible a certain distance back. It also makes buying one easier, in that you just look for models that meet that same certification.

wahoonc

I agree, but rather than trying to come up with a completely new set of regulations (I know the government needs to justify it's existence) they could just adopt the standards from a country that has them already worked out. Like Germany... Unfortunately the only current standard in the US for rear reflectors for bicycles is the CSPC standards and they leave a lot to be desired. We need to go global with ISO standards. I have long used DOT reflective tape as an adjunct to the stock CSPC reflectors, there are several states that the law states that the if the bike is ridden at night it must have the reflectors required by federal law (ie;CSPC standards), if you replace them with something better you are in violation of their laws. In the US many laws are left up to the individual states, this is a case where a universal federal standard "might" be a better idea. All of my bikes exceed the minimum standards for any state I have ridden in. At minimum I run a front generator light with stand light, a rear light with stand light and a Planet Bike Super Flash. I also have reflective components on my clothing and gear. Unfortunately the minimum requirements are not enforced for all bike riders, it is also unfortunate because the rider is the one that is most likely to come out on the losing end when they are involved in an accident.

Aaron

Digital_Cowboy

Not just the taillights but the headlights as well. There should be standards for both sets of lights. Serfas has or had a taillight that has a reflector built into the lens that's what I use.

Bikepacker67

I'm torn.

Being in Canada, and carfree, I'm inevitably riding in the dark for half of the year.
And I wouldn't be caught dead (or rather I'm afraid I would) without my headlight, blinkies and ANSI vest.

But do I want to legislate that? I dunno... maybe I do.

I certainly have come upon some wrongway ninja idjits that I've had to quickly navigate around.
And if we're TRULY traffic (which I adamantly believe), don't we have some responsibilities?

Bikepacker67

There's a big fine here in Canuckistan, if they catch you going over the mountain passes without the proper tires.

Something about being unprepared on the road and putting others (and yourself) at risk.

Can you believe it? Silly Canadians.
/snark

Wogster

I think one could find such standards all over Europe. I think the reason there are no such standards in North America, is that the bicycle is often thought of as a toy, and that is why the Consumer Product Safety Commission set the reflector standards instead of the Federal Department of Transport in the US or Transport Canada up here. Bicycle standards set at a federal level would include all safety equipment in a Bicycle Safety Act (similar to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act in Canada). This would include not only tail lights, but head lights, bells, horns, gongs, brakes, helmets, tires and reflectors. Provincial and state laws would be simpler in that they would just state that road bicycles and equipment must meet the BSA standards. Products that do not, would simply go off the market, good riddance to them. it also means that 2 bills would need to be put forth in respective legislatures, to change a standard instead of 63.

dougmc

This isn't exactly what you're asking about, but it's pretty close ...

https://www.atxbs.com/?q=node/1095

Basically, the cop ran into Adam and messed up his rear wheel. Totally their fault (and stupid, because it was fairly well lit and he was only one of like 200 cyclists), and they admitted it. However, the city attorney decided that they would not be paying for the damages because while Adam had both headlight and taillight on his person, the law says the bike must be so equipped, and he was violating the (letter of the) law, and therefore they would not pay.

Ultimately, Adam appealed this ruling and won -- they paid for his damages. But my point is, they will attempt to use ANY little violation of the law, even if you're doing way better than what the law requires, to avoid paying a claim or taking responsibility. Texas law requires a rear flasher OR a reflector, and so he was good with a flasher, but rest assured, had the law required a reflector, they'd have used that as yet another reason to deny his claim.