Originally Posted by jputnam

Here is what my actual suggestion was (new text underlined), borrowing language already used for the aim of low beam headlights on cars:

(1) Every bicycle when in use during the hours of darkness as defined in RCW 46.37.020 shall be equipped with a lamp on the front which shall emit a white light visible from a distance of at least five hundred feet to the front, aimed such that on a straight level road none of the high intensity portion of the beam shall be directed to strike the eyes of an approaching driver, and with a red reflector on the rear of a type approved by the state patrol which shall be visible from all distances up to six hundred feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful lower beams of head lamps on a motor vehicle. A lamp emitting a red light visible from a distance of five hundred feet to the rear may be used in addition to the red reflector. A light-emitting diode flashing taillight visible from a distance of five hundred feet to the rear may also be used in addition to the red reflector.


The "micromanagement" Beck complains about says "don't shine high intensity headlight beams into the eyes of oncoming traffic at night."

It seems pretty simple, safe, and easy to comply with to me, especially compared to the alternatives. Since most bicycle headlights don't have separate high and low beam patterns, others have proposed regulating them like single-beam headlights on motor vehicles. Here's the existing code for that:

**** (1) The head lamps shall be so aimed that when the vehicle is not loaded none of the high intensity portion of the light shall at a distance of twenty-five feet ahead project higher than a level of five inches below the level of the center of the lamp from which it comes, and in no case higher than forty-two inches above the level on which the vehicle stands at a distance of seventy-five feet ahead;


Would you rather look at your light and make sure it isn't shining in people's faces, or would you rather measure your headlight height, go out 25 feet and make sure the top of the beam is at least five inches below where it started, then go out to 75 feet and make sure the top of the beam is no higher than 42" above the pavement?

Both rules are existing RCW for motor vehicle lighting, and I know which one I would consider micromanagement and which one would be easy to comply with for the minority of cyclists who use headlights powerful enough to be a safety concern.

Originally Posted by jputnam

The existing ban is a ban on white flashing lights, and it applies to all vehicles except emergency services.

There's no general ban on blinking bicycle lights, just on blinking white lights. I don't personally find that onerous, my rear blinky is red, my front is amber, because amber is more conspicuous than white and is a color motorists already associate with hazard warning lights and clearance markers. My headlight is white, and doesn't blink.

My suggestion, while discussing the aim of high intensity headlights, was that, since flashing white lights on bicycles are already illegal in this state, that should be reflected in the bicycle lighting statute.

I don't personally have any interest in lobbying to legalize white flashing lights, since amber flashing lights are more effective and are readily available from many reputable manufacturers. But, as I've also stated before, if Beck wants to take on the traffic safety and emergency services communities in an effort to allow flashing white lights, he's certainly free to do so.

Originally Posted by Bekologist

jputnam,

amber safety lights for bikes are NOT readily available or even manufactured by the major bicycle lighting companies. trying to clarify the ban so people run an amber emergency landing strip strobe on their bikes just like you is a clear sign you're not considering the majority of bicyclists light choices for safety.



i have a recommendation: if you're really truly interested in bicyclist safety at night and not simply censuring riders into being just like you running amber safety lights not readily available or manufactured by major bike light companies, change that law to ALLOW flashing lights on the front of bikes in washington.

slight mods to the 'special lamp' law would both allow flashing lights and regulate the aim of high powered ones, without the grave chance of misinterpretation of the bicycle regs.

strike 'motor' and 'tail' from existing lamp law, and change rcw 36.47.280 to read

RCW 46.37.280
Special restrictions on lamps.


(1) During the times specified in RCW 46.37.020, any lighted lamp or illuminating device upon a vehicle, other than head lamps, spot lamps, auxiliary lamps, flashing turn signals, emergency vehicle warning lamps, warning lamps authorized by the state patrol and school bus warning lamps, which projects a beam of light of an intensity greater than three hundred candlepower shall be so directed that no part of the high intensity portion of the beam will strike the level of the roadway on which the vehicle stands at a distance of more than seventy-five feet from the vehicle.

(2) Except as required in RCW 46.37.190 no person shall drive or move any vehicle or equipment upon any highway with any lamp or device thereon displaying a red light visible from directly in front of the center thereof.

(3) Flashing lights are prohibited except as required in RCW 46.37.190, 46.37.200, 46.37.210, 46.37.215, and 46.37.300, warning lamps authorized by the state patrol, and light-emitting diode flashing lights on bicycles.


as it is, your proposed changes to state law stand a grave chance of misinterpretation by cyclists.

Of primary importance regarding bicyclist safety in Washington (you ARE concerned about roadway safety for bicyclists in Washington, aren't you?) would be to explicitly ALLOW FLASHING HEADLAMPS ON BIKES.

Originally Posted by Bekologist

correct, you're mistaken.