Iride01 

Well if 80,000 pound vehicles had the visible surface area of a cyclist then they may have considered it.

mr_bill

An 80,000 pound vehicle is a "light" vehicle. I did not know that.

What's the visible area of a Smart Fortwo? Or a Fiat 600? (I know, both of them in Montana. Just like both people who ride a bicycle in Montana.)

They would "just be making it easier for" Smart Fourtwo drivers "to be noticed by anyone."

-mr. bill

Iride01 

Oh, sorry, I did misread your post from being in too big a hurry.

However as to your point about tiny cars, I'm not sure where you are going with that. But around here, surprisingly most of the tiny cars I see are brightly colored.

mr_bill

Find me a Fiat 600 or a Smart Fortwo on a new car lot in Mississippi.

I'll wait.

For example, the used Smart Fortwo's available in Jackson are black, blue, red, and black. None are "brightly colored."

(p.s. All cars and motorcycles and bicycles and pedestrians are small compared to an 80,000 pound vehicle.)

-mr. bill

base2 

It only seems fair to introduce a bill to require that drivers operate their vehicles in a safe & reasonable manner that presents no risks to non-licensed conveyance operators...

When was the last time a cyclist (or farm tractor, or moped, or Segway, or pedestrian, or, or, or...) presented risk of harm to a car driver in Montana?

Being that a bicycle is unlicensed, I don't know that a manner of dress for existance in public spaces could be Constitutionally mandated anymore than mandating tube-tops, Burkah's, or trucker hats.

Iride01 

Yes they are so what? I don't know what point you are trying to make. Seems I just ruffled your feathers and annoyed you but you've no feelings toward this issue the OP posted.

mr_bill

Ask yourself why back bench state legislators keep trying to “protect” people on bikes and people on foot by mandating that we wear “high viz” clothing so that we can “safely” share the road with 80,000 pound vehicles, but never ever mandate “high viz” colors for automobiles “sharing” the road with 80,000 pound vehicles.

BTW, I think Denley Loge is an idiot, but his constituents voted for an idiot. I also think that his bill will pass when Texas freezes over.

-mr. bill

Paul Barnard

As I have thought more about the comment it appears that we may be reading "narrow, winding roads" in two different ways. I'll just type out my full thought here. Every driver has a responsibility to travel winding roads with limited sight lines at a speed that will allow the driver to react in time to avoid things they may encounter around the corner. Whether that's a boulder that has fallen onto the road, free range cattle, a stalled car, a mail carrier or a bicyclist.

I understand the value of bright colors on higher speed open roads. They are more likely to capture the attention of marginally engaged drivers. When a driver's number one priority is paying attention, even cyclists in shadows can be seen well over 1/2 mile away during daylight hours, and it only takes about 1/10th of a mile to stop an 80,000 pound truck going 65,000 MPH. It seems more and more that less visible road (and waterway) users are expected to take action to command the attention of operators. The key messaging should be focused on, and the key legal duty should be placed on, operators.

All that said, I do not trust drivers to be responsible.

Ferrouscious 

*eyes narrow*

Iride01 

Well as I already said a cyclist doesn't present very much visible area to be seen. A huge transport or tiny Smart ForTwo is still way more visible area that will be seen more easily against whatever background and surroundings they are typically in. Even in dark colors.

Though I'll admit that even a tiny cyclist in bright colors can sometimes not easily be noticed at a distance. Cycling down the Natchez Trace there are many times in the spring and summer that sunlight hits a green spot of an embankment far down the road and I think it may be a cyclist in the typical light greenish yellow kits that is popular among those that like to wear bright colors.. Of course in that instance I at least noticed something even if my identification of it was wrong.

If you were to be saying that color of clothing isn't going to make a significant difference, I might agree somewhat, but I'd still not be so inclined to claim I was being unduly imposed on if my state was to require such.

If you want to say that there should be more laws against those that run over others, well, there already are laws about that. If they aren't being correctly applied by those in power, then that's a different issue entirely.

mr_bill

You’re really gonna die on the “area” hill? Any bills that young (small area) kids walking to school must wear high-viz blinky propeller beanies?

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

(p.s. This is a blame the victim bill. It will die. It should die.)

-mr. bill

Iride01 

How many kids walk to school anymore? Yes, I guess I will die believing that I can't see a small area of a cyclist a mile or so down the road as well as I can one of your tiny cars.

Don't know why you think this is blaming the victim. Maybe I should be upset at the US Coast Guard for requiring me to run nav lights at night on a small boat.

I'm not saying this bill will do anything. I've no idea how many cyclist get injured in Montana. Nor do I know whether they were wearing colors that blended in or made them as visible as possible. I'd understand more if you care to make the point that it is an unneeded bill. But you aren't doing that.

indyfabz

Well...You’ve got a major group headquartered right in Missoula.

DangerousDanR

The actual text of the bill as currently amended can be read at https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/billpdf/HB0184.pdf

My reading of this bill is that it is a very poorly worded attempt to gain favor with some constituents. It is also just another misguided attempt to "make things safer." A colleague of mine used to like to say "if you make something idiot proof, the world will make a better idiot." Is Montana going to require that all the bears wear retro-reflective lime vests?

Also, this bill doesn't define anything in a legal way. For example, what color is "lime"? What color is "hunter orange"? It allows "retroreflective material" but does not state what that means. Almost any material has some level of reflectivity and some of the reflected radiation will be back at the emitter. I also think they mean that it must be reflective in the visible spectrum ( wavelengths from 400-700 nm), but they don't require the material to be retro-reflective in the visible spectrum. They state that the side reflectors used at night must be visible in the low beams of a car, but which car? My car has projector lights and almost anything is visible in the low beams at 500 feet.

The state I used to live in passed a law prohibiting dumping "radioactive waste", without defining the level of radioactivity. The agency tasked with enforcement told the legislature in advance that the law could not be enforced because everything has some level of radioactivity, but they passed it anyway. This bill is full of the same kind of crap.

A well worded law needs to define these things. Retro-reflective material meeting ASTM (or SAE, or ANSI or ISO ) standard xxx. The color requirement needs to be "a color approved by <some agency> for highway safety markings. My wife and I wear pink jackets. They are about the same color as the incident signs we used in my old fire department, which met the standards defined by the Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. By the way, orange signs are reserved for construction.

From the FHA web site I gleaned the following color chart for signs:



Maybe Denley Loge could have asked someone in the state DoT for some help with this? Oh yeah, they don't think it is a good idea.

The requirement to ride on the shoulder seems to include wording that makes the determination of "safe" up to the bicyclist. I'm not sure about the rest of y'all, but when I have the option of a well maintained shoulder on rural roads that is where I ride.

This bill requires bicycles to ride single file unless passing a slower vehicle, including another cyclist. So no static pace lines side by side, but a rotating pace line is just fine? Never mind that it is easier for a motor vehicle to pass a 10X2 pace line than a 20X1.

The bill appears to have been passed by the Montana House and is now in committee in the Montana Senate. Hopefully it will die in committee. My wife and / or I had hoped to do some riding in our neighbor to the west this summer. If this bill passes, and if we do go, I expect to wear something that requests Denley Loge to do the anatomically impossible in some color that is very visible.