KD5NRH

Yeah, we should get rid of them on cars too. Just think of the fuel savings from not lugging around all that weight when a lot of people don't plan to use the car at night.

rebel1916

The OP is the rarest of American breeds. A portland style "transportation cyclist". He is no doubt delighted at the thought of horrifying all the recreational athlete type cyclists. He has not given thought to the fact that the vast majority of "transportation cyclists" in the US are poverty stricken immigrants, many of questionable legal status. If his pipe dream were to be enacted into law, the primary result would be that the police would use the new law mostly as probably cause to stop these poor disadvantaged individuals.

bbbean 

Education, not legislation!

cruiserhead

X10000

"mandatory" is just legislating ourselves into more expense, waste and lawsuits.
Bicycle use is ALREADY clearly defined in every state.
Taking a automotive point of view and forcing it onto bikes is NOT the answer.

Instead of trying to punish cyclists, focus on things to actually make it more popular.
Bike paths, lanes, education and city planning.

I-Like-To-Bike

A thread on the commuting list https://www.bikeforums.net/commuting/...eople-say.html provides more discussion on the subject of how disconnected some posters are from what reality is for many if not most cyclists who depend on a bicycle for their daily transportation needs.

mconlonx

...said me never, anywhere.

ItsJustMe

I think the thing that will most improve cyclist safety is enforcing laws already on the books. Drunk driving, distracted driving, aggressive/fast driving, just plain being a friggin' moron behind the wheel.

Compared to those things, which are already illegal but which are regularly ignored by law enforcement, DRLs would be a trivial improvement.

I guess there's no law that says that laws actually have to be enforced.

auldgeunquers

Here in Ontario any MCycle from 1970 on must run with lights on at all time. At least that was the rule some years ago when I was riding around on a 1970 Jawa 350 California - the charging system was not quite up to it, and I had to charge the battery once a week or so depending on how much I rode. I often wished that bike was just a bit older ...

auldgeunquers

Let's just outlaw stupid instead.

KD5NRH

It would never pass unless the legislators get an exemption.

auldgeunquers

Should they not excuse themselves from the vote due to conflict of interest?

hotbike

The Bike Share Program seems to incorporate LED Running Lights. ALL of My Bikes have Amber Markers at this point in time...


Unfortunately, if we make these lights mandatory, a lot of people will simply give up cycling, or give up their plans to start cycling, or decide not to buy bikes for their kids. I can't believe how cheap people are...

rydabent

Rather than DRLs for bikes, lets go back to the early 1900s. Someone with a flag had to run in front of autos. The roads would be far safer!!!

howeeee

One thing I love about riding bicycles in Michigan, the police and legislatures dont give much of a hoot of what we do lol I like it that way, I can run lights right in front of cops, they dont even notice. Last thing we need is more laws making it a pain to ride.

jputnam

Either that, or the requirements for the mandatory lights will be watered down to make the lights so cheap they're worthless.

daihard 

If DRL became mandatory on the federal level, it would mean all bicycles sold in the U.S. would come with a pre-installed light. If that happens, it may not be all that bad.

jputnam

Do we have any reason to believe the standard would be any more effectively designed than the CPSC toy-bicycle reflector standard?

I would expect it to require lights so dim and useless that competent cyclists immediately replace them with something adequate, while the rest are misled into thinking themselves safe with grossly inadequate lighting.

daihard 

I don't have any reason to believe that the standard would be as ineffective as the toy bicycle reflector standard. Af the very least, the vehicle headlights aren't that bad where the DRL is mandatory.

jputnam

Vehicle lighting is regulated by an entirely separate agency, with data-driven safety standards and intense Congressional oversight.

Bicycles are regulated as toys by the CPSC, with no rigorous investigation of standards and little if any oversight.

Vehicle road lighting beam patterns have been regulated since the 1940s. DRLs just required some of those already-regulated beams to be kept on in daylight.

There are no Federal standards for bicycle lighting, and the agency in charge says reflectors are an adequate mandate for adults who choose to ride their toys on the street.

Unless bicycle lighting requirements were placed with an entirely different Federal agency, what would make CPSC take safety seriously?

CliffordK

I would be happy if all bicyclists just used lights AT NIGHT. Asking for them in the day is just a bit much.

There is the Cyclops Light Fallacy.
Essentially when the Cyclops Brake lights were first installed on NYC Taxis, the benefits for crash protection appeared huge, about 50%? Then as more and more vehicles got them, the decrease found in later studies dropped the number down to about 4.3%. Not zero benefit, but not nearly as great as the early studies had predicted.

Here is the note from Wikipedia
I wonder if in bicycle congested areas, as 50% or greater of the bikes start blinking during mid-day, any safety improvements of the blinkers would go away. I suppose there would be a benefit for the early adopters.

The other thing is that I tend to avoid the heavy traffic congested areas, and thus I believe my risk is lower. I have had a few near-misses in Portland, in particular from cars pulling out in front of me, but that has been quite some time ago.

ItsJustMe

I don't believe for a second that legislators are stupid. I think in the case of lawmakers, the old adage should be reversed and modified:

Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed and selfishness.

tbo

In summary:

• DRL's on bikes are probably a good idea, at least for now for early adopters.
• Helmets are probably a good idea, but nowhere near perfect.
• If you are going to ride at night, use a light. If you don't want to buy a light, just don't ride at night.
• Bike Ninja's are evil and doing cyclists in general a disservice. If you are a Bike Ninja, own that fact.
• Bicycle riding is better than not riding.
• Cost impedes riding.
• Lights can be expensive*
• The real problem is motorists killing and maiming bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorcyclists.
• Bicycle legislation in the US usually ends up being a shield for motorists. ("I didn't see them, so they must not have had their light, glow-in-the dark helmet, High Vis vest, and whatever else I can think of that should be required so that I never have to be responsible")
• Bicycle legislation in the US usually inhibits bike riding.

* My wife has a $60 bike with a $120 light on it. Go figure.

hotbike

No, the issue is, the Lights come on automatically , when the bike is in motion. A small Magnet and Coil are enough to light the LED. I have seen LED Pedals, and LED Wheels on Childrens Scooters, the mechanism is foolproof, and the idiot can't forget to turn the lights on... the lights help in the daytime too, the CitiBike and other Alta Bike Share Bikes all have LED, that always stay lit in motion , and up to two minutes after the bike stops.

It could be done, but not to DOT standards for Motorcycle Lighting... That's my own [h=1]prerogative.[/h]

kickstart

Without taking sides one way or the other, its interesting to note that bicycle lights are mandatory in the Netherlands and Germany without a negative impact to cycling.
It seems logical to expect more regulation as mode share increases.

KD5NRH

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7XXVLKWd3Q