Old 01-07-22, 11:40 AM
  #43  
cyccommute 
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,365

Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones

Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6219 Post(s)
Liked 4,219 Times in 2,366 Posts
Originally Posted by Juan Foote
Funny enough, a very similar situation must have happened, or perhaps even this one. We were absolutely NOT allowed to remove reflectors from a new bike. We absolutely HAD to install them on any and every new bike that we built. It wasn't optional.
There are a couple of reasons for having to put on reflectors. First federal regulations. The Consumer Product Safety Commission require them under federal statute

§ 1512.16 Requirements for reflectors.

Bicycles shall be equipped with reflective devices to permit recognition and identification under illumination from motor vehicle headlamps.
Second, most all states in the US require them under their laws in accordance with the Uniform Vehicle Code. Most states I’ve looked at require a front light, thankfully, but many require a rear reflector with a light being optional. They also require some kind of side reflector (as does the federal reg) even though a study by the CPSC shows that side reflectors are completely useless.

Originally Posted by Rdmonster69
I have front and rear lights and reflective strips in the fabric of my riding gear. . I don't really need a reflector. My MTB never goes where there are cars so I think the visibility thing is not needed there. I do understand that most people should keep the reflectors if they are not going to be using lights so I think you are spot on for some folks. I pull them off my motorcycles too. A bright red Ducati wit reflectors on the forks. No thanks. Its a beauty thing !! : )
While I agree that reflectors are mostly useless, I have them on my bikes in as small a profile as possible. Because most states require a front light at night as well as a rear reflector and side reflectors at all hours, it is a good idea to have them. If you get in an accident and don’t have the required reflectors, a good lawyer can make you partially or wholly culpable for any accident you might be involved in. That could have a severe impact on any ability to sue for damages in the event of an accident.

Originally Posted by jfouellette
I don't understand why someone would remove a safety device from a bicycle. Reflectors add conspicuity to the bikes and cyclists. Maybe a testosterone behavior. "reflectors are for whimps" or "real cyclists don't have reflectors"
While I have reflectors for the above reason, I don’t see them as any kind of safety device. Active lighting is a safety device and I see requiring them at night to be a reasonable course of action. Reflectors are passive and depend on light hitting them as well as the reflector being clean enough and positioned correctly for light to hit them. My attitude isn’t that “reflectors are for wimps” but that reflectors are mostly useless. Side reflectors are particularly useless based on the conclusion that was reached in the study linked above but the CPSC and state laws still require them. Conclusion from that study:
​​​​​​​



And there is also the attitude among many cyclists that “if I have reflectors I don’t need lights”. There’s even case law that says you can sue if you only use reflectors because no one told you that you needed lights at night.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!



cyccommute is offline