Iride01 

So if you look in the requirements for the other vehicle types, none say lighted. When you go to the section of title 63 that deals with when lights are required to be on, bicycles are not described. Why? Maybe because the required equipment section says that lighted lamps must be on the bike when used on highways and since they are already on because of the equipment requirements, then there is no reason to discuss them in the section of when to use.

Undoubtedly this is not enforced or generally known by law enforcement or cyclists in Mississippi. Perhaps there is some previous section that voids the requirement for a lighted lamp front and back. However I've not seen where that is. And note that a reflector is okay too. But for daytime, it's probably going to have to be a big reflector to meet the 500 foot requirement. Not certain if a flash of the lamp or reflector is okay, or that it must be steady light.

Just because it's not enforced doesn't mean I'll risk giving the other persons attorney a leg up on putting blame on me for not having a lighted lamp. After all, Mississippi is a share the blame State for court decisions on liability. So even if I'm only assessed a small portion of the blame it may very significantly change the awards I get or penalty I'll have to pay.

Iride01 

Well a bicycle is a vehicle by Mississippi Law. And vehicles, human powered vehicles, are allowed on MUP's. Years ago when I previously got into this, I think MUP's will be highways covered under 63. I might get motivated enough to look at that later.

Even if MUP's are not specifically under the things covered by Title 63, then I thought there is a legal argument or something that is way over my paygrade to even mention much less try to discuss, that says when no other specific rules are defined for such things then the rules of similar things can be applied. Whether that will be applicable or not, I don't know.

livedarklions

No, if the law applies penalties, due process requires its applicability to be specifically defined.

It's not clear in that chapter. MUPs arguably fit the definitions of roads AND sidewalks, but those are clearly separate categories in the chapter. Also, I forget where and I don't want to look it up, there's a section that states that a rule applies to roads and paths, which would make me think that paths aren't considered highways/roads.

Paul Barnard

That's because there is no need to distinguish them from reflectors.

Paul Barnard

Do you understand the difference between a path and a road?

Clyde1820

Of course. Who wouldn't. Not that that matters.

Point is, if the lighting/shading realities during a ride are such that others cannot see a person, then a person's at risk without such lighting. Doesn't much matter if it's a bike lane, or a little country "automobile" roadway, or a MUP, or "path" or whatever.

It's not as though such lighting problems on a problematic stretch disappear because the route happens to be called one name or another, or it's only so big, etc.

In the area where I am, quite frequently "MUP" routes have electric bike riders, those little powered scooters, and a few other odd gems, present on the paths. And some of those (including 'regular' cyclists) can go at unconscionable speeds ... even around some of the corners. Many sections along such paths also have similar lighting/shading issues as described earlier. It's not as though the reality of lack of visibility changes due to being on this or that type of route. If it's a visibility problem, there's an easy visibility solution available for people. No "period" about it, as though it's a bad thing. People ought to choose accordingly for what they're faced with. Makes little sense to avoid being seen simply because it'd make some people feel better.

livedarklions

In the phrase "lighted white lamp", your interpretation makes the word " lighted" redundant as the word "lamp" already is distinguished from a reflector. It's a general rule of statutory construction that words should not be assumed to be redundant. Also, the statute allows rear reflectors or a rear lamp.

In the clause concerning rear lights on cars, the statute uses the phrase "when lighted." That use of the word is inconsistent with using it to mean "capable of emitting light" as you're interpreting the word.

That being said, I don't think for a second that any cop in Mississippi would assume a MUP is a highway and enforce a DRL requirement.

livedarklions

Nope, that doesn't make sense as the statute is constructed. See above. If that was all that was intended, the word "lamp" was sufficient. "Lighted" has a very clear meaning.

Paul Barnard

Yes, it does matter. When meeting a bike on a path, there is about 3 feet of separation. That matters. The fact that you don't realize that a light on a bike essentially coming right at me affects my vision more than one some 20 feet away and on the opposite side of the road is frightening.

I don't have special vision and I don't need you or any other cyclist to burn a light on a path in order for me to see you. It doesn't matter if you are in the sun, the shadows or in and out of them. We are talking a nominal closing rate and comparatively little other traffic, lights and clutter.

Clyde1820

Don't be frightened. The misunderstanding isn't that horrific.

Every route's different. Even if a "path," MUP or whatever. The point is regarding visibility of somebody when overtaking (or approaching) speeds are sufficient that when combined with the reduced visibility it can create an ugly, even deadly, situation. The paths you're thinking of might well have 3ft of separation between two approaching cyclists going in opposite directions.

A proper light with proper lens that's properly aimed isn't a threat, and it isn't a dire problem when approaching close to others. Isn't if the approaching person is in a vehicle, or on a bike. Though, to be sure, a person who's walking is quite likely to be low enough that a bit more of the oncoming light is likely to be more than merely distraction (attention-getting).

The issue is in ugly visibility situations. There simply aren't all that many choices for being seen, when such is the case. "Winging it" and hoping people will see us, when the lighting (shadows) is as I've described ... well, that's a good way to get run into or to run into others, depending. (Even worse, when a car's involved in the approach, given how dang fast they can move, plus how damnably inattentive drivers can be with their bloody cell phones/devices.)

I'm done here.

See it and understand. Disregard if preferred. But, sorry, other people's reasonable choices are just that. Excepting the outliers who blow their lighting choices, lens selections, aiming, appropriate bike lights are one of the few options for erasing such visibility problems.

Paul Barnard

Mississippi has no requirement for bicyclists to burn a light on its highways or roadways during daylight hours. As is often the case with legal language, the statute is poorly written. That's not uncommon when lawyers write laws on a topic with which they are not very familiar. You'll note that it appears in the "equipment" section of the law. Use is not prescribed elsewhere in the section.

Equipment is prescribed here:

https://law.justia.com/codes/mississ...ection-63-7-13

Light use is prescribed in this section:

https://law.justia.com/codes/mississ...ection-63-7-11

Paul Barnard

The statistics don't bear that out. Deadly head on collisions between cyclists or between cyclists and pedestrians are a statistical non-issue.

Iride01 

Have not found anything excepting MUP's from being considered a highway. However this is the definition in Mississippi code title 63 that seems to include them...

https://advance.lexis.com/documentpa...f-a4b258ccf66f

livedarklions

You're missing it--"lighted" is used in Section 13 only in reference to bicycles, but applies to all vehicles in section 11. Section 13 is the description of the equipment that the vehicles must always have. Poor drafting may or may not be the reason, but it's quite clear that there's a requirement imposed on bicycles in section 13 that isn't being imposed on motor vehicles.

Claiming it's misdrafted is really a cop-out, btw. A court would never accept that as a valid argument.

Paul Barnard

The language of this law makes a distinction between a path and a roadway.

https://law.justia.com/codes/mississ...tion-63-3-1307

Iride01 

Did you link the correct thing? I don't see any thing in that section that even talks about distinctions of roadways, paths or such. Maybe copy and paste out the verbiage and then put the link to that verbiage so we'll know what it is you are talking about.

I also think the justia website might not be the most up to date. Especially since near the bottom of your link it talks about riding single file. I did think that on Mississippi highways and roads that cyclists were allowed to ride two abreast. However on the Natchez Trace Parkway, which is federal jurisdiction, cyclist are supposed to ride single file. However that also could be in a later section or amendment elsewhere that nullifies this.

livedarklions

I can't find it again, but there's circularity in your reading-- it's not clear that a path is a "road, street, way, thoroughfare or bridge", and I'm not invested enough in this to search MS case law to see how those terms are interpreted.

livedarklions

The e-bike statute definitely lists multi-use paths separately from roads:
https://advance.lexis.com/documentpa...7-d1fd99d710d6

Iride01 

This part of that you linked?

Nothing in that statement will lead me to believe that just because they further divide up how something that can be ridden on can be categorized, that they all are not covered by the blanket description I previously posted and linked. There still needs to be a specific exception.

I'm not really invested in this either. I've looked before, many times. might be that a legal scholar looking at the Mississippi laws will find them ambiguous and vague concerning their application to bicycles. I only post here because these are what I can easily find and am hoping some other will do the leg work that can convince me otherwise. So I'm not going to go out of my way to disprove any of what I've shown.

Paul Barnard

(3) Bicyclists riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two (2) abreast, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for exclusive use of bicycles.

Paul Barnard

I have invested heavily in Charlie Thomas' interpretation of Mississippi Bicycle Lighting Law. He's a co-founder of Bike Law. He's a bicyclist and a successful bicycle law attorney. He's also local and well known in our area. This is how he has summarized Mississippi bicycle lighting law:

https://www.bikelaw.com/laws/mississippi/

At night, a bicycle must be equipped with a front white light and a rear red reflector or lamp visible from at least 500 feet away.

I sent him a message.

Iride01 

Good, I hope you sent him the specific parts of title 63 that I have been presenting. Otherwise if you just simply ask if lights are required in the daytime, he might just refer to his notes and not dig any deeper.

And to be clear

This says nothing about what is required for daytime. So falling back on the equipment requirements for bicycles in MS Code title 63-7-13 (4) that state:

If he doesn't address that specifically, you will still see my lighted white lamp if we are to approach each other. And if you turn your head as we pass, you'll see a lighted red lamp and a red reflector. Though I'm not sure you'll see my red reflector from 500 feet away during the daytime. <grin>

Paul Barnard

He messaged me right back saying.

"That’s fair. The statute does not say at night. I know that’s always been the intent but we’ll need to update the website based on your observation here."

Looks like they tried to clear it up in 2018, but it apparently didn't pass.

https://legiscan.com/MS/text/SB2509/2018

livedarklions

This is a recurring problem in law, where the plain meaning of the words lead to a stupid but obvious conclusion.

I still don't believe that a MUP is a " road, street, way, thoroughfare or bridge".

Iride01 

Other bills that contain bits and pieces of proposed legislation I've seen look like they are going to muck things up even further. Especially with the way some proposals are including e-bike specific rules. Though I'm not sure if what I find are dead bills or what.

You'd think it wouldn't be difficult to have the equipment requirements state what is required to be on the bicycle and then go to the other section for when lights are required to be turned on or lit.

However, then I guess the question will then become is a flashing light lit or turned on? As obviously for part of it's time it is unpowered and not lit. <grin>