Flashing lights
#51
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,940
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 51 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6166 Post(s)
Liked 4,783 Times
in
3,301 Posts
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.
Last edited by Iride01; 05-15-22 at 08:58 AM.
Likes For Iride01:
#52
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,940
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 51 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6166 Post(s)
Liked 4,783 Times
in
3,301 Posts
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.
Last edited by Iride01; 05-15-22 at 09:00 AM.
#53
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,095 Times
in
5,053 Posts
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.
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.
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.
#55
For The Fun of It
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,845
Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2134 Post(s)
Liked 1,643 Times
in
825 Posts
But other drivers and riders will sooner see such a cyclist, on the roads I experience. The shadows and lighting characteristics at those spots simply become non-issues with proper lighting on bikes. The physics (of the light) is fairly simple, irrespective of what people prefer.
Had another cyclist along such a stretch, just yesterday. Same thing: sketchy lighting, with many shadows mixed into the dappled sunlight coming through the foliage above. Very, very hard to see, without lighting. The cyclist had a mid-intensity headlight that had a random flashing pattern. It was instantly visible from about 500yds away. Wasn't overpowering. Wasn't in people's eyes. But it did instantly show there was a cyclist there. Couldn't see the bike or the guy directly, but clearly with that sort of light there was (in those shadows) a cyclist.
You might not need it. He did. And on that road, which has zero shoulder and barely enough room for the two lanes that exist, his front+rear lighting choices likely kept him from being struck.
Had another cyclist along such a stretch, just yesterday. Same thing: sketchy lighting, with many shadows mixed into the dappled sunlight coming through the foliage above. Very, very hard to see, without lighting. The cyclist had a mid-intensity headlight that had a random flashing pattern. It was instantly visible from about 500yds away. Wasn't overpowering. Wasn't in people's eyes. But it did instantly show there was a cyclist there. Couldn't see the bike or the guy directly, but clearly with that sort of light there was (in those shadows) a cyclist.
You might not need it. He did. And on that road, which has zero shoulder and barely enough room for the two lanes that exist, his front+rear lighting choices likely kept him from being struck.
Do you understand the difference between a path and a road?
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,820
Bikes: 1996 Trek 970 ZX Single Track 2x11
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 614 Post(s)
Liked 564 Times
in
428 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Clyde1820; 05-15-22 at 11:55 AM. Reason: spelling
#57
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,095 Times
in
5,053 Posts
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.
#58
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,095 Times
in
5,053 Posts
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.
#59
For The Fun of It
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,845
Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2134 Post(s)
Liked 1,643 Times
in
825 Posts
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.
#60
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,820
Bikes: 1996 Trek 970 ZX Single Track 2x11
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 614 Post(s)
Liked 564 Times
in
428 Posts
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.
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.
#61
For The Fun of It
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,845
Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2134 Post(s)
Liked 1,643 Times
in
825 Posts
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
#62
For The Fun of It
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,845
Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2134 Post(s)
Liked 1,643 Times
in
825 Posts
The statistics don't bear that out. Deadly head on collisions between cyclists or between cyclists and pedestrians are a statistical non-issue.
#63
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,940
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 51 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6166 Post(s)
Liked 4,783 Times
in
3,301 Posts
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
(a) “Highway” means the entire width between property lines of any road, street, way, thoroughfare or bridge in the State of Mississippi not privately owned or controlled, when any part thereof is open to the public for vehicular traffic and over which the state has legislative jurisdiction under its police power.
#64
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,095 Times
in
5,053 Posts
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
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
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.
#65
For The Fun of It
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,845
Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2134 Post(s)
Liked 1,643 Times
in
825 Posts
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
https://advance.lexis.com/documentpa...f-a4b258ccf66f
The language of this law makes a distinction between a path and a roadway.
https://law.justia.com/codes/mississ...tion-63-3-1307
#66
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,940
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 51 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6166 Post(s)
Liked 4,783 Times
in
3,301 Posts
The language of this law makes a distinction between a path and a roadway.
https://law.justia.com/codes/mississ...tion-63-3-1307
https://law.justia.com/codes/mississ...tion-63-3-1307
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.
Last edited by Iride01; 05-15-22 at 02:31 PM.
#67
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,095 Times
in
5,053 Posts
#68
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,095 Times
in
5,053 Posts
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.
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.
https://advance.lexis.com/documentpa...7-d1fd99d710d6
#69
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,940
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 51 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6166 Post(s)
Liked 4,783 Times
in
3,301 Posts
The e-bike statute definitely lists multi-use paths separately from roads:
https://advance.lexis.com/documentpa...7-d1fd99d710d6
https://advance.lexis.com/documentpa...7-d1fd99d710d6
(7) An electric bicycle may be ridden in places where bicycles are permitted, including but not limited to, streets, highways, roadways, bicycle lanes, and bicycle or multi-use paths. Following notice and a public hearing, a municipality, local authority or state agency having jurisdiction over a bicycle or multi-use path may prohibit the operation of a class 1 electric bicycle or class 2 electric bicycle on that path, if it finds that such a restriction is needed for safety reasons or compliance with other laws or legal obligations.
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.
#70
For The Fun of It
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,845
Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2134 Post(s)
Liked 1,643 Times
in
825 Posts
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.
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.
(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.
#71
For The Fun of It
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,845
Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2134 Post(s)
Liked 1,643 Times
in
825 Posts
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.
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.
#72
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,940
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 51 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6166 Post(s)
Liked 4,783 Times
in
3,301 Posts
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.
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.
And to be clear
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.
Every bicycle shall be equipped with a lighted white lamp on the front thereof visible under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of at least five hundred (500) feet in front of such bicycle and shall also be equipped with a reflex mirror reflector or lamp on the rear exhibiting a red light visible under like conditions from a distance of at least five hundred (500) feet to the rear of such bicycle.
#73
For The Fun of It
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,845
Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2134 Post(s)
Liked 1,643 Times
in
825 Posts
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>
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>
"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
#74
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,095 Times
in
5,053 Posts
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
"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
I still don't believe that a MUP is a " road, street, way, thoroughfare or bridge".
#75
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,940
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 51 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6166 Post(s)
Liked 4,783 Times
in
3,301 Posts
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>