I don’t see where wearing a vest obstructs cycling although it adds a requirement. As an LCI, I often tell people that there is never any harm in making yourself visible on the road, using lane positioning and clothing to help with that.As LCIs we have to require helmets for participants in a TS class. Does that unfairly restrict and obstruct participation in TS 101?

I recently looked at a reflective vest, after reading Andy Cline’s post, and priced it at about three bucks. I’ll reiterate my earlier statement, to wit, cyclists pay little attention to their own safety equipment and thus encourage legislators to hand us a bill that we think is flawed. Bicyclists need to take themselves seriously.

For the record, I did not support the bill, but not because I think cyclists should be immune from safety requirements. I just don’t want non-cyclists writing them. John Forester’s excellent excoriation of the CPSC all reflector requirement we are saddled with is a good example why.

First, the effectiveness of a reflective vest is demonstrated during the night ride studies of the TS101 course, i.e. Almost none at all in most traffic conditions. When being approached from behind by a vehicle with its lights on dim the field of vision is specify restricted to an area below a cyclists waist. If I could draw a picture to demonstrate this, I would… but consider that a car’s headlights are angled down to see the road, and to prevent blinding other drivers, and it may become clear. The second point about the effectiveness of reflective vests is the angle of reflectivity is only about 17 degrees (if I remember my teachings correctly) which means that you have a very narrow field of actual reflectivity for any particular vest… if you combine these two bits of information, you discover that the only time a cyclist actually benefits from wearing a reflective vest while riding is if approached by a vehicle with it’s lights on full bright. Those conditions do exist.. Riding a lonely country road at night, for example… But any sensible and responsible riders had better be lit up like a Christmas tree if they’re riding country roads at night.

Although I would have a hard time supporting any law that puts restrictions on cyclists, if they are going to propose laws intended to Keep Cyclists Safe, then they’d better check thier facts before hand. A quality lightest will do far more good that a reflective vest could.

But if legislative bodies genuinely want to keep cyclists and pedestrians safe, much better still would be a complete streets program that includes infrastructure for bikes and pedestrians, and/or reducing speed limits at night to ensure motorists have adequate time to see and react to the roads vulnerable users.

And, for me, that is the largest reason not to support a bill like this; It is not intended to benefit and promote cycling. The fundamental drive behind a rule like this is to place restrictions and obstructions on what the legislators view as a dangerous and secondary activity on the roads owned by cars. They are placing the burdon and blame on cyclist, rather promoting the responsability of motorists to pay attention, slow down, and be prepared.

I read the MO law via the link on Andy Cline’s web site (http://isocrates.us/bike). The law was brief and vague and therefore poorly written from a regulatory standpoint. There was no specificity on what constitutes a reflective vest, for example and it covered state roads only, so one is left to wonder about enforcement.

There are actually ANSI standards for reflective vests, since they are standard safety equipment for road crews, just as there are standards for helmets. If the state is going to mandate safety equipment, it needs to be specific or it opens the floodgates to lawsuits or questions of what constitutes an acceptable vest. I suppose if the bill had passed, it would have fallen to a regulatory agency to interpret intent.

I have mixed feelings about mandatory stuff like this, especially when it is done without cyclist input and without a clearly thought through plan. There is precedent, though. At least in some states, it has long been law for motorcyclists to use headlights in daytime to increase visibility. In New York, that was law when I got my first motorcycle endorsement in 1973. Many of us in the moto world, such as me and Steve Magas, encourage others to use illumination.

Cyclists, too, share the blame for some of these laws. Too many cyclists treat the bicycle as a toy and do not properly equip themselves for nighttime or dawn/dusk riding. Such behavior encourages Big Government to assume the role of nanny state after a few complaints to Legislators. I don’t like that, but frankly, we are vulnerable because it is long established law that the state regulates the roads. In most if not all places, a cyclist is required to have front lights and rear lights or reflectors to ride legally at night. Often ignored.

I recently had a close call with a motorist, who almost made a left turn directly in front of me. While I was doing an emergency stop with my bum hanging behind the saddle, he suddenly did an emergency stop halfway across my side of the road. I asked him what happened–he said he didn’t see me until halfway through his turn, and then saw my helmet, which was my work commute helmet, and festooned with bright yellow reflective tape. I added more tape when I got home that night.

Don’t encourage legislatures to pass poor laws. Do a good job on your own equipment and it will be easier for folks like the MBPF to parry the bad legislative stuff. Thanks, and thanks to LAB for posting this stuff.

But my motorist mode tells me why not? Why not require a cyclist to be more visible on the road? The sooner a motorist spots a cyclist ahead the sooner they can react and plan for a safe passing. Failing that, it potentially becomes more a source of frustration for a motorist. Personally, anything I can do to help mitigate that frustration the better for me.

I get more compliments from motorists at stop signs saying they appreciate me being easy to see vs the number of aggressive motorists that pass too close or behave in a threatening manner.

Most jerseys are not designed for recognition on the road. A lone dimly lit cyclist with a jersey that essentially camouflages them is harder for a trailing motorist to judge closure speed and set up for a safe passing. Save the jerseys for the large group rides when the mass of riders makes them visible to other traffic.

Most motorcycle accidents occur at intersections for the same reason. Very small profile and the lack of high visibility markings on the rider and vehicle.