Proposed requirement for tail light in Oregon

[kevinvc]

There's currently a bill being considered by our state legislators that would require the use of a red tail light visible from 600' from between dusk until dawn. Failure to comply would result in a $250 fine. There is currently a requirement for the use of a headlight and the presence of a rear reflector.

Additional context: the bill first introduced by the sponsoring representative would have required cyclists to wear reflective clothing. The ensuing backlash caused him to rewrite it to require a tail light. He claims it is all about safety and has even used the "some of my friends ride bikes", but some people are suspicious about his sincerity and true motivation. By the way, a couple of years ago he voted against increasing the penalty for texting while driving, which seems to conflict with his safety concerns.

Here's an article (http://bikeportland.org/2015/05/06/lawyer-ray-thomas-really-doesnt-like-bill-make-rear-bike-lights-mandatory-142810#more-142810) written by a very well known "bicycle attorney" arguing against the bill. I think he brings up some very interesting reasons to oppose the legislation. Several of the comments are also thought provoking. Just curious as to what you all think. Personally, I use at least one front and rear light at night and often during the day. However, I oppose the bill and hope it doesn't make it to the Senate floor for a vote.

[Louis]

I haven't read the article, but have no fundamental objection to well-intentioned and well-designed laws passed to protect cyclists.

There are tons of similar laws and ordinances applied to cars and motorcycles, a few more for bikes are fine with me.

[professerr]

I haven't read the article, but have no fundamental objection to well-intentioned and well-designed laws passed to protect cyclists.


I'm not sure it is either: according to the cyclist advocate attorney from the article: "If these Oregonians are hit by a careless driver HB 3255 [the taillight bill] would provide a full legal defense to the driver even though the riders had more than adequate rear reflectors already required by Oregon and federal law."

[gdw]

He seems just as or more concerned about the costs of the proposed law than riders safety.

"And how will the new law be used? To heap comparative negligence or fault onto a bicycle rider when they get run down by an overtaking motorist who was failing to give them the existing legal minimum passing distance? Who will pay for a statewide TV media buy to inform Oregonians that their bicycles are illegal without rear red lights? How could the fiscal have a big zero on it in the legislature? Did anyone tell legislators that the cost of responsibly informing every Oregonian who rides a bike is going to be in the many thousands of dollars? What about all the ODOT Oregon Driver Manuals and Oregon Bicyclist Manuals that are in classrooms and school libraries that would now be wrong because they tell people that it is legal to ride with a rear red reflector like the one that is already on the rear of their bike?"

[Mark McM]

The bicycle rights proponents (including the attorney) have gone off the rails this time. I find nothing objectionable about the bill. Contrary the arguments, this bill does not require a rear light be installed - a reflector may be good enough. Here's the actual text:

(c) At the times described in the following, a bicycle or its rider must be equipped with lighting
equipment that meets the described requirements:
(A) The lighting equipment must be used during limited visibility conditions.
(B) The lighting equipment must show a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet
to the front of the bicycle.
(C) The lighting equipment must [have a red reflector or lighting device or material of such size
or characteristic and so mounted as to be] show a red light visible from all distances up to 600 feet
to the rear of the bicycle [when directly in front of lawful lower beams of headlights on a motor vehicle
].

Also contrary to the objectors there is no text in the bill regarding liability or responsibility in case of an accident.

That a bicycle operated on public roads should have lighting/reflectors at night is just common sense, and these requirements are fairly minimal. Many states have stricter requirements. We have bicycle lighting laws in my state of Massachusetts (including a requirement for ankle or pedal reflectors), and I haven't heard any complaints from the bicycle advocates here, nor any cases were driver liability was reduced because a bike didn't have lights at night.

Heck, Massachusetts just a passed a law that automobiles must have their headlights on whenever they windshield wipers are on (i.e. limited visibility due to precipitation). These types of laws may or may not be going too far, but I don't see anything in the Oregon law attempting to discriminate or disenfranchise cyclists.

[professerr]

The bicycle rights proponents (including the attorney) have gone off the rails this time. I find nothing objectionable about the bill. Contrary the arguments, this bill does not require a rear light be installed - a reflector may be good enough. Here's the actual text:

(c) At the times described in the following, a bicycle or its rider must be equipped with lighting
equipment that meets the described requirements:
(A) The lighting equipment must be used during limited visibility conditions.
(B) The lighting equipment must show a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet
to the front of the bicycle.
(C) The lighting equipment must [have a red reflector or lighting device or material of such size
or characteristic and so mounted as to be] show a red light visible from all distances up to 600 feet
to the rear of the bicycle [when directly in front of lawful lower beams of headlights on a motor vehicle
].


Also contrary to the objectors there is no text in the bill regarding liability or responsibility in case of an accident.

I think you misunderstand. I believe the wording in [brackets] from the quoted section of text are parts of the existing law that would be removed. Read with that in mind, a light would now be required.

Also, the statute itself wouldn't necessarily need to specifically state that it provided a defense to the driver who hit a rider without a light -- there is a general legal doctrine called negligence per se that I'm guessing applies here to establish that such rider would be negligent by virtue of violating the law applicable here.

Edit: I always ride with a light, fwiw, and am undecided about whether light law is good or bad.

[Mark McM]

I think you misunderstand. I believe the wording in [brackets] from the quoted section of text are parts of the existing law that would be removed. Read with that in mind, a light would now be required.

Also, the statute itself wouldn't necessarily need to specifically state that it provided a defense to the driver who hit a rider without a light -- there is a general legal doctrine called negligence per se that I'm guessing applies here to establish that such rider would be negligent by virtue of violating the law applicable here.

Edit: I always ride with a light, fwiw, and am undecided about whether light law is good or bad.

I stand corrected on the meaning of the brackets.

Here's an interesting read from John Forrester (cycling safety expert) on lights vs. reflectors for nighttime riding: http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Lights/cpscreq.htm

But as far as negligence - with or without the law, do you believe that cyclist riding on public streets after dark without a tail light would not be acting in a negligent manner? Heck, even horse drawn carriages are required to have taillights in many states! This law seems like it just brings cyclist up to the 21st century.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Traditional_Amish_buggy.jpg/1280px-Traditional_Amish_buggy.jpg

[bcroslin]

We have the same law here in FL and it's easily circumvented by buying a cheap Knog-style light for the front and back of your bike.

[Bradford]

If we make the argument that we have the same rights as cars, then we need to follow the same laws as cars. I think all bikes should be required to have front and rear lights when on the roads at night, just like cars. It is negligence to ride at night without a light and should be treated as such.

As a cyclist, I wouldn't consider riding without lights at night; as a driver, I absolutely want all bikes have them. I really don't want to kill someone on a bike because I didn't see them.

[zmudshark]

If we make the argument that we have the same rights as cars, then we need to follow the same laws as cars. I think all bikes should be required to have front and rear lights when on the roads at night, just like cars. It is negligence to ride at night without a light and should be treated as such.

As a cyclist, I wouldn't consider riding without lights at night; as a driver, I absolutely want all bikes have them. I really don't want to kill someone on a bike because I didn't see them.I don't ride at night, and agree it would be in my best interest to have lights if I did, but the same rights as cars argument has many flaws. Should a cyclist be required to be licensed and insured? Have turn signals? Helmet required? Mandatory safety inspections? What about eye protection?

[Black Dog]

If we make the argument that we have the same rights as cars, then we need to follow the same laws as cars. I think all bikes should be required to have front and rear lights when on the roads at night, just like cars. It is negligence to ride at night without a light and should be treated as such.

As a cyclist, I wouldn't consider riding without lights at night; as a driver, I absolutely want all bikes have them. I really don't want to kill someone on a bike because I didn't see them.

I agree with this 100%. There should be no need for a law like this because anyone on a bike at night (I would also argue during the day) should have a light source front and rear. It is really helpful to make yourself visible when cars are zooming past you.

[Dead Man]

If we make the argument that we have the same rights as cars, then...

Can't go any farther than that. We do NOT have the same rights as cars. When we do, I'll entertain the idea that we should have the same requirements... but no guarantees, because we are not the same as cars.

[Louis]

Can't go any farther than that. We do NOT have the same rights as cars. When we do, I'll entertain the idea that we should have the same requirements... but no guarantees, because we are not the same as cars.

True, we aren't exactly the same as cars and motorcycles and never will be, but that doesn't mean that we can't be part of a gradual process of more and more acceptance on the part of drivers.

If mandating the use of lights is a part of that, then I'm game. The more integrated we (cyclists) are in the system, the more difficult it will be (IMO) for some Podunk town to randomly ban us - something they threatened to do a while back in a few places around here.

[Bradford]

I don't ride at night, and agree it would be in my best interest to have lights if I did, but the same rights as cars argument has many flaws. Should a cyclist be required to be licensed and insured? Have turn signals? Helmet required? Mandatory safety inspections? What about eye protection?

Why not?

I almost ran over a guy this week because he cut across traffic without any using a turn signal. He gave every indication he was going straight until he took a 90 degree turn across traffic. So yes, just like cars, I think you should get a ticket if you turn without a signal. Hand signals work just fine.

Yes, helmets should be required in states that require them for motorcycles. That is a logical extension of the law.

Safety inspections and eye protection aren't really relevant, but you already know that. The purpose of safety inspections is so that unsafe cars don't hurt other drivers, and to my knowledge that isn't a problem with bikes. I would think it is the same for insurance, however I haven't seen any statistics either way. I would argue that all bikes should have a functioning brake, though.

There is a paranoia about bike laws that seems just a little tin-foil-hat to me. If you want to drive, ride a bike, ride a horse, drive a buggy, motor along in your tractor...anything on a road, I want you to do it in a way that minimizes both my chance of hitting you and my chance of getting hit by you. I'm just as annoyed when I see cyclist negligently putting themselves in the way of my car as I am when I see someone in a car negligently putting me in danger.

I saw five accidents that needed police today on my 22 mile drive home from Denver. That is incomprehensible to me. There is an epidemic of stupid behavior on the road these days. I'm for more laws, and enforcement, against both dangerous driving and dangerous cycling.

[rwsaunders]

I choose to use lights during the day. Why would one oppose a rule requiring the use of lights during the night?

[charliedid]

I'm cool with that.

[Spinner]

... without my Dinotte Quad. There is no doubt in my mind that car drivers treat me differently when my Quad is on.

[vav]

Why not?

I almost ran over a guy this week because he cut across traffic without any using a turn signal. He gave every indication he was going straight until he took a 90 degree turn across traffic. So yes, just like cars, I think you should get a ticket if you turn without a signal. Hand signals work just fine.

Yes, helmets should be required in states that require them for motorcycles. That is a logical extension of the law.

Safety inspections and eye protection aren't really relevant, but you already know that. The purpose of safety inspections is so that unsafe cars don't hurt other drivers, and to my knowledge that isn't a problem with bikes. I would think it is the same for insurance, however I haven't seen any statistics either way. I would argue that all bikes should have a functioning brake, though.

There is a paranoia about bike laws that seems just a little tin-foil-hat to me. If you want to drive, ride a bike, ride a horse, drive a buggy, motor along in your tractor...anything on a road, I want you to do it in a way that minimizes both my chance of hitting you and my chance of getting hit by you. I'm just as annoyed when I see cyclist negligently putting themselves in the way of my car as I am when I see someone in a car negligently putting me in danger.

I saw five accidents that needed police today on my 22 mile drive home from Denver. That is incomprehensible to me. There is an epidemic of stupid behavior on the road these days. I'm for more laws, and enforcement, against both dangerous driving and dangerous cycling.

I agree with pretty much everything you say. I'd only add education as IMHO laws and enforcement can only go so far.

[oldpotatoe]

If we make the argument that we have the same rights as cars, then we need to follow the same laws as cars. I think all bikes should be required to have front and rear lights when on the roads at night, just like cars. It is negligence to ride at night without a light and should be treated as such.

As a cyclist, I wouldn't consider riding without lights at night; as a driver, I absolutely want all bikes have them. I really don't want to kill someone on a bike because I didn't see them.

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=167910

Lots bad about this. no lights, at around midnight, busy road, hit and run-death...This 'chain' of events may have been broken..lots of places, to perhaps not have the guy get killed. A tail light may have been one place..

But, don't see the problem with adequate lighting on a bike at night..the real problem is that's it won't be enforced, just like the headlight/rear reflector at night requirement on a bike, isn't enforced today here in CO. I drive home after dark mannying 3-4 times a week, go by the University and will see somebody, on a bike, w/o lights almost every time.