- Wikimedia
Don’t buy those incandescent trousers just yet.
Facing pressure from cycling advocates and riders around the state, a Wilsonville Republican has announced he’s backing off legislation that would have made it illegal to ride at night without special clothing “including but not limited to a reflective coat or reflective vest.” Under House Bill 3255, getting popped for riding your bike in everyday clothes could have earned you a fine of $110 (and up to $250).
Rep. John Davis’ decision to scrap the idea was first noted this afternoon by the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, which had urged its thousands of members to speak out against the bill.
Instead of requiring reflective clothing, Davis’ office now says he’d like to require a rear red light on bikes, visible from 600 feet (a red reflector is currently mandatory under state law). Here’s a copy [pdf] of his amended suggestions.
“The bill will not be moving forward in its original form, and will have nothing to do with reflective clothing,” says a statement Davis’ legislative director sent the Mercury. “The bill will be amended to fully delete its original language, and only require a red light to be visible from the rear of the bicycle at night.”
The reflective clothing requirement had to do with bike policy, so sparked the usual online flame wars. But in a city like Portland—trying, with little success, to get 25 percent of people riding bikes 15 years from now—Davis’ idea would have been a huge step backwards.
As the BTA noted in a posting just yesterday: “Requiring reflective clothing for people on bikes after dark would create yet another barrier to getting people on bikes, discourage bicycling, and could decrease road safety. Studies have shown that when more people ride bicycles, safety conditions have improved for all road users.”
Davis wasn’t available to talk about his change of heart this afternoon. But BTA Advocacy Director Gerik Kransky says he thinks it’s in part due backlash over the bill’s punitive effects. (Punitive effects, by the way, for an activity that studies indicate can pay dividends to even Portlanders who don’t bike.)
Davis’ bill is scheduled for a public hearing on Monday in its new form.
RIP, bad idea.
The reflective clothing idea may have been dumb, but requiring a rear red light is definitely a good idea. Kind of a no-brainer actually. When you’re on a bike, a rear light is far more important than a front one, in terms of letting car drivers know that you’re there. I have never understood why they aren’t compulsory.
(full disclosure: I bike to work nearly every day)
Lights break all the time. Back reflectors should be enough for this Rep Rep. Reflection is like nature’s light coming right back at you.
What sort of visibility problem do rear red lights solve that rear reflectors do not? This sounds like just another attempt at punishing bicyclists for having the audacity to use the roadways that equally belong to bikes as well as automobiles.
Reflectors are only visible at certain angles. Cars are required to have red lights at the rear. Same road, same rules.
“What sort of visibility problem do rear red lights solve that rear reflectors do not?”
So what you’re saying is that it is ok for cars to drive at night without their lights on. Cars have reflectors, after all.
“This sounds like just another attempt at punishing bicyclists for having the audacity to use the roadways that equally belong to bikes as well as automobiles.”
Yes. A punishment. ::shakes head::
Just what’s wrong with wearing reflective clothing at night? Reflective vests can be seen easier and fatrher than small red light.I s your life so worthless that you wont spend 5 or ten bucks to keep from getting run over?