AB478 Bicycle Light law 2008
Thread started by
User1 at 01.3.08 - 6:32 pm
Hey Kiddies,
There's a new law for 2008. You may want to pay attention to it if you plan on riding in SM this year!
AB478 Bicycle Light law 2008
reply
"The bill also expands the requirement for bicyclists to have reflectors on each pedal. They can also use reflectors on their shoes or ankles.
The reflectors are appropriate, said Davis Bicycles! President Ted Buehler. They will promote headlight use and give publicity to bike light procedures, he said."
....
I'm not a logic professor or anything, but how will reflectors promote headlight use?
trekkie01.3.08 - 6:40 pm
reply
yeah! One more way to get fucked with. Remember, you don't have to outrun the cops, just one other rider.
rev10601.3.08 - 6:48 pm
reply
it says nothing of tail-lights. if i get a ticket for not having reflectors on my bike, while my big-ass red cat eye is pumping away, i'll be mighty miffed, fo sho.
lackflag01.3.08 - 6:49 pm
reply
The ONLY thing this revision changes is wording that you need a headlight on the sidewalk and that you may use reflectors on your shoes or ankles instead of your pedals. Nothing else is altered. For those of you who don't know, you have been required by this same law to have pedal reflectors for at LEAST the past 28 years (that's the last time the law was revised). In other words, the law is actually becoming more LENIENT with pedal reflectors than it is with the current regulations. That's a good thing. You are not losing any rights. You are GAINING some. If you took the time to educate yourself on the existing laws, you'd be happy instead of complaining.
And a headlight if riding on the sidewalk? That's nothing new either! Technically, that is already the law. They are just being more precise in the wording so some cheap-ass, self-righteous, bike-hippie can't try to weasel-out of a ticket by saying, "Well, I wasn't in the street." Too bad. Sidewalk counts too. Get a job. Buy a headlight.
Doesn't sound bad to me.
MikeyWalsh01.3.08 - 7:08 pm
reply
Duh, bike reflectors have been a non-enforced requirement forever. That still doesn't make the "if you build it they will come" logic of "reflectors promote headlight use" any more valid, and it certainly doesn't address the issue of a blinking tail light in lieu of reflectors.
trekkie01.3.08 - 7:37 pm
reply
That's correct Mikey, but guess what the po po will be looking at in SM? Yeap you guessed it, this new law. But that's just my hunch, I have no proof that this will be so. Regardless, how many of us worry about these reflectors on our pedals/ankles/shoes? I'm going to have to look to see if I really do have reflective crap on my shoes, cause I don't know. You could tell these guys that write these laws don't bike, cause they could or should have left it up to the riders to put some kind of side reflectors on their bikes. Then the riders would never lose or have to worry about bringing their reflectors.
Part of AB 478 states,
"(e) A lamp or lamp combination, emitting a white light, attached
to the operator and visible from a distance of 300 feet in front and
from the sides of the bicycle, may be used in lieu of the lamp
required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (d)."
If you have a good front and rear light, it would make this bill moot. If you don't have a front and rear light, heads up!
Here is AB 478
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0451-0500/ab_478_bill_20070907_enrolled.html
User101.3.08 - 7:38 pm
reply
Yeah I can't believe the Davis Bicycles! President made such a statement. I don't follow the logic either.
User101.3.08 - 7:40 pm
reply
ahh thanks for that clarification Allan.
trekkie01.3.08 - 7:41 pm
reply
Where did you see that quote from Ted? I'd be interested to see it in context. I met the Reverend Ted while I was up in Davis last September, he's a super cool dude and he usually makes a bit more sense than that.
mr rollers01.3.08 - 7:47 pm
reply
Oh, I see the (sorta indirect) quote now. All in all, a not very well written article, I'd have to say. All he seems to be saying is that it's a good idea to have lights on your bike.
mr rollers01.3.08 - 7:53 pm
reply
It also addresses riders of tall bikes and bikes with ape hangers.....most cops won't care, but the SM federali's? !?!
LizardQueen01.3.08 - 7:56 pm
reply
LizardQueen said:
"It also addresses riders of tall bikes and bikes with ape hangers.....most cops won't care, but the SM federali's? !?!"
Tall bikes and apehangers have already been illegal under existing law for at least 28 years. That's not new.
California Vehicle Code 21201:
(b) No person shall operate on the highway any bicycle equipped with handlebars so raised that the operator must elevate his hands above the level of his shoulders in order to grasp the normal steering grip area.
(c) No person shall operate upon any highway a bicycle which is of such a size as to prevent the operator from safely stopping the bicycle, supporting it in an upright position with at least one foot on the ground, and restarting it in a safe manner.
You can see it here:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21201.htm
MikeyWalsh01.3.08 - 8:12 pm
reply
I saw a design for a tall bike that would be legal. It was a pretty good design and didn't detract from the need for tallness. It was in the Make magazine online site. If you have trouble finding it, I can track it down for you.
User101.3.08 - 8:20 pm
reply
There's always someone who rides in the SMCM that has a large, over sized bike.
So the SMPD Fascists will have another reason to ticket.
Rain or shine, we will ride.
skd01.3.08 - 9:37 pm
reply
This fucking city
Is run by pigs
They take the rights away
From all the kids
Understand
Were fighting a war we cant win
They hate us-we hate them
We cant win-no way
Walk down the street
I flip them off
They hit me across the head
With a billy club
Understand
Were fighting a war
We cant win
They hate us-we hate them
We cant win-no way
Nothing I do, nothing I say
I tell them to go get fucked
They put me away
Understand
Were fighting a war
We cant win
They hate us-we hate them
We cant win-no way
I go to court,
For my crime,
Stand in line pay bail,
I may serve time
Understand
Were fighting a war
We cant win
They hate us-we hate them
We cant win-no way
ruinedbyidiots01.3.08 - 9:56 pm
reply
as sung by chavo - the only sincere blackflag singer
malo lado01.3.08 - 10:13 pm
reply
my ride is PIMPED and ready to roll
now with hundreds of LEDS
SHINY SHINY BAD TIME BEHIND ME
ephemerae01.4.08 - 8:52 am
reply
I REFUSE to put reflectors on my bikes.... it's morally wrong
adrian01.4.08 - 10:18 am
reply
I saw at stat somewhere that most bike-car collisions involve the cyclists being hit from the side; maybe it's not a bad idea to give some consideration to side visibility?
mr rollers01.4.08 - 11:05 am
reply
If a bike and car collide when they are moving at 90 degree angles to each other, with the bike being broadsided, side reflectors on a bike would only be activated by the car's headlights for a split second before the impact - not enough time for a driver to react. Not saying reflectors aren't a good idea, just that they don't work under a few critical circumstances.
It doesn't quite make sense to me about most car-bike collisions being from the side, though, since a cyclist would have to willfully ride in front of oncoming car headlights, and that seems odd. You don't remember where that stat came from, mr. rollers?
angle01.4.08 - 11:52 am
reply
90 degrees... What's your angle angle?
Joe Borfo01.4.08 - 12:01 pm
reply
i'm guessing rollers is talking about cars coming out of driveways or bikes entering intersections where there is cross traffic...?
trekkie01.4.08 - 12:07 pm
reply
It's all about being visual
sexy01.4.08 - 1:44 pm
reply
My apologies for my irritating use of an under-supported factoid, Angle; I can't remember where it came from.
I'll agree with your basic assessment though, that side reflectors wouldn't do that much good in the case you describe of a car pulling out from a driveway or side street. Maybe this actually makes another case for forward visibility - using a good front light and also riding as far to the left as is practical. Motorists tend to be looking farther out into the road for other cars and will often not see a bicycle riding close to a line of parked cars. And it's one more reason to not ride on the sidewalk!
mr rollers01.4.08 - 3:06 pm
reply
"They hate us-we hate them
We cant win-no way"
As sung by Ice T!!!!
For Black Flag, I'm torn between Keith and Ron.
toweliesbong01.4.08 - 3:12 pm
reply
No, the factoid was not irritating at all, mr. rollers; I was just trying to reason out the logic of it (as I am wont to do). More importantly, I think your advice is spot-on, and I wish all the cyclists I see riding in the gutter after dark with no lights were reading it right now.
If only your words were the basis of the next MTA ad campaign!
angle01.4.08 - 8:44 pm
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!