On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 7:15:52 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:45:33 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 11:50:57 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/8/2015 10:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
http://www.volvocarslifepaint.com/

I can see that it would increase conspicuity, until it wore
off. But I'd be surprised if it lasted very long on fabric.

And I note that most of the images shown are head on or side
views of bicyclists directly in headlight beams. I'm not
aware of any data indicating those views matter much. Head
on should matter primarily to wrong-way riders, and side
view only if the cyclist is standing in front of a car;
otherwise, he'll move out of the car's path before the car
arrives. The rear view of the cyclist is what usually
matters, and ISTM that's adequately dealt with by a proper
taillight plus a few reflective bits.

I'm pretty skeptical of a car company selling something
bicyclists are supposed to use to protect themselves against
cars and their drivers. How about educating motorists about
their responsibility, and enforcing the same? Already,
Estonia mandates reflectors for pedestrians. France
mandates high visibility clothing for cyclists under certain
conditions. One California legislator is calling not only
for all-ages mandatory helmets, but also for high-vis
clothing. It's a bad trend.

Will we soon have "The injured cyclist was not wearing
day-glow clothing, his bike was not sprayed with reflective
paint, and he was not using a high-powered daytime strobe
light"?

and perhaps

"The injured cyclist was not wearing
day-glow clothing, his bike was not sprayed with reflective
paint, and he was not using a high-powered daytime strobe
light,

which along with a lack of headgear were all contributing
factors to his femur fracture."

BTW, it's not just California. http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/...e_bicycli.html http://bikeportland.org/2015/02/27/o...lothing-135100

-- Jay Beattie.

OH OH! Look at this part:
"According to the text of the bill, Davis wants anyone caught riding a bicycle, "on a highway or on premises open to the public" without wearing reflective clothing to be punished by a maximum fine of $250. The bill also dictates that the clothing is, "including but not limited to a reflective coat or reflective vest." The new law would only apply to people riding bicycles at night (between sunset and sunrise)."

Seems that he wants a LOT of high-visible clothing if you ride after dusk. Or is he just trying to kill bicycling by making it too expensive (10 times the fine of similar laws elsewhere)so that motorists can have all roads for themselves?

"Similar bills have been introduced in California, Wyoming and South Dakota. In California, Senate Bill 192 mandates helmets for all ages and reflective clothing, but carries a maximum fine of just $25."

Seems counter productive to getting citizens to be physically active.

The legislator is a younger lawyer who works downtown. I hope to be working with him soon on another piece of legislation, so I don't want to confront him about this one. It's not going anywhere, and you have to pick your battles. A well-meaning and more senior legislator proposed an all-ages MHL a few sessions ago, and that got crushed. Every so often, bills are proposed to require licensing and registration for the freeloading bicyclists, and those get crushed, too. The BTA has a lot of clout and generally puts a stopper in most of the retaliatory anti-bike legislation.

-- Jay Beattie.