On 3/31/2018 6:38 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote:

Btw, the French introduced a similarly despotic "gilet jaune" law hampering
casual bicycle use by the diminishing proportion of secular law-abiding
inhabitants starting on 1/1/2016, and here is the provisional French
statistic of Y2016 (and Y2010) vs Y2017:

http://www.securite-routiere.gouv.fr/content/download/37631/358704/version/1/file/ONISR_Accidentalite_routiere_estimations_2017.pdf

(The big picture should include mentioning that there were over 900
bicyclist fatalities annually in the 1960's.)

Yes, I was aware of the French law. I wasn't aware of an attempt to pass
such a law in a U.S. state, to which Russell alluded.

This does concern me. These efforts are based, once again, on the
assumption that bicycling is so dangerous that it requires special
protective equipment. Laws like this open up possibilities for victim
blaming. Their proponents also tend to wildly overestimate the
protective effect of whatever measure they're selling. And sadly,
there's a fairly large contingent of "bicycle advocates" that are happy
to sell other cyclists up the river for failing to believe in the magic
devices.

Taken at its simplest, if the article is correct, such a law wouldn't
significantly improve safety. If enforced at all, it would certainly
dissuade a certain amount of cycling.

FWIW, I'm also against laws requiring pedestrians to carry lights or
reflectors, or forbidding them to wear dark clothing at night. The
fundamental problem is not generated by the non-motorized travelers.
It's generated by those driving motor vehicles. These laws make no more
sense to me than mandating bullet-proof vests for residents of large
American cities.

--
- Frank Krygowski