Kevin Luecke [email protected] wrote on Fri, 19 Aug 2011 10:26:01 -0500:
> Just a quick update: the Bike Fed is working on legislation that will tweak > some existing laws to be more bicycle friendly: [snip] > - Legal use of a rear light instead of a reflector (currently you have to > have a reflector even if you have a light) What is so "bicycle UN-friendly" about requiring reflectors? I am not aware of any good reason to drop the requirement. I would speculate that someone favouring this step backward would dismiss the reflector as being redundant for someone using a rear light. Well, so what if it is? If a reflector is always on a bicycle, you have at least that much, as a backup if nothing else, for when the light output isn't sufficient for conditions or batteries run down. Of course someone bicycling at night should use lights (front and preferably also rear), but why would you want to drop the additional visibility benefit of a reflector? Unless I am missing some completely different reason for a change, I hope BFW will re-consider the inclusion of this item on its agenda and just leave that existing requirement in place. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com – Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
