BIKE: Pandora's lights

[Fred Meredith]

So, Michael, why didn't you go on down to the lighting requirements 
to ride a bike at night and see how the flashing red light and the 
flashing white light may, or may not, satisfy the requirements.

The statute you quoted about cyclists having all the same 
responsibilities, etc. is superceded by any statute applying 
specifically to cyclists. I think the requirements call for a front, 
white light that does not flash, but most codes allow a red rear 
light as a substitute for a red reflector and it may be a flashing 
red light.

I suspect that you should only run afoul of a knowledgeable law 
enforcement officer if you have amber or blue lights flashing in the 
rear or any color flashing on the front.

But that's just from memory. I'm too busy right now to go look it up. 
Deadline time you know.

Fred

At 2:20 PM -0500 10/27/04, Michael Bluejay wrote:
>Just received an inquiry from a reader:
>
>On Oct 27, 2004, at 6:09 AM, Adam Huisenfeldt wrote:
>
>>     I live in Friendswood (a small suburb outside of Houston) and 
>>was pulled over last night by Friendswood P.D. due to my bicycle 
>>lights.  My front light is a Cateye flashing white light and the 
>>rear is a red flashing light of the same brand.  A relatively young 
>>officer pulled me over last night and threatened me with a ticket, 
>>stating that "only emergency vehicles are allowed to have flashing 
>>red, white or blue lights".  I don't feel quite so safe with the 
>>lights not flashing as I'm not so obvious whilst cycling after 
>>dark.  Was this officer accurate?  Does this law apply to 
>>bicycles??  Please let me know and THANK YOU!
>>
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>Adam Huisenfeldt
>>Friendswood, TX.
>
>
>I looked it up and here's what I found, which seems to apply only to 
>motor vehicles:
>
>----------------------------
>Sec. 547.305.  RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF LIGHTS.  ... (c)  A person may 
>not operate a motor vehicle equipped with a red, white, or blue 
>beacon, flashing, or alternating light......
>Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.  Amended 
>by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 380, Sec. 1, eff. July 1, 1999.
>-----------------------------
>
>
>On the other hand, the following section says that cyclists are 
>generally subject to the same provisions as other vehicles:
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Sec. 551.101. Rights and  Duties.
>
>(a) A person operating a bicycle has the rights and duties 
>applicable to a driver operating a vehicle under this subtitle, 
>unless:
>
>  (1) a provision of this chapter alters a right or duty;  or
>
>(2) a right or duty applicable to a driver operating a  vehicle 
>cannot by its nature apply to a person operating a  bicycle.
>----------------------------------------------
>
>That seems to make the whole thing a gray area.  It would be nice if 
>this issue were clarified in the law, but it's not.
>
>Let the debate begin.
>
>-MBJ-
>________________________________________________________________
>http://michaelbluejay.com     BICYCLE WONDERLAND  *  VEGETARIAN GUIDE
>           SAVING ELECTRICITY * SOC. RESPONSIBLE STOCKS * CHEAP AIRFARE
>
>_______________________________________________
>Get on or off this list here:  http://BicycleAustin.info/list


-- 
When in doubt ... ride your bike (or at least write about it).

Fred Meredith
P.O. Box 100 (12702 Lowden Ln for UPS/FedEx)
Manchaca, TX 78652
512/282-1987 (office/home)
512/282-7413 (fax)
512/636-7480 (wireless)
More than you want to know at: http://2merediths.com