BIKE: Pandora's lights

[trox]

It is interesting that drivers are forbidden from operating a motor
vehicle with a flashing white light, as thousands of school busses are so
equipped...

Trox


> Well, I *do* have the whole section on lighting requirements for
> cyclists on BicycleAustin.info.  But I don't see where it says that it
> supercedes the other section, and in any event it still seems to be a
> gray area, because the bike equipment section doesn't specifically
> require a steady light and it doesn't specifically disallow a flashing
> light:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Sec. 551.104. Safety  Equipment.
>  
> (a) A person may not operate a bicycle unless the bicycle is  equipped
> with a brake capable of making a braked wheel skid on  dry, level,
> clean pavement.
>  
> (b) A person may not operate a bicycle at nighttime unless the  bicycle
> is equipped with:
>  
>   (1) a lamp on the front of the bicycle that emits a  white light
> visible from a distance of at least 500 feet in  front of the bicycle;
> and 
>
>   (2) on the rear of the bicycle:
>
> (A) a red reflector that is:
>   (i) of a type approved by the department; and
>
>   (ii) visible when directly in front of lawful upper beams  of motor
> vehicle headlamps from all distances from 50 to 300  feet to the rear
> of the bicycle; or
>
> (B) a lamp that emits a red light visible from a  distance of 500 feet
> to the rear of the bicycle.
>
> Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; amended  2001
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> And as we saw, our fried in Houston *did* run afoul of the law for a
> simple flashing headlight and flashing rear blinkie.
>
> I suspect this is going to have to go to the Supreme Court before we
> get a definitive answer.  In any event, the law should be clarified.
> Which one of you is in charge of that?
>
> -MBJ-
>
>
>
> On Oct 27, 2004, at 9:21 PM, Fred Meredith wrote:
>
>> 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 is superceded by any statute applying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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Get on or off this list here:  http://BicycleAustin.info/list
>