A researcher from Harvard asked if I could help spread the word about a study they’re doing on bike share programs, and I said, “sure.”  So here’s the info:

Harvard School of Public Health is launching a research study on bikeshare programs throughout metro Boston. We are recruiting individuals who have used a bikeshare (specifically Bluebikes) in the past month, as well as those who have never used the program. Participants will take an online survey asking about reasons and barriers to participation, and effects on physical activity. A $10 gift card will be given to those who successfully complete the survey.

For more information: https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/bostonbikestudy

I wrote this a while back, and now it’s going to be debated today. It didn’t change their minds, but maybe a few calls from concerned constituents might.

Dear Senator,

Becca Wolfson recently informed me that there is currently a proposal to change the law to make rear lights mandatory for cyclists in MA. While this may seem like a good idea, it’s actually a change that is not only unnecessary, but also one that could do real harm. I ask that you reconsider your support for this measure.

Since the 2008 Bike Safety Act, Massachusetts has had the best written, and most carefully considered bike laws in the nation; I want to make sure that this trend continues. Mandating rear lights is a step in the wrong direction.

The problem with this law is that it seems like a clear home run. Here’s how the logic generally goes: lights are better than reflectors for visibility, and visibility means safety, so requiring rear lights will make cyclists safer. While this is generally true, that logic does not hold up when it comes to real world situations. Lights are only better than reflectors in a few narrow ways, and those advantages are burdened by a number of disadvantages that don’t affect reflectors.

First of all, unlike a red tail light, reflectors require an independent light source in order to work. Additionally, they only work if that light source is lined up with the person who needs to see the reflector. The thing is, in the situation contemplated by the law as it’s currently written—i.e., preventing cyclists from being struck from behind by motorists—neither of these disadvantages come into play. Thanks to the fact that all cars have headlights that shine forward, and the driver is positioned directly behind them, this satisfies both requirements of a rear-facing red reflector. As soon as an approaching car is at least 200 yards (the current legal requirement) behind the bike, it’s reflector will return the beam of the car’s headlight to the driver, and it will shine brightly. It’s the same technology that’s currently used to prevent crashes on roads and highways around the world.

Of course, a battery powered LED tail light could certainly achieve the same goal. The problem is, rear lights are subject to a number of disadvantages that do not similarly afflict rear reflectors. In addition to their significant cost compared to a reflector, rear lights also require working batteries in order to function. This doubles both the initial cost of complying with the proposed law, and the ongoing cost of two sets of batteries (assuming the rider would also have the already mandatory white front light). I often hear about safety initiatives to distribute free bike lights to low income communities, but I’ve never once heard of such an initiative that gives out free batteries.

The added cost of lights versus reflectors doesn’t just increase the difficulty of compliance with the law, it also makes them a target for theft. If you lock up your bike just about anywhere in Boston/Cambridge/Somerville and forget to remove your lights, their theft is virtually assured. Theft-proof versions exist to solve this problem, employing special fasteners that require a specific tool to remove them from the bike. However, this introduces a new problem: parking on the street. Batteries don’t do well if left outside during a Massachusetts winter, and they certainly won’t survive if left out overnight.

Temperature has no affect the operation of a reflector, and because they’re so cheap and ubiquitous, rear reflectors are already basically theft proof—nobody is ever worried that their reflector will get stolen.

However, I haven’t yet mentioned the most insidious weakness of rear lights compared to rear reflectors: you won’t know if yours has gone out while you’re riding. Unlike a headlight, whose beam is within the rider’s field of vision, a tail light’s position means that the rider won’t know if it stops working, leaving them invisible.

While a rear reflector can never “go out,” a rear light can only provide any sort of protection if it’s turned on, sufficiently powered, and not compromised by moisture, frozen batteries, or a loose connection. And while they don’t weigh very much, the weight of a battery powered light is enough to break its mount or open the battery compartment if the rider hits a big enough pothole*. Again, any one of these situations would render a cyclist with only a rear light completely invisible, and they wouldn’t even know it. However, the same cyclist with a reflector (in compliance with the current law) could still be seen.

To be clear: I am not saying that reflectors are significantly safer than lights, or that riding without a functioning rear light is a good idea. I have always been quite vocal in advocating for the use of both; a powerful red rear light, with a red rear reflector as backup. Reflectors are a contingency plan; they’re the bare minimum that can reasonably be called “safe” on the road. They effectively avoid the pitfalls of more complicated technologies, while giving up some of their effectiveness.

The point is, if we are going to impose a legal requirement for people riding at night, and thus saddle them with liability if they can’t comply or that required element fails, it ought to be the cheapest, simplest, most bombproof and infallible element possible that can still achieve the minimum desired result. Tail lights alone are not a panacea, and the law should not be written as if they are.

I am happy to make myself available to discuss this subject further, and answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your continued efforts in implementing thoughtful and well written bike legislation for Massachusetts.

Respectfully submitted,

JZ

*A similar situation that I deal with quite frequently in my law practice is when a client’s lights break off due to the impact of the crash, and the police officer who responds to the scene diligently records that “cyclist had no headlight” in their report. Absent any proof to refute the official record, the driver’s insurance company is always quick to assert comparative negligence and deny liability. Over the years I have spent hours scouring the roadway for bits of smashed bike lights that the police failed to notice, as it is the only way to fight such an unfair outcome. To mandate tail lights, rather than a tail light or reflector, would add another unjust tool to the insurance companies’ arsenal.

Illustration by Emily Thibodeau

Nearly all of my cases turn on the question of what happened.  That’s because, in order to get you compensation for your injuries or your damaged bike after a crash, I need to be able to show that the driver was at least 50% at fault.  Such a determination often requires a clear picture of how the crash occurred.  While proving what happened can often be fairly straightforward, there are many crashes where things get complicated.  In such cases, the deciding factor often takes the form of a witness.

Keep reading

Image via flickr

What if there was a way to travel to the future? What if you could visit a place where everything that bike advocates are working for here in the US has already been achieved? A place where where biking is a true priority, and the government is committed to increasing the number of people who ride. A place where brilliantly designed cycle tracks go everywhere, and crashes are so rare that only racers wear helmets. That place exists, and they’re happy to let you come visit.

Keep reading

They say that Albert Einstein wore the same thing every day.  His reasoning was that having only one outfit to choose from every morning freed up his brain to consider all of the more important things he needed to think about all day.

While you may not want to follow Einstein’s fashion advice, he was on to something about the way your brain works, and it can be particularly helpful when your brain is in charge of negotiating traffic on your bike.

Keep reading