Reflective vests and infrared touchless faucets

**Sunyata** · 10-01-2019, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by jrenaut

However, any reflector interacts with any light, and cars have been required to have headlights since forever (citation needed).

Man, this led me down a rabbit hole. Interestingly enough, Massachusetts was the first state to require automobiles to have electric headlights in 1915, other states followed by the early 20's. It seems unclear whether prior to that automobiles were required to have any source of lighting, although many of them had oil lamps.

https://www.theretrofitsource.com/bl...tive-lighting/

**Crickey7** · 10-01-2019, 09:06 AM

We are generally speaking a self-selected community of safety weenies, arguing over safety weenie minutiae. Needless to say, I'm very proud.

**jrenaut** · 10-01-2019, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by DismalScientist

Methinks you took my comment more seriously than it deserved. It was merely intended as snarky pedantry.

Come on, man, how long have I known you? Aside from the occasional advice on frugal cycling, do you post anything else?

**baiskeli** · 10-01-2019, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by jrenaut

I don't object to cyclists being visible. I encourage lots of lights and reflective gear. What I object to is specific gear requirements to interact with special gear we'll put in cars so that drivers can say "well, my Cyclist Censor didn't see you, so it's not my fault I ran you over".

Yeah, I completely agree on that.

**baiskeli** · 10-01-2019, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Steve O

If I were to run into someone walking on the trail who was hard to see, I would consider it my fault, just like if I were to run into a deer standing on the trail (although they do have those cool reflective eyeballs), or a fallen tree limb lying across the trail. If I cannot see far enough ahead to avoid these kinds of things, I am riding too fast. My fault.

I'd say it depends on where they are, if they are moving, what direction they are moving relative to you, etc. Just as a bike is required to have reflectors, etc. to have a reasonably minimum level of visibility. If someone goes out on a moonless night dressed in a black body-suit and runs back and forth across the trail in front of cyclists, I'm not going to hold the cyclists responsible if they are hit.

A person riding a bike at night without a light, however, is riding illegally, and I feel comfortable complaining about those types of ninjas.

I thought a ninja was a pedestrian in all black with no reflectors, etc. But why treat a cyclist with not light differently simply because the law requires them to have a light? Wouldn't the same principle apply?

**baiskeli** · 10-01-2019, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by Steve O

You then took up valuable thread space with imaginary hypotheticals that were unrelated to our point.

If that's a problem, then most of the threads here qualify. It's just a discussion where people come to understanding what the other means. Anyway, here's a great opportunity to end it.

**Steve O** · 10-01-2019, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by baiskeli

I'd say it depends on where they are, if they are moving, what direction they are moving relative to you, etc. Just as a bike is required to have reflectors, etc. to have a reasonably minimum level of visibility. If someone goes out on a moonless night dressed in a black body-suit and runs back and forth across the trail in front of cyclists, I'm not going to hold the cyclists responsible if they are hit.

Congrats! The grand champion of imaginary hypotheticals!