[bikesafeboston]

Your Next Bike Light Should Have a Camera

Recorded this morning on my way to GBH for a Morning Edition interview. I forgot to bring up cameras during the interview, so I wrote this instead.

It’s time to start recording our bike rides in traffic.

I have been representing cyclists since 2010, and since then the technology for capturing video while riding has improved dramatically. Cameras are smaller, cheaper, and the images are much clearer. Put it all together and you have a pretty compelling case for riding with a “dashcam.”

Why does this matter? Because video is a great way to prove who was at fault for a crash. In my practice I can think of dozens of cases that we would have surely lost if not for the surveillance footage from a random thrift store across the street, or the camera system on an MBTA bus. I’ve found that a couple seconds of grainy video can sometimes make all the difference for my clients. Now just imagine how useful a camera could be if it’s actually mounted to the bike that got hit!

So, how can you protect yourself while you ride? The simplest way is with a bike light that has an integrated camera. While there used to be only a few pricy options, you can now find plenty of companies selling perfectly adequate units for around $50. They’re still waterproof and seem to have a decent battery, though they don’t record video in 4k. However, for our purposes, 1080p is more than sufficient. The key to the setup is that it these cameras record continuously over themselves like a dashcam—no need to delete old files to make room for new ones. You can treat it just like your existing bike light: as long as you keep it charged and turn it on it will do its job.

Both front and rear camera/lights are available, but if you have to pick one, I’d say that video from the front will nearly always be more valuable than rear-facing video. Everyone worries about being hit from behind, but in my experience that’s almost never how a crash occurs. A front-facing camera will capture your perspective as a rider. This is almost always more useful than seeing what was going on behind you.

The only times I’ve found video from rear-facing cameras to be useful is when someone is hit from behind (again, quite rare, but it happens), or when they happen to record someone behind you getting hit. That brings me to my next point: if you ride with cameras (front or rear), you have a real opportunity to help your fellow cyclists if they get hit. That’s why if anyone ever crashes anywhere near you, you should insist that they take your contact information and preserve the video.

I’ve written before about how we have an obligation to speak up and be a witness if we see a crash, but when you’re riding with video that responsibility attaches even if you didn’t actually see what happened. Even if you are 100% certain that your camera was pointing in a different direction at the time of the impact and you don't think you caught anything useful, you should still provide your contact information and preserve the video. That’s because you never know what a camera saw or heard. I can think of multiple cases where video/audio evidence was enormously valuable, even though it did not show the crash itself.

For example: I had a client who was hit by a driver who ran a red light while she was crossing an intersection. She was taken by ambulance before the police arrived, so the report only had his account of what happened. As you can imagine, this driver swore up and down that he had a green light, and that the biker “came out of nowhere.” The police did eventually get my client’s statement, and the report was amended to include it. However, she had a concussion and couldn’t remember anything about what happened. Thankfully, there was a convenience store on the corner that had cameras. None of them caught the crash, but there was one angle where you could see part of the roadway. Because this crash happened at night, the light from one of the traffic lights was visible on the pavement. Between that and the fact that the camera also captured the sound of the impact, I was able to show that the driver had indeed run a red light when he hit my client. BPD didn’t care enough to ticket him, but his insurance company promptly rescinded their denial of liability, and we were able to proceed with the claim for damages.

Cases like this don’t happen every day, but I have handled enough of them to convince me that any video can make a big difference, even if it doesn’t show exactly what happened. Now that riding with cameras is a practicable option for cyclists in traffic, it’s easy to see the potential benefits for all of us.

The bottom line is that riding with a camera is no longer a niche thing—it's a practical, affordable step that almost any cyclist can take, and the benefits extend beyond just protecting yourself. When you ride with a camera, you become a potential resource for everyone around you. That's a pretty good return on a $50 investment.

Yours,

Josh

PS: If you ride an e-bike and you really want to go all out, you can do what I did on my kid-carrying cargo bike. I wanted to add front and rear cameras that were hard-wired to the bike so that I wouldn’t have to recharge them. Unfortunately, nobody really makes a camera setup like that for e-bikes. They do, however, make such a system for motorcycles. I found one for $75 on Aliexpress, and was able to wire it into an accessory port on the motor, where it gets 12v whenever the bike is turned on. Works just fine and you can hardly see it.

[bikesafeboston]

Wait for an Ambulance (So You Won’t Need One)

Shitty AI-generated image of the average Boston commute, very high accuracy.

Thanks to our many hospitals, encountering ambulances running code 3 is super common in Boston. There are plenty of areas where it happens many times a day—Cambridge Street, Mass Ave in the South End, and basically anywhere in Longwood, to name a few. So, what should you do if you’re riding and you hear a siren behind you?

You should pull over and STOP!

You might wonder, “Is that really necessary? I’m in a separate lane and I’m not blocking the roadway. Stopping and pulling over for emergency vehicles is more of a car thing, right?”

No, I would argue that it’s also the best practice while riding your bike—but for a reason you may not have considered.

Drivers often become erratic and unpredictable when an emergency vehicle is suddenly behind them. This can cause them to panic, leading to impulsive maneuvers that don’t take cyclists into account. I’ve handled several cases where a driver, upon seeing an ambulance in their rearview, immediately jerked the wheel to pull over—directly into a cyclist in the bike lane. We know drivers already consider it an acceptable place to park, so why would they hesitate to pull into the bike lane in an “emergency”?

To avoid this, stop and pull over for ambulances just like a car would. Yes, you’re probably not in their way, and they might not even notice your act of courtesy, but it’s the best way to ensure you’re not affected by the negligence of a panicked driver.

Yours,

Josh

[bikesafeboston]

I've been noticing more and more delivery workers riding motorcycles in the bike lanes here. When I try to politely point out to them that they should be using the usual traffic lanes they seem surprised, and not belligerent. I am imagining that the companies that hire them simply do not inform them of this. Is there anything we can do about this? Is there a Boston dept of bicycle safety that could talk to the hiring companies?

Just because it has two wheels and a motor/engine, does not make it a motorcycle. I have a feeling that the vehicles you’re describing are not actually true motorcycles, but rather motorized scooters/motorized bicycles. If that is the case, they are in fact permitted to ride in bike lanes, as long as the engine displacement is under 50cc’s.

[bikesafeboston]

Could I be cited for failing to stop on my bicycle after making contact with someone’s car? It’s not clear to me whether MGL chapter 90 section 24(2)(a) applies to bicycles. If I make contact with a car, and I am not hurt and the car is not damaged, there are many cases where I would not feel safe sticking around an angry driver and would prefer to leave the scene for my own safety. Could I be cited for doing that?

Legally speaking, I would say no. The statute refers to “motor vehicles,” which is defined in §1 of chapter 90 as “all vehicles constructed and designed for propulsion by power other than muscular power.” It goes on to further specify that “[t]he definition of ''Motor vehicles'' shall not include electric bicycles or motorized bicycles.”

The thing is, I can’t guarantee you won’t be cited under this chapter. Most cops don’t actually understand the law, so they might not grasp the above distinction. It seems unlikely, though.

[bikesafeboston]

Bike Habits: Crossover

One of the habits that I have developed while riding in the city is something you really should try. It is deceptively simple, but it’s made me a better and safer cyclist. Here’s the deal: any time I see a car ahead of me with its turn signal on, I instinctively try to position myself on the car’s non-blinking side. That’s it. I call it a crossover.

A crossover is often most helpful when you’re riding in a right-side bike lane, and you see a car ahead that’s planning to take a right. In that situation, I do a quick shoulder check and make sure the coast is clear, and then merge out of the bike lane and position myself on the left side of the car’s lane. Now, legally speaking there are a couple of issues to point out here:

If you’re going straight in the bike lane, and the car is turning right, the driver technically has to yield to you before making their right turn. If you want to roll the dice on that actually happening, be my guest. I have plenty of clients who can testify to the fact that drivers don’t always check the bike lane before turning right. At best, you’ll be able to slam on your brakes and avoid a crash. At worst, you can explain how you had right of way while they load you into the ambulance.

In some states, it is actually prohibited to ride outside the bike lane if you're on a road where one exists. Such laws, referred to as “mandatory sidepath,” mean that if you’re hit while riding outside of a bike lane, you need to justify your position in the roadway before you can recover damages after a crash. The laws usually provide exceptions for when you’re avoiding an obstacle, or preparing to make a left turn, etc., but it’s still bullshit (See: this dumb example from MD). Cyclists should be allowed to use the roads the same as cars do, and should not bear the burden of proving they had a right to be in the roadway after a crash. Thankfully, Massachusetts gives riders a full right to the road, so we don’t have to worry about such nonsense here.

Anyway, I highly recommend you start treating blinkers ahead as an indication to reposition yourself. After a while, you might find that you start doing it without a conscious thought. New safety habit unlocked!

Yours,

Josh

[bikesafeboston]

The Ins and Outs of Property Damage

I’ve already written about the importance of auto insurance coverage if you’re injured in a crash with a car, but I thought I should get into a bit more detail when it comes to the property side of things.

When you’re hit by a car, as long as it was the driver’s fault, you’re entitled to compensation. Assuming the driver is insured, their insurance company is responsible for compensating you. That means compensating you for your injuries, as well as paying for damage to your property that occurred as a result of the crash. Many people don’t realize that this includes ANY property that was damaged in the crash, not just your bike! Helmets, glasses, phone screens, backpacks, clothing, water bottles—it’s ALL subject to reimbursement if it was damaged or destroyed in the crash.

DON’T THROW THAT AWAY!

After a bike crash, it’s easy to understand why some people might get the urge to throw out their cracked helmet and bloody clothing. I’ve had clients who dutifully held onto everything for weeks afterwards, and then when I call to ask for additional pictures showing the brand logo, they tell me that they just couldn’t look at that stuff anymore so they got rid of it. And I completely get it.

The problem is, you never know when an adjuster is going to ask to see some specific detail of an item before they’ll issue payment. There’s also the chance that the insurance company will exercise their right to take possession of the damaged property after paying you for it. It’s exceedingly rare—I have only ever had it happen a couple times—but it is their right, since they’re technically “buying” the property.

So, after leaving your mangled bike with your local bike shop for an appraisal, gather up everything else that was damaged in the crash, take a bunch of pictures of each item. Then, put it all in a trash bag and stuff it into the bottom of your closet. You can throw it away once the check is in your hand.

HOW DAMAGED IS DAMAGED?

I often get this question from clients: how badly damaged does an item have to be? My answer is that if the damage will easily buff out to the point that you can’t tell it was there, it’s not damaged enough. Any other type of damage is eligible for compensation.

For example: my brand new cleats have large scuff marks from where I was dragged along the pavement after being left crossed, but they’re still perfectly usable. Even though it doesn’t affect the functionality of the shoes, would you ever buy a scuffed pair at full price? Of course not. Their value has diminished, and you should be compensated for that. The same goes for blood stains, small tears, chipped paint, or scratched lenses.

An important exception to this rule is for helmets. There doesn’t need to be ANY visible damage to a helmet after a crash in order to seek reimbursement for it. I like to say that a helmet is good for exactly one crash, and even if it looks perfectly fine, you should consider it totaled.

MASSACHUSETTS, LAND OF MEAGER MINIMUMS

The minimum amount of Property Damage Liability Coverage that a driver must carry is dictated by state law. Drivers have the option to pay more for better coverage, but the majority of drivers on the road don’t.

In Massachusetts, the minimum is “$5,000 per accident” [sic]. That amount is shockingly low. Only three other states share such a low minimum: California, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The next lowest minimum is $10,000, which is required in 11 states. For reference, the majority of states (22) require a minimum of $25,000 in property coverage.

Even though our Commonwealth’s minimum for property coverage is bafflingly low, I almost never run into it in my clients’ cases. The thing is, while it’s probably not sufficient to cover much more than the bumper on a Tesla, $5k is usually plenty when it comes to paying for a wrecked bike, cracked helmet, and torn backpack.

FANCY BIKES NEED FANCY INSURANCE

The thing is, it does become a problem for fancier bikes. If your bike is worth more than $4,000, there’s a good chance that the property damage settlement will exceed the minimum after adding in your helmet, cleats, jersey, GPS, etc. 

Thankfully, in my 11 years of handling bike cases, I’ve only had one case where there wasn’t enough property insurance to cover the full cost of a client’s bike. That’s not to say that I haven’t gotten clients more than $5,000 for their property, just that those clients have been lucky enough to have been hit by drivers who decided to opt for more than the minimum coverage.

Still, the odds are not in your favor if you’re hit. More than 50% of drivers on the road carry the minimum, as do 100% of taxis. I’ve said it before but it’s worth repeating: every taxi on the road carries the cheapest possible insurance.

So what do you do if you have a fancy bike and you don’t like those odds? Get yourself a policy of your own! I know that there are a few companies that write bike insurance policies, but it seems like the best option is Velosurance. In addition to providing property damage coverage, they also offer Underinsurance coverage, which is a big deal. I’ve only dealt with a couple of cases where the client had a Velosurance policy, but each time it worked as expected. If your bike is worth more than $4-5k, I would definitely recommend checking them out.

ANYTHING ELSE?

I’m sure that there are more questions out there about Property Damage claims that I didn’t think of, but I think this covers the basics. If you’re wondering about anything else on the subject, feel free to email me. The same goes for claims related to a specific crash—if you were hit and you need help navigating a property-only claim, I am happy to help even if you were not injured. I provide this assistance free of charge; partially as a service to the bike community, but also because I truly enjoy sticking it to insurance companies. It’s my love language.

Yours,

Josh

[bikesafeboston]

Locking up

Photo credit

I’m often asked about bike parking—specifically, where it’s allowed and not allowed. There isn’t much specific legislation about locking up bikes, but there are still a couple of areas where it’s definitely NOT a good idea. Here are three to remember:

1.  Any meters, signs, or lampposts that are located next to a handicap parking spot. This is specifically covered by the state law regarding handicap spots (MA General Law Ch. 40 §22D), and there’s usually a sign saying not to do it. However, there’s not always a sign, so be sure to check that it’s not a handicap spot before locking up to a parking meter.

2.  Trees. I don’t think that there’s a state law addressing this, but I know that a few cities have ordinances against it (I believe Cambridge does, not sure about Boston). Generally speaking, it’s not a great place to lock up anyway. Unless you’re out in the countryside, don’t lock up to a tree.

3.  Private property. This is the big one. Usually there will be a sign on private fences if they don’t want you to lock up there, but not always. If you aren’t planning on leaving your bike there for very long (i.e., less than a day) and there’s no sign, it's probably OK. However, make sure you avoid railings and ramps, as your bike could be considered an obstacle to entrance/exit by wheelchair users or the public generally, and the owners could potentially remove it. I had a client years ago who locked up to a railing outside Symphony Hall for 10 minutes when he went to collect his tickets (there were no bike racks there at the time, and as far as I know there still aren’t any). The security guards couldn’t get through his bike lock, so they decided to cut through the seat stay of his bike in order to remove it! There was no sign, but they tried to argue that it was a fire code issue. Whatever. They paid for a new bike, and hopefully they’ll think twice next time.

Boston is doing a lot to increase the prevalence of bike racks around the city, but there’s still quite a way to go. In the meantime, as long as you use your judgement and avoid the spots I’ve listed above, you should be just fine.

Best,

JZ

PS: This didn’t make the list because I thought it was too obvious, but we’re living in strange times so I thought I’d include it anyway: do not lock your bike to a fire hydrant. I have actually seen this in the wild. It’s very stupid for a number of reasons that I will not go into here. Just don’t do it.

[bikesafeboston]

Know Your Bike Laws

I was planning to give a talk at a bike shop, but then the pandemic happened, so we did it online.  It was fun.  I think we’re gonna do it again in June, so stay tuned.

[bikesafeboston]

Hi Josh, at many intersections, pedestrian traffic in a given direction is given a walk signal several seconds before vehicle traffic moving in the same direction. Can a biker waiting at a red light go when the same-direction pedestrians get a walk signal (ie not cutting across pedestrian traffic), or should the biker wait for the green light? "Bikes are vehicles" would make me think wait, "bikers can usually ride on sidewalks" would make me think go, I'm not a lawyer so I'm asking one. Thanks!

Good question, easy answer: bikes need to wait for the green light. The walk signal is for pedestrians, and cyclists in traffic are not pedestrians. I always thought this should be more obvious, since the walk signal is a picture of a little person on foot, and that’s not what a bike rider looks like (duh). But I get how it can be confusing when you’re waiting for the light to change and you see a bunch of bikers go on the walk signal. Anyway, now you know definitively!

One caveat: If you want to cross on the walk signal, you need only dismount from your bike. Boom, instant pedestrian!

[bikesafeboston]

Hi Josh, in MA is it always the case that a right-turning vehicle must yield to a person on a bike going straight? In other words, what should I do if a car ahead of me starts turning right and in doing so blocks the bike lane?

Yes. Well, kinda. The right hook law in MA (See, MGL Ch. 90 §14) applies when the car overtakes the cyclist, which does not describe all right hooks.  However, there’s also the general principle of safely changing lanes, as described in Ch. 89 §4A.  It states the following:

When any way has been divided into lanes, the driver of a vehicle shall so drive that the vehicle shall be entirely within a single lane, and he shall not move from the lane in which he is driving until he has first ascertained if such movement can be made with safety.  [emphasis mine] 

Even though cars can’t drive in bike lanes, I would argue that they would still be considered travel lanes under this statute. Therefore, drivers have a duty to make sure it’s safe before they try and cross the bike lane to make their right turn. So, even if a car did not pass you prior to turning right into you or in front of you, I would say it’s still their fault for not checking before making their turn.

Now, as to your question about what you should do if a car ahead of you starts turning right, I would suggest you apply the brakes. If that doesn't work, give me a call.

-JZ

Further reading: The Right Hook

[bikesafeboston]

Hi Josh, I was wondering if you could speak to the rights you have, or not have, to bike on the sidewalk. In CBDs/Downtown that is not allowed, but outside it is allowed to bike on the sidewalk in my understanding, unless there is a separated bike facility present. Thanks!

Yeah, that’s pretty much it!  A bit more detail:

-under the law (Ch. 85 §11B), you can only ride on the sidewalk if it’s “in the interest of safety,”  but it pretty much always is. Just keep in mind that you shouldn’t be riding there in the interest of speed or convenience or something.

-you have to yield to pedestrians when riding on the sidewalk, and you need to signal audibly (best done with a bell) when passing a pedestrian.

-a “central business district” is a vague term, and you shouldn’t have to define it. Instead, just look for signs that say you can’t ride on the sidewalk. No signs, no problem.

[bikesafeboston]

Help some researchers, if you want

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

[bikesafeboston]

Hello, I biked on the Cape Cod Rail Trail, where crosswalks had a stop sign and a sign that said state law is to walk your bike across the crosswalk; do not ride. I had not seen these signs before. I have ridden other rail trails that did not have these signs For example, Minuteman Commuter Bikeway does not have these signs. If it is state law, shouldn’t all rail trail crosswalks have these signs? Does this law apply only to rail trails?

Good question.  As far as I know, the signs you saw are mostly correct, insofar as they’re conveying the fact that crosswalks do not offer any legal protection to cyclists under Massachusetts law.  However, it’s not technically illegal to ride a bike in a crosswalk—you don’t have to walk your bike.  But given the legal status of crosswalks in the Commonwealth, it’s certainly a good idea.

You can read more about the specifics of this issue here.

[bikesafeboston]

What should I do if I got hit by a car, got driver's name and number but not plate, and didn't get the police there and it's a day later?

Hmm, tricky situation. Email me.

[bikesafeboston]

Is it legal to ride a bicycle on Storrow Drive? There are 'Cars Only' signs, but do those prohibit bicycles? They don't seem to prohibit motorcycles, and seem to be mostly to keep the big moving trucks that get 'storrowed' out.

Interesting question.  The relevant statute is MA General Law Ch. 85 § 11B, which states that bicyclists have the “right to use all public ways in the commonwealth except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted.”  Elsewhere in the Commonwealth, highway onramps tend to feature signs with pictograms indicating no bikes, horses, or pedestrians, but for some reason the ones on Storrow Drive aren't as explicit.  They simply say “Cars Only,” and “No buses or trucks over 2 1/2 tons.”  As you’ve pointed out, that doesn’t really count as “specifically prohibiting bicycles.”  I hesitate to say that this means that bikes are allowed on Storrow Drive, as riding there outside of Hub On Wheels is an exceedingly bad idea.  However, unless I’m missing the sign on Streetview, it appears that it’s technically legal.  I’d ask MassDOT first, though.

[bikesafeboston]

Since children are allowed to ride bikes on sidewalks, are they also allowed to ride their bikes in crosswalks?

Nobody is prohibited from riding in crosswalks; we’re just not given any additional rights in them (like the pedestrians get). Also: adults can ride on the sidewalk too, if it’s in the interest of safety.

[bikesafeboston]

A letter I wrote to a MA state senator

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.