News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.5K     0 

I found this report on a study dating to 2020 -

Exactly How Far U.S. Street Safety Has Fallen Behind Europe, in Three Bombshell Charts​


The headline and report on the study by Virginia Tech and Rutgers were found in STREETSBLOGUSA. Although Canada is not part of the report, and our countries are not the same in many ways, I am sure some conclusions can be drawn as well.

“The United States has failed to reduce pedestrian and cyclist fatalities as fast as comparably affluent European nations, a new study finds — and the authors think we must employ the same simple, effective policies that they did to catch up in the fight the bloodshed.

Researchers from Virginia Tech and Rutgers University compared the last 28 years of available transportation fatality data from the United States with data from the four countries with the most closely comparable national travel surveys and levels of affluence: Denmark, Germany, Netherlands and the United Kingdom. All four peer nations had reduced per capita pedestrian fatalities by at least 61 percent over the course of the study period — and standout Denmark did so by a whopping 69 percent — but the U.S. reduced ours by just 36 percent”

The complete report is here: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/10...fallen-behind-europe-in-four-bombshell-charts
 
Could I make a plea for bicycle riders to instal functioning lights ( and even some form of reflective device on themselves, their backpack etc) There are far to many who do not so so, or possible refuse. It is the law by the way, if anyone cares. And as for the idiot who was out on a rural road in Halton last night, in the rain, without lights or reflections, even in the new truck, with LED lighting, you are damm lucky I saw you in those conditions, and damm lucky the speed limit was only 60 kmh, and I had enough time to move or the float would have had you off the road. Wise up - I do not mind bopping along at 50, but do your part as well.
 
Cyclists should wear lights (it's the law, after all), but it sounds like you bopping along at 50 made it manageable. We should probably make that the speed limit. Or even 40.
 
Could I make a plea for bicycle riders to instal functioning lights ( and even some form of reflective device on themselves, their backpack etc) There are far to many who do not so so, or possible refuse. It is the law by the way, if anyone cares. And as for the idiot who was out on a rural road in Halton last night, in the rain, without lights or reflections, even in the new truck, with LED lighting, you are damm lucky I saw you in those conditions, and damm lucky the speed limit was only 60 kmh, and I had enough time to move or the float would have had you off the road. Wise up - I do not mind bopping along at 50, but do your part as well.
I have been shocked by people without lights while riding my bike at night. If I didn't have lights, I can't be confident we wouldn't have collided.

By all means, police should be ticketing these folks, and not enforcing speed limits in high park. The ticket should be $30, and come with a free set of bike lights.
 
By that logic, if I don't buy a helmet, should the State buy me one?

I do think that bikes should be required to have a light installed when sold.

We don't allow cars to have lights as a purely after-market feature. A car must have headlights.

The issue is not one of self-risk, as a helmet could be described, but of risk to others.
 
(Hate to get pedantic over a good suggestion, but....) Is there already a CSA standard for bicycle lights? I doubt that manufacturers would agree to add them without a standard that relieves them of liability (perhaps sale of a a non-lit bike ought to impose that liability....)

There are some pretty nifty lights out there, including ones mounted on the helmet, which solves both issues. I agree that the law certainly should nudge people towards the solution rather than away from it, but giving choices is always a good thing.

- Paul
 
I do think that bikes should be required to have a light installed when sold.

We don't allow cars to have lights as a purely after-market feature. A car must have headlights.

The issue is not one of self-risk, as a helmet could be described, but of risk to others.
Fair 'nuff, but I suppose it assumes that all bikes will be operated on public thoroughfares. No doubt that cycling as a mainstream form of transportation has not caught the eye of North American legislators. Are they mandatory equipment in Europe?

They legislation that governs product standards is different than usage standards. Product standards are federal, and very much (but not exclusively) in step with the US. In terms of vehicles and motor vehicles, the usage is governed by the province and, in Ontario's case, only applies to public roads. An example is daytime running lights. They are mandatory equipment for a vehicle sold in Canada, but there is no requirement in Ontario that they operate.

The requirement for bicycle lighting is already in the HTA.

(Hate to get pedantic over a good suggestion, but....) Is there already a CSA standard for bicycle lights? I doubt that manufacturers would agree to add them without a standard that relieves them of liability (perhaps sale of a a non-lit bike ought to impose that liability....)

There are some pretty nifty lights out there, including ones mounted on the helmet, which solves both issues. I agree that the law certainly should nudge people towards the solution rather than away from it, but giving choices is always a good thing.

- Paul
Not that I'm aware of but I don't know the federal legislation. Lighting on bicycles is not included in the HTA standards for motor vehicles, except for colour.
 
Are they mandatory equipment in Europe?

On cursory research, the rules are not pan-E.U. but vary by state.

They are mandatory in some E.U. Countries.

Ireland:


From the above:

1701204299100.png


The U.K.


From the above:

1701204361799.png


Poland:


From the above:

1701204483563.png


I Couldn't find a good quality source in English, but a front light is definitely mandatory in Germany.
 
The requirement for bicycle lighting is already in the HTA.

Yes, and this is what it reads:

Lights and reflectors on bicycles, etc.
(17) When on a highway at any time from one-half hour before sunset to one-half hour after sunrise and at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 150 metres or less, every motor assisted bicycle and bicycle (other than a unicycle) shall carry a lighted lamp displaying a white or amber light on its front and a lighted lamp displaying a red light or a reflector on its rear, and in addition white reflective material shall be placed on its front forks, and red reflective material covering a surface of not less than 250 millimetres in length and 25 millimetres in width shall be placed on its rear. 2015, c. 14, s. 21 (2).
Same
(17.1) A bicycle may carry a lighted lamp on its rear that produces intermittent flashes of red light at any time, and may carry such a lamp at the times described in subsection (17) instead of or in addition to the lighted lamp displaying a red light or reflector required by that subsection. 2015, c. 14, s. 21 (2).

Bizarrely, a rear lamp is not required, a rear reflector suffices.
There are also requirements for reflective material on the front forks and a large reflective surface at the rear, which I don't think I've ever actually seen on a bike. Everyone seems to violating this rule.
And bikes are allowed to flash their rear light, which no other ordinary vehicle is allowed.
 
By that logic, if I don't buy a helmet, should the State buy me one?
No, this is tantamount to forced purchase. It would be like police aggressively ticketing riding without a helmet at say $150/pop and allowing the fine to be used toward the purchase of a helmet.
 
Yes, and this is what it reads:

Lights and reflectors on bicycles, etc.
(17) When on a highway at any time from one-half hour before sunset to one-half hour after sunrise and at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 150 metres or less, every motor assisted bicycle and bicycle (other than a unicycle) shall carry a lighted lamp displaying a white or amber light on its front and a lighted lamp displaying a red light or a reflector on its rear, and in addition white reflective material shall be placed on its front forks, and red reflective material covering a surface of not less than 250 millimetres in length and 25 millimetres in width shall be placed on its rear. 2015, c. 14, s. 21 (2).
Same
(17.1) A bicycle may carry a lighted lamp on its rear that produces intermittent flashes of red light at any time, and may carry such a lamp at the times described in subsection (17) instead of or in addition to the lighted lamp displaying a red light or reflector required by that subsection. 2015, c. 14, s. 21 (2).

Bizarrely, a rear lamp is not required, a rear reflector suffices.
There are also requirements for reflective material on the front forks and a large reflective surface at the rear, which I don't think I've ever actually seen on a bike. Everyone seems to violating this rule.
And bikes are allowed to flash their rear light, which no other ordinary vehicle is allowed.
Which mirrors the text for motor vehicles for when lamps are required, except there is no standard for lamp brightness and, as you mention, a rear reflector is deemed sufficient. I'm not exactly sure where someone would put a reflector of that size on the rear of most bikes. Even if it has a fender, it is a curved surface which pretty much negates much of the reflectivity.
 

Back
Top