Home » Top Stories » News and Features »

Legally Speaking - with Bob Mionske: Reflected glory

Published: Oct. 26, 2006

Bob,
I have a question regarding riding at night. I'm a Minnesota commuter and commute using a generally accepted excellent setup – a Niterider 15 watt headlight with a Niterider blinking taillight. But Minnesota statutes 169.222 subsection 6 says:

(a) No person shall operate a bicycle at nighttime unless the bicycle or its operator is equipped with a lamp which shall emit a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the front and with a red reflector of a type approved by the Department of Public Safety which is visible from all distances from 100 feet to 600 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful lower beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle. No person may operate a bicycle at any time when there is not sufficient light to render persons and vehicles on the highway clearly discernible at a distance of 500 feet ahead unless the bicycle or its operator is equipped with reflective surfaces that shall be visible during the hours of darkness from 600 feet when viewed in front of lawful lower beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle. The reflective surfaces shall include reflective materials on each side of each pedal to indicate their presence from the front or the rear and with a minimum of 20 square inches of reflective material on each side of the bicycle or its operator. Any bicycle equipped with side reflectors as required by regulations for new bicycles prescribed by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission shall be considered to meet the requirements for side reflectorization contained in this subdivision. A bicycle may be equipped with a rear lamp that emits a red flashing signal.

So it looks like I would also need:Rear red reflectorPedal reflectors (do these even exist for clipless pedals?) 20 square inches of reflective material (which is much larger thanUSCPSC reflectors) on each side. Am I biking illegally? Could I be at fault if I’m involved in an accident? What if my setup is MUCH more visible than what the statutes require?
D.S.
Minneapolis, MN

Dear D.S.,
With winter, and shorter days, approaching, night-time visibility is something for all of us to think about. You asked some interesting questions; let’s see if we can shed a little light on the subject.

What equipment do you need to legally ride at night?
As always, the answer to this question will vary by state. Since you’re commuting in Minnesota, though, and since you asked, let’s go through what you need to legally ride at night in your state. First, as you saw in the statute, you are required to have a red reflector to make you visible to cars approaching from the rear. That requirement can be satisfied by either a reflector on the bike, or on you. That might seem kind of silly to you, when your blinkie is much more visible, but it’s the reflector that’s required, whereas a blinkie isn’t required. Think of it this way: If your active visibility equipment (your taillight) fails, you still have passive visibility equipment (your reflector) as a back-up system to get you home.

Second, you’re required to have additional reflective surfaces on you or your bicycle. This is an interesting requirement, because at first it seems to be optional as to whether these reflective surfaces are on you, or your bicycle. Until you get to that part about reflective materials on the pedals. That requirement sounds mandatory, which raises the possibility that everybody who rides clipless in Minnesota is in violation of the law if they ride at night. The Minnesota bicycle advocacy organizations should probably work to get that part of the law changed to reflect—excuse the pun—the current state of pedal technology. In the meantime, you might want to consider wearing something reflective near your pedals on the slim chance that you could get stopped for an equipment violation; it may or may not convince an overly zealous cop, but it would likely convince a judge that you’re complying with the law.

Third, you may choose, as you pointed out, to either have 20 square inches of reflective material on each side of your bicycle or you, or you may equip your bike with side reflectors that meet the new bicycle regulations. That’s an interesting requirement, because it’s at least theoretically possible that the regulations have changed over the years, which would make it impossible for law enforcement officers to have any way of knowing whether your equipment meets the legal requirements or not. My guess is that as long as you or your bike are equipped with the required reflective surfaces, the cops just aren’t going to care about minutiae.

But are you biking illegally?
Now suppose your bike isn’t equipped as the law specifies; are you biking illegally? If you’re riding at night, yes, you would be riding in violation of the law if you don’t meet the requirements of the statute. That might seem strange, when, as you point out, you’re lit up, at least in some regards, better than the law requires. Nevertheless, the law requires a minimum amount of passive visibility equipment, regardless of whatever else is on your bicycle. If you really want to be in compliance with the law, I would advise trying to meet those standards. Think of it as a failsafe system, rather than a bureaucratic hoop you have to jump through.

Finally, as you pointed out, there’s another reason to consider complying with the law. If you’re involved in an accident, the question of liability will be raised. You’re going to want the other party to be held liable, and the other party is going to want you to be held liable. That’s where little things like being in observance of the law come into play. Under section 169.96 of the Minnesota Traffic regulations, “in all civil actions, a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, by either or any of the parties to such action or actions shall not be negligence per se but shall be prima facie evidence of negligence only.” What all that legalese means is that in a lawsuit, a traffic violation won’t be considered negligence in and of itself (negligence per se), but it will be considered evidence that establishes negligence unless contradictory evidence is produced.

Let’s say that you’re involved in an accident, and the other party claims that you were riding at night in violation of the reflective materials requirement, and that this violation is evidence of your negligence in the accident. To rebut that evidence, you would have to introduce evidence that you weren’t negligent, because you had lighting that makes you more visible than what the law requires. And of course you’d have to prove that it was in operation, and in functioning condition, at the time of the accident. If you were able to introduce this evidence, then you would not be found negligent for a violation of the traffic laws. But why go through all that bother? The easiest way to protect yourself from a negligence claim (not to mention traffic citations) is to just be in compliance with the law, even if you decide to go beyond the minimum the law requires. Something we should all—ahem—reflect on.
Good luck,
Bob(Research and drafting provided by Rick Bernardi-law student-Lewis and Clark)

Now read the fine print:

Bob Mionske is a former competitive cyclist who representedthe U.S. at the 1988 Olympic games (where he finished fourth in the roadrace), the 1992 Olympics, as well as winning the 1990 national championshiproad race.After retiring from racing in 1993, he coached the Saturn Professional Cycling team for one year before heading off to law school. Mionske's practice is now split between personal-injury work, representing professional athletes as an agent and other legal issues facing endurance athletes (traffic violations, contract, criminal charges, intellectual property, etc).If you have a cycling-related legal question, please send it to mionskelaw@hotmail.comBob will answer as many of these questions privately as he can. He willalso select a few questions each week to answer in this column. Generalbicycle-accident advice can be found at www.bicyclelaw.com.Important notice:
The information provided in the "Legally speaking"column is not legal advice. The information provided on this publicweb site is provided solely for the general interest of the visitors tothis web site. The information contained in the column applies to generalprinciples of American jurisprudence and may not reflect current legaldevelopments or statutory changes in the various jurisdictions and thereforeshould not be relied upon or interpreted as legal advice. Understand thatreading the information contained in this column does not mean youhave established an attorney-client relationship with attorney Bob Mionske.Readers of this column should not act upon any information contained inthe web site without first seeking the advice of legal counsel.