Anonymous wrote:

It is best to have a hard and fast rule with a youngster because he is likely to be rushing to school or home from school and not so aware of weather conditions or changing light conditions as daylight savings end. Moms and Dads it is important to teach safety rules for all things and be consistent not if, and or when. What I also see a lot of is skate boarding in middle school and teen boys with no helmet which to me is incredulous. We live in a college town and the number of students and adults riding around town without helmets, vests or proper lights is astounding. As a driver of a car, the onus is put on us not to hit you, but bikers need to observe all of the safety rules of the road, too.

Helmets for non-children and vests are not safety rules of the road. A rear reflector or light may be a safety rule, depending on where you live.

The vests are like bike helmets used to be. Not required by law, but a good idea to improve safety. Getting kids to wear bike helmets 10 years ago was hard as well.

Until it is the norm, a 13 year old generally does not want to wear it. Don't force your kid to wear one if he will get teased for it. Teach him to ride safely and only in daylight.

Since when are cyclists supposed to wear these vests?

OP - What you term as a moderately heavy road traffic up in the DC area is quite open to interpretation. I would also suggest that you or DH find a way to observe your son riding to school to see how he actually does if this is possible.

It is best to have a hard and fast rule with a youngster because he is likely to be rushing to school or home from school and not so aware of weather conditions or changing light conditions as daylight savings end. Moms and Dads it is important to teach safety rules for all things and be consistent not if, and or when. What I also see a lot of is skate boarding in middle school and teen boys with no helmet which to me is incredulous. We live in a college town and the number of students and adults riding around town without helmets, vests or proper lights is astounding. As a driver of a car, the onus is put on us not to hit you, but bikers need to observe all of the safety rules of the road, too.

Anonymous wrote:

The point is that safety gear saves lives. There is no reason not to wear it except for stupidity. Safety gear is so you are seen. By drivers who are paying attention. And it works. Of course if a driver isn't paying attention you stand no chance anyway but that does not negate that safety gear for cyclists is an absolute must.

+1

Daytime and sunny skies?
Recommended but not totally necessary.

Dawn/dusk/dark/rainy/cloudy/foggy?
100% required.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, the 13-year-old would not NEED a safety vest. But it can't hurt -- except that I am worried that non-biking people will start to think that all bikers should wear safety vests, and if you didn't wear one and you got hit by a car, that means that you were negligent.

Every sentence here is SO wrong.
I hope your child will never be severely injured or die in a biking incident.

Why do you say that? Do you think it's negligent if a bicyclist does not wear a safety vest? Should one have to wear special clothes in order to bike somewhere? Do you think it's negligent if a pedestrian does not wear a safety vest?

But yes, I also hope that my child will never be severely injured or die in a biking incident, or indeed any transportation incident, and I hope that same for your child, and for everybody's child.

You sound like my DH who refuses to wear a safety vest until pedestrians do. GRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If he is biking during dusk/dawn - yes, absolutely. But biking during the day on residential streets? No, I don't think that's necessary. He does need to be very aware of his surroundings though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, the 13-year-old would not NEED a safety vest. But it can't hurt -- except that I am worried that non-biking people will start to think that all bikers should wear safety vests, and if you didn't wear one and you got hit by a car, that means that you were negligent.

Every sentence here is SO wrong.
I hope your child will never be severely injured or die in a biking incident.

Why do you say that? Do you think it's negligent if a bicyclist does not wear a safety vest? Should one have to wear special clothes in order to bike somewhere? Do you think it's negligent if a pedestrian does not wear a safety vest?

But yes, I also hope that my child will never be severely injured or die in a biking incident, or indeed any transportation incident, and I hope that same for your child, and for everybody's child.

Are you serious?

1. Always wear a helmet.
*2. Wear high visibility clothing. Wear safety vest.
*3. Your bike must have a white front and red back light. Those must be turned on.
*4. Your bike must have reflectors on the front and back wheel.

* is for when visibility is not blue skies, 100% daylight like early in the morning, in the evening, when it's rainy, foggy etc.

Anything else IS negligence.

There is a reason these rules exist for cars - and as long as you participate in traffic on the street the same rules should apply. Not sure how far along the law in the US is (don't think far along at all) but yeah...it saves lives. And there is zero reason not to do these things except stupidity. And no that cannot be put in any nicer words.

This is the smartest answer I have read on DCUM in a while. + a million billion

OP, there's no reason for your 13-year-old NOT to wear a safety vest when on a bike unless the ride is ENTIRELY on a trail or bike path that's physically separated from the road.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Responsible bikers typically wear reflective clothing, plus helmets, plus lights/reflectors on the bike. When I ride to work, I feel lit up like a Christmas tree. It's never too soon to teach your son about biking responsibly.

I am wondering: do you do this because you're responsible, or because you're trying to reduce the chances of a driver hitting you with their car?

Not PP but isn't that the same thing?

NP and yes of course it is. Responsible because when you get into an accident you're not the only one involved. So preventing accidents as much as possible helps you AND all other people on the road.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Responsible bikers typically wear reflective clothing, plus helmets, plus lights/reflectors on the bike. When I ride to work, I feel lit up like a Christmas tree. It's never too soon to teach your son about biking responsibly.

I am wondering: do you do this because you're responsible, or because you're trying to reduce the chances of a driver hitting you with their car?

Not PP but isn't that the same thing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Are you serious?

1. Always wear a helmet.
*2. Wear high visibility clothing. Wear safety vest.
*3. Your bike must have a white front and red back light. Those must be turned on.
*4. Your bike must have reflectors on the front and back wheel.

* is for when visibility is not blue skies, 100% daylight like early in the morning, in the evening, when it's rainy, foggy etc.

Anything else IS negligence.
There is a reason these rules exist for cars - and as long as you participate in traffic on the street the same rules should apply. Not sure how far along the law in the US is (don't think far along at all) but yeah...it saves lives. And there is zero reason not to do these things except stupidity. And no that cannot be put in any nicer words.

The law in Maryland, DC, and Virginia is contributory negligence. (In other places, it's comparative negligence.) What contributory negligence says is: if you were at fault at all, even only a tiny little bit, you can be denied all compensation.

So when you say that it's negligent to not wear a safety vest, or it's negligent to not have lights on your bike that are turned on, this is what you're saying: if a speeding driver on a cell phone hits a person who is riding a bike without a safety vest, and the person ends up in the hospital with severe injuries, the driver is not liable for the bicyclist's injuries, because the bicyclist was also negligent.

Is that something you approve of?

Oh come on. Really? I am not going to comment on that because we both know when I used the word "negligence" I was not citing a law term.

The point is that safety gear saves lives. There is no reason not to wear it except for stupidity. Safety gear is so you are seen. By drivers who are paying attention. And it works. Of course if a driver isn't paying attention you stand no chance anyway but that does not negate that safety gear for cyclists is an absolute must.

Anonymous wrote:Responsible bikers typically wear reflective clothing, plus helmets, plus lights/reflectors on the bike. When I ride to work, I feel lit up like a Christmas tree. It's never too soon to teach your son about biking responsibly.

I am wondering: do you do this because you're responsible, or because you're trying to reduce the chances of a driver hitting you with their car?

Anonymous wrote:Yesterday I watched a smug Takoma Park mom load three kids into a rear cart on her bike after dark, put on her own reflective vest and turn the light on her bike, and bike away. When she was six feet away, I couldn't see the kids at all, because the trailer was completely dark.

Good job.

Oh, did you interview her? Because otherwise I am wondering how you knew she was smug.

Also, aren't there street lights in Takoma Park? I'm trying to imagine any road in the entire DC area that is so dark that you can't see a bike trailer from six feet (or actually less than six feet) away..