Author Topic: Bike Racks which cover Taillights (Read 2353 times)

Angry Chicken · « **on:** May 14, 2009, 01:14:31 pm »

Simple question. Yes or No? Option 3 is reserved for professional hockey players who've been hit on the head one too many times.

Squishy · « **Reply #1 on:** May 14, 2009, 01:54:43 pm »

How would you define 'cover'? Completely covered, as in no brake lights visible at all, or just partially covered, as in you see lights through the bike spokes? I would vote 'ban' for the former, 'no ban' for the latter.

Angry Chicken · « **Reply #2 on:** May 14, 2009, 03:45:43 pm »

Quote from: Squishy on May 14, 2009, 01:54:43 pm

How would you define 'cover'? Completely covered, as in no brake lights visible at all, or just partially covered, as in you see lights through the bike spokes? I would vote 'ban' for the former, 'no ban' for the latter.

Taillights are obscured enough as to be rendered ineffective.

Wolverine · « **Reply #3 on:** May 14, 2009, 04:27:54 pm »

Here in Brazil is banned, as well as racks that covers the plate. That's why I opted for a roof mounted rack to carry the bike. A lot of people use those that covers the lights anyway, some have problems with the law, some don't.

Squishy · « **Reply #4 on:** May 14, 2009, 05:24:07 pm »

Quote from: Angry Chicken on May 14, 2009, 03:45:43 pm

Quote from: Squishy on May 14, 2009, 01:54:43 pm
How would you define 'cover'? Completely covered, as in no brake lights visible at all, or just partially covered, as in you see lights through the bike spokes? I would vote 'ban' for the former, 'no ban' for the latter.
Taillights are obscured enough as to be rendered ineffective.

Then 'ban' it is.

dorin · « **Reply #5 on:** May 14, 2009, 09:46:17 pm »

But does such a rack exist? I don't currently use a rear-mounted bike rack, but when I did you could totally see the taillights through the bike's wheels. It's the same now when I follow someone with a rear-mounted bike rack.

Angry Chicken · « **Reply #6 on:** May 15, 2009, 06:07:14 am »

Quote from: dorin on May 14, 2009, 09:46:17 pm

But does such a rack exist? I don't currently use a rear-mounted bike rack, but when I did you could totally see the taillights through the bike's wheels. It's the same now when I follow someone with a rear-mounted bike rack.

Surely you've followed someone with a hitch mount bike rack laden with bikes where you can't see the taillights? It's not too common, the theory being that common sense prevails, but I've seen it enough times last bike season that I thought I'd comment.

dr_spock · « **Reply #7 on:** May 15, 2009, 09:19:02 am »

I don't think it has been an issue for me. Normally I allow extra space between me and the bike carrier, just in case they didn't secure their bikes properly to the rack.

Angry Chicken · « **Reply #8 on:** May 15, 2009, 01:27:23 pm »

I guess it's just an Ottawa thing? I'm not losing sleep over it, it's just making me more careful when I load the family's bikes onto the hitchmount rack.

Squishy · « **Reply #9 on:** May 15, 2009, 01:59:56 pm »

Could be. I rarely see more than two bikes on a rack, and at that point the brake lights and turn signals are still clearly visible between the spokes. I guess it would depend on the taillight design, as well. The Escort has a large taillight cluster, but 80% of it is just a reflector. A few bikes of the right size could completely block the tiny illuminated portion.

Leviathan · « **Reply #10 on:** May 16, 2009, 04:14:24 am »

Frankly, a car with red turn signal lights 100% of the time is a bigger issue than a few bikes blocking some of the time on a car with amber signal lights.

safristi · « **Reply #11 on:** May 16, 2009, 11:54:35 am »

Frankly dear i don't give a damn...................Rhet! (turn) Butler...................

...

AMBER ALERT...................AMBER ALERT

Angry Chicken · « **Reply #12 on:** May 17, 2009, 08:50:22 am »

Quote from: Leviathan on May 16, 2009, 04:14:24 am

Frankly, a car with red turn signal lights 100% of the time is a bigger issue than a few bikes blocking some of the time on a car with amber signal lights.

I agree about the colour of the taillights. Why we use red turn signal indicators is beyond me. Graeme Fletcher of TSN's Motoring 2009 has ranted about that a number of times...not endorsing cars completely because of it, in some cases. Our 2007 Santa Fe is a case in point. The turn signals are very fashionable crescent shaped little slices of reflector outboard of the brake lights. They can be very difficult to pick out from the brake lights when following the car. Makes you wonder what Korean weed they were smoking when they came up with that dumb design.

tpl · « **Reply #13 on:** May 17, 2009, 09:51:06 am »

We, Canada, allow red rear indicators because the Americans allow them. No more reason than that.
I am sure that the Americans allow them because at some past time the Big 3 argued that they were cheaper than amber. Less wire, fewer bulbs and only one colour of glass ( plastic nowadays of course)
I have looked for and not been able to find any statistics that show that red is a safety hazard... whatever I/we may think and believe... so the chances of getting our regulations changed is about zero.

The thing that annoys me most is that the euro manufacturers , BMW and VW for example make specific Red rear lens for NA when in their own country Amber is the rule. To add insult to injury they are not even consistent about it.

AS for the actual topic. When we used to go to France every year we'd see the police on the autoroutes specifically checking that "stuff" bicycles or whatever did not obscure the rear lights on cars... they checked for overloading as well. More people than seatbelts and overloaded roof racks. They stationed themselves around toll booths and at rest areas to do this. Very sensible I thought.

Angry Chicken · « **Reply #14 on:** July 05, 2009, 05:55:53 pm »

I sensed some disbelief in my proposition that I often see cars here (maybe it's an Ottawa thing) with bike racks which obscure the taillights. Here's a pic I snapped today. Are there more believers? The guy in this Pontiac Grand Prix should be slapped.

My wife took the pic. No Pontiacs were harmed in the production of this picture. This picture was taken by a professional stunt photographer. Do not attempt.

tpl · « **Reply #15 on:** July 05, 2009, 06:12:32 pm »

Obscuring the number plate is an offence as well is it not ?

ovr50 · « **Reply #16 on:** July 05, 2009, 06:44:00 pm »

Quote from: tpl on July 05, 2009, 06:12:32 pm

Obscuring the number plate is an offence as well is it not ?

Obscuring either of taillights and/or license plate is an offence in BC.

dr_spock · « **Reply #17 on:** July 05, 2009, 08:33:30 pm »

Do you have a pic of them actually braking or signaling a lane change? Does the light go through the spokes and frames? If not, then I think you have a good excuse to rear-end them.

Angry Chicken · « **Reply #18 on:** July 05, 2009, 09:22:09 pm »

No pic, but the only bit of taillight I saw was a small little crescent of the right light. Even the high mount light was blocked.

Oops. More of this and we'll have to take it over to Moan 'n Whine. ;-)

P.S. It's still better than the beer-swilling NASCAR crowd out my way with the jet black smoked acrylic headlight and taillight covers on their puddle-stomping, stump-humping big ol' boy pick-me-up trucks. Yee-hah!

Poll

Should bike racks which cover taillights when bikes are mounted be banned?

Author Topic: Bike Racks which cover Taillights (Read 2353 times)