As a pedestrian, I've almost been hit by cyclists running red lights with reflectors. Since my eyes don't emit beams of light, I had no chance to see them until that last second. I assume any cars going through the intersection would have had the same problem, since the obstacle was to the side rather than directly in front of them.
Reflectors do help make the cyclist more visible to overtaking traffic, but they don't help with anything that does not emit light. The cyclist won't be able to see hazards in the road ahead or other cyclists with reflectors.
I do agree that reflectors are better than nothing in the limited case of overtaking or oncoming cars, but they're not as good as lights. And considering how cheap LEDs and AA batteries are compared with the cost of a bicycle, why are we even arguing about this?
All true, but the fact of the matter is that most visibility-related deaths involving bikes are from cars that bikes, not bikes hitting or being hit by pedestrians or anything else without headlights. There are a few cases where pedestrians are killed by bicyclists, e,g. NYC messenger bikes, but this is small.
As a pedestrian, I've almost been hit by cyclists running red lights with reflectors. Since my eyes don't emit beams of light, I had no chance to see them until that last second. I assume any cars going through the intersection would have had the same problem, since the obstacle was to the side rather than directly in front of them.
Reflectors do help make the cyclist more visible to overtaking traffic, but they don't help with anything that does not emit light. The cyclist won't be able to see hazards in the road ahead or other cyclists with reflectors.
I do agree that reflectors are better than nothing in the limited case of overtaking or oncoming cars, but they're not as good as lights. And considering how cheap LEDs and AA batteries are compared with the cost of a bicycle, why are we even arguing about this?