ulations ▁were ▁soon ▁expanded ▁to ▁include ▁all ▁b icy cles ▁except ▁for ▁track ▁b ikes ▁and ▁custom - ass emble d ▁b icy cles . ▁That ▁October ▁, ▁For ester ▁published ▁an ▁article ▁in ▁Bi ke ▁World ▁den oun cing ▁both ▁the ▁California ▁Department ▁of ▁Transport ation ▁and ▁the ▁C PS C . ▁He ▁target ed ▁the ▁new ▁C PS C ▁reg ulations , ▁especially ▁the ▁" e ight ▁reflect or " ▁system , ▁which ▁required ▁front , ▁rear , ▁wheel ▁and ▁ped al ▁reflect ors . ▁The ▁front ▁reflect or ▁replaced ▁the ▁b icy cle ▁head light . ▁For ester ▁argued ▁that ▁motor ▁vehicle ▁drivers ▁about ▁to ▁cross ▁the ▁path ▁of ▁the ▁cycl ist ▁would ▁not ▁see ▁the ▁cycl ist ▁because ▁the ▁head light s ▁of ▁their ▁motor ▁vehicle ▁did ▁not ▁sh ine ▁onto ▁the ▁front ▁reflect or ▁of ▁the ▁b icy cle , ▁often ▁resulting ▁in ▁a ▁crash . ▁( Only ▁if ▁the ▁b icy cle ▁was ▁directly ▁in ▁front ▁of ▁the ▁car ▁and ▁only ▁if ▁the ▁b icy cle ▁was ▁head ed ▁the ▁wrong ▁way , ▁would ▁the ▁car ' s ▁head light s ▁ill uminate ▁the ▁b icy cle ' s ▁front ▁reflect or , ▁until ▁the ▁in ev itable ▁head - on ▁crash .) ▁ ▁After ▁the ▁rules ▁were ▁final ized , ▁For ester ▁su ed ▁the ▁C PS C . ▁Act ing ▁as ▁his ▁own ▁lawyer ▁( pro ▁se ), ▁For ester ▁did ▁not ▁understand ▁that ▁United ▁States ▁federal ▁law ▁did ▁not ▁grant ▁juris diction ▁to ▁the