Hi Viz Jackets...Compulsory.
Discussion
Let me start by saying...I am not a cyclist, however, I am aware of cyclists problems on our busy roads and how the BBC are bombarding us with cycling safety stories on the news. I think cyclists in London are a vary brave/mildly stupid lot for even attempting to ride on the capitals rush hour streets.
My problem is....why on earth are Hi Viz jackets/vests not compulsory, particularly after sun down? I see reports showing helmet air bags, lorry 'blind spot' mirrors and special cycle lanes but let's start with the basics. The amount of times I see cyclists with dark clothing at night, Shirley it's a no brainier to wear bright clothing? Oh, and while we're at it compulsory helmets too!
My problem is....why on earth are Hi Viz jackets/vests not compulsory, particularly after sun down? I see reports showing helmet air bags, lorry 'blind spot' mirrors and special cycle lanes but let's start with the basics. The amount of times I see cyclists with dark clothing at night, Shirley it's a no brainier to wear bright clothing? Oh, and while we're at it compulsory helmets too!
Lordbenny said:
The amount of times I see cyclists with dark clothing at night, Shirley it's a no brainier to wear bright clothing? Oh, and while we're at it compulsory helmets too!
I agree entirely, and I'm a lycra clad cyclist, that it's a no brainer to wear bright clothing. Though to make it compulsory, I don't think is the answer.Lights are already the law - but that doesn't make people use them
In order for cycling to be a safe-as-possible, inclusive and regular form of transport the long term answer is to have the correct infrastructure to allow that. You shouldn't need to wear particular clothing, helmet and so on in order to do it. This is how cycling works in places like Utrecht. Cycling needs to become an everyday transport mechanism with the proper infrastructure to support it. The compulsion of helmets and hi-viz does nothing statistically to improve safety (c.f Australia for instance)
The above is a quick summary of the point of view put forward by Chris Boardman. It is a long term vision and the problem is that it is a bit chicken and egg. What comes first: the infrastructure that allows safe, normal clothed cycling by the masses or the critical mass of cyclists which unlocks the investment in such infrastructure?
Until such time that cycling is an integral part of our transport and infrastructure vision then the helmet/hi-viz debate will rage on. Compulsion however isn't the answer. That has been proven elsewhere and is just a waste of time and money to enforce.
The above is a quick summary of the point of view put forward by Chris Boardman. It is a long term vision and the problem is that it is a bit chicken and egg. What comes first: the infrastructure that allows safe, normal clothed cycling by the masses or the critical mass of cyclists which unlocks the investment in such infrastructure?
Until such time that cycling is an integral part of our transport and infrastructure vision then the helmet/hi-viz debate will rage on. Compulsion however isn't the answer. That has been proven elsewhere and is just a waste of time and money to enforce.
First off, let me say I've cycled through London for about 15 years now.
In that time, I've had some serious off-road lights on the front of my bike and been knocked off ... Sorry mate, didn't see you.
I've been knocked off in the brightest sunshine ... Sorry mate, didn't see you.
I've been knocked off when someone's made eye contact ... Sorry mate didn't see you.
I've had two or three collisions with pedestrians running between cars; trying to beat the lights; hopping off routemasters ... Sorry mate, didn't see you.
It doesn't matter how bright your clothing, people simply don't pay enough attention or look properly for cyclists.
FWIW, for any rides in the winter, I've always worn hi-viz, but it's too hot to wear any other time. A vest would be pointless as I wear a rucksack.
I still wear and advocate riding with a helmet, hi-viz clothing (where possible) and good lights, but I wouldn't make them (all) compulsory. Certainly I think it's stupid not to have them, but I think the more rules you impose on cyclists, the less cyclists there'll be. The less cyclists there are, the less drivers become aware of them. The less they become aware of them, the more (percentage wise) will be involved in collisions.
The biggest difference for me was a change in MY attitude. I'm not claiming that I was a militant cyclists by any means, but I think I'd often put myself in danger because I knew I was in the right. I had right of way; I was in a cycle lane; the lights were on green. Now I look at the bigger picture. Has that lorry seen me? Could that car suddenly turn left in front of me? Will that car waiting in the side road pull out on me?
By assessing the situation in front of you rather than the theory of 'Who has right of way?' and by riding defensively it's dramatically reduced the near misses and completely cut out the 'offs'. So far (touch wood). I also don't get as wound up, don't have as many arguments and don't end up wanting to punch someone's lights out.
Of course, there are still times when someone does something so unbelievably stupid, you couldn't possibly plan for or predict it, but at least those occasions are few and far between.
In that time, I've had some serious off-road lights on the front of my bike and been knocked off ... Sorry mate, didn't see you.
I've been knocked off in the brightest sunshine ... Sorry mate, didn't see you.
I've been knocked off when someone's made eye contact ... Sorry mate didn't see you.
I've had two or three collisions with pedestrians running between cars; trying to beat the lights; hopping off routemasters ... Sorry mate, didn't see you.
It doesn't matter how bright your clothing, people simply don't pay enough attention or look properly for cyclists.
FWIW, for any rides in the winter, I've always worn hi-viz, but it's too hot to wear any other time. A vest would be pointless as I wear a rucksack.
I still wear and advocate riding with a helmet, hi-viz clothing (where possible) and good lights, but I wouldn't make them (all) compulsory. Certainly I think it's stupid not to have them, but I think the more rules you impose on cyclists, the less cyclists there'll be. The less cyclists there are, the less drivers become aware of them. The less they become aware of them, the more (percentage wise) will be involved in collisions.
The biggest difference for me was a change in MY attitude. I'm not claiming that I was a militant cyclists by any means, but I think I'd often put myself in danger because I knew I was in the right. I had right of way; I was in a cycle lane; the lights were on green. Now I look at the bigger picture. Has that lorry seen me? Could that car suddenly turn left in front of me? Will that car waiting in the side road pull out on me?
By assessing the situation in front of you rather than the theory of 'Who has right of way?' and by riding defensively it's dramatically reduced the near misses and completely cut out the 'offs'. So far (touch wood). I also don't get as wound up, don't have as many arguments and don't end up wanting to punch someone's lights out.
Of course, there are still times when someone does something so unbelievably stupid, you couldn't possibly plan for or predict it, but at least those occasions are few and far between.
Lordbenny said:
The amount of times I see cyclists with dark clothing at night,
If you can see them then there can't be a visibility issue 
But seriously.... I totally agree with you, all cyclists should do everything in their power to be seen in low visibility conditions. I wouldn't dream of going out at night without hi-viz clothing and lots of lights (I wouldn't make it a law though)
I dont wear a high viz, I do have a high viz rucksack cover but im out in the sticks all the traffic is behind me on my commut.
I make sure I have a decent light on all hours I am out
A few months back me and my mate cycled right across London, tip of South to North, he had a brand new High Viz jacket on. What struck me was how well he "stood" out when it was dusk, ie not dark enough for lights to be really effective, he was really bright and it sold the idea of High Viz to me. Having said that a taxi pulled out of a side road and nearly hit him as "didnt see you mate".....
I make sure I have a decent light on all hours I am out
A few months back me and my mate cycled right across London, tip of South to North, he had a brand new High Viz jacket on. What struck me was how well he "stood" out when it was dusk, ie not dark enough for lights to be really effective, he was really bright and it sold the idea of High Viz to me. Having said that a taxi pulled out of a side road and nearly hit him as "didnt see you mate".....
Why arent cars all painted in hi-vis colours then? that would surely reduce the number of cars driving into each other. Why cant motorists just accept the fact that they need to drive with greater caution and stop asking all the other road users to compensate for inept driving standards of most UK drivers? If you can see a dark coloured small car like a Aygo or a 107, you can see a cyclist, you just need to drive accordingly.
Cyclists should wear a helmet - Why? so my head doesnt shatter when you crash into me?
Cyclists should wear hi-vis - Why? so you can see me easily whilst you are speeding/texting/drunk and take evasie action?
f
k all this "cyclists should wear....." and "make this compulsary..." bullst, drivers need to start paying attention and not force the onus on the cyclists to mitigate the risks. No one likes seeing dicks on bikes jump the kerb and jump red lights, jsut like no one likes to see cars weave around the road at 2330 and people texting whilst on the motorway but these things are rarely discussed because there are no cyclists to blame.
http://road.cc/content/news/133914-witness-appeal-...
Thames Valley Police are appealing for information after a cyclist was left unconscious by a hit-and-run driver in Midgham, east of Newbury, on Friday.
Between 6pm and 7.45pm, the 29-year-old cyclist was hit by a vehicle on the A4 Bath Road, opposite the Spire Ridge Kennels.
The cyclist was knocked unconscious and was found by a member of the public on the side of the road. He was taken to hospital, where he was treated for fractured ribs and a fractured cheekbone, along with cuts and bruises.
The driver failed to stop. The cyclist was riding a red bike and was wearing a high visibility vest.
and on BBC breakfast earlier this week...
A widow of a cyclist killed in a crash with a car is campaigning for tougher sentences for drivers who kill cyclists.
The article started with the facts of the case:
Driver was drunk, twice the limit. Driver was speeding at 70 mph, in a 30mph zone. found guilty, 4 years in prison. First question to the widow "what clothes was your husband wearing, was he clearly visible?"
SO yeah, lets make hi-vis compulsary, lets also make speeding and drink driving illegal....oh wait....
Dont get me wrong, I wear a hi vis jacket on the road at night, I have a bd bright front light and a nice bright flashing rear light too, because if i do get knocked off, and are fortunate enough to survive, no one is playing the SMIDSY card with me and i will fleece you for all you are worth in Court but I do resent having to wear all this st and spend a fortune on lights just to compensate for the dicks who cant be bothered to pay attention whilst they are driving.
Where oncoming traffic is parallel to the cycle path on the Bristol ring road on Weds night, in the space of about 500m, I counted at least four cars with defective lights and one with no lights on at all, this at about 1715....
Cyclists should wear a helmet - Why? so my head doesnt shatter when you crash into me?
Cyclists should wear hi-vis - Why? so you can see me easily whilst you are speeding/texting/drunk and take evasie action?
f
k all this "cyclists should wear....." and "make this compulsary..." bullst, drivers need to start paying attention and not force the onus on the cyclists to mitigate the risks. No one likes seeing dicks on bikes jump the kerb and jump red lights, jsut like no one likes to see cars weave around the road at 2330 and people texting whilst on the motorway but these things are rarely discussed because there are no cyclists to blame.http://road.cc/content/news/133914-witness-appeal-...
Thames Valley Police are appealing for information after a cyclist was left unconscious by a hit-and-run driver in Midgham, east of Newbury, on Friday.
Between 6pm and 7.45pm, the 29-year-old cyclist was hit by a vehicle on the A4 Bath Road, opposite the Spire Ridge Kennels.
The cyclist was knocked unconscious and was found by a member of the public on the side of the road. He was taken to hospital, where he was treated for fractured ribs and a fractured cheekbone, along with cuts and bruises.
The driver failed to stop. The cyclist was riding a red bike and was wearing a high visibility vest.
and on BBC breakfast earlier this week...
A widow of a cyclist killed in a crash with a car is campaigning for tougher sentences for drivers who kill cyclists.
The article started with the facts of the case:
Driver was drunk, twice the limit. Driver was speeding at 70 mph, in a 30mph zone. found guilty, 4 years in prison. First question to the widow "what clothes was your husband wearing, was he clearly visible?"
SO yeah, lets make hi-vis compulsary, lets also make speeding and drink driving illegal....oh wait....
Dont get me wrong, I wear a hi vis jacket on the road at night, I have a b
d bright front light and a nice bright flashing rear light too, because if i do get knocked off, and are fortunate enough to survive, no one is playing the SMIDSY card with me and i will fleece you for all you are worth in Court but I do resent having to wear all this st and spend a fortune on lights just to compensate for the dicks who cant be bothered to pay attention whilst they are driving. Where oncoming traffic is parallel to the cycle path on the Bristol ring road on Weds night, in the space of about 500m, I counted at least four cars with defective lights and one with no lights on at all, this at about 1715....
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 7th November 10:47
What should be compulsory is that all drivers are made to cycle through a city centre for part of their driving test.
My attitude to cyclists, since becoming one, is a total transformation, and if I'm really honest with myself I was a fking tt back in the bad old days.
If all drivers got a taste of what it's like to be a cyclist there would be a huge change in attitudes and a big drop in casualties I believe.
My attitude to cyclists, since becoming one, is a total transformation, and if I'm really honest with myself I was a f
king tt back in the bad old days.If all drivers got a taste of what it's like to be a cyclist there would be a huge change in attitudes and a big drop in casualties I believe.
If I wore a high-viz, you wouldn't be able to see it because I have a bag on my back (it's white, not high-viz I'm afraid) - I also have 3 lights on my seatpost though. As other people have said, the problem lies on both sides, there are plenty of competent cyclists who cycle many thousands of miles without issue, just as there are competent car drivers, but there are also many many idiots who will disobey laws, jump red lights, not look before changing direction and dive down the inside of huge vehicles turning left - I even once saw someone who had a keyring with a red LED dangling from his seat as his rear light...! I'm sure by law he was fine but there's no point being compliant with the law if people still can't see you. Forcing people to wear a high-viz won't help, the fundamental is that far too many people drive and cycle without paying attention and making people more visible won't help because those who can see cyclists will still see them and those who aren't paying attention, won't.
pablo said:
Why arent cars all painted in hi-vis colours then? that would surely reduce the number of cars driving into each other. Why cant motorists just accept the fact that they need to drive with greater caution and stop asking all the other road users to compensate for inept driving standards of most UK drivers? If you can see a dark coloured small car like a Aygo or a 107, you can see a cyclist, you just need to drive accordingly.
Cyclists should wear a helmet - Why? so my head doesnt shatter when you crash into me?
Cyclists should wear hi-vis - Why? so you can see me easily whilst you are speeding/texting/drunk and take evasie action?
fk all this "cyclists should wear....." and "make this compulsary..." bullst, drivers need to start paying attention and not force the onus on the cyclists to mitigate the risks. No one likes seeing dicks on bikes jump the kerb and jump red lights, jsut like no one likes to see cars weave around the road at 2330 and people texting whilst on the motorway but these things are rarely discussed because there are no cyclists to blame.
http://road.cc/content/news/133914-witness-appeal-...
Thames Valley Police are appealing for information after a cyclist was left unconscious by a hit-and-run driver in Midgham, east of Newbury, on Friday.
Between 6pm and 7.45pm, the 29-year-old cyclist was hit by a vehicle on the A4 Bath Road, opposite the Spire Ridge Kennels.
The cyclist was knocked unconscious and was found by a member of the public on the side of the road. He was taken to hospital, where he was treated for fractured ribs and a fractured cheekbone, along with cuts and bruises.
The driver failed to stop. The cyclist was riding a red bike and was wearing a high visibility vest.
and on BBC breakfast earlier this week...
A widow of a cyclist killed in a crash with a car is campaigning for tougher sentences for drivers who kill cyclists.
The article started with the facts of the case:
Driver was drunk, twice the limit. Driver was speeding at 70 mph, in a 30mph zone. found guilty, 4 years in prison. First question to the widow "what clothes was your husband wearing, was he clearly visible?"
SO yeah, lets make hi-vis compulsary, lets also make speeding and drink driving illegal....oh wait....
Dont get me wrong, I wear a hi vis jacket on the road at night, I have a bd bright front light and a nice bright flashing rear light too, because if i do get knocked off, and are fortunate enough to survive, no one is playing the SMIDSY card with me and i will fleece you for all you are worth in Court but I do resent having to wear all this st and spend a fortune on lights just to compensate for the dicks who cant be bothered to pay attention whilst they are driving.
Where oncoming traffic is parallel to the cycle path on the Bristol ring road on Weds night, in the space of about 500m, I counted at least four cars with defective lights and one with no lights on at all, this at about 1715....
Very well said. That BBC thing is a travesty.Cyclists should wear a helmet - Why? so my head doesnt shatter when you crash into me?
Cyclists should wear hi-vis - Why? so you can see me easily whilst you are speeding/texting/drunk and take evasie action?
f
k all this "cyclists should wear....." and "make this compulsary..." bullst, drivers need to start paying attention and not force the onus on the cyclists to mitigate the risks. No one likes seeing dicks on bikes jump the kerb and jump red lights, jsut like no one likes to see cars weave around the road at 2330 and people texting whilst on the motorway but these things are rarely discussed because there are no cyclists to blame.http://road.cc/content/news/133914-witness-appeal-...
Thames Valley Police are appealing for information after a cyclist was left unconscious by a hit-and-run driver in Midgham, east of Newbury, on Friday.
Between 6pm and 7.45pm, the 29-year-old cyclist was hit by a vehicle on the A4 Bath Road, opposite the Spire Ridge Kennels.
The cyclist was knocked unconscious and was found by a member of the public on the side of the road. He was taken to hospital, where he was treated for fractured ribs and a fractured cheekbone, along with cuts and bruises.
The driver failed to stop. The cyclist was riding a red bike and was wearing a high visibility vest.
and on BBC breakfast earlier this week...
A widow of a cyclist killed in a crash with a car is campaigning for tougher sentences for drivers who kill cyclists.
The article started with the facts of the case:
Driver was drunk, twice the limit. Driver was speeding at 70 mph, in a 30mph zone. found guilty, 4 years in prison. First question to the widow "what clothes was your husband wearing, was he clearly visible?"
SO yeah, lets make hi-vis compulsary, lets also make speeding and drink driving illegal....oh wait....
Dont get me wrong, I wear a hi vis jacket on the road at night, I have a b
d bright front light and a nice bright flashing rear light too, because if i do get knocked off, and are fortunate enough to survive, no one is playing the SMIDSY card with me and i will fleece you for all you are worth in Court but I do resent having to wear all this st and spend a fortune on lights just to compensate for the dicks who cant be bothered to pay attention whilst they are driving. Where oncoming traffic is parallel to the cycle path on the Bristol ring road on Weds night, in the space of about 500m, I counted at least four cars with defective lights and one with no lights on at all, this at about 1715....
Edited by pablo on Friday 7th November 10:47
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_hazard_c...
Hi Viz is PPE. The least effective form of hazard control.
Hi Viz is PPE. The least effective form of hazard control.
Kell said:
The biggest difference for me was a change in MY attitude. I'm not claiming that I was a militant cyclists by any means, but I think I'd often put myself in danger because I knew I was in the right. I had right of way; I was in a cycle lane; the lights were on green. Now I look at the bigger picture. Has that lorry seen me? Could that car suddenly turn left in front of me? Will that car waiting in the side road pull out on me?
By assessing the situation in front of you rather than the theory of 'Who has right of way?' and by riding defensively it's dramatically reduced the near misses and completely cut out the 'offs'.
Well said, cyclists have to realise that they are very vulnerable so why not try and help yourselves as best you can? Yes you might take longer to commute but who cares if you are potentially safer? There will always be dBy assessing the situation in front of you rather than the theory of 'Who has right of way?' and by riding defensively it's dramatically reduced the near misses and completely cut out the 'offs'.
heads or incompetents driving no matter what the regulations are.I am a 3 day a week London commuting cyclist by the way, never had an incident on the road. No helmet or hi-vis but always have lights on.
Norwegian Blue said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_hazard_c...
Hi Viz is PPE. The least effective form of hazard control.
You beat me to it. PPE is the last form of defence, culture, segregation and education should all be sorted first.Hi Viz is PPE. The least effective form of hazard control.
Kell said:
The biggest difference for me was a change in MY attitude. I'm not claiming that I was a militant cyclists by any means, but I think I'd often put myself in danger because I knew I was in the right. I had right of way; I was in a cycle lane; the lights were on green. Now I look at the bigger picture. Has that lorry seen me? Could that car suddenly turn left in front of me? Will that car waiting in the side road pull out on me?
By assessing the situation in front of you rather than the theory of 'Who has right of way?' and by riding defensively it's dramatically reduced the near misses and completely cut out the 'offs'.
Just don't try posting that on road.cc - you'll be lynched By assessing the situation in front of you rather than the theory of 'Who has right of way?' and by riding defensively it's dramatically reduced the near misses and completely cut out the 'offs'.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff