Motor organisation wants to see "Ready Brek" kids and compulsory helmets

Why can't everyone just be sensible. While I cannot agree with Nazi-like demands for everyone to be decked out like a Christmas tree I can see the point of being seen. I have good eyesight (just been tested so I know this to be true) and have often been shocked at people suddenly 'appearing' from nowhere. Numerous times I have only been aware that there was someone walking down the pavement when the reflective strip on their trainers has been picked up as they are in the shadows and all in black. I'm amazed that some cyclists are ever seen, no lights, nothing reflective and all in dark colours, they ride along the pavement when it suits them and then dart into the road.

On the other hand I am a cyclist and detest the fact that cars are seen to be more important than any other road user. I've cycled to Germany and back for charity twice and the difference in how motorists treat cyclists in Holland and Germany really hits home when you land back in Blighty.

They want cyclists to be seen - any chance of getting car owners to actually clean their lights during winter months so we can see them?

Like Jono and Simon I to remember going to school in Belfast with armband firmly in place during the early 70's due to the government at that time tinkering with double summer time - at the moment there is a private members bill being pushed through, on reading the paper today it seems that it may not get through as the government do not seem to place much importance on it in regards to tourism which is the angle that the 'responsible' MP is taking!!!

But back to the issue in hand, I really think that a 'motoring' magazine would be better trying to encourage their readers to be responsible drivers and to follow the highway code! There have been various studies that have concluded that motorists have a tendency to drive closer to cyclists wearing HiV's and helmets, this is my daily experience and I often feel like a target some days on my commute here in Glasgow

Yes, vunerable road users need to wear more visible clothing etc BUT the individual cocooned in their two ton steel box with cage, air bags and other safety features also needs to aknowledge and respect the existence of other road users

@mrchrispy: I'm pretty sure some parts of the US have different speed limits at night than during the day. And a quick poke at Wikipedia tells me it's Montana and Texas.

how about a law reducing all speed limits for 10 mph when its dark?

let see how they like them apples

(serisouly....its not a bad idea now I think about it!!)

When I was five or six, we were given reflective armbands to wear to from/school near Aberdeen (not much daylight up there in winter).

I can't quite remember if this was before or after a classmate, son of the village policeman, was run over and killed on his way to school one morning

This would have been the turn of the 1970s - was it unusual that we were wearing armbands, or did anyone elsewhere in the country at the time have to do likewise?

omg .. what next, oh this is what next !!! .... wonder
what the stopping distance of that pictured setup is ??

dear road.cc - I may have to stop reading your daily idiot news stories as they make me madder than a 'Mail reader who's just been told that immigrants cause cancer.

I may have to just read the bits about shiny stuff from now on.

One day in the not too distant future - all front house doors fitted with sensors to make sure you're decked out with glowing material before you venture out. Can't be too careful you know.

Good thing I use the back door/side entrance most of the time!

This is a difficult issue. I live in Scotland and visibility even at the best of times can be tricky. Even though I consider myself to be a safe/considerate road user, I am often shocked at just how difficult some cyclists are to see , often wearing dark colours - even black. I never leave the house on my bike without at least one article of bright/fluorescent clothing. My children all dress similarly as do their friends if they join us.
As a primary school teacher in charge of Cycle Training, helmets are compulsory and I have just used £430 of PSA money to purchase fluorescent jackets for all my cyclists throughout the school. These will be free to the children and will be "compulsory wear" while undergoing their training. I hope the children will then appreciate the benefit of wearing them in the future.
My grandad used to say to me "It's not who's right that counts, it's who's left............."

How would you enforce helmets, or high vis, for children anyway, even if it wasn't a barking mad idea which would likely stifle cycling and deny young people personal freedom? Are you going to fine them? Will their pocket money or the newspaper round be enough to pay the fine? Will they be deemed criminally responsible for not wearing a helmet when they can't be for, say, murdering a toddler? Or are you going to fine their parents? On what charge? When their kid removes his helmet as soon as he is out of sight?

You would have to have "strict liability" for the "offence".

Now there's an idea, how about strict liability for civil compensation claims by more vulnerable road users against less vulnerable?

I'll be fine with this after they introduce compulsory helmets for motorists, both passengers and drivers, which would save a great many lives.

What the woman in the photo needs to do is put some air in that back tyre and get the lad at the back to put some effort in.

Compulsory orange clothing- for that stylish Guantanamo bay look.

Perhaps all cars should only be painted orange or yellow.
That way we could all see the cars much easier...

+ Daytime running laps (DTRL) are becoming compulsory/ regulatory soon (2012? for all new cars) - so the roads will be filled with volvo-eque vehicles

They can piss off. I'm not being told what to wear by a petrolhead special-pleading lobby group.

And do they seriously think there's going to be an actual law which says "it shall be an offence for any child who is not wearing an Approved Fluo-reflective Garment to leave his or her residence between the hours of 17:00 and 09:00" ?

Because if they do they are completely and utterly insane.

I bet the average age of the membership of GEM is about 80+ and they all wear hats in the car

I enjoy driving and I also enjoy cycling (I enjoy wearing hats but not in the car ) but I want all road users to respect each other and GEM members to remember that if your on a bike, motorbike or walking you don't have a massive tin box protecting you so take more care when we are about. Also if your eyesight is that poor then don't drive a car it's against the law.

Blame the victim again.

timlennon calls it right in my opinion. A driver not seeing a pedestrian is the driver's error, it is not the pedestrian's responsibility.

I'm sure most cyclists would say drivers should have their eyes restested every 5 years (and maybe their distance/hazard perception).

I'd be happy to take a basic driving test every 10 years. If that's too much to ask a brief theory test wouldn't go amiss. A fair number of drivers appear to have forgotten the contents of the Highway Code.

Helmet mythbusting appears to be in order too - they are not built to withstand being hit by a 4x4.

Yes, not just cyclists are wearing reflective gear these days. I have seen one person with a light on both her and her dog. They even sell reflective clothing for dogs. Cars are so dominant in our culture these days that everything else needs to be lit up like a Christmas tree or risk getting knocked over. No sign of this changing either especially as a national tabloid's big campaign is entirely car centric. You just can't imagine them having a similar campaign about walking, bicycles or public transport.

"9 out 10 motorists said it wasn't their responsibility to drive according to the road conditions" is what it sounds like. Whereas if you asked the question with the opposite bias, most motorists would say "I don't think some poeple drive with enough care" ...

What the..??!! That is so ridiculous it shouldn't deserve a response other than, "are you on crack?"