A pensioner in Cambridge is handing out free high-visibility vests to cyclists, after seeing injured people in hospital.
Janet Slade, 89, said she struggles to see people dressed in black, and that talking to drivers confirmed her suspicions that others do too.
Armed with a shopping trolley full of vests, she hands them out at shopping centres and near a hospital.
She told Cambridge News: “I went into hospital for another reason and they were saying they have wards full of people who have been in accidents.
“I hear the ambulances every day and I guessed that many of the calls out were for accidents. Then I met some ambulance crew and they said ‘yes you are right,’ so here’s the wards taken up with people who are invisible.
“I’m in my 90th year this year and I still have the advantage of age and ability, physical ability, to walk about with a shopping bag and trolley full of visibility vests and if I see a shadowy figure in black fleet before me and prop a bike against a wall, I say ‘you all in black, yes? …well nobody can see you and all the drivers complain.’”
She says she hasn’t had a bad reaction yet.
She added: “Some say ‘really, how much? I haven’t got any money now’ and I say ‘look take the so and so thing put it on, wear it: it’s a Christmas present.
“I simply go around being a busybody to people and challenge them,” she said. “I just hope to be completely logical about people’s dress code.”
The vests cost Janet £1.49 a piece, and she buys in bulk, 50 at a time.
She added that she never goes anywhere without a pair of white boots.
“If you have got white boots you can be seen on a dark rainy day, you can be seen at night and you can be seen in the early morning light,” she said.
43 thoughts on “Pensioner buys hundreds of hi-vis vests to hand out to cyclists”
A nice gesture, but it’s yet
A nice gesture, but it’s yet another person caught up on the idea of high-viz.
Plenty of commuter cyclists near me have high viz, but seem to have the dimmest set of lights imaginable. Also, I have been told by several police officers that they have colleagues who have been hit by cars whilst wearing high-viz, and even had their high-viz covered cars hit despite having the blue flashing lights on.
High-viz should be considered as an addition to bright lights, but not an essential item.
Well intentioned, but missing
Well intentioned, but missing the major factor. Its not that we’re not visible – I don’t have too much trouble spotting someone on a bike on unlit country lanes at night without their lights on or reflective clothing. Surprisingly, my headlights tend to pick them out. Maybe its because I’m actually looking where I’m going and paying full attention to the task at hand.
Yes, we shoud make ourselves conspicuous, but the responsibility to observe is surely with the observer?
We need to be educating drivers of their responsibilities whilst in control of 1.5t of speeding steel.
I infer she still drives? If
I infer she still drives? If that’s the case, a more effective gesture would be to give that up before definitive confirmation that she’s too old.
A well intentioned, but
A well intentioned, but misguided lady. If she still drives but can’t see other road users it might be time to stop driving.
The hi-viz myth is just that, a myth, and no amount of hi-viz, bright lights or anything else will make any difference if the drivers aren’t looking.
My local paper is full of drivers complaining about the hundreds of black clad cyclists that they see every night, that they can’t see. They can’t see the irony of their statements either.
Perhaps she could buy the Volvo magic paint in bulk and hand it out free as well?
89 and probably with an
89 and probably with an average 89 year olds eyesight and it’s the cyclists that need to make themselves visible……
Thinly disguised victim
Thinly disguised victim-blaming. Buying people cheap crap as a way of making a (misguided) point is not generous. It’s about as well-intentioned as an irate football fan buying the ref a pair of Specsavers’ finest.
I commute to work on my bike
I commute to work on my bike and in the winter it is shocking to see other cyclists without any high-vis and often only minimal lights.
True a driver should see you regardless however making it ‘difficult’ or ‘easy’ to be seen does make a difference.
Pedestrians tend to be working worse, trend seems to to walk along the side of dark roads dressed as a ninja, I can generally pick them out with the bike lights but only when I’m nearly on top.
I rode into town and back
I rode into town and back today, wearing a black jacket and black trousers. I did not have lights, nor did I wear a helmet or hi-viz. So it’s a bloody miracle that I survived (so God MUST exist, right?) and, judging by some perspectives, I should be forced to travel in an overpowered metal box for my own safety.
Perhaps someone can explain the facts of (cycling) life to this well-intentioned old lady.
Some cyclists really do
Some cyclists really do themselves no good at all. She isn’t victim blaming, she isn’t making a point, she is merely concerned for OUR safety and is making a nice gesture to keep US safe. Any cyclist who thinks hi-viz makes no difference is just arguing for the sake of it. As a cyclist and a motorist I would much prefer any vulnerable group to wear hi-viz. I see a guy walking his greyhounds on the road each morning, in the dark, with no lights or hi-viz and I have to make an effort to look out for him every day. It’s not fair, I’d gladly hand him a jacket to save his life and protect both me and his family from the anguish a collision will cause. People knocking a good gesture is what prevents people from making the gesture in the first place.
matchfit wrote:
A nice, well-intentioned, but ultimately misguided gesture.
matchfit wrote:
Another anecdote of someone without high-viz or lights, with the conclusion that high-viz would help. What if the dog walker had a decent torch? You probably wouldn’t mention it, and that is the basis of my argument; decent lights are the primary tool for being seen, and high-viz is secondary. I guess in a city there are more lights, so a cyclists might disappear amidst the melee, but then again, so would high-viz.
matchfit wrote:
I’ve highlighted the relevent parts of your own statement for you .
matchfit wrote:
I’m sure you would. As a cyclist and a pedestrian I’d much prefer motorists to drive more slowly and to pay a lot more attention to what they are doing (and a to drive a lot less, and to be barred from a lot more roads). And the same for cyclists on shared paths. We just have different preferences, I guess.
matchfit wrote:
That defintive statement suggests you know better than the rest of us. Do you have any proof of this? IMHO you are woefully misinformed. Many people – cyclists, researchers and others – realise that making cyclists wear fluoro yellow vests is not the solution.
What you prefer and what is best for the population in general are two very different things. You should pay proper attention to your surroundings while travelling then no-one would need hi-vis clothing.
Do you make / sell hi-vis products?
matchfit wrote:
If someone can’t see my Hope R4 on my bars, my Exposure Joystick on my Helmet & my Exposure Flare flashing on the rear on dark unlit rural roads, wearing a hi-viz vest isn’t going to make the slightest bit of difference & they shouldn’t be holding a driving licence in the first place.
matchfit wrote:
Oh give over. You, like her have bought into this myth and while it’s continued, the focus will be drawn away from the real problem. It’s a lovely gesture, sure but if she really wants to cut road deaths, she should target people with poor eyesight and encourage them to stop driving. Or even just target bad drivers, you know, where the real harm comes from. There is absolutely no evidence (and your own anecdotal story destroy the myth quite nicely), that high viz makes the slightest bit of difference. I’ve been using this image for a while now. My bike. Bright yellow with reflective stickers, bright yellow pannier the size of a small microwave, 4 bright lights. Everyone must see me, right?
Do they hell. It makes no difference.
samuri wrote:
Nope.
You forget depending on the distance away from you and whether you are at a junction, vehicle drivers either spot your torso or your bike. You need to ensure both are visible.
And yes I see lots of near misses between cars.
It’s a caring gesture from a
It’s a caring gesture from a decent human being concerned for the wellbeing of others.
Happy Christmas
Don’t confuse “high vis” or
Don’t confuse “high vis” or simply bright colours/ visible patterns with reflective.
Daytime youwant high visibility, but that doesn’t have to mean “high vis” just clothing that helps you be seen. Add a semi decent light if not clear weather and you will be much more visible.
Night time you want reflective items to reflect the car lights, and decent lights on the bike, not flapping around on your rucksack.
While drivers do still need to look, it doesn’t hurt to make yourself more visible.
Anyone who says all black is visible has never driven up behind a ninja cyclist and a decently visible one together and seen the difference in visibility especially with oncoming headlights affecting your night vision.
Merry Christmas Mrs Clause.
Merry Christmas Mrs Clause.
Hope you have enough money to heat your home this winter and buy sufficient food.
A nice gesture (irrespective of the POV from differing groups’ take on the subject)
PS: Maybe the vests are high vis and reflective??? (hint: They are)
Leaving the law to one side for a moment, if I had to choose one item of safety eqipment for riding in the dark it would not be lights, it would be my reflective vest. The ‘silver’ stripes are stunningly visible in headlamps, much more so than my £100 leds. And they follow the shape of my lithe yet manly torso, making it obvious that I am a person, not an inanimate object.
mike the bike wrote:
You must be joking.. you do realise in order for reflectives to work other people’s lights have to be exactly on you?
The Highway Code is the way it is for a reason. Lights are required, reflective clothing is a nice to have.
Very kind of her and i can’t
Very kind of her and i can’t see the harm.
It would be good if pedestrians and dog walkers would think about their safety a bit better. If you are going to walk the dog in the dark on an unlit country lane or bike path – do yourself a favour and have something reflective or a light with you.
If you’re all in black its bloody hard to see you.
In 1016 people would have
In 1016 people would have thought you mad to go travelling without carrying a cross of St Christopher. In 2016 people think you mad to go travelling without wearing a yellow jacket. Humans have always loved their snake oil. Both methods backed up with the same amount of hard science..
Last time I wore hi-vis
Last time I wore hi-vis (Tinkof Team kit, flo yellow and blue). I lost count of the number of people pull out in front of me. Strangely, when in dark clothing at night the number drops to almost zero. Go figure.
I do try to where contrasting colours such as green and black or red and black.
Yorkshie Whippet wrote:
Apparently this was only efficient/sufficiently hi vis/reflective enough to allow 12 or so motorists (from a rough guess of about 500 on mixed roads (50/80kph)) to actually give me enough room when driving’around me’…but hey ho…can’t force someone to care about you..irrespective of how you dress/
(also 2 rear lights one solid, one pulsing…and a solid front on bike with a flasher on helmet..ooer)
Yorkshie Whippet wrote:
Ok I’ll admit it – I wear high viz pink. No van drivers, car drivers or bus drivers dare pull out in front of me. HGV drivers do if no other vehicle is there which is rare in London. I even have had van and car drivers giving way to me both in the day and night
I first realised something odd was going on when I started cycling with my pink rucksack as car and even van drivers were acting strangely. So then I got a pink cycling jacket and wore it instead of yellow. It confirmed my suspicions.
I don’t have a blonde hair or a blonde wig though.
Oh and in summer you can clearly see I’m a woman from the front and sides. Now I just need to find pink panniers…
I am confused; how will a
I am confused; how will a jacket prevent me from colliding with things?
A lovelly gesture, however it
A lovelly gesture, however it won’t make a difference. You can wear all the hi-viz in the world & be lit up like a christmas tree but it doesn’t stop the person at the wheel of a vehicle making a stupid/misguided or down right impatatient manouvere.
I live in a rural area and the amount of pedestrians I have seen on the roads out while driving & cycling in the dark, dressed in dark clothing with no light or reflective material is shocking. Maybe she could donate them to them 😉
The only thing she should be
The only thing she should be handing is, handing back her driving licence to the DVLA.
If you admit you are not competent then please remove yourself from the situation! Finding it difficult to strive safely? Stop doing it.
I believe only good
I believe only good intentions are hidden behind this action. And yes, only good results in road safety of the existing cyclists would come out if we all were wearing these vests.
But how many potential commuter cyclists would be deterred from cycling if they saw other commuters dressed something like clowns? Can we afford to lose them and have cars instead? Wouldn’t the related costs of congestion, pollution, increased imports of cars and petrol be much bigger?
It is a nice gesture, and she
It is a nice gesture, and she is well-intentioned, though giving one to my son as he was walking home from the bus-stop seemed a little ott.
The issue is that this is a close as we get to cyclists safety in Cambridge. Bike use here is normal, but sadly so is appalling driving & targeting cyclists. Cambridgeshire police refuse to take any action against close passes of cyclists as a matter of policy, and fail to enforce speed restrictions or any other driving offences. Consequently cyclists are driven at, and off the road, on a regular basis.
Just a little reminder of
Just a little reminder of what my bike looks like; and I wear what the hell I want, red, blue, yellow, black sometimes….
Leviathan wrote:
Leviathan, I must’ve missed this when you’ve shared it before. I can think of five or so running-of-the-bulls-style evenings during the past month when I’ve specifically imagined I’d feel safer if my whole damned bike glowed like a neon sign. How have you achieved that?
(And yes, I can also think of a couple of times during the same month when despite being clearly visible and in full compliance with rules of the road I have almost been creamed, and in one case shouted at for it.)
aladdin pain wrote:
Aladdin, here is the thread with details:
http://road.cc/content/forum/210988-my-health-and-safety-abomination-bike
Pedestrians are drivers who have left their metal security boxes? Very risky at this time of the year. 2016 has long claws.
FluffyKitten – I totally agree, it IS different if I am compelled to wear something. For a start most people who have a Hi Viz jacket have just one and it is FILTHY. I have even seen people wearing a bulky Hi Viz and black tights in 20+C temps in the summer and sweating their tits off because they feel they don’t have another choice. This whole debate is denormalizing cycling (if Boardman is on my side I must be right.)
Leviathan wrote:
I bet you still get loads of pedestrians walking into you though. Simply because lots now insist on dumb walking.
Leviathan wrote:
Mine is similar. To be honest, I just like the aesthetics of it. And there’s a difference between something permanently fixed to the bike and something I have to wear.
I’m not wearing lurid yellow on my person (barring the t-shirts I have that already happen to be day-glo shades, anyway). It’s an indignity too far.
Anecdotal I know but I
Anecdotal I know but I experienced this the other week:
I was cycling along the park at dusk and saw another cyclist coming towards me wearing hi-vis. I saw the cyclist from a good distance and was fully aware of them, I was not aware however of the cyclist behind them that was not wearing hi-vis until I was next to them. I assume this was because of the first cyclist being so visible that the second one became by contrast more invisible.
Make of this what you will, but my take away was that if I’m on a road where some wear hi-vis then I need to do the same or become less visible than I think I am because of the contrast.
If this woman wants to be of
If this woman wants to be of any help at all, she could merely stop using the word ‘accident’ when referring to crashes.
Sorry, but this does do harm.
Sorry, but this does do harm. Only a tiny amount in the scale of things, but you can’t claim that it’s totally harmelsss.
It colludes with the view of too many motorists that it’s everybody else’s responsibility to accomodate their carelessness, and encourages their tendency to believe that if they hit someone it’s the victim’s fault in some way.
A far bigger factor in causing collisions than the absence of high-viz, would be the unnecessary presence of motorised vehicles. She might be better off handing out bus-passes, bikes, or good walking shoes to drivers (granted, that would be a _way_ more expensive gesture!). Or perhaps paying for the council’s road department to take a fact-finding tour to the Netherlands!
So THAT’S what happens when a
So THAT’S what happens when a Victorian headmaster discovers the internet.
davel wrote:
my guess is headmistress, and to be fair, she should’ve corrected “insiduous” to have any legitimacy.
as usual on t’net – it’s just two people talking bollocks.
Ban black cars too.
Ban black cars too.