A third of cyclists think that road safety could be improved by legislating for compulsory hi-viz clothing, research has found.
A survey of 1,000 cyclists carried out on behalf of Autoglass, of whom 30 per cent were predominantly commuters as opposed to leisure cyclists, also found that when it came to safety, half supported the idea of more cycle lanes, a third wanted compulsory cycling proficiency tests, while only 16 per cent supported lower speed limits for drivers – although these figures were not reported by the windscreen repair company.
Those sampled for the study, evenly split between men and women, were in general more likely to use a helmet than not (60%) and one in four already regularly used hi viz clothing.
More interestingly, only 42 per cent regularly used a front light, and even fewer – 27 per cent, a rear light. 15 per cent said they listened to music while cycling – the survey used the word "admitted", we're not sure what the figures are for drivers who 'admit' to listening to musch are but we are sure they are considerably higher. Listening to music is of course legal whatever type of private vehicle you are in charge of.
Almost half (48%) admitted being caught out without lights or high-vis clothing when the clocks go back – predominantly younger riders in this sample. Commuter cyclists are most likely to be unwittingly caught out, with 63 per cent saying they forgot to take the basic equipment needed to make themselves be seen on the road on their cycle home from work.
The research found that young cyclists are amongst the most likely to be unprepared for the clocks going back. 60 per cent of 18-24 year olds did not pack lights or hi-viz clothing, and 50 per cent of this age group confessed to having had an accident or near miss whilst riding a bike – a higher proportion than the older respondents surveyed.
According to the Department for Transport’s latest figures, 118 cyclists were killed on Britain’s roads in 2012, up from 107 in 2011 and accounting for 7% of all road deaths. The number of cyclists seriously injured increased by 4 per cent to 3,222.
Matthew Mycock, Managing Director at Autoglass said: “Cyclists are the only group of road users at increased risk of injury and death on the roads over recent years and ‘stealth-cycling’ shouldn’t be an option. It’s crucial that cyclists do all they can to protect themselves and standing out with high visibility clothing can help to save lives.
“This is why, linked to our partnership with Brake, we are supporting the Brake ‘Bright Day’ campaign to remind cyclists to think about their winter cycling equipment this weekend and get ready for the darker evenings, and to remind drivers to watch out for pedestrians and cyclists.
“Remembering to use simple items such as bike lights, high visibility jackets, brightly coloured clothes, glow-in-the-dark stickers and reflectors will ensure better safety in the months ahead”.
In fact, hi viz clothing alone is not necessarily the best protection a cyclist can take.
In an Australian study, it was discovered that reflective patches on the moving parts of a cyclist’s body were the most effective way to be seen in the dark.
It found that while only 27 per cent of older drivers noticed a cyclist in black clothing with no lights riding in the dark, 100 per cent of younger drivers spotted a rider in a bright vest with ankle and knee reflectives, whether or not they had a light.
Earlier this year we reported the remarks of a coroner in New Zealand, who called for cyclists to wear high-viz following the death of an elderly man who was hit by a car.
Ian Grant Scott, 72, was actually wearing a fluorescent jacket at the time of his death in Green Island, Dunedin last year, but Otago-Southland coroner David Crerar said that it appeared he had not been fully aware of traffic
He said: “In my view, it is always appropriate for those riding cycles on roads carrying other vehicular traffic to do all that they can to ensure they make themselves visible to other road users.
"Riders of bicycles, particularly on main roads, owe a duty and a responsibility to other road users."
It followed another New Zealand coroner’s call for mandatory hi-viz, which the Ministry of Transport was said to be considering.
The coroner described it as a "no-brainer" and said it should apply to all cyclists riding in public at all times, made his recommendation in the case of a senior police officer originally from the UK who was described as “the face of road policing” in the country
Superintendent Steve Fitzgerald, who began his career with Leicestershire Police in 1967 and moved to New Zealand seven years later, was killed by an articulated lorry as he negotiated a roundabout on his way home from work one evening in late June 2008, midwinter in the Southern Hemisphere
In the UK, as we reported at the time, insurer Churchill attempted to claim contributory negligence relating to a teenage girl who suffered brain injuries after she was struck by a driver it insures while she was walking home at night along a country lane.
Churchill was not disputing the driver's liability, but argued that contributory negligence was present on the teenager's part because she should have been aware of the need to take the precaution of wearing hi-vis clothing.




















134 thoughts on “Third of cyclists support mandatory hi-viz clothing claims survey”
There should be no need for
There should be no need for cyclists to dress up like HiViz clowns on the off chance some drivers “glance” picks them up.
This survey by the motor trade is just passing blame and responsibility towards cyclists, the excuse of “proper” cycling attire is just plain daft. The real issue is that the large majority of drivers are driving in auto pilot and not 100% concentrating behind the wheel.
Having been a commuter for
Having been a commuter for the past 5 years, I’ve worn alot of of different gear and quite often its not always hi-viz. Ironically the closest I’ve been to an accident has been whilst wearing a big screaming yellow hi-viz coat with my lights blazing away, the driver purely and simply hadn’t looked properly. In my personal experience the case is more about drivers not stopping or looking at junctions or generally driving without due care. The past couple of years I’ve opted for hi-viz gear because it makes me feel a little safer, but is it a false sense of security?
The more I read stuff like
The more I read stuff like this, the more I feel like plenty of existing cyclists suffer from the road safety equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome.
Or maybe it’s even more basic – “I faff about with all this stuff already,I refuse to accept it could make no difference, and you should have to jump through the same hoops if you want to ride a bike”.
Having commuted on a cycle
Having commuted on a cycle for in excess of 20 years and social ridden for longer I have tried everything. At the time of my two most serious offs where I subsequently received very good compensation for, I was wearing Hi Viz I was displaying 2 x exposure products on the front and one on the rear. Oh and thankfully a helmet. What did the driver say on each occasion?
You all know, we have all heard. “Sorry I didn’t see you”
So what can you really do to stay lucky???
My experience of wearing
My experience of wearing high-vis has been that, even if they see you, it doesn’t mean they care…
Er . . . no
Er . . . no
There is so much ridiculous
There is so much ridiculous hi-viz legislation in the UK already, it seems the best way to stand out from the neon sea is to wear black.
Seriously, I think hi-viz overload has desensitised us all from those colours and we just associate it with general day to day monotony.
Viz a viz : Hi-viz = Low-viz
Utter #victimblaming tosh
Utter #victimblaming tosh from a company who’s business revolves around cars. Where do they find these “cyclists” or are they drivers with bikes stuck at the back of the garage. Doesn’t bare any resemblance to the reality I see
I saw this survey a few days ago and it was nonsensical. It talked about brake lights for god’s sake!
There should be no need and definitely never any legislation for cyclists to need to wear hi-viz at all. How many cars are black or dull gray for example?
the main issue are the car drivers that simply do not look.
As for lights, the old BS standard should be dumped in favour of EU/german specifications which are much more modern and sensible.
Reflective patches and strips on the rider and bicycle are also good at night and poor visibility.
A third of them want hi-viz
A third of them want hi-viz to be compulsory but only a quarter of them actually wear hi-viz(!), half of them forget lights when it’s dark and only 60% wear a helmet? These figures seem to suggest that the people surveyed were car drivers who occasionally ride a bike.
So, when it is mandatory and
So, when it is mandatory and the accidents keep happening, what next?
At what point will it be said “alright, cyclists have done enough, now it is motorists who have to improve”?
My guess: never. Which is why I would never support this legislation.
I’d support the mandatory
I’d support the mandatory wearing of high viz for cyclists if the same was required of pedestrians and all motor traffic was required to have fluorescent paint jobs.
Why should only one group of road users be dictated to in this way?
This just shows that a third
This just shows that a third of the 1,000 cyclists have been brainwashed by stupid DfT campaigns and hearsay. F**king sheep!
Nearly half of commuters didn’t have lights when the clocks went back despite the fact that anyone commuting by bike knows what happens.
Most collisions are caused by driver behaviour, not cyclists. Compulsory annual eye tests should be enforced. Bans for drivers with 12 or more points shouldn’t be shelved. People carelessly piloting 2 tonnes + of steel should be made to realise that it is THEIR behaviour that poses the greatest risk to everyone else.
A clubmate was hit by a driver that failed to give way at a roundabout this week. Thankfully he wasn’t hurt. He was doing nothing wrong, had bright lights on etc (a following cyclist said he was clearly visible from a distance) but the driver hit him up and didn’t stop. Does anyone really think a neon vest would have made any difference?
Hi-viz doesn’t work properly at night, whether under street lighting or out in the lanes. It’s more effective in dull daylight/dusk conditions but, more importantly, making it compulsory just shifts the responsibility onto cyclists. Insurers are just going to do everything they can to claim contributory negligence so they don’t pay out.
A recent survey found that a
A recent survey found that a third of the British population are stupid.
A significant proportion of
A significant proportion of actual existing cyclists are rather conservative and/or elitist types. And they represent a tiny percentage of potential cyclists.
I’m more interested in what would encourage the far greater number of _potential_ cyclists (who regard cycling as both too dangerous and too much trouble) to actually take it up.
(Ironically, the one time I wore a high-viz top is also the one time a driver drove into me.)
I do, mind you, think perhaps that the law about having lights should be better enforced. Cars aren’t painted bright yellow, but they _do_ have lights on after dark (well, barring one that I saw last week).
Its not unreasonable for motorists or pedestrians to expect cyclists not to be totally invisible after dark, yet about half the cyclists I see round here have no lights at all.
WELL IT SHOULD NOT BE
WELL IT SHOULD NOT BE MANDATORY AT ALL. LIGHTS ARE MANDATORY AT NIGHT ANYWAY. SMIDSY IS NO EXCUSE WHATSOEVER. POOR VISION/BLIND – SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING!!!
IF CYCLIST HAS NO LIGHTS AT NIGHT SHOULDN’T BE ON THE ROAD.
Theres my say!
I’ve been commuting in over
I’ve been commuting in over light polluted central London for over 30years, 6ft2 usually wearing hi vis and having lights.
Still motorists and usually bus drivers say they don’t “see me” because they don’t look.
More instead needs to be done for cycle awareness and cycle positioning in urban locations.
On my club run, in the “country” anything that shows you at a greater distance to those going too fast for the road conditions ie most, would be welcomed.
Won’t make the slightest
Won’t make the slightest difference, I was riding round a roundabout it was light & I had flashing LED light on the front a lorry driver looked right at me and still pulled out on me. When I drive to work, some people don’t even have any respect for you when you are driving a 4×4, so what hope do we have as cyclists. Unfortunately you can’t legislate to remove people plain lack of respect and selfishness towards others.
High viz doesn’t make you
High viz doesn’t make you visible to someone not even looking for you.
One third of cyclists? Is
One third of cyclists? Is this from a randomised sample from the whole population or just a self selecting sample of Autoglass customers? Either way, two thirds of the cyclists in survey don’t support compulsory hi-viz clothing.
It should also be noted that this is not research, this is marketing. The motor industry is worried by the rise in the popularity of cycling as transport as they perceive as a threat to their business. The real research which has been carried out on the effectiveness or otherwise of hi-viz clothing, has shown that it doesn’t make any significant difference to the collision rate.
Sure motorist would like compulsory hi-viz clothing for cyclists and pedestrians, as this would make it easier to blame the victims, likewise the insurance companies. Sadly the truth is, it will make no difference to the death rate on our roads. To change that we need to make fundamental changes and adopt a sustainable safety approach which has been shown to work.
Does anyone know where I can
Does anyone know where I can find the survey report (the published one as opposed to the coverage) as I’d like to read it. Based on that brief summary of the results, I’d be inclined to say this wasn’t a properly done survey. The fact of having higher numbers supporting hi-viz than wearing it makes it seem the survey was subject to a selection bias, and not having a representative sample of British cyclists.
Despite there being no evidence to support its work, I have a little hi-viz kit that I occasionally wear. One is a rain jacket I have do to running Sky Rides, so I don’t wear it that often. The other is a rain cape, which I figured can’t hurt when dull light makes you harder to spot anyway. That said, I tend to prefer the ‘be lit up like a chirstmas tree’ approach to being seen, not that it always works…..
I smell a rat and I think
I smell a rat and I think it’d be rather interesting to see how the actual questions were phrased.
Taking one example: An absolute minimum of 8% of people seem to think hi-viz should be compulsory, but don’t wear it themselves. Which either means even more people are utter morons than I’d feared, or someone’s asking leading questions and spinning the results.
I wonder which it could be.
Yet more non sense on
Yet more non sense on hi-vis.
The deliberately provocative/vague titling of the article is not helpful either.
Third of cyclists [in tiny sample of survey commissioned by company to generate press coverage] support mandatory hi-viz clothing.
This is a bad news story.
This is a bad news story. Link to the source survey so we can see how they have biased it please!
But all cyclists should join groups and reach out to other cyclists as well as decision makers.
I know I’m going to be
I know I’m going to be shouted down, but this constant anti hi-vis sentiment is really bad news.
“hi vis clowns”
“big screaming yellow”
“the best way to stand out from the neon sea is to wear black”
“no need to wear hi vis at all”
“won’t make the slightest difference”
and, most bizarre of all,
“the one time I wore a hi-vis top is the one time a driver drove into me”.
I worry that comments such as these may be contributing to the numbers of cyclists being killed or seriously injured. We should be encouraging cyclists to make themselves more visible, not putting them off doing so.
Neil753 wrote:I worry that
I think those comments are referring to hi-viz dayglo colours which aren’t effective at night. I think everybody can agree that wearing retro-reflective clothing like your photo is a good idea.
-nm-
I’m picking too many
-nm-
I’m picking too many arguments.
Neil753 wrote:I know I’m
Your picture appears to be of reflective material, not high-vis, so what is the point of posting it in this context? All it shows is that the ‘high vis’ part is in fact invisible!
(At least, that’s what I think its a picture of – its not that clear what it is!)
You worry that people here
You worry that people here are doing harm?
Show solid evidence to support this assertion, or your an arsehole. That simple.
I worry that people like you contribute to the number of fatties on the streets, and worse, the fact that those who do are demonised. Either we both accept we don’t have good evidence, or we both think the other is an arsehole (but of course, in public merely say we’re “worried”).
Which do you think is more productive?
nuclear coffee wrote:You
I assume you were directing that comment at me? It was an observation not an assertion in regards to the 16%. Anyway. I do not appreciate being called an arsehole on a public forum but that’s neither here nor there. Also I do a lot to encourage friends and work colleagues to take up cycling. I let them know that they do not need cycle specific clothing. That there are plenty of cycle tracks available if not confident on roads. They come to me for tips on cycling and maintenance. As a result about 20 folk in work have taken up cycling as a leisure activity and 3/4 now commute. But hey. That’s not bad for an arsehole who contributes to more fatties on the road.
giff77 wrote:nuclear coffee
I assume you were directing that comment at me? It was an observation not an assertion in regards to the 16%. Anyway. I do not appreciate being called an arsehole on a public forum but that’s neither here nor there. Also I do a lot to encourage friends and work colleagues to take up cycling. I let them know that they do not need cycle specific clothing. That there are plenty of cycle tracks available if not confident on roads. They come to me for tips on cycling and maintenance. As a result about 20 folk in work have taken up cycling as a leisure activity and 3/4 now commute. But hey. That’s not bad for an arsehole who contributes to more fatties on the road.— nuclear coffee
No, it wasn’t aimed at you. I’m not sure exactly what purpose the “reply” button has here, it doesn’t seem to give any indication who you’re supposed to be “replying” to, to anybody. Guess I should just stick to quotes in future. It was aimed at Neil753, and it was overly harsh, for which I apologise. That said, I stand by the sentiment – weasel words like “concerned” or not, allege that someone else is doing serious harm (in this case, contributing to the deaths of others), you better have something good to back that up.
Freedom of choice is something I’ll always argue for – I find it astonishing how people seem to be so comfortable with tossing it aside – but even so, I doubt that’s what this is about.
Put bluntly: what’s changed in the last twenty years since helmets became a real proposition? Statistically, not much than can be tied (on a POPULATION level) to better PPE, and I certainly don’t feel safer. Now, the only difference is I’m “encouraged” to spend my hard-earned on a dorky uncomfortable hat, and If I don’t and am hit it’s my fault. And now I’m “encouraged” to buy a dorky jacket, and If I don’t and am hit that’s my fault too.
Do you honestly think that these people, who are oh so “concerned” as to my safety, are EVER going to turn around and say “right, you’ve done enough, NOW we need to sort out the shite drivers?”
That’s delusional.
If you can’t see someone in the daytime, or someone with lights in the nighttime, you’re an incompetent driver. If you’re driving despite this knowledge, you’re an awful human being. The only way things are going to get better is enough people saying “enough, we’re not tolerating these twats any more”… and so long as the debate continues to be “how can we make cyclists safely by making their lives less pleasant”, that will never happen. That’s why these “encouragements” are so abhorrent.
(in the interest of self grammar nazism, you’re. No idea how that slipped past)
nuclear coffee wrote:You
Ah, was that vitriol aimed at me? I didn’t reply because I thought you were a troll, but I accept your apology. And please accept my apology too, because I genuinely don’t know what you’re on about. “Contributing to the fatties on the streets”? Sorry, you’ve got me there.
Alas, I can’t give you any “evidence” either, other than I’ve ridden perhaps fifty thousand miles, mostly with a hi-vis, have never had an accident, or even a close shave, and just “feel” safer when wearing hi-vis, especially when “taking the lane”. I’m also a truck driver and, although there might be a trucker out there somewhere that doesn’t agree, I can reveal that every driver I’ve spoken to about this thorny subject confirms that cyclists are more visible when wearing hi-vis. It’s only anecdotal evidence from our transport office, but it’s’ the best I can do, I’m afraid.
But perhaps I can respond to your challenge, even though it’s not entirely clear what you’re saying.
Do I wear a hi-vis? Not always.
Do I think hi-vis should be compulsory? No.
Why not? Because it would discourage cycling.
But is compulsion a possibility? Yes.
Would that save lives? Who knows, but it’s probable.
We all want hi-vis to be optional? Yes.
But there’s been a fair amount of ridicule towards the whole hi-vis thing? Yes.
And cyclists, just like anyone, don’t want to be laughed at? Correct.
So what they wear will be infuenced through peer pressure to some extent? Yes.
And this forum is potentially visible to inexperienced cyclists who are possibly thinking of wearing hi-vis, but may be put off by the comments on this forum? Maybe.
And this vitriol towards those that wear hi-viz could be used by legislators (or those who lobby legislators) to reinforce the argument for legislation? Yes.
The same legislators who don’t give a monkeys about whether or not you prefer the latest natty outfit from Rapha, to a hi-vis vest? You bet.
The same legislators that are desperately looking for cost effective ways to reduce the number of accidents involving cyclists? Absolutely.
And what about the “contribution to the deaths of others” remark? Well, seeing as you called me an “a***hole”, perhaps I can suggest that if you can’t equate potentially pressurising other cyclists into leaving their hi-vis at home with increased exposure to risk then you may not benefit from any further attempts at reasoned debate.
Neil753 wrote:I know I’m
This is a very naive comment!
First off, what is so bizarre about reporting what happened? Do you not actually cycle then? Are you not aware of how drivers actually behave?
Bright sunny day, day-glo yellow back-pack cover – driver half overtook and swung left straight into me without looking. High vis did me no good whatseover because the guy wasn’t actually looking where he was going.
If you think that is ‘bizarre’ you clearly don’t actually cycle in this country so I don’t think you really have any business commenting.
And what contributes to the numbers of cyclists being killed or injured is awful driving, lousy road design, and a total lack of interest in enforcing the laws of the road by the police.
You also totally ignore the downside of high-viz day-glo pink & yellow clown gear. That it marks out cyclists as an outgroup of oddballs not worthy of any respect.
You try cycling past certain council estates on a regular basis, and see which sartoiral choice gets you the most grief – an anonymous hoodie like a local, or a high-viz/lycra get-up that marks you out as a middle-class knob!
Heck, I’ve had abuse thrown at me by hoodie-wearing ninja cyclists looking for a fight merely for having lights on my bike at all (apparently having red lights on the back makes you “look like a c***”!).
And even if you happen to live in a leafy area full of well-behaved people who aren’t prone to aggression to anyone they think looks different, the same thing applies at a national and political level. Just check Kevin McKenna’s Guardian column where he rants about cyclists being high-vis-wearing weirdos whose lurid bright colours cause accidents by distracting drivers!
Wearing that stuff might help a bit in an immediate sense, but in the long run it just marks you out as an outgroup.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
So here I am, trying to emphasise the vital need (in public forums) not to demonise cyclists who wear hi-vis…
and you come up with this?
Given some of the powers that be who read cycle forums, I think your comment, perhaps more than any other I’ve seen, has just moved us further towards compulsion.
Neil753
Well, I was trying my best to be polite, but probably slipped a bit there. But you need to recognise _that_ is how many non-cyclists see high-viz cyclists. You seem to be unaware of that.
Just look at any number of anti-cyclist hate-articles in the press by the likes of McKenna or Melissa Kite. Wearing high-viz is counterproductive when it comes to the politics of cycling. It discourages people from seeing cycling as an acceptable means of tranport rather than an odd special-interest hobby and a sport, and hence taking it up themselves, and it encourages aggressive and hostile attitudes from petrolheads.
Can you show us the solid evidence that lurid yellow and orange actually saves lives? That seems like something you ought to be starting with, before telling people to wear it, no? I don’t mean a single anecdote of ‘oh I can see him better because unlike most motorists I’m actually looking!’, I mean a study that takes into account the multiple effects, including social ones.
And stop conflating high-viz with reflective material.
And, as with helmets, if they made it compulsory I’d just give up cycling again,
FluffyKittenofTindalos
Well, I was trying my best to be polite, but probably slipped a bit there. But you need to recognise _that_ is how many non-cyclists see high-viz cyclists. You seem to be unaware of that.
Just look at any number of anti-cyclist hate-articles in the press by the likes of McKenna or Melissa Kite. Wearing high-viz is counterproductive when it comes to the politics of cycling. It discourages people from seeing cycling as an acceptable means of tranport rather than an odd special-interest hobby and a sport, and hence taking it up themselves, and it encourages aggressive and hostile attitudes from petrolheads.
Can you show us the solid evidence that lurid yellow and orange actually saves lives? That seems like something you ought to be starting with, before telling people to wear it, no? I don’t mean a single anecdote of ‘oh I can see him better because unlike most motorists I’m actually looking!’, I mean a study that takes into account the multiple effects, including social ones.
And stop conflating high-viz with reflective material.
And, as with helmets, if they made it compulsory I’d just give up cycling again,— FluffyKittenofTindalos
I’m not telling anyone to wear anything. I’m merely pointing out that your demonising of people who wear hi-vis, in a public forum, is unwise. I added the pic showing a hi-vis at night to stimulate discussion, given that many cyclists will be riding in the dark at this time of year.
Neil753 wrote:
I’m not
I wasn’t demonising people who wear hi-vis so much as expressing how insulting I find the nagging to wear the stuff. And it is a simple fact that the more ‘high viz’ (and helmets) are seen as essential to cycling, the more reluctant normal people (probably, at the risk of generalisations, especially women) will be to cycle.
I hardly know any cyclists or drivers. Most people I know are public transport users and pedestrians. They all think cycling is too scary, and also think the gear you have to wear to do it looks daft.
Also, as I keep pointing out, your picture is of _reflective_ material, not high-viz.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
Hello again. Just a quick response out of courtesy, ok?
In all your posts you’ve managed to slip in some negative comment about hi-viz. It’s called demonisation. Maybe low level demonisation, but it has the cumulative effect of putting off cyclists who might otherwise be considering wearing hi-viz. It would be the same if you ridiculed people wearing a helmet, but thankfully the tables are turned and you don’t really see anyone doing that any more. If your constant digs and snipes, together with other posters’ negative comments, tip us into legislation, your cycling pals will not be too chuffed with you, will they? Talking about hi-vis in general terms is fine, but please try and avoid negative terms, like the ones in so many of the posts on this forum.
As far as the hi-vis in the picture is concerned, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. It’s winter, riders will be out in the dark. I posted the pic to stimulate debate. It shows that a hi-vis with reflective material works well when it’s too dark to see the yellow parts of the garment, which is rather handy. You seem unhappy with my pic, I’m sorry about that. I’ll post both a night pic and a day pic next time.
Incidentally, it’s worth pointing out that reflective material does play a part during daylight too, simply because many cars now have their lights on during the day.
Neil753 wrote:In all your
Do you not think you’re doing the exact same thing? Low level demonisation of people who don’t want to wear fluorescent clothing?
Why should people be encouraged to wear helmets and yellow? Because you believe that’s what will keep them safe?
Once upon a time people believed that having a live hen next to a boil or lesion would draw out the infection.
farrell wrote:Neil753
No, I haven’t demonised anyone. All I’ve done, in response to the most extraordinary vitriol directed toward hi-vis users, is to point out that if people are seen to be ridiculing others then it’s likely to lead to compulsion.
I certainly don’t want compulsion, I just want inexperienced cyclists to make a decision for themselves without having to put up with irresponsible comments that might put them off.
If you don’t want to wear a helmet, that’s fine. In fact, I don’t either, unless I’m off-road. I’m a fan of hi-vis and you’re not. That’s fine too; everybody’s different.
Neil753
Hello again. Just a quick response out of courtesy, ok?
In all your posts you’ve managed to slip in some negative comment about hi-viz. It’s called demonisation. Maybe low level demonisation, but it has the cumulative effect of putting off cyclists who might otherwise be considering wearing hi-viz. It would be the same if you ridiculed people wearing a helmet, but thankfully the tables are turned and you don’t really see anyone doing that any more. If your constant digs and snipes, together with other posters’ negative comments, tip us into legislation, your cycling pals will not be too chuffed with you, will they? Talking about hi-vis in general terms is fine, but please try and avoid negative terms, like the ones in so many of the posts on this forum.
As far as the hi-vis in the picture is concerned, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. It’s winter, riders will be out in the dark. I posted the pic to stimulate debate. It shows that a hi-vis with reflective material works well when it’s too dark to see the yellow parts of the garment, which is rather handy. You seem unhappy with my pic, I’m sorry about that. I’ll post both a night pic and a day pic next time.
Incidentally, it’s worth pointing out that reflective material does play a part during daylight too, simply because many cars now have their lights on during the day.— Neil753
Well, yes, because I think hi-vis looks silly. What do you want me to say? You think I should have different opinions because…what?
I don’t ‘demonise’ those who feel obligated to wear it, but I doubt very much that any of them would chose to do so if the presence of (badly driven) motorised vehicles didn’t make them feel they had to. Those who wear it don’t do so because they like it intrinsically or because it fits their sense of style.
I just disagree with your view, I don’t know how to make it any clearer.
It depresses me that I even see _pedestrians_ wearing high-viz nowadays. Its as if the entire world now revolves around pandering to motorists.
And even if high-viz makes cyclists more visible to drivers – drivers will just expend most of that gain by using it as a chance to pay even less attention than they otherwise do – texting more, turning their car stereo up louder, and generally driving still more carelessly than usual. That’s what drivers generally do with most safety measures.
Lights and reflectors after dark – fair enough, without them cyclists really can be totally invisible and that’s a bit much, even if they are only interacting with pedestrians and other cyclists. But lurid yellow during the day is going too far – at this point its the drivers turn to start changing their behaviour.
(And I _might_ be OK with it on those unlit country roads, I dunno, I rarely visit them, the solution may be different out there, but in urban areas the problem is motor vehicles, not the clothing choices of cyclists).
One other thing that bemuses me is how often I see cyclists in full high-viz getup…cycling on the pavement.
And I’m not very happy about helmets either. I’ve had negative comments about the fact I wear one, and I understand where that comes from, I wear it with some considerable reluctance, but for several reasons I’m prepared to go that far.
The idea that my comments could bring about legislation is hilarious. I wish I had that much power. And, as I say, if the state decides to still further try and suppress cycling (as they have done in Australia with the mandatory helmet law) I’ll just give up on it – I will go back to walking and public transport (though with far greater animosity to cars than I currently have).
I’m under no illusions that society really works on the basis of what is right or of respecting basic human rights – whatever politicians _say_ the balance of power in this society is clearly in favour of everyone driving everywhere, eating crap, and getting as fat as possible.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
No, of course not. Your negative stereotyping of those who wear hi-viz won’t precipitate legislation but, collectively, your comments, and thousands of other comments, on forums, on the street, on blogs, on sportives and club runs, in cycle cafes, and in the cycling press, all conspire to make inexperienced cyclists reluctant to wear hi-viz, when it could save their lives. The ridicule is endemic, and you are part of that problem, even if you don’t realise what you’re doing.
High Vis = potentially useful
High Vis = potentially useful in daylight. Potentially, depending on if the other person is looking. Of course, other colours such as red, green, blue can be as, or more visible in certain circumstances.
High vis does not equal visible in the dark. In the absence of a light source you will not be seen.
Now, High vis may include reflective material. That stuff works. You’d be mad not to have some.
But, really, there is no substitute for lighting yourself the best you can.
I ride with a Lezyne Mega Drive and Macro at the Front. 3 Fibre flares at rear and an exposure Flare.
Both tyres, Vittoria Randonneur have awesome reflective sidewalls.
Seriously, what am I adding with a yellow top?
Retro-reflective material is
Retro-reflective material is fantastic and, used appropriately, is very effective. There are existing (albeit archaic) laws on bicycle reflectors, of course.
Daytime hi-vis is quite a different thing, and to the best of my knowledge multiple studies fail to show significant effectiveness.
@ Bez
Study results vary but
@ Bez
Study results vary but Sarah Barth, in her road cc piece on HGVs a couple of weeks ago says this:
“A cyclist is just about visible coming up on the left — but the improvement once you add a high-viz jacket is astonishing.”
Neil753 wrote:@ Bez
Study
You’re absolutely right – only anecdotal but that was my experience. Not that I wear one very often. Yellow’s just not my colour 😉
I found the article at
I found the article at http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/ interesting & informative from the view point of being both a driver & cyclist
I find the argument totally
I find the argument totally absurd.
Even the most casual observer can tell a proper set of cycle lights would made the buike a lot more visible than even the best of high vis clothing. And since the law already dictate the usage of lights in low visibility condition. its about educating and enforcing that. In fact flashing LED used even in daylight can greatly raise the visibility way better
And parents should taker note, they should be educating their kids about the need for this.
There is also the case of equality, cylist is just another group of road user, why should they be single out to be needing to signal themselves where the fact is each and every road user should be alert to other road users. So if at all wanting high vis , then by god, let’s made it a law that all pedestrian do high vis clothing and all cars and truckss to have high vis paint job also.
Hmmm… I too would like to
Hmmm… I too would like to see how questions were asked and more specific details on who was asked.
For the record I have clipped a few times, and proper off’d once resulting in an ambulance. All of those times I had a BRIGHT yellow and reflective Night Vision jacket on, plus 4 lights.
High vis clothing will not solve issues around drivers not looking, as we have seen in recent motorcycling and high vis jacket studies.
To be clear, the survey
To be clear, the survey demanded an answer from a list of possible safety equipment, meaning that everyone questioned had to make a choice – which is not the same as coming up with that answer oneself.
The question was: What do you think would be most useful to ensure the safety of cyclists on the road?
Possible answers were:
Compulsory cycle proficiency tests
Lower speed limits for motorists
More dedicated cycle lanes
Compulsory hi-viz
Compulsory helmets
Better enforcement of road safety regulations
Better lighting on roads
Other
So many respondents may have simply chosen the the answer they disliked least; i.e. it may not have been a positive choice.
That makes sense, people
That makes sense, people choosing the least objectionable answer. However, this also increases the risk of bias, and makes the survey less believable than if it was done where people could actually give the answer they want.
Sarah Barth wrote:To be
thanks for clarification – maybe next time road.cc could spend a bit more time giving context and specifics about a survey they’re reporting on?
All you need to know about
All you need to know about this survey is that it was conducted by a business in the motor industry. It’s about as useful as a chocolate teapot. Don’t rise to the bait.
Sky don’t help with their
Sky don’t help with their insistence that everyone on a Sky ride should wear their hi viz.
To be fair to Sky, they
To be fair to Sky, they don’t. They dish out free hi-viz if you want one, but you can ride without.
I know cos I did (without a helmet as well I am so reckless). And I refused the vest out of principle! Dishing them out does perpetuate the myth of hi-viz though, and would prefer that they didn’t.
Around 80% of cycling
Around 80% of cycling accidents occur in daylight which dismisses the ridiculous claim that hi viz outfits improve safety for cyclists, if we cant be safe from drivers in daylight what gud will dayglo do? I was hit at midday on a bright sunny day wearing electric blue t-shirt, the driver claimed he simply didnt see me despite his being a professional driver!
I suspect making drivers drive slower and stricter driving tests with random retests would improve driving abilities and increase safety for all vulnerable road users not just cyclists.
Here is a bit of a history
Here is a bit of a history lesson. Hi-viz was first commonly used in UK industry to improve the ability of drivers of large vehicles to see other pedestrian workers, who may be in their way. Large construction sites, roads works, railways, and airport are some obvious places where ‘Hi-Viz’ was used. In every case, the bright Dayglo colours of lemon, orange or lime are always enhanced by reflective elements such as banding around the body, arms and legs, to provide a sense of shape to the reflections from the viewers perspective.
The theory is that during the day the Dayglo colours, hence the name, would stand out against most common backgrounds and during twilight and night conditions the reflective parts would stand out most effectively. However, it has always been the view of industry experts that simply wearing the Hi-Viz clothing is only half of the eqaution. Drivers also need to be made aware of what to look for and will be warned that workers may be in their path so must be ready to stop, or if they are in a vehicle that is too big to stop or change direction to sound a warning signal well aheaqd of the Hi-Viz worker. On the whole and without any unequivocal evidence UK Indudtry has the view that it has helped reduce vehicle-people collisions but it hasn’t stopped them completely. Why is that? Well, as you will all know, from your safety courses at work, personal protective equipment is the least effective way of preventing, or reducing injuries. Hi-viz, Dayglo, Helmets, reflective bands, etc have a part to play but none of these things stop accidents from happening, they merely try to minimise the severity of the injury.
So to cycling. Firstly, I do occasionally wear Dayglo especially when daylight conditions tend to be poor; Autumn & Winter, in the main. I also wear light coloured tops on my bike year round with black shorts in summer and black tights with reflective patches (Endura Night Vision) during colder seasons.
Secondly, I ride my cycles the way I was taught to ride my motorbikes; anticipate hazards and danger, plan to take avoiding actions, ride at speeds to suit road conditions, believe every other road user is out to kill you, make sure you can be seen by other road users by wearing light clothing and using lights, as well as eye-balling the driver or pedestrian, whom poses the greatest risk.
[b]IMHO poor road conditions, poor road design, poor awareness of drivers and others, riding inappropriately for the conditions, and failing to make oneself visible to other road users are the main reasons for accidents and deaths.[/b] When we look at all the lobbying of our political leaders, done these days to improve the cycling experience, it has been important to focus on the things that will have the biggest impact but which are the most costly and difficult to achieve, such as road design, traffic management, and driver behaviour.
We do not want our lobby groups suddenly diverted to campaign for quick wins like compulsory Hi-viz or wearing helmets, which our politicians will seize up on and declare a victory, albeit a pyrhhic one.
Finally, what is Hi-Viz anyway? Is it light coloured clothing? is it Dayglo? Is it highly reflective? Does it mean Jackets, Legwear, Shoes, Helmets, Gloves? All of them, some or only one?
BigBear63 wrote:Here is a bit
My understanding is that high viz’d road workers, police and lollypop people are still hit by motorists. And that building site related injury is rising despite the massive uptake in wearing the vests. Now that says to me, as you point out, that human behaviour is the real issue.
Dayglow and high vis should, in a psychological sense, work because they stand out. If we saturate our surroundings in it then we lose the shock factor and we’re back at square one.
(No subject)
:&
No to mandatory hi-viz, for
No to mandatory hi-viz, for anyone or anything. Yes to mandatory good riding, driving, walking etc – and equally-enforced punishments for those who don’t practise it. 🙂
Why is it certain people cant
Why is it certain people cant help but think they can keep telling me what I have to do. I only want to ride my bike. Are they not involved enough at the Womans institute or what ever organisation that they think is superior to my way of life. Go away and bake some cakes or form some committee. ~X(
My experience shows that it
My experience shows that it makes little difference whether hi-viz is worn or not, if the driver, pedestrian, etc. isn’t looking, they’re not going to see you. ~X(
Or to put it another way:
Two
Or to put it another way:
Two thirds of cyclists don’t support mandatory hi-viz clothing.
FREEDOM OF CHOICE! make your
FREEDOM OF CHOICE! make your own judgement, make your own choice, take your own responsibility.
Why are people SO adamant on forcing their thoughts on others? It’s fine if you want to wear Hi-Vis or a helmet or anything else you think may protect you and you are free to do so. But you have no authority on lecturing to others to follow suit – do you really think that other cyclists are unaware of the potential dangers they face?
I think all trees should be
I think all trees should be forced to wear hi-viz.
And all walls, kerbs, parked cars, children, deer, squirrels, cats, dogs, birds, ants and houses.
Yes, they should all be forced to wear hi-viz. After all they “owe a duty and a responsibility to other road users.”
I’m down with compulsory
I’m down with compulsory hi-viz for cyclists. Fine. Ticketyboo. Happy as a hippo in a swimming pool of mud.
When it’s compulsory for other road users – when cars are decked out in bright yellow with reflective panels, when it’s compulsory of pedestrians, including the marketing department of a company whose only involvement with cyclists is fixing cyclist shaped holes in windscreens.
I personally think we should
I personally think we should all be wearing those Sam Browne belts and only cycle on cycle paths.
I live by the advice given in this advert:
http://youtu.be/yhtDrZ48Bjk
I find it worrying that only
I find it worrying that only 16% opted for reduced speed. We all know the slower the vehicle the greater the chances of survival. I am also nearly sure that there was an experiment that proved that a motorist took in more of their environment at 20mph than at higher speeds. This is the issue that needs to be tackled not token gestures of road safety by enforcing vulnerable road users to wear hi viz, helmets etc.
The yellow and orange associated with hi viz becomes next useless at night time and even over the course of time looses it’s day time qualities as it fades. And there is now so much about, that the phrase “familiarity breeds contempt” springs to mind.
The vast majority of drivers neither care about other road users or are so poorly trained that they are oblivious to what is going on around them. Yet the onus is placed on the vulnerable to take greater measures to protect themselves rather than the motorist taking greater responsibility when on the roads.
Personally I wear light colours when cycling and now use lights during the day as well as night time. Yet even in doing so still loose count of the number of motorists who do not see me on a daily basis.
Hi vis helps but what you
Hi vis helps but what you really need is and set of decent lights. Also claim your road space. There really in no excuse for not having good lights, these days they are better than every and cheap.
I always carry a set of spares. I don’t always wear hi-vis, but do wear cycling specific clothing with reflective patches.
Ultimately, being seen is a combination of lights, reflective clothing and assertive road positioning IMHO.
After dark, and particularly in bad weather, you have to be very alert, and DON’T put yourself in risky road positions
Requiring cyclists to wear
Requiring cyclists to wear hi-viz and helmets is victim shaming at it’s worst. Like sexual assault, the number one way to avoid cyclist deaths is to have cars and lorries stop hitting them. Anybody who’s done any significant amount of time on a bike (or behind the wheel of a car) knows full well that some people, at certain times, wouldn’t see a jumbo if it landed in front of them. Reducing the number of bikes (which is the end result of compulsory helmet laws) only makes all cyclists more vulnerable.
I am also very weary of a survey of cyclists where 30% do not think there should be more cycling infrastructure. I don’t think I could do a survey of drivers, and get 30% of them not wanting more roads.
I carry lights all year round
I carry lights all year round on the rear. Just remember that in poor visability (rain) you should be using lights. It rains in the day too!
I’ve done about 15000 miles in the last 3yrs in all weathers & never been knocked off. I wear high vis mostly to NOT give the excuse to a driver to miss seeing me. Seems to work for me.
Yours truly
Defensive rider
This is another of those
This is another of those cases where people will argue about whether something works based on belief rather than evidence.
It takes very little time on google to find that the Transport Research Laboratory could not conclusively demonstrate the effectiveness of hi-viz in daylight. At night as many have said it is lights and reflective that gets seen.
Even if hi-viz is more easily seen that doesn’t necessarily make anyone of us safer …. Why?
Does hi-viz make drivers more alert?
Does hi-viz make drivers more sensible?
Does hi-viz effectively desensitise drivers to non-hi-viz?
Does hi-viz make the wearer appear less vulnerable or even less human in the eyes of drivers?
Does clothing with strong big blocks of contrasting colours work better?
I know what I think the answers are and I know others will think otherwise. Some when they think differently like to throw insults around from either direction: that achieves nothing so why do it?
There is plenty of evidence about lights and reflectives but real concrete evidence for hi-viz is somewhat lacking.
Until or unless there is a proper evidence base no one can truly claim to be right.
As a high-viz, helmet-wearing
As a high-viz, helmet-wearing cyclist, I don’t think anything should be mandatory.
Make your own choices and deal with the consequences.
It’s probably being mentioned
It’s probably being mentioned before but you do wonder why a supposed pro cycling website is running a article from a survey seemingly done by a motoring interest organisation to seemingly further their agenda…
2/3 don’t ; )
What’s the quote – There are
What’s the quote – There are lies, damded lies and statistics.
Would the same organisation make pedestrians where hi-viz when crossing the road, the majority of whom do not carry lights with them after dark and a fair few where black.
I agree it all shouldnt rest
I agree it all shouldnt rest on the cyclists shoulders to be visible and the motorist have no responsibilities BUT our western world revolves around the car, end of story, so we will have to fight hard for recognition.
What if wearing hi viz apparel was easier and more sophisticated?
Ive seen product from a few companies getting better, some items from rapha and new stuff from POC (in case you havent seen http://www.bikerumor.com/2013/10/04/ib13-just-the-essentials-pocs-avip-road-clothing-line-new-mtb-gear-glasses-more/ )
If we all dont look like construction workers and dustmen it might be easier to get those numbers of people wearing hi viz higher
Just a thought
It doesn’t matter how cool
It doesn’t matter how cool you design a hiviz jacket to be, how cycling specific, the problem is the colour. I don’t ‘demonize’ yellow wearers but I do think they are twerps conforming to some standard that they think has been imposed on them. Every one I pass brings the day closer that I will be forced to conform to this standard or face being criminalized. Forced to wear a uniform. Every one who chooses to wear that jacket passively erodes my choice.
I see guys wearing yellow jackets and black tights in summer 20+ degree heat because that is what they think a cyclist should wear.
When I tell people I don’t
When I tell people I don’t drink tea OR coffee they act like I am a pervert; ‘What DO you drink?’ Consensus is not always right. Never should there be a days when they say ‘He doesn’t wear hi viz,’ FIGHT THE HI VIZ HEGEMONY!
Hi viz does make a difference
Hi viz does make a difference in my opinion. Driving on a dual carriage way a few weeks ago I spotted a cyclist approx. 500 yards up the road in my lane due to his hiviz jacket, so I had plenty of time to prepare to pass safely. A few seconds later I spotted another rider approx 150 yards away. He was wearing black and I just didn’t see him any earlier in the tree shade. Still had plenty of time because I’m quite a slow cautious driver but someone tearing along and not concentrating might not have seen him in time to make an appropriate pass.
I wear a hiviz helmet and have a couple of yellow winter jackets, it can’t do any harm.
Compulsion is a definite no for me, better if we produce some comparisons of visibility at different distances and in different conditions so that people can make an informed choice.
Firstly it’s one of those
Firstly it’s one of those surveys where they’ve only published the results they’ve chosen to, in the spin they’ve chosen to put on it. If I can see the full survey, the questions asked and the analysis done (and the people it was aimed at) then I might be a little less cynical.
And secondly – what most others have said. Sensationalist victim blaming at its worst. Dear driver – try getting off the fucking phone, slowing down and looking where you’re going, then you’ll stop hitting vulnerable road users.
And if hi-vis did ever become mandatory, I look forward to it being enforced in the same way that all other road laws are – ie not at all.
crazy-legs wrote:Firstly it’s
If road laws were enforced properly we wouldn’t even need to discuss hiviz
@ Nuclear. No problems glad
@ Nuclear. No problems glad that’s cleared the air. I’ve learnt to stick with the quotes myself. Was just ironic that I’d opened with “I worry”. Anyway. Totally agree with all you say. I’m fed up with people telling me what and what I shouldn’t wear on a bike. If someone can’t see me at 40 feet (braking distance allowed for 20mph) they shouldn’t be allowed to drive.
Neil753, I’m with you.
Neil753, I’m with you. There’s some crazy talk in this comments thread.
‘Let’s not wear Hi-Vis because it makes us look like an out group and it makes people like professional troll Kevin McKenna hate us’
I drive a car. I am a cautious driver with a clean license. I know from experience that I can see cyclists further away if they are wearing fluro colours during low light conditions. I don’t wear fluro at the weekends, but I wear it on my weekday commute. I couldn’t care less if it makes me look like a clown.
The data might not be there, but I’ll let the precautionary principle guide me because despite the lack of scientific study here’s what we know:
-When driving, the eye uses a series of saccades to evaluate surroundings
-The eye is most sensitive to colours in the green yellow spectrum
-Anecdote tells us that drivers find it easier to see cyclists in fluro colours
-There is almost no segregated cycling infrastructure in the UK
Calling cyclists in dayglo twerps or clowns isn’t helping anyone. UK cycling advocacy has enough to address without this particularly unhelpful infighting.
Andrewwd wrote:I drive a car.
Are you sure that it’s the fluro and not the reflectives? If it’s low-light, you’ve got lights on while driving, right?
And anecdotes aren’t data and the data in studies shows no clear benefit.
Quite. So please stop suggesting that wearing it is a good thing because it’s unproven. Wear it if you want, but realise that it will make some campaigners unhappy.
a.jumper wrote:”Are you sure
Reflectives are directional; even with car headlights they need a certain angle of incidence to work. Additionally, in low light conditions, outside lighting up time, not all drivers have headlights on. Fluro may be effective in these conditions. You’re quite right that anecdotes aren’t data. As far as I can tell, there isn’t enough data, so I choose to side with precaution. If you have a link to a good study please share.
You just said that the data shows no clear benefit, and now you’re saying its unproven; which is it?
If you read my post, you’ll see nowhere that I contend it’s ‘a good thing’. What I’m saying is, given the lack of evidence, I’ll side with precaution.
I face plenty scorn on the roads from drivers, and now I find out I’m facing it from other cyclists because I’m wearing bright clothing! Brilliant.
I’m a grown up on a bike, I’m already part of the out group; whether that perception may be that I am (in normal clothes) a drug dealer or (in cycling clothes) a middle class wanker. What I mostly care about is not being hit by a car.
Andrewwd wrote:You just said
Huh? They’re the same thing: the experiments were designed to find the benefit if there was any. They did not find a clear benefit – or in other words, the hypothesis under test was unproven. This is basic school science lesson experiment design.
No, the scorn isn’t for wearing bright clothing. It’s for going beyond “bright” to what some regard as voluntarily wearing a Star of David on the jacket pocket.
a.jumper wrote:Andrewwd
Wow there are some seriously nasty comments in this thread but this one takes the biscuit. X(
Sorry to be such a quisling but I always wear a helmet, a combination of hi-viz yellow and reflective clothing whenever I am on my bike. Lights are a no-brainer. Does my choice of clothing negatively impact on you in some way? Maybe like bikeboy76 you think that a yellow-wearing ‘twerp’ like me is: “…. conforming to some standard that they think has been imposed on them” ?
It is nothing personal, I choose to wear Hi-Viz because I KNOW that it makes a massive difference to how early you are noticed by some drivers, especially in low contrast, misty/foggy conditions, especially by drivers like me.
Like approximately 1 in 12 men, and reasonable to assume 1 in 12 male drivers, I am Red Green colour blind. I know for a fact that bright yellow really stands out from my perspective behind the driving wheel.
Of course it doesn’t follow that because you have been seen, you are safe. Drivers, just like cyclists are capable of misjudgement or being downright stupid but your chances of avoiding being in an accident are obviously greatly reduced if other road users know that you are there.
And before anyone tells me that colour blind drivers shouldn’t be on the road, I have been cycling for thirty years and driving for more than twenty years. I have never been involved in an accident with either vehicle and I have never received any points on my licence. Indeed, I have never ever received a parking ticket. I must be doing something right. Touch wood!
As for the argument that if cyclists have to wear hi-viz then so should pedestrians 8| … nonsense. Walking is your God-Given / Evolution-Given right. It is the most natural method of getting from one place to another. It doesn’t require any equipment, training or legislation any more than breathing does.
If we choose to use some form of contraption to get around more efficiently then the onus is on us to be able to use that contraption safely without endangering pedestrians. If a cyclist/driver cannot anticipate what a pedestrian will do and take avoiding action if that pedestrian does something radically different and unexpected, then the cyclist/driver is going too fast for the conditions. Any crash with a pedestrian is 99% of the time the cyclist’s/driver’s fault.
As for cars being forced to be painted Hi-Viz, they are visible enough in my opinion without such measures being necessary.
Mandatory Hi-Vis for cyclists? Wear what you like as far as I am concerned but is there really any need to insult those who have made an alternative choice?
Well said. I’m in agreement
Well said. I’m in agreement with GoingRoundInCycles on this one, so I won’t duplicate; I’ll just add that if Hi-Viz is good enough for the emergency services, road workers, and many other professionals who work outside, then it’s good enough for me. They can’t all be wrong can they? I don’t think Hi-Viz should be enforced, but I’ll keep wearing mine with my fellow twerps; I’m not bothered if I don’t fit in with the in-crowd.
One last thing; this is possibly the most bizarre thread I’ve ever seen. Not sure why everyone is getting so worked up about it.
Torino74 wrote:One last
Because people like Goingroundincircles insist on delivering supposition, anecdotes and opinion as “fact”.
GoingRoundInCycles
Wow there are some seriously nasty comments in this thread but this one takes the biscuit. X(— Andrewwd
That comment’s not entirely serious and not quite my view, but it seemed like Andrewwd was misunderstanding dislike of hi-vis as a dislike for all bright clothing, so I tried to make it a bit more memorable 😉
I wouldn’t put it like that, but I feel that you only THINK you “KNOW” it makes a difference – unless you’ve got some secret study demonstrating its effectiveness that you’re selfishly not publishing.
People dressing bizarrely when riding bikes may negatively impact on me and everyone else who wears ordinary clothes to ride bikes as an ordinary part of daily life. I think it’s selfish – dodgy drivers could get used to the funny-looking riders and stop looking for people walking and cycling in ordinary clothes, or animals that stray into the roads for that matter. (Ever seen a dayglo cat, rabbit, badger or deer?)
We must normalise space for cycling before it is too late. Many towns and cities in the UK are still above the 10% biking of 1970s Copenhagen – if they can do it, so can we!
But we already have frequent attempts to claim that people have shown “contributory negligence” when run over simply because they weren’t wearing a hard hat that is not designed to protect in a car collision. Now we’re seeing reports like a person walking being criticised for not wearing hi-vis – linked above: http://road.cc/content/news/75692-insurer-tries-cut-damages-pay-out-teenage-pedestrian-due-her-lack-hi-vis-clothing – and a coroner in NZ criticising people for not wearing hi-vis when riding, even though the rider who died was wearing it! – http://road.cc/content/news/77369-coroner-cyclists-have-duty-other-road-users-wear-high-viz – which then led to
the ministry considering making it mandatory http://road.cc/content/news/76314-nz-ministry-transport-considering-coroners-call-hi-vis-clothing-be-made
I’ve ridden in NZ. It’s really unpleasant in the cities. It feels like that is the bike-hating road we are heading down. WE MUST NOT GO GENTLE INTO THAT DARK NIGHT! Lights and reflectives on the bike: OK. Dressing up like a dayglo banana: not OK.
a.jumper wrote:
People
This is a ridiculous statement. So you think anyone riding in different clothing to you is negatively impacting on you? So, if I wear lycra and you don’t, is that wrong? How about a helmet, or sunglasses, or a skinsuit? I think your view is fairly selfish, how can you call for everyone to wear exactly the clothes you wear? Is there a published list of acceptable “normal” clothing you would like me to wear?
To answer your last point in that paragraph, I’ve never seen a dayglo cat, rabbit, badger or deer but I have seen all of those animals lying dead by the side of the road after being hit by vehicles, none of them were wearing dayglo – hmmmm. (I’m obviously being facetious but I fail to see the relevance of animals in this debate)
a.jumper wrote:That comment’s
No. I know because for ME, yellow is by far the easiest colour for ME and others like me to spot. I have experience of being colour blind, do you? If not there are colour blind simulators on the web where you can upload an image and see, sort of, what I see. I have used one to conduct a little experiment.
I have attached a picture to this message. The two images don’t look identical to me so the simulation isn’t perfect, (no two people have exactly the same type or degree of colour blindness) but everyone in my office agrees that they would much rather be the guy in the yellow jacket in my inside wing mirror when it’s hosing it down and I am about to turn left.
I personally think he should have his lights on too like the guy behind him then he would be perfect.
See for yourself and then decide what is best for you.
http://www.color-blindness.com/coblis-color-blindness-simulator/
What?!!! :O You call me selfish for wearing what I want to wear while at the same time demanding the right to wear whatever you like? Hypocrisy? ~X(
No. I have never seen dayglo roadkill either.
Look, when I started cycling I did not realise that I was forced to join a union and would in future be treated like “a scab” for taking simple measures to improve my visibility to other road users.
Sorry, I shall obey my conscience and face the consequences mein Führer. :S
GoingRoundInCycles
That barely covers your “especially by drivers like me” special case and does NOTHING about the rest of what you claim to “KNOW”.
No, I’m not colour blind, but I have a different, rarer eyesight problem that gives me a weaker-but-similar colour-similarity effect in good lighting conditions (as well as other strange effects). On a sunny summer’s day, I actually find it harder to spot hi-vis than many other colours!
While I think we should be included as far as reasonably possible, I don’t think we should use either of our unusual eyesights as the basis for policy-making – we should follow the evidence, which seems to be that reflectives are worthwhile but hi-vis is unproven.
I think reflectives work just as well on the bike – better in that it’s always with you – and I feel it’s a bit dodgy to show white to the rear, which is sadly widespread on cycling clothing.
Bottom line: you’re free to wear what you like, but I’m free to think you’re being selfish and silly to promote it as good practice for cyclists mainly because it helps you when you’re driving.
a.jumper wrote:
Bottom line:
Am I free to think your view on it being selfish cycling with other types of clothing on is ridiculous? Or is that only when I wear the same top as you?
a.jumper wrote:
People
I actually think you have a point. Let me elaborate.
As a driver of articulated lorries, I do find that my eyes are drawn towards anyone wearing hi-viz, whether they be a cyclist, a construction worker, a fellow driver, or a member of the emergency services; so, regardless of whether there is any “proof” that hi-viz makes you more visible, it does appear that many organisations concerned about safety share my opinion.
And so, by inferrence, if my eyes are drawn towards people (including cyclists) wearing hi-viz, then anyone not wearing hi-viz becomes just that little bit less likely to be seen.
So yes, you are absolutely right. When there are cyclists wearing hi-viz, the rest of you are slightly less visible. And yes, as more cyclists decide to wear hi-viz, those that don’t will become progressively marginalised from a safety perspective.
But suggesting that wearing hi-vis is selfish is probably the most bizarre comment on this forum. You obviously accept that hi-vis makes riders substantially more visible, otherwise you wouldn’t be complaining. And if you accept that concept, why would you possibly want to expose yourself to a higher risk of being killed or seriously injured?
I would argue, given the NHS is at breaking point, that deliberately exposing yourself to higher risk, when there are children dying of cancer through lack of available funding, makes you the selfish one, not me.
Neil753 wrote:I would argue,
I am sure that sounded reasonable in your head, but that is the vilest accusation yet on this thread. It is not ‘selfish’ to choose what you want wear, be it street clothes or a race jersey; people rightly object to the feeling of growing compulsion and are vocal about it. Your accusation of selfishness suggests the self righteous attitude that will lead to compulsion; I am not spending your tax money every time I go out on my bike, or even if I had an accident. I pay my taxes. Children will still be getting cancer no matter how much money you throw at that problem; this absolutist comment shows a total lack of empathy.
bikeboy76 wrote:Neil753
Cycle deaths and serious injuries cost the UK over 300 million each year. Your tax doesn’t go into a special fund just for you and, if you are killed or injured, the cost of your accident will be borne by all of us.
Either we pay 300 million extra tax, or we have 300 million less to spend on other things, predominantly within the NHS. It’s not rocket science. I mentioned child cancer to get people thinking, but I could just as easily mentioned the lack of funding for drugs that delay the onset of dementure.
Yes, you pay your taxes, but wouldn’t you rather see your taxes spent more productively?
It doesn’t just sound reasonable in my head, the logic is perfectly within the grasp of most people.
Neil753 wrote:bikeboy76
Cycle deaths and serious injuries cost the UK over 300 million each year. Your tax doesn’t go into a special fund just for you and, if you are killed or injured, the cost of your accident will be borne by all of us.
Either we pay 300 million extra tax, or we have 300 million less to spend on other things, predominantly within the NHS. It’s not rocket science. I mentioned child cancer to get people thinking, but I could just as easily mentioned the lack of funding for drugs that delay the onset of dementure.
Yes, you pay your taxes, but wouldn’t you rather see your taxes spent more productively?
It doesn’t just sound reasonable in my head, the logic is perfectly within the grasp of most people.— Neil753
So by making everyone wear hi-viz then we will save £300 million a year? I bet that sounded reasonable in your head too.
What about the £billions that we spend each year on cigarette smokers and drinkers and drivers? Are they also responsible for children dying from cancer or do you have another bleeding heart category for them?
Yes we need to reduce the incidence of cyclists being killed or injured on the roads. That starts with education, not by putting the blame on the cyclists.
jova54 wrote:Neil753
Cycle deaths and serious injuries cost the UK over 300 million each year. Your tax doesn’t go into a special fund just for you and, if you are killed or injured, the cost of your accident will be borne by all of us.
Either we pay 300 million extra tax, or we have 300 million less to spend on other things, predominantly within the NHS. It’s not rocket science. I mentioned child cancer to get people thinking, but I could just as easily mentioned the lack of funding for drugs that delay the onset of dementure.
Yes, you pay your taxes, but wouldn’t you rather see your taxes spent more productively?
It doesn’t just sound reasonable in my head, the logic is perfectly within the grasp of most people.— bikeboy76
So by making everyone wear hi-viz then we will save £300 million a year? I bet that sounded reasonable in your head too.
What about the £billions that we spend each year on cigarette smokers and drinkers and drivers? Are they also responsible for children dying from cancer or do you have another bleeding heart category for them?
Yes we need to reduce the incidence of cyclists being killed or injured on the roads. That starts with education, not by putting the blame on the cyclists.— Neil753I fear you haven’t really understood what I’ve been saying, but we’ll just have to agree to disagree. It you can’t understand the advantages of hi-vis then just be careful out there.
Neil753 wrote:
Cycle deaths
Sorry, but that’s dishonest!
What you call ‘cycle deaths and injuries’ are overwhelmingly ‘motor traffic deaths and injuries’. Few of those are cyclists crashing into each other or coming off the bike with no outside involvement (I realise there are a few cases of cyclists hitting pedestrians, but those are often due to idiot pavement cycling that could be avoided if roads were safer for cyclists). Most of them involve motor vehicles, and most of those are due to errors by the motorist (and even if they aren’t they are still fundamentally caused by the presence of motor vehicles on public throughfares). The injuries and deaths are caused by motor vehicles, not by the bicycles (barring those idiot pavement cyclists crashing into pedestrians).
Its very sneaky to try and shift that bill from the ‘motor vehicles’ column to the ‘cycle’ one!
Its central to the whole point – your emphasis on high viz is about trying to shift responsibility for dangers caused by motor vehicles onto those affected by the dangers.
Neil753 wrote:But suggesting
I don’t “obviously accept that hi-vis makes riders substantially more visible”. As I’ve repeatedly written above, it’s unproven. However, I do think that if it’s suggested that drivers need only care about people near roads who are dressed in certain strange ways, some may lazily look for only that clothing and ignore people in ordinary clothes.
Meanwhile, on balance, I’m saving the NHS money by being more active, by riding my bike and hire bikes more than if I was only allowed to ride when I had certain clothes with me. Public Health guidance ( http://publications.nice.org.uk/promoting-and-creating-built-or-natural-environments-that-encourage-and-support-physical-activity-ph8 for example) does not include any recommendations to force active people to wear certain clothes.
Neil753 wrote:
I would argue,
Er… and where does that leave those who deliberately expose _others_ to higher risk, by choosing to drive?
FluffyKittenofTindalos
Very true. Driving more carefully would help reduce the strain on the NHS budget. So what are you saying, that as cyclists we should do nothing to make cycling safer? Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn’t be proactive?
Neil753
Very true. Driving more carefully would help reduce the strain on the NHS budget. So what are you saying, that as cyclists we should do nothing to make cycling safer? Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn’t be proactive?— Neil753
We should indeed do something to make cycling (and walking) safer. That ‘something’ is pushing politically to get the cars off the road as much as possible, to make motorists pay the full cost of their habit (which would cause a lot of them to give up driving), to improve road design (drastically), and to push for the existing laws of the road to actually be enforced (be nice if as a starting point the police themselves actually obeyed them).
Wearing day-glo is kind of insignificant in comparison, and indeed pushing it is counter-productive insofar as it deters people from cycling.
Also I didn’t say that ‘driving non-carefully’ puts others at risk, I said ‘driving’ puts others at risk. Fewer people driving would reduce the strain on the NHS budget. And not just A&E depts.
Andrewwd wrote:Neil753, I’m
Cheers for that, Andrew. I’ve actually been quite shocked by many of these arguments, not so much by the general apathy towards safety but by the comments from those who not only dismiss hi-vis clothing as ineffective, but go to some lengths to ridicule those who disagree with them.
I’m in favour of letting people wear whatever they want, but if this sort of negative stereotyping, on a public forum, is taken as generally representive, then legislation may well become a reality.
Reading the responses to this
Reading the responses to this I’m surprised at the animosity. Let’s be honest there is no evidence that hi-viz helps that much, so it certainly shouldn’t be mandatory. The concern is that by using it as a political football, those in power that make such decisions might be tempted to use it as a solution to the pressing issue of rising cycling deaths and injuries.
As someone that has been riding for 50 years in London, Bristol, Leeds, Manchester in fact most parts of the country, both as a commuter and racer, I have in fact only every been knocked off once and that was by a pedestrian. I have never worn hi-viz (bright racing jersey for me), but do of course ride assertively and always with lights. That said, the behaviour of far too high a proportion of motorists towards cyclists is outrageously dangerous. There are too many people on the road today that have never ridden a bike and simply don’t appreciate how dangerous it is and how vulnerable a cyclist can be.
You can make yourself safe in many ways without the need for hi-viz, but without doubt the best is to ride assertively and put yourself in a position in front of the vehicle so you can be seen. The driver won’t like you for it but will see you.
Drivers have to be made more accountable towards cyclists on the road, but only compulsory training and legislation will make this happen and a discussion about hi-viz is simply side stepping the issue. It will not reduce cyclist deaths on the road because drivers that hit them do so because they aren’t looking and the unfortunate cyclist is not in the right position on the road to force them to see you.
Try a simple test when you are next riding on your own along a busy road. Ride at least 1metre from the kerb. You will find that the motorist might beep you but will pass at least 1metre from your arm. Now move out 1.5m and the driver will give you more room. Then reduce it to 0.5m and you’ll find you get given less space. Count the space say 20 cars give you with each distance you ride from the kerb and form your own conclusions.
That’s my two penn’orth!
Phew. I agree with Brian.
Phew. I agree with Brian. Own the road. Only morons don’t use lights from dusk onwards. Many of them are drivers judging by the numpties I passed last night on the M6. Oh. And wear what you want. The most depressing sight in the countryside is horse riders in hi vis vests. With no one thinking it wrong.
Let’s say goodbye to hedges
And roads with grassy edges
And winding country lanes;
Let all things travel faster
Where motor car is master
Till only Speed remains.
Poor old Betjeman. Now he wouldn’t be wearing dayglo to feel safe and help the motorist.
Of course Andrew, wear what
Of course Andrew, wear what you feel most safe in as that makes you more confident. It’s confidence and assertiveness on the road that makes a cyclist less of a victim and more empowered to control the situations we find ourselves in.
There are always the reflective bands if you don’t like a hi-viz jacket, less of a fashion statement downgrade perhaps 🙂
Well said Brian.
Over the
=D> =D> =D>
Well said Brian.
Over the weekend. I carried out an experiment on who I could see and at what distance. I easily saw cyclists and pedestrians from 100 meters in average light and all were in dark clothing. Granted I was walking but if I was driving at 30 mph that’s more than enough reaction time. I’ll also ask you the question. Do you see a cyclist’s rear light or their hi viz at night time. As for day time. If you can’t see somebody at 40 feet and not react then you shouldn’t be on the road. I’ve e said before. The hi viz is a red herring to sort out road safety.
As we speak. The government at Holyrood are debating strict/presumed liability. Here’s hoping something will come about from this and make Scottish roads a bit safer because the ‘be nice’ campaign as sure as hell hasn’t.
*should have said what do you see FIRST – the light or the hi viz
I don’t mean to insult those
I don’t mean to insult those who do wear high-vis (sorry if I did), but the whole business of pushing it on cyclists I find offensive and so gets me irate.
The pro-high-viz lobby seem to be of the view that all that is needed is for cyclists (and pedestrians) to placate the petrolheads sufficiently. That if we make as many concessions as possible and take the blame for everything and doff our colletive caps and tug our forelocks then they just might stop killing people in such numbers and non-drivers might ‘earn’ the basic human right of freedom of movement.
Personally there’s a limit to how far I’m prepared to take that (I wear a helmet, I have plenty of reflective stuff, but hi-viz is an insult too far). And I don’t believe it will work.
The solution is to change the behaviour of motorists. Not for everyone else to keep accomodating them.
Get (most of) the cars off of (most of) the (urban) roads. There is no right to drive.
I used to hate high-viz but
I used to hate high-viz but it was noticing cyclists wearing it slightly earlier when I was driving that changed my mind. It’s not the ‘ultimate solution’ and is bested used in combination with lights and reflectives (better than high-viz in the dark) so shouldn’t be compulsory. I unusually left my high-viz jacket in my bag the other day, as it was hot, and nearly got ‘T boned’. It’s a bit like the helmet debate in that wearing one may mean you avoid a head injury; likewise wearing high-viz may mean you avoid being knocked off, but it’s a personal choice. It’s all about personal responsibility and managing risk. People will only get a false sense of security if they think that adhering to various rules and regulations will keep them safe.
I was a passenger in a car
I was a passenger in a car driving through Salisbury last weekend and as we approached a roundabout with foliage I was shocked at how much the day-glow yellow clothing (jacket and trousers) the council workers were wearing actually made them harder to see against the bushes behind them. If it wasn’t for their van being parked on the roundabout I doubt I would have notice them until we were entering the roundabout.
I was toying with the idea of replacing my no longer waterproof day-glow yellow winter jacket with a different colour and this incident finally convinced me that a bright Red is the way to go (Wiggle now has more of my money). I’m not convinced “yellow” is enough of a contrast to make any difference.
Reflective stripes however are fantastic, but are only of use when the light level is low enough and the car drivers turn their lights on.
We could the brightest objects on the road, but we would still have to deal with “Sorry mate, I didn’t see you”, or the ones who just neeeeed to get past no matter what the cost.
Mart wrote:…and this
Yes, red is one of nature’s warning colours and probably a good choice.
But as Mart writes, we could be the brightest objects on the road and still get hit by bad drivers. We need http://www.roadjustice.org.uk more than hi-vis.
a.jumper wrote:
Yes, red is
But also seems to make you completely invisible to Royal Mail drivers meaning they are even more likely to almost kill you.
Although, as they generally drive like teenage crackheads, you could be hard pressed to notice the difference.
farrell wrote:a.jumper
Yeah, they’re forever running their colleagues over, aren’t they? Buh!
Which reminds me: the posties in vans wear orange hivis, but the ones on bikes just wear red. Interesting…
Hi-viz just seems like a red
Hi-viz just seems like a red herring to me. In low lighting conditions white clothing and reflective strips seems a better idea.
Most of the people I see wearing hi-viz seem to get it so dirty that if there is a benefit it seems to fade. So do we have to get it washed spick and span for the proposed legislation too? Tell me what else to do….
One word, choice as I don’t
One word, choice as I don’t need the Government of the day pretending to protect cyclists by doing my thinking for me. I wear it myself but it is sweet fa use against a driver not giving driving its due attention as I know from experience.
I like Hi-Viz. But then
I like Hi-Viz. But then again, I like normal clothes. But which is best? There’s only one way to find out…
I’d like to share an exchange
I’d like to share an exchange heard between a well peeved cyclist and a car driver who had just cut the cyclist up.
Cyclist, “How can you not have seen me, I’m wearing a yellow jacket for god’s sake?”
Driver, “Because I was not looking!”
At which point I fell off my bike laughing.
Oh do I love stats.
So lets pull this apart, 1000 people asked. 50% men and 50% Hmm suspicious to start with but never mind. Almost half caught out with no lights were predominantly youngsters. So what percentage of the 1000 were youngsters to start with? If you a riding in daylight, why do you need lights? What kind of riding do these people do? How many years had people been riding? More youngsters confessed to being involved in a near miss! So?
We start with a fact of 1000 people and it slowly degenerates into broad statements via the classic % of that group. What a load of blxs!
100% of divorces are caused by marriage.
Out of a sample of 1, 100% said that I was the most attractive and fun to be with person in the world.
Elephant in the room, cars
Elephant in the room, cars are the problem. Deal with cars and everything else is a non issue.
If your interested in reducing accidents make drivers wear helmets.
If you want to stop people cycling, make it appear as dangerous as possible, force people to wear helmets, hi viz, how about knee and elbow pads…
about pedestrians and Hi-Viz, an insurance company has already tried contributory negligence on a pedestrian for not wearing hi-viz, fairly clear where that debate will end up going!
mrmo wrote:Elephant in the
That Elephant should be wearing a Hi-Viz jacket. Naughty elephant.
Oops, not sure where the
Oops, not sure where the picture went.
What you see on the left.
Sort of, what I see on the right.
If I wear hi vis, how will
If I wear hi vis, how will anyone see my rainbow stripes jersey?
paulfg42 wrote:If I wear hi
Just wear the Hi-Viz under your World Champ jersey…
Neil753,
I know we’ve clashed
Neil753,
I know we’ve clashed before, but I get the impression that you drive HGV’s in areas that have a lot of hi-viz therefore you notice it more. That’s the problem many here will have, you like many others are possibly conditioned to look for hi-viz not the person/cyclist.
I happen to notice team colours more than solid colours. Be that cycle tops such as Sky/Garmin.., blue Imprezas with graphics or white Audi A1s with graphics. If you don’t believe me, I bet you notice an increase in the number of blue cars or maybe the number of Audis that you see on your next trip. (Look deeply into my eyes, blue cars and Audis. Well it is 31 Oct. 🙂 )
That is also why I am against riding with lights during the day. People start to look out for the bright/flashing thing rather than the cyclist or the hazard that the cyclist is going to hit. Anyone who has ridden in Holland will know that drivers are conditioned to look for cyclist not a brightly coloured blob possibly attached to a bright/flashing light.
Blue cars and Audis! :))
Yorkshie Whippet
I totally agree with what you are saying. Yes, as an HGV driver, I am naturally conditioned to see cyclists and others who wear hi-vis. And this almost certainly makes things slightly more dangerous for cyclists not wearing hi-viz. You are right; any rider wearing hi-viz gets my attention, possibly to the detriment of other riders. I’ve never had an accident, despite having driven over a million miles in HGVs, but there’s always a possibility that I might make a fatal mistake. Riders wearing hi-viz assist me in my quest to avoid making that fatal mistake. That’s not my opinion, it’s the opinion of every HGV driver I’ve spoken to.
But, perhaps surprisingly, I’m not in favour of compulsory hi-viz, any more than I’m in favour of compulsory helmets. Compulsion would not be popular, and may reduce the number of people cycling.
All I’m campaigning for is for the demonisation of people who wear hi-viz to stop. It’s endemic, on every forum discussing hi-viz, and probably on every club run or sportive too. And getting the cycling press to portray hi-viz in a positive and impartial light is an uphill struggle.
What we need to do is illustrate the options and allow people to make informed choices. If we don’t, and legislators hear about all this negative campaigning, you can be sure that compulsion will be a consideration.
Neil753 wrote:
I am naturally
You are not naturally conditioned to see hi-viz, it is something you have adapted to. Hi-viz for humans is not natural. Your problem now is that you expect and pay more attention to hi-viz and make no allowance for those who choose not to wear it and increase the risk of causing them harm. In which case you are failing in your duty as a driver to be aware of all situations on the road not just the obvious ones.
I’ve driven over a million miles in motor cars, (also HGV, bikes, tanks) and never had an accident but I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to suggest that it is someone else’s duty to stop me having an accident with them if they don’t wear hi-viz, that is my job. If you are the driver, you’re in charge of the vehicle if you hit someone else it will probably be only your fault.
I’m glad we agree on something.
jova54 wrote: Hi-viz for
What planet are you on?
@Neil7523
You have got to be
@Neil7523
You have got to be ****ing kidding! In one breath you say you are against compulsion; that people have a right to choose what they wear. In another you accuse DEAD CYCLISTS of being ‘selfish’ and stealing £300million from DYING CHILDREN. What planet are you on? You don’t seem to have a clue that taxation doesn’t work like this and governments avoid hypothecation at all costs to avoid such specious comparisons.
People who oppose wearing hiviz are defending their right not to have to, but you suggest we are stigmatizing young riders and putting them at risk?! All for joining a debate on the topic.
This is no longer a safety debate but a blame shifting exercise. Blaming cyclist for the cost of injuries in the majority inflicted by oblivious motorists.
I commend you for the high quality of you trolling here but that is all it is. You might say that you oppose compulsion, but you can’t then immediately decry those who don’t wear Hiviz as selfish. I am sure you will come up with some weasel words to suggest that these are not mutually opposite statements; but really, your ‘free to be a dick head if you don’t wear it’ argument is no excuse for you to stop watching out for anyone not dressed as you think appropriate.
You are welcome to make up your mind and tell us what you really think.
bikeboy76 wrote:@Neil7523
You
Correct.
Incorrect. I don’t have a problem with riders choosing not to wear h-viz. I do have a problem with the endemic ridicule of hi-viz, encouraging people not to wear hi-viz who would otherwise do so. To continue this collective ridicule, when you’re being asked to stop, is extremely selfish.
Correct, the ridicule is endemic. Defending the right not to wear hi-vis is fine, and I also defend that right. But it doesn’t stop at that, does it? Don’t believe me? Just read all the comments on this forum again, jotting down all the insideous comments. it all stacks up to a sustained campaign amongst many campaigns. Riders don’t want that ridicule, avoid wearing hi-viz, and end up at greater risk. If you don’t get it, there’s no hope for you.
Sacasm and verbal abuse and missinterpreting my argument shouldn’t really be part of this debate.
If I am hit by a car, it is
If I am hit by a car, it is going to hurt, I am possibly going to be injured. I could even be killed.
Knowing that I had right of way at that roundabout will be no comfort to my family when I am dead. Being certain that I had right of way will be no comfort to me when I am in a wheelchair, have head injuries, or I am unable to walk for months until my injuries have healed.
So I just don’t want to have an accident. Should an accident happen to me, I want to be able to look myself in the eye in the mirror and know that I did everything that I could have done to prevent myself becoming a victim and especially from coming to serious harm.
So, I always wear a helmet. Of course they are not perfect or guaranteed to save you from serious head injuries in all circumstances, but wearing a correctly fitted, quality helmet could be the difference between slight concussion or living the rest of your life with a mental disability.
In my experience, much less than 1% of instances of bad driving is attributable to malicious psychos. Mostly it is attributable to carelessness, lack of concentration, poor spatial awareness, misjudgement of distance and speed etc. These people are not trying to kill other road users. When this type of driver says SMIDSY, I generally believe them.
So what do we do to improve the situation? Educating drivers to take driving seriously and give it their full attention at all times would be wonderful and I would give my full support for this type of campaign. But changing behaviour is always a very slow process. For example, after all the money and years spent on education campaigns, there are still plenty of people out there who think it is safe to drive after drinking alcohol.
So in the meantime, while I wait for all these less than perfect drivers to get their act together, the only thing that I can do as a vulnerable cyclist while I wait for all these dodgy drivers to change their ways is make myself as visible as possible. Apart from the tiny minority of psychos out there, I believe that if I have been seen by a driver, my chances of being hit by him/her are greatly reduced but obviously not impossible. I believe that a combination of Hi-Vis, Reflectors and lights increase my visibility to other road users in all weather conditions. I believe, as a driver, that cyclists wearing similar clothes are more visible to me than a Rapha clad Ninja on a matt black speed machine with no lights on at twilight, but if the latter attire works for you then go for it.
Apparently many cyclists do not share my opinion. Not a problem, I can live with that without resorting to childish insults. However, if you really feel that my decision to cycle around in ‘bizarre’ clothing looking like a ‘dayglo banana’ is selfish and/or silly and potentially increases my safety at the expense of yours… tough titty! I really have no sympathy for you.
I don’t have a monopoly on weird attire, it is freely available. If you choose not to wear it, you must live with the consequences. Don’t complain that you want the right to choose what you wear (which I fully support) and then disparage, insult and bully those who make an alternative choice. When you do that, it makes you look like a hypocrite.
I think that is my last word on this subject.
Neil753, I hear you. You talk a lot of sense.
@GoingRoundInCycles
The
@GoingRoundInCycles
The helmet debate is a whole other topic, but I don’t really agree with you on that either.
But I suggest you are mistaken if you think ‘helping’ motorists see you will really change much. They will just take that ‘help’ and segue it into a chance to pay even less attention to the road than they currently do. The danger you face will stay about the same. The solution lies elsewhere.
You are entirely entitled to carry on wearing what you want even as others say disparaging things about it. In fact I think it would be quite troubling if you let that alone make you change your mind about your choice.
Hell, I’ve had a (possibly deranged) ninja cyclist I encountered in the early hours of the morning once scream abuse at me merely because I had red lights on the back of my bike and was wearing a helmet (I think he was either looking for a fight or he’d just had a motorist abuse him for not having lights and wanted to take it out on someone). I don’t let that change my mind about things.
I even reserve the right to decide to wear high-viz if I one day decide I want to.
But Neil753 is coming from a position of not-so-subtly shifting responsibility from those who create the danger (motorists) to those who suffer from it (cyclists). I don’t think that constitutes ‘a lot of sense’.
(edited to remove excessively long quote!)
Neil,
Nice, so you can say
Neil,
Nice, so you can say what you want including vile equations comparing cyclists and sicks children; why don’t you address that point, that you are not right to use that comparison. It devalues everything you have said. But any contrary position is demonization and verbal abuse? Seems like someone hasn’t been on the internet very long where everyone has a robust opinion.
Neither have you addressed the fact you still suggest that I am putting others at risk by ‘choosing’ to wear the kind of clothes I have worn for the past 15 years and not choosing to wear what you deem appropriate. How lofty you must feel in your HGV cab. Everything you have said has a subtext of loathing and accusation and I refuse to accept the blame that you insist on pushing. I am not responsible for the day that YOU stop looking for anyone not wearing Hiviz. God help anyone out on the road that day.
Neil753
You are ‘spinning’ here. I’m not ‘negatively stereotyping’ those who wear hi-viz, that’s you creating a straw-man. I don’t much like high-viz, and choose not to wear it, but at no point have I said anything about the nature of those who wear it. I don’t know anything about them, after all.
Its entirely and absolutely up to them, I guess they draw a different line between personal fear of danger and a personal judgement of political principle. Everyone is free to make their own decision about what they wear on their own bodies, after all.
As I said, I wear a helmet, which is a compromise in itself (I’ve had people tut at me for wearing it). I also have a bike positively festooned with lights and reflective material because I got a bit carried away with the concept (and lights are so fantastically cheap now!).
I also think you are wrong-headed if you think ‘cycle cafes’ and the rest are so influential. The reality is the vast majority of people who might cycle, don’t, so what goes on in those tiny circles is not very important.
They certainly don’t have any influence on the hoodie-wearing kids who generally ride ninja-style round here, nor on people (mostly women for whatever reason) I know who just think high-viz (and helmets) are naff.
I’ve never had anything whateoever to do with any ‘cycle cafes’, yet I already disliked high-viz and helmets when I first took up cycling, precisely because it made cycling into some complicated hobby or special interest rather than a simple means of transport. Cycling is a means of transport for me, that replaced walking for the most part
You have it kind of backwards. People generally would rather not wear high-viz, the more its stressed that cyclists should do so, the more reluctant people will be to cycle (though that’s only a very minor part of it, the main deterrent by far is that the roads appear clearly too dangerous).
FluffyKittenofTindalos
Pehaps you have a bad memory – here’s some of your negative comments as a quick reminder:
“I think hi-viz looks silly”not worthy of any respect”
“lurid yellow”
“full hi-viz getup”
hi-viz day glo pink and yellow clown gear”
“marks out cyclists as an outgroup of oddballs”
“
“hi-viz wearing wierdos”
“lurid bright colours”
“it just marks you out as an outgroup”
“hi-viz is an insult too far”
“most people I know, especially women, think hi-viz and helmets are naff”
Either you genuinely can’t remember writing this stuff, or you just don’t see it as negative. Either way, you do seem to have a problem.
Then just let them, instead of doing everything you can to force your anti hi-viz opinion on them.
I hardly think you are qualified to tell me about cycle cafes, since you go on to declare:
“I’ve never had anything whateoever to do with any ‘cycle cafes'”.
(That made me laugh).
FluffyKittenofTindalos, you just try and stay safe out there.