Third of cyclists support mandatory hi-viz clothing claims survey

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

a.jumper wrote:

Andrewwd wrote:

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.

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.

Wow there are some seriously nasty comments in this thread but this one takes the biscuit.

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

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

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" ?

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-teen... - 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-... - which then led to
the ministry considering making it mandatory http://road.cc/content/news/76314-nz-ministry-transport-considering-coro...

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 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?)

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 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

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

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" ?

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.

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/

Quote:

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 ....

What?!!! 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?

Quote:

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?)

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.

Quote:

Lights and reflectives on the bike: OK. Dressing up like a dayglo banana: not OK.

Sorry, I shall obey my conscience and face the consequences mein Führer.

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

a.jumper wrote:

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.

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.

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: 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.

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 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...

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, 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.

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 wrote:

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.

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.

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 wrote:

Neil753 wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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 wrote:

bikeboy76 wrote:

Neil753 wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

I 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 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.

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 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.

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-... for example) does not include any recommendations to force active people to wear certain clothes.

Neil753 wrote:

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.

Er... and where does that leave those who deliberately expose _others_ to higher risk, by choosing to drive?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Neil753 wrote:

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.

Er... and where does that leave those who deliberately expose _others_ to higher risk, by choosing to drive?

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 wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Neil753 wrote:

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.

Er... and where does that leave those who deliberately expose _others_ to higher risk, by choosing to drive?

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?

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 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.

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.

BigBear63 wrote:

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.

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. 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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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?