Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham has claimed there is a “growing debate” around making it compulsory for cyclists to wear high-visibility clothing – and has also implied that part of the cost of having more road space set aside for cycle lanes is that people on bikes need to take on more responsibility.
The Labour politician’s remarks, made during a phone-in on BBC Radio Manchester earlier today, have been criticised on social media not only by cycling campaigners, but also by roads police officers.
Highway Code Rule 59 does not require cyclists to wear hi-viz clothing, nor does it say they “should” do, simply stating that “Light-coloured or fluorescent clothing can help other road users to see you in daylight and poor light, while reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) can increase your visibility in the dark.”
But one caller to today’s radio phone-in, a taxi driver named Dave from Harpurhey who also said he cycles, told Burnham: “I can’t understand why it’s not compulsory to wear hi-viz when cycling.”
In response, the Mayor said: “There is a growing debate. If more road space is to be given it follows that more obligation is given on users too.”
Dave in Harpurhey, who is a taxi driver and cyclist, says: “I can’t understand why it’s not compulsory to wear a hi-vis” when cycling.
Andy responds: “There is a growing debate. If more road space is to be given it follows that more obligation is given on users too.”— Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham (@MayorofGM) November 3, 2022
While there may occasionally be calls for cyclists to have to wear hi-vis clothing – and to be registered or licenced, take out compulsory third party insurance cover, and wear helmets – many would consider that calling it a “growing debate” as Burnham did, is stretching things a bit.
Indeed, Chris Boardman, previously walking and cycling commissioner for Greater Manchester under Burnham before leaving earlier this year to head up the new body Active Travel England has consistently said that making it compulsory for cyclists to wear helmets and hi-vis clothing distract from initiatives proven to make the roads safer for people on bikes, such as building segregated cycle lanes.
In 2020, he told Telegraph.co.uk: “Messaging is something the car industry has known for decades. You don’t see a car advert with a car sitting in a traffic jam. You see it on big open roads.
“So we shouldn’t be showing cyclists in body armour and high-vis. We should show it how it can be. And cycling can be nice.
“The beauty of cycling is that it is simple. You can wear your work clothes and just ride to work. You don’t have to be sweating. You don’t need special clothes. That’s the bit we forget.”
Responding to Burnham’s comments today, one Twitter user retweeted a post by Surrey Police’s Road Policing Team from last November which included a picture of a patrol car that had been hit from behind by a driver, with the tweet saying that hi-viz is “Part of our uniform and part of H&S requirements. But those of us that have worked on the roads for years know how ineffective high viz is, especially in daytime. If drivers can’t see high viz WITH flashy lights as well, then just high viz is even less effective.”
— Andi (@ArmitageAndi) November 3, 2022
Another Twitter user retweeted a picture of a lorry that had struck a railway bridge, despite the latter carrying yellow and black hatching and warning that it had a very low clearance.
News just in: hi-vis ? is ?a ?load ?of ?bunkum ?& ?nothing ?more ?than ?pointless ?safety ?theatre ?demanded ?by ?shit ?drivers ?who ?wouldn’t ?notice ?it ?anway. pic.twitter.com/I7KCCKnWzq
— EricEatsPickles (@EricEatsPickles) November 3, 2022
Several Twitter users took issue with Burnham’s reference to a “growing debate,” while others pointed out that cyclists are allowed to use road space already, and allocating more of it to them in the form of segregated cycle lanes did not carry with it any additional responsibilities being placed on those who choose to get around by bike.
Utter nonsense. There’s no debate. Even if there were strong evidence that high viz works (there isn’t), why would cyclists have to buy it with the clothing they wear? If anything, once a cycle lane is created, there is less need for cyclists to make up for drivers failings.
— Jon (@Jontafkasi) November 3, 2022
I don’t get this “growing debate” angle? It’s projection. It’s not a debate about where people are permitted to ride, where best practice says they should ride, and what responsibility are placed on road users subject to licence. ??
— J.G. Bollard (@JamesNonchalant) November 3, 2022
Road space isn’t being ‘given’ to cyclists: they are entitled to use it as of right already. What is beginning to happen is that they are being enabled (in some places) to use it safely; which is what should be the case.
Nobody wears hi-viz in Amsterdam.— GMBasix (@BasixGM) November 3, 2022
It’s not the first time this year that Burnham has been pulled up by cyclists on social media after making inaccurate claims in a Q&A session on the local radio station.
In January we reported how, ahead of revisions to the Highway Code coming into effect, he had urged for the planned changes to be postponed, and also repeated the misconception that one of revisions permitted cyclists to ride “in the middle of the road,” rather than the middle of the lane – something that they were already allowed to do, with the new wording simply clarifying the issue.

78 thoughts on “Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham blasted after claiming there is a “growing debate” about compulsory hi-viz for cyclists”
Very disappointing.
Very disappointing. Obviously Andy learned nothing from St Chris.
Agree. He’s gone off the
Agree. He’s gone off the rails since Chris left.
In the early days it seemed
In the early days it seemed like Burnham really got active travel and had Boardman by his side.
Now he is back to the usual tropes about cycling in order to appease the motoring masses.
Aside from the fact that I
Aside from the fact that I don’t think regulations like this are at all desirable, how would you enforce rules around such clothing? How would you even define hi-vis? I do tend to wear fluorescent clothing by day and reflective clothing in low light. Fluorescent on its own is next to useless in the dark. Reflective by day doesn’t do a lot.
It’s a personal choice that I have made but I am not convinced that either makes a huge difference thanks to how many distracted drivers there are out there.
How about enforcing existing regulations like, say, those governing use of mobile phones while behind the wheel of a vehicle? Likely more effective in keeping us safe than silly, unworkable rules around precisely what shade of yellow our clothing ought to be.
ooblyboo wrote:
All of this. Totally unenforceable but will bring more ire down on cyclists who wear what they think is right for the journey.
Louder for the pricks at the back. THE BASTARDS CAN’T SEE MY HI-VIS BECAUSE THEY ARE LOOKING AT THEIR FUCKING PHONES!
ooblyboo wrote:
I’m not advocating for it, but this part is easy. There are already legal requirements for high visibility clothing on job sites, and (in the US) for hunting. They specify required reflectivity, square centimetres of reflective material and/or of fluorescent material, and manufacturers get items certified to the standard. Then, just like with helmets in Australia, you can be asked to prove you’re wearing one with the right sticker on it.
This cyclist should have been
This cyclist should have been wearing hi viz
(action starts at 30 seconds)
Very disappointing response
Very disappointing response from Andy Burnham. He really should not be putting out this sort of bullshit.
Sounds like the kind of
Sounds like the kind of “surfing the popular buzzwords” thing that a politician would emit. Maybe he’s reconsidering having a go in Westminster, given there’s looking like more chance of a Labour government. Maybe practicing the kind of guff that ministers are expected to produce daily…
If cyclists are to be
By what logic does giving cyclists more segregated road space mean that there would be an increased need for them to protect themselves against motorists? This smacks of petty vindictiveness, exacting a price.
A politician pandering to
A politician pandering to the smallest common denominator… What else is new?
Hang on, I thought we were a
Hang on, I thought we were a far left looney echo chamber. Surely we would never criticise a, and I quote, “lay bur” politician?
I ride with a guy who wears
I ride with a guy who wears “HI Viz”. We ride in the Cheshire lanes. Against all the greenery, it is effectively camo’.
Could try pink or orange.
Could try pink or orange.
Yeah, hi-viz is so effective
Yeah, hi-viz is so effective that when my brother was cycling on a beautiful summer afternoon (30 degrees and blue skies) wearing a luminous yellow top the off duty cop who took him out and left him with a crushed vertebrae didn’t manage to see him. If they don’t look they don’t see, irrespective of what you are wearing.
I’m not surprised he spouts
I’m not surprised he spouts such total drivel. He’s a politician.
ok ignoring the hi-viz angle
ok ignoring the hi-viz angle as I think everyone has covered it and Id just be repeating the points already made.
But are we not going to tackle the quid pro quo angle he is explicitly stating here “…If more road space is to be given it follows that more obligation is given on users too”
So we’re going to make it safer for you but in return demand you follow more rules ?!
Following his logic that the
Following his logic that the more complete the segregation the greater the need for HiViz, it should long since have been mandatory for pedestrians whose space is and always has been almost 100% segregated from motorists. ?
No motorway expansion until
No motorway expansion until no more “distracted” driving then?…
Hey! There’s a good idea!
Hey! There’s a good idea! Rights and responsibilities, that’s what some people like to emphasise isn’t it? So, caught using a phone while driving, your car is held in the pound and you’re issued with a Morris Minor / Citroen C5 for a month. Repeated offenses see you enjoying a cargo bike, one of those push-trolleys the posties get and (if learning fails to occur) finally a rucksac. There’s no quadruple jeopardy – you won’t be busted if caught on the phone while driving your bergen…
Sounds like a great plan!
Sounds like a great plan!
“caught using a phone while driving, your car is held in the pound and you’re issued with a Morris Minor / Citroen C5 for a month”
i assume you meant Sinclair C5 and if so can I get one for a month without having had to break the law?
NOtotheEU wrote:
Sorry, did someone say jet powered Sinclair C5? https://www.jetpower.co.uk/jet-powered-sinclair-c5/
That is exactly what teenage
That is exactly what teenage me was imagining the one time I had a go in a C5 back in the 80s!
Doh! I’d mashed up 2cv with
Doh! I’d mashed up Citroen 2CV with Sinclair C5… As for the Sinclair C5 I would advise against (although I really wanted one when younger). Have a play on a proper velomobile or other more fun recumbent instead! C5s are the mechanical version of Douglas Adams’ fictional products of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation – “their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.”
If not dissuaded there are sometimes a couple (!) of C5s that turn up to Edinburgh’s Critical Mass if you’re ever in the area. Often recumbents too (sometimes I’m on one) – Edinburgh’s a hot-bed (hot seat?) of recumbent ownership for some reason.
While on holiday many years
While on holiday many years ago we came across a go kart track full of C5s and my brother and I spent ages racing each other. Don’t remember anything else about the holiday but I’ve loved C5s ever since.
As for using one on the road today, I’m sure 5 minutes in rush hour traffic would remove my teenage rose tinted specs.
They still look really cool
They still look really cool on the critical mass rides, particularly those which have added sound systems! But then the average speed is likely less than 8mph and there’s a mass of other cyclists to protect you from traffic. And warn you if one of the painted lines on the road is a bit thick and you might get stuck. I don’t know how they haven’t fallen over and spontaneously combusted while traversing the tram tracks…
Id imagine C5s were very much
Id imagine C5s were very much along the same experience as e-scooterists get now, except you were sat down.
Try here.
Try here.
What happened to the modern C5 his family were planning. Used to appear at the cycle shows in 2017/2018.
Ah, the Iris eTrike you mean?
Ah, the Iris eTrike you mean?
https://www.grantsinclair.com/product-page/iris-etrike-electric-vehicle
Don’t know what happened but velos in general are hard to sell many of, being niche recumbents. (They’re niche even in NL). They sort of require a garage at either end of the journey – you’re not going to be carrying even the super light ones up a few flights of steps. Nor storing them in the hall. Sadly they attract a little too much attention. Plus high cost / difficult to replace / bodywork often easily damaged.
Some videos (old and new) on the site here:
https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/life/technology/old-school-electric-tricycle-sinclair-c5-has-had-modern-makeover/
Why not start with dingy cars
Why not start with dingy cars? There’s far more of them and they kill a lot more people. They need patterns that turn SMIDSY greys and sludgy colours into high contrast patches so that they’ll be seen against any background and other objects will be visible in front of them.
Andy Burnham needs to sit
Andy Burnham needs to sit back down so that the shit he spouts stays in his arse and doesn’t get heard
A strange viewpoint given
A strange viewpoint given that the whole point of improving infrastructure for cyclists is so they will be safer and need less “hi-viz”.
Surely at some point in the past few years Boardman showed him the Netherlands?
Personally, I’m pretty sure I
Personally, I’m pretty sure I’ve never ridden in the nib, so given I have no fundamental issue with wearing clothing (at least whilst out in public) and given that it is now dark and often rainy when I’m cycling, it really is no effort or hardship to wear an outer layer that confers warmth, protection from the elements and also happens to be conspicuous in the environment by being both a garish colour and incorporating some reflective panels.
As a driver, I get that I should be travelling at an appropriate speed, that deadfall and animals don’t wear high viz and that my headlights should be sufficient to make anything without it’s own local event horizon perfectly visible if I make the effort to look. However, as a driver I really want to be aware of the presence of other road users, especially pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists and those classed as ‘vulnerable’ at the earliest opportunity not at the minimum distance for a safe stop.
Would I be correct in thinking that for most of us, in cyclist mode, the issue with High Viz as spouted by non cyclists is not so much about offence to our fashion sensibilities but about the transfer of responsibility from those looking for an excuse for poor driving standards onto those most likely to suffer as a consequence of those poor attitudes?
“but about the transfer of
“but about the transfer of responsibility from those looking for an excuse for poor driving standards onto those most likely to suffer as a consequence of those poor attitudes?”
Yes thats the first and foremeost reason. The facile cop-out of any responsibility be it for drivers, road planners, politicians, car manufacturers, insurers, in short the whole sorry capitalist caboodle.
But it’s also intertwined with more personal issues, not least of all convenience. As a cyclist in all weathers and seasons I already have to lug around a not inconsiderable amount of equipment, from jacket to cap to gloves to rain protection to trouser clips to locks etc., and all of this is finetuned to afford me a maximum of confort even in the direst conditions withoput looking like someone straight out of a carnival store.
As someone who sweats easily I’ve put a not inconsiderable amount of study and trial and error into finding a set up that works for me to deeply resent someone throwing a spanner into my works in obliging me to put on an ugly PVC outer layer and styrofoam eggshell, hypocritically pretending it’s for my security while really trying to absolve themselves preemptively of any wrongdoing against me.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Exactly this. A friend happened to take this picture of me climbing Swain’s Lane the other day, which I think proves that I am not averse to making myself visible (for vanity’s sake I have to state that I had another bulky fleece on under the ProViz, it was freezing!); off the top of my head, here’s a list of things that I think are more important for my safety than wearing high viz:
Catching unlicensed drivers
Catching uninsured drivers
Removing non-MOT’d vehicles from the road
Building better cycling infra
Proper enforcement of close passing rules
Lower and more strictly policed speed limits
Cracking down on both drink and (especially) drug driving
Increased sanctions for mobile phone use while driving
Regular driver’s licence renewal to include retesting on highway code
Mandatory lifetime bans for serious driving offences
I’m sure there are plenty of others. As our resident troll so amply proves, the massive overemphasis on high viz has nothing to do with rider safety and everything to do with people who simply hate cyclists finding a stick with which to beat them.
This why in lockdown for the
This why in lockdown for the spring/summer I decided to get a pink top !
(Oh, I see you are cycling in the middle of the road !)
hirsute wrote:
It’s a oneway street (which is lucky because I seldom get halfway up before I have to start weaving!).
I have also got a very garish
I have also got a very garish pink top from stolen goat for summer. It doesn’t get me many positive comments but I do feel that it’s pretty visible.
Is that a minature bike or
Is that a minature bike or are you a very big person? It looks like me riding a toddler bike.
I am 6 foot tall/80kgs, it’s
I am 6 foot tall/80kgs, it’s a 56 cm frame bike, probably an optical illusion with the high viz making my upper half look bigger.
Time for a slight update for
Time for a slight update for this classic. With apologies to its creator for complicating the message!
Are you sure you saved the
Are you sure you saved the file correctly? I can’t see any amendments…
???
???
Bravo! Just like this driver
Bravo! Just like this driver!
From here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-61756009
I quite often disagree with
I quite often disagree with you on stuff, but that is an excellent list.
Especially this one:
>Regular driver’s licence renewal to include retesting on highway code
Now we have 10 year renewals it would be a very good thing to get CE for all drivers.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I think this is a huge one, and largely ignored until tragedy forces it to the fore. I honestly was shocked, walking into town recently, at the sheer number of motorists I saw happily using their phone. I’m sure most were not drunk or drugged, so mobile phone use has to be way ahead of those factors. And it was plain to see that many of those immersed in their phones whilst crawling in traffic did not desist when the traffic cleared. They either did the WhatsApp Gap thing and surged belatedly forwards in a fluster, or more commonly simply continued to time-share their attention as they picked up speed. Together with the 30mph limit, it seems the consensus is that these are not laws to be observed or enforced, merely aggravating factors in the event of an “accident”.
Sriracha wrote:
I think the easiest and most effective way of dealing with drivers using mobile phones is to streamline the reporting of them from the public and also provide a “finders fee” from successful prosecution of them. It seems that automated speed cameras are trusted enough to issue fines etc. so I don’t see why we can’t incentivise people to capture drivers (with identifying licence plate). That way, anyone feeling the pinch of new, improved austerity can hop on a bike and earn some extra money whilst also making the roads safer.
“making it compulsory for
“making it compulsory for cyclists to wear high-visibility clothing“
How about “making it compulsory for drivers to have an eye test every five years”. They’re the ones in charge of two tonnes of metal moving at speed. If they can see a cyclist they’re not going to see a young mum and their pram either.
Or the pedestrian on the
Or the pedestrian on the opposite side of the road walking towards traffic without a pavement.
Nearly got taken out in Ambridge today, walking in a residential area between footpaths. Into sun, motorist saw parked van so carefully pulled around it in good time behind me, oblivious to me, and I even hung back to avoid being next to the van ahead. Was less than a foot away at 30mph (2 metres and slow? No!), having a good drag on his fag. Car labelled up with orange signage for bouncy castles or other children’s entertainment.
This is not about cyclists, it’s about crap driving
IanMSpencer wrote:
Ambridge? I heard that story on repeat! (Well I would have done if my reflexes aren’t tuned to switch off Radio 4 as soon as I hear the music).
Or were you in America?
Inkberrow, to be honest,
Inkberrow, to be honest, which has The Old Bull and The Bull’s Head just to double up the tourist opportunity.
Capt Sisko wrote:
Sadly the responsibility to report notifyable health defects rests with each license holder. How many license holders are both aware of this responsibility and actually do it is known only to DVLA.
Whilst I don’t accept the Daily Fail narrative that older drivers are always dangerous, there is scientific evidence of how our faculties diminish with age so that regular testing is justified.
The general denial of responsibility is a problem of selfishness and stupidity more than a medical defect.
Following on from Rendel’s
Following on from Rendel’s photo-post below, the question for me is: given I am already fully attired in a variety of highly visible clothes on a bike which in turn has highly visible colouring, what’s my next step given the number of incidents that occur.
Visibility is not the issue when the vast majority of incidents occur when a driver is well aware of the cyclist.
IanMSpencer wrote:
And most of the remaining ones are when they are not looking.
My anecdotal research from
My anecdotal research from social media is that hi viz is harder to see than black clothing.
– I see plenty of posts from cyclists saying they were hit or suffered near misses, despite the fact that they were wearing hi viz (not to mention examples like the bridge and police cars in the article).
– And I see even more posts from motorists complaining about the cyclists they saw wearing black.
So black (and even better, no lights as well) is better than hi viz.
No, you are just not seeing
No, you are just not seeing the posts from cyclists not wearing hi viz whilst at their keyboards.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Ah, but you saw my post and I’m not wearing hi viz.
According to your avatar on
According to your avatar on this site, only your bike is visible. Although I can only see that because I am a very infrequent driver.
Clearly all those wearing black have been killed already so they couldn’t post…
chrisonatrike wrote:
I’m wearing hi viz in my avatar.
Steve, don’t rely on
Steve, don’t rely on anecdotes, you can use scientific fact! After a series of mid-air collisions in training, the RAF conducted extensive research into what would be (on balance) the best colour to paint the training fleet to maximise their visibility. Take a look at a ‘photo of any (non-Red Arrows) RAF Hawk, now painted in gloss black.
BTW, the “gloss” bit is important!
Indeed so! Caveat –
Indeed so! Caveat – visibility against the day-time sky. But it makes you wonder whether any similar research (as opposed to mere conjecture) has been done in the case of visibility of cyclists to motorists.
Sriracha wrote:
From my anecdata, it clearly shows that cyclists are only visible if there’s a nearby cycle lane (magic paint included) that’s not being used.
Manchester resident, and
Manchester resident, and lifelong Labour voter. Well they can do one. Lib Dem or Green next time, unless Burnham buggers off to the Tories or UKIP where asshats dogwhistling to the lowest common denominator are usually found.
.
.
But, but, but ….
.
A Lay Bah mayor. A LAYYYY Bah mayor.
.
How can that possibly be?
.
What has sheep got to do with
What has sheep got to do with this?
Sorry you are far too slow.
Sorry you are far too slow. I’d point ed this out yesterday.
If you’re expecting Labour or
If you’re expecting Labour or the Tories to be pro-cycling you haven’t been paying attention
“Another Twitter user
“Another Twitter user retweeted a picture of a lorry that had struck a railway bridge…”
Self-driving lorry?
Or should it be
“Another Twitter user retweeted a picture of a lorry stuck under a railway bridge after the driver apparently didn’t see the “hi-viz” paint..”
http://rc-rg.com
I wonder what proportion of
I wonder what proportion of “I didn’t see them” responses to the police are from drivers who deliberately tried to intimidate a cyclist in some way?
I’m guessing that a large percentage of SMIDSYs where some vague apology is given are actually “SMIDIDSY and I haven’t got the guts to say I did it deliberately now I realise I am talking to a human being rather than a blob on a bike.”
Or after they have talked to
Or after they have talked to their lawyer having chosen to make no comment at the time of the incident.
The lawyer can convey their sincere remorse as well.
And right on cue:
And right on cue:
https://road.cc/content/news/driver-blamed-victims-not-riding-single-file-297133
And who can blame them. By claiming they did not see the cyclist, it falls to the cyclist to prove that the motorist must have seen them – quite a difficult thing to do even if you are still alive. If this motorist had not blurted out that the cyclists were two abreast he might have got away with the SMIDSY.
4 years ago I was cycling to
4 years ago I was cycling to work wearing a high vis jacket high vis helmet and high vis shoes. The sun was in the sky. I got hit from behind and my cycle was then run over and trashed. Luckily I got knocked to the side and escaped with minor injuries.
The driver saw me then he said he couldn’t see me then he accelerated and hit me.
hutchdaddy wrote:
I wonder if this is the flip side of the phenomenon whereby cyclists are known to [i]materialise[/i] “out of nowhere”? I guess it therefore makes equal sense that they could likewise dematerialise into nowhere, leaving the coast clear for the motorist to accelerate into the now empty space.
Basic indeterminacy of
Basic indeterminacy of Schroedinger’s cyclist, innit? The clearer you are on where the cyclist is (in the middle of the *$%&$£! road!) the less idea you have of their speed. So after passing one in a motor vehicle or when setting off across the road as a pedestrian it’s shocking when they “suddenly appear”. If you know the speed (“really fast … racing … much too fast”) then you probably only have a dim idea of where they were (“I didn’t realise I’d hit them”).
You’re right in one way though – if we fix it for more people to cycle some journeys (including some longer trips too) all of a sudden drivers might find less congestion and safer, faster travel. Perhaps the streets weren’t too narrow after all? It was just we prioritised an inefficient way to use them.
I think that would be
I think that would be Heisenberg’s cyclist?
TBNVF Burnham is the Vicar of
TBNVF Burnham is the Vicar of Bray slopey-shouldered 2022 edition.
I was listening to him being interviewed about the report on the Manchester Stadium bombing, and his dedication to blaming causes from outside Manchester or outside his time running Manchester was a remarkable performance.
Thank goodness they are all
Thank goodness they are all in hi viz !!
https://mobile.twitter.com/thijsniks/status/1588987670356668417
Terrible, stopping all those
Terrible, stopping all those in poverty from getting to work, all those chemotherapy patients, people probably having strokes and all of those emergency vehicles from getting through…