- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham (screenshot)Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham blasted after claiming there is a “growing debate” about compulsory hi-viz for cyclists
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.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- froze 2 hours 11 min ago
Just my opinion, but sorry that bike is UGLY! I can't see that sort of price for a completed bike, not alone for just the frame and fork!...
- Boopop 2 hours 49 min ago
I find it deeply jarring and disappointing that Sir David agrees with these people not wanting a cycle lane. Whenever I watch one of his excellent...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 58 min ago
May need insurance, tax and a licence. No problem with the lights though.
- Simon E 3 hours 14 min ago
Yes, they look just like the Lezyne Zecto model. My club bought a couple of sets from the LBS for our midweek TTs so if someone turns up without...
- Hirsute 5 hours 45 min ago
If you can't see a %^$&ing large tractor what ^%$£"!*ing hope is there that you will see a cyclist ?...
- chrisonabike 6 hours 3 min ago
Well if you *can* interview the original riders at all surely they worked, at least?...
- David9694 6 hours 32 min ago
Live: Car plunges over wall and lands on beach rocks...
- biking59boomer 6 hours 38 min ago
Looks like yet another bike share service that's going to fold because of selfish idiots.
- brooksby 11 hours 45 min ago
And finally: I wonder how many of the "more than 3,000" signatures on that petition are actually locals, who live or work there (and are not just...
Add new comment
78 comments
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.
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 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.
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 spring/summer I decided to get a pink top !
(Oh, I see you are cycling in the middle of the road !)
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 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 are you a very big person? It looks like me riding a toddler bike.
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 this classic. With apologies to its creator for complicating the message!
Are you sure you saved the file correctly? I can't see any amendments...
👏👏👏
Bravo! Just like this driver!
From here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-61756009
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.
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".
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.
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?
Andy Burnham needs to sit back down so that the shit he spouts stays in his arse and doesn't get heard
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.
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 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 more "distracted" driving then?...
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!
"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?
Sorry, did someone say jet powered Sinclair C5? https://www.jetpower.co.uk/jet-powered-sinclair-c5/
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 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 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 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 along the same experience as e-scooterists get now, except you were sat down.
Pages