Met Police denies operation issuing hi-vis to cyclists was ‘victim-blaming’

In my opinion, hi viz only 'works' because it is unusual. If more and more people and objects are covered in hi viz it will cease to be unusual.

In a sea of hi viz, black will stand out. 

Whatever people wear, it still requires people to look and react appropriately and hi viz doesn't help with either.

I cycle through Bath every day and the biggest problem (imo) is pedestrians/drivers who simply aren't looking!

All the hiviz in the world ain't gonna help if you're driving/walking along and you're not paying attention to your surroundings - I could be cycling along on fire but if someone walks out in the road and they're not looking then we're still gonna collide... same applies to cars pulling out

Hampshire Police's form for reporting close passes asks what you were wearing if you're a cyclist or a horse rider (but not if you're a motorcyclist or a pedestrian). It also asks cyclists if they had their lights on - which seems fair enough, but it doesn't ask you that if you're a driver or a motorcyclist.

Replace 'helmet' with 'hi-viz' and 'driver' with 'Met police' .. 

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2017/08/25/punishment/

Give the Police a break, for goodness sake.  They have to draw a balance - and the simple fact is most of the time, hi-viz makes it a bit easier for drivers to spot cyclists.  There are too many distracted / lazy drivers out there - sure.  For my self-preservation I want the best possible chance of them seeing me.  Sorry, but all the time society thinks road safety is a low priority - as it currently does - getting the drivers to all behave impeccably aint' going to happpen. 

From my experience Hi-Vis makes absolutely no difference to whether you can be seen by a car.

Take my example, on a cycle to work, waiting to turn right at this junction 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.0800904,-3.6275129,3a,75y,125.63h,71.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKRKfAFcYgw-l9vMH-Nl4nQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 

Stopped on my side of the road, with Provis Reflect 360 jacket on, and 300 lumen front light on, I spotted a driver coming (about 5 seconds they were in my field of vision) and despite my Hi-Vis and me being stopped they still managed to run into me. 

Submitted video footage to the police - and they pretty much went - were you injured?  because I said no they said they would refer it to their Sgt for review as to whether it warranted prosecution.

On the back of the jackets "Look twice for Bikes".  Oh the irony.

I usually wear hi-viz, just so you can see the self doubt on a driver’s face when they give the SMIDSY excuse 

I actually feel like I’m blending in, because so many people do wear it in their employment nowadays. Even disability carers do. I do think it being so commonplace has reduced its effectiveness. I’ve had hi-biz jerseys since the late 80’s, but it makes no difference to driver behaviour now.

The thing I do not like about this approach is that it seems to be reverse nudge theory. It's shifting the onus to cyclists (the most vulnerable) and away from drivers. Whereas there should be nudges to get drivers to pay attention, to look properly, to understand the restrictions on vision from internal pillars and how to overcome them.
It just seems that this route gives drivers an excuse rather than insuring that they discharge their responsibilities.
I think everyone should have lights. For one thing, I want to know there is something ahead beyond the range of my lights or vision (depending on transport mode).

The comments that get me are "I believe a dangerous drivers must never be excused because the cyclist was not wearing hi-viz". Whilst I don't agree that the Police should be handing them out, I think the fact that the above can and does get used to get drivers off serious offences is the bigger crime here. And that is down to the Way the police record these instances, the prosecution, the judges and the juries allowing it as a legitimate defence tactic. 

What I'd like to know is, what will the "safety" groups suggest once all cyclists are head to toe in day glo/reflective, alongside retina burning lights becomes normal and drivers still close pass/hit cyclists?

I prefer normal colours (decently bright red etc.) to high viz during the day, and properly reflective stuff at night (I have a long dark commute on country roads).

I also have  dynamo lights which are always on - useful when riding country roads where I'm going in and out of deeply shaded regions.

High viz is not always effective. I encountered some horse riders last summer when driving on a wooded country lane, all wearing yellow/green high viz. The high viz actually camouflaged them in the prevailing light conditions and made them hard to spot. Non high-viz but other brightly coloured clothing would have worked better. I politely told them this.

All the above doesn't counter the fact that drivers have to actually be looking and paying attention.

Well hi viz did not work for me. A couple of Sundays ago I was riding through Silkstone and despite me wearing a hi viz jacket, luminous green helmet and flashing daytime running lights a ped walked straight out in front of me, bringing me down. Of course me being a cyclist, I was naturally to blame for riding too fast (about 20 mph) according to one female witness who then went on to berate me for not having indicators. Go figure. Anyhoo no damage to the bike (Ti is sooo durable) but I am sporting the mother of all bruises on my jacksie.

Hi Vis does make cyclists safer. The large scale randomised controlled trial referenced in the article showed this fairly conclusively.

Despite this it still only partially compensates for some of the poor driving we encounter.

The police have the power to make cyclists safer by removing poor drivers from the road, the time they allocate to handing out Hi Vis could be better spent doing just that.

I don't have a problem with this. I support this initiative by the police. I wear reflective jackets and I use lights. It doesn't stop the idiots from hooting, cutting me up, telling me to get out the effing road (nothing will and the Police could and should spend more energy on these road users. And the majority of road users are not like that ) When I'm cycling around and in the distance I can just about make out a ninja cyclist all in black i do think that a little bit of 'hi viz' or lights would enhance their visibility.

https://road.cc/content/news/271191-hit-and-run-driver-who-killed-cyclis...

Perhaps cars should be banned if it saves one life.

How about training motorists to actually look where they are going. After all, they make black cars don;'t they? And the motorists can see them. Perhaps the police could fund a smartphone app which enabled drivers to see where they are going whilst they are staring at the phone in their lap.

It is clear that some police officers are concerned about the safety of cyclists, but that they take the windscreen perspective of the driver i.e. it is the cyclists' fault for not being visible enough.  All the evidence that I've seen disproves this, but, like helmets, the evidence is either not known, or is ignored.

If Detective Superintendent Andy Cox really wants to make cyclists safe, he'll be concentrating all his resources into the cause of the risks to them; drivers, not wasting those resources on futile measures to protect the victims.

So, why don't they carry this approach through to other areas of police work? They could start handing out stab-proof vests to gang members.

I think CyclingMikey aka Bike Gandalf's reply was the best.