Should cyclists be required to wear High-Visibility Vests or Jackets?

[Cyclone]

You're wrong though aren't you BC. Flashing lights are clearly not necessary. I could cycle tonight with solid lights only. What do you think 'necessary' actually means, you seem to have confused it with your opinion about what is desirable.

 

You are free to encourage the use of hi vis, I haven't suggested otherwise. Encourage away (although you agree that they do not add to safety, so I still don't understand why you persist in arguing).

 

If it became NECESSARY through legislation then it would clearly be a barrier to cycling.

 

My two statements about barriers are entirely consistent. I can't think of any way that a new thing (device, requirement, whatever) could somehow become necessary without it being made a legal requirement. Bikes won't suddenly need a new gizmo without which they will not work... Nothing that hasn't been necessary all alone can somehow just become necessary. Not unless you redefine necessary to mean something else anyway.

 

necessary

ˈnɛsəs(ə)ri/Submit

adjective

1.

needed to be done, achieved, or present; essential.

"they granted the necessary planning permission"

synonyms: obligatory, requisite, required, compulsory, mandatory, imperative, demanded, needed, called for, needful; More

2.

determined, existing, or happening by natural laws or predestination; inevitable.

 

Wheels are necessary, legally brakes are necessary, most else is optional even if desirable.

[petemcewan]

Cycle lights are not a legal requirement when sold or purchased. They are a legal requirement when cycling in the dark.

 

---------- Post added 05-07-2017 at 12:49 ----------

 

 

The reasons why you're wrong have already been explained in detail.

 

So they should be displayed when cycling at night-like when cycling on the road from Sheffield to Hathersage?. I think anybody- in their right mind -who has driven or cycled that road at night; would agree that lights and high vis would make it a less hazardous experience for the cyclists and the drivers.

If you can see them you won't hit them. If you can't see them you may hit them.

Edited July 6, 2017 by petemcewan

[Penistone999]

 

Number of times I've witnessed havoc caused by cyclist: 0

Number of times I've been threatened and physically attacked by motorists with chips on their shoulders: 8

 

You obviously dont drive very often .

 

I has a run in with one today on Penistone Rd at the Rutland Rd traffic lights. Sat at the lights one came between me and another car and rode straight through the red light.

 

So when i caught up with the lunatic at the next lights i made sure the gap between me and the other car wasnt big enough for him to get through.

 

Now if a motorist runs a red light , its a fine time , yet the two wheeled idiots get away with it.

[Cyclone]

I routinely see cars run lights, none of them appear to get magically fined.

 

---------- Post added 07-07-2017 at 07:34 ----------

 

So they should be displayed when cycling at night-like when cycling on the road from Sheffield to Hathersage?. I think anybody- in their right mind -who has driven or cycled that road at night; would agree that lights and high vis would make it a less hazardous experience for the cyclists and the drivers.

If you can see them you won't hit them. If you can't see them you may hit them.

 

Of course lights should be used at night. Nobody disagrees with that.

[Fogey]

Much of the problem with this seems to be that while motorists and cyclists both have 'should' and 'must' rules that are supposed to govern their conduct under the highway code only motorists are charged with knowing the rules. I do believe that cyclists should be required to demonstrate a knowledge (via a test perhaps) that they know how to conduct themselves when on a cycle. I am also increasingly convinced seeing the conduct of many cyclists that they should be properly trained in something akin to the hazard perception test for the good of themselves and others. Improper conduct on a cycle can cause dangerous situations and I don't buy the argument that it's OK because it has health benefits and therefore you should be allowed to do it where you want causing inconvenience and danger to other road users and pedestrians.

 

IF cyclists were required/expected to obey the rules in the same way as motorists it is surprising to read the highway code and realise just how much of the 'should' requirements in particular would alleviate many of the concerns raised here and subsequently shot down by those who claim it is a barrier to cycling. There are 'requirements' under the heading 'should' that you wear light or fluorescent clothing and specifically reflective clothing in the dark, you MUST have lights in the dark and there are recommendations about when and where to have flashing lights.

 

As a cyclist and a motorist seeing more and more cyclists on the road acting irresponsibly I am becoming more convinced that cyclists need to know how to use the road, they often need a better awareness of what they are doing.

 

None of which detracts from the belief that I think the same of many motorists I encounter, and I accept that I am of course not perfect and do make mistakes.

[ads36]

again, those countries that enjoy the benefits of high cycling participation rates don't require people to pass a test before they can ride a bike.

 

at what age would the test be required?

 

12?

 

16?

 

4?

 

bikes are a great way for kids to get themselves around without the taxi of mumndad.

 

asking what rules we can make up for cyclists to obey is missing the massive opportunity we have to help people use a cheap, healthy, quick, city-suitable, accessible mode of transport.

[scottf]

It may have been already mentioned on this thread but i still can't believe it's not a legal requirement to wear a helmet.

[El Cid]

Much of the problem with this seems to be that while motorists and cyclists both have 'should' and 'must' rules that are supposed to govern their conduct under the highway code only motorists are charged with knowing the rules.

 

The rules for cyclists must be flexible, otherwise we would have 3 year olds being fined for cycling on the pavement.

[Fogey]

again, those countries that enjoy the benefits of high cycling participation rates don't require people to pass a test before they can ride a bike.

 

at what age would the test be required?

 

12?

 

16?

 

4?

 

bikes are a great way for kids to get themselves around without the taxi of mumndad.

 

asking what rules we can make up for cyclists to obey is missing the massive opportunity we have to help people use a cheap, healthy, quick, city-suitable, accessible mode of transport.

 

Do those countries generally allow cyclists to ride on pavements or is it a legal requirement that they can not do so?

 

I would set the test as a requirement to use a cycle on the roads alongside motor vehicles, rather than at a specific age.

 

Cycles are indeed a great way for children to get around but we do not generally require children to 'not cycle on the pavement' which technically is the legal requirement. I suspect if it doesn't cause a problem for relatively undisciplined children to cycle at will on pavements then cyclists could probably be allowed to cycle on pavements with cyclists causing no more danger to pedestrians than motorists cause to cyclists.

 

I am not suggesting that we make up rules for cyclists but that perhaps the ones we have should be enforced. If more people are going to cycle then regardless of whatever benefits the activity offers greater consideration is going to have to be made by everybody involved.

[El Cid]

I am not suggesting that we make up rules for cyclists but that perhaps the ones we have should be enforced. If more people are going to cycle then regardless of whatever benefits the activity offers greater consideration is going to have to be made by everybody involved.

 

Like parking on pavements, cars get away with that, despite it being illegal to obstruct or drive on a pavement