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

[Bargepole23]

Because a car is about 5 times wider than a cyclist and therefore easy to see!!! if not impossible to miss? I agree with ChaznDave, if we make ourselves difficult to see we are asking for trouble. I've now read the arguments by the Cycling UK about perceived health benefits outweighing legislation but find it to be the flimsiest argument which ignores the safety of those who are cycling.

There have been plenty of Stats posted on this thread but there is a problem with Stats in that they tend to be quoted in a particular way. We have also been told that legislation is a barrier and led to believe it would prevent take up of cycling, however that seemed to change later as we are now told it just slows the take up down. Well if the latter is the case then there isn't a problem, and introducing legislation which clearly improves the safety of cyclists would surely be be a good thing.

As for HiViz making cycling look extremely dangerous..hmmm So the preferred option is not to tell them, and if they get knocked off to console them with the statement that it wasn't their fault as the driver should have been more observant??? I'm sure that will make them feel a whole lot better.

 

And yet drivers do fail to see other drivers and the consequences are sometimes catastrophic, and not just to the two cars concerned but to other cars as well.

 

Do you wear hi vis walking across a road, or even a zebra crossing? If not, why not?

[mike142sl]

And yet drivers do fail to see other drivers and the consequences are sometimes catastrophic, and not just to the two cars concerned but to other cars as well.

 

Do you wear hi vis walking across a road, or even a zebra crossing? If not, why not?

Because the risk is much much lower and HiViz it not required. Well done on identifying a hazard, but your risk assessment is poor.

[altus]

Given that hi-vis isn't the magical solution to poor observation skills that some people seem to think, maybe all cars should be fitted with the sort of other road user detection equipment that is being developed for self driving cars. If a driver pulls out on (or performs another dangerous manoeuvre close to) another road user they could be automatically prosecuted for driving without due care and attention.

[Bargepole23]

Because the risk is much much lower and HiViz it not required. Well done on identifying a hazard, but your risk assessment is poor.

 

In 2014, 446 pedestrians were killed in road accidents, and 113 cyclists.

 

I accept that the number of pedestrians crossing roads is higher than the number of cyclists on the roads.

 

If you are saying my risk assessment is poor you must have quantified the likelihood of occurance, frequency of exposure, consequences etc, to make that judgement.

 

Please post your findings so we can review them, both for cycling and for pedestrian crossings.

[mike142sl]

In 2014, 446 pedestrians were killed in road accidents, and 113 cyclists.

 

I accept that the number of pedestrians crossing roads is higher than the number of cyclists on the roads.

 

If you are saying my risk assessment is poor you must have quantified the likelihood of occurance, frequency of exposure, consequences etc, to make that judgement.

 

Please post your findings so we can review them, both for cycling and for pedestrian crossings.

As I said before - You're misusing Stats and very badly. 446 pedestrians! how many of those using a pedestrian crossing?

The risk of crossing the road at a crossing is very low because you can stop and check that the road is clear before crossing. If a car doesn't stop you are still safe because you haven't stepped out into the road, that element is in the hands of the pedestrian and therefore HiViz is not necessary. Being knocked off a bike is a very different scenario and involves the car driver being able to see the cyclist because there aren't other interventions such that you have with a pedestrian crossing. Your comparison is invalid.

[altus]

As I said before - You're misusing Stats and very badly. 446 pedestrians! how many of those using a pedestrian crossing?

The risk of crossing the road at a crossing is very low because you can stop and check that the road is clear before crossing. If a car doesn't stop you are still safe because you haven't stepped out into the road, that element is in the hands of the pedestrian and therefore HiViz is not necessary. Being knocked off a bike is a very different scenario and involves the car driver being able to see the cyclist because there aren't other interventions such that you have with a pedestrian crossing. Your comparison is invalid.

I suspect you meant 'paying sufficient attention and noticing the cyclist'. In the daylight scenario we've been talking about if a car driver is not able to see a cyclist on the road their eyesight must be below the standard required for driving.

[mike142sl]

I suspect you meant 'paying sufficient attention and noticing the cyclist'. In the daylight scenario we've been talking about if a car driver is not able to see a cyclist on the road their eyesight must be below the standard required for driving.

Maybe, unless the cyclist is 'effectively' camouflaged. I'm happy to claim I've never missed seeing a cyclist when pulling out of a junction, for various reasons I have a habit of double checking, however can any of us genuinely make that claim?

[cgksheff]

They said "Be seen. Be safe!".

 

So before going out at night, I put on my white trainers, my white trousers, white jacket and white helmet.

 

Off I went .........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

... and got hit by a snowplough!!!!!

[Guest makapaka]

I thought that was a bus lane - the one where all the roadworks/contraflow and so on is?

 

Anyway, I cut 10 minutes off my travel time to the station last night, by not using the cycle lane on Penistone Road. On a 25 minute journey that's quite a considerable proportion.

Would a motorist willingly increase journey time by a third to use a road that is poorly surfaced, interrupted by obstacles and takes you on a detour?

 

It was the unnecessary tailgating I was highlighting.

 

It is a bus lane which taxis and bikes can use.

 

I've no interest in how you get to work.

[ANGELFIRE1]

Re the post title, yes.

 

And be made to adhere to the rules of the road. And have insurance. And be made to have identification on the outer clothing visible to the public.

 

Angel1.