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

[Berberis]

Would that be this by any chance?

 

http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/

 

---------- Post added 05-07-2017 at 10:42 ----------

 

According to the article I've just loinked to above, yes he would have been.

 

 

In my view both motorists AND cyclists need to be aware of the dangers and adapt their behaviour accordingly.

 

I suspect the only opposition to any safety measures are by a small minority of cyclists who feel any form of change is an intrusion. It was the same when motorbike helmets were introduced. Some opposed them but now they are the norm and who can say how many lives have been saved. Could a hi-vis jacket or mandatory lights have the same effect for cyclists? Personally if they saved one life, it's worth it.

[SnailyBoy]

You don't know the situation. Sometimes it is hard to see cyclists - i once pulled out in front of a cyclist when I was cycling, he almost hit me. I simply didn't see him and I did look. There was a lorry behind him with very bright lights, it completely swamped the cyclist's lights. You can run around shouting at drivers for not looking hard enough but ultimately this just exacerbates the cyclist bashing problem that we have in this country. It is the responsibility of cyclists as well as drivers to understand the issue of cyclists being not very visible.

 

The OP admitted they were at fault in the first post.

 

---------- Post added 05-07-2017 at 10:54 ----------

 

Im honestly not trying to. Im only trying to look at the bigger picture. To me its irrespective of the actions of the cyclist if he was on the pavement or not. What I'm concerned with is if he was wearing a hi-vis jacket or vest, would i have been more likely to have seen him. I suspect I would have even if he was in the wrong place and to me this is important. I would wish to avert any form of accident no matter who's fault it was.

 

In reference to pedestrians and motorcyclists. Pedestrians are not required to walk on the road so they are not road users in the same sense as a cyclist. Motorcyclists are legally required to wear safety equipment designed to prevent injury of they are involved in an accident. The bikes also have a number of safety measures that are legally required and checked when they undergo an MOT. Cyclists use the roads but are not required to wear safety equipment and their bikes do not undergo checks for safety either. The comparison is neither fair and only points to the disparity between cyclists and other road users.

 

My only concern is for the safety of cyclists who I fear are the most vulnerable of road users, especially in a city such as ours.

 

 

Should motorcyclists be mandated to wear high viz clothing?

[Cyclone]

I know there are those who will oppose any change to how cyclists ride on the roads, but after todays near accident, which was my fault. I'm certain if the cyclist was wearing a high visibility jacket I would have seen him.

 

I pulled out of a junction and did not see the guy until after he had passed in front of me. The low light and his dark clothing made him difficult to see It was my fault, but I suspect, if he was wearing something more visible I would have seen him. His dark grey top on a slightly light grey bike with out a helmet, made him very difficult to see in the low light at approx 7am today.

 

Many cyclists do wear either bright clothing or high visibility jackets or vests, but should this be mandatory? I think so, going by personal experience.

 

No.

No more so than all cars should be painted fluorescent yellow.

 

There are many reasons, starting with "I don't want to", but more importantly including that it would be a barrier to cycling (ie put some people off) and we want to reduce barriers, not increase them. The more cyclists there are on the roads, the safer it gets as drivers get more used to driving safely around them.

If it's gloomy or dark, then the law requires cyclists to have lights. That's entirely reasonable and would have meant you'd seen this cyclist.

 

Hopefully he's okay and you're not too badly shaken.

[altus]

I suspect the only opposition to any safety measures are by a small minority of cyclists who feel any form of change is an intrusion. It was the same when motorbike helmets were introduced. Some opposed them but now they are the norm and who can say how many lives have been saved. Could a hi-vis jacket or mandatory lights have the same effect for cyclists? Personally if they saved one life, it's worth it.

Do you advocate car occupants wearing helmets? After all "if they saved one life, it's worth it".

 

My experience of wearing hi-vis stuff and not whilst cycling is that it only seems to make a small difference. I refer to my hi-vis jacket as my cloak of not quite so invisibility. Things like road positioning seem to have a greater effect on reducing the number of people pulling out on you.

[Daven]

No.

No more so than all cars should be painted fluorescent yellow.

 

There are many reasons, starting with "I don't want to", but more importantly including that it would be a barrier to cycling (ie put some people off) and we want to reduce barriers, not increase them. The more cyclists there are on the roads, the safer it gets as drivers get more used to driving safely around them.

If it's gloomy or dark, then the law requires cyclists to have lights. That's entirely reasonable and would have meant you'd seen this cyclist.

 

Hopefully he's okay and you're not too badly shaken.

 

Serious question - why would mandatory wearing of high vis / fluorescent clothing for cyclists put some people off cycling ?

[carboy42]

You pays your money you takes your chance. I cycle and skateboard (electric in traffic) and I don't wear high vis clothing. i do wear a helmet though and have lights and try to be sensible. Sick to death of this nanny state of its always someone else fault. Take some F'ing responsibility.

[altus]

Serious question - why would mandatory wearing of high vis / fluorescent clothing for cyclists put some people off cycling ?

For the same reason pedestrians don't wear hi-vis clothing all the time even though it will make them more visible when crossing the road.

[Cyclone]

cars have to have working external lighting systems. Bikes do not. Maybe the question by OP should be rephrased to should cyclists be forced to have lights and use them in low light and at night?

 

Legally that requirement already exists. Any moderately sensible cyclists already does use lights. Anything else is just asking for trouble.

 

---------- Post added 05-07-2017 at 11:51 ----------

 

Absolutely they should have to wear these , anything to make them look as daft as the "Mock racer lycra" get ups most of them wear:hihi: and whilst we are talking about what cyclists should do they should also have to be insured and registered and pay a usage fee for their special cycle lanes.

 

We'll get right on that.

Obviously first you'll have to pay a special fee to use motorways.

And then I'll get my rebate on not using my insured and taxed car everyday when I cycle to work.

I think overall I'll be getting money back.

 

---------- Post added 05-07-2017 at 11:52 ----------

 

The cyclist wasn't invisible but not as visible as he might have been if he'd been wearing bright colours or reflective items.

I really don't understand why all cyclists dont wear clothing that allows them to be more visible - bit of a no brainer really

 

Do you not understand why people buy dull coloured cars? Or why pedestrians aren't wearing hi vis when they cross the road?

 

---------- Post added 05-07-2017 at 11:54 ----------

 

If wearing a hi-vis jacket saves one life, is that not a good thing? To most I suspect its acceptable, to the minority, militant, cyclists who think that everyone else is at fault except them, this argument will never gain any traction and this is why their point of view isn't worth paying attention to.

 

It's only acceptable in this trivially simple analysis of the situation.

If in reality it decreases uptake of cycling then ultimately it causes more harm than it prevents.

How you can attempt to dismiss the opinions of cyclists when you've just hit a cyclists is beyond me, have a bit of humility for christs sake.

 

---------- Post added 05-07-2017 at 11:59 ----------

 

I suspect the only opposition to any safety measures are by a small minority of cyclists who feel any form of change is an intrusion.

You're wrong though.

There are very good reasons to not introduce barriers to cycling.

Personally if they saved one life, it's worth it.

 

This argument is clearly nonsense. There is a cost benefit to any measure.

National speed limits of 15 mph would save no end of lives. But "if it saves one life it's worth it" clearly doesn't apply.

Anyway, barriers to cycling, like uncomfortable, unpleasant high vis clothing would most likely actually cause harm on balance.

 

---------- Post added 05-07-2017 at 12:00 ----------

 

Serious question - why would mandatory wearing of high vis / fluorescent clothing for cyclists put some people off cycling ?

 

Because it's something extra to purchase, something extra to remember, not pleasant, warm (er than not wearing it), not good looking, etc...

[El Cid]

Because it's something extra to purchase, something extra to remember, not pleasant, warm (er than not wearing it), not good looking, etc...

 

Perhaps a hi-vis should be a legal requirement when the bike is sold, like cycle lights.

[petemcewan]

I think it wouldn't do any harm and may save a life or two.

 

I 've noticed , that driving at night on some of Sheffield's roads, you have to have your wits about you to pick out the pedestrians -in their dark clothes-crossing in front of you. As a road use- or a pedestrian- it is safer if you can be seen.