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

[ads36]

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

 

it would be an extra barrier to cycling.

 

there are many benefits to increasing the number of people choosing to use their bikes.

 

cleaner air, better health, reduced congestion, it's good for local buisness, it's accessible to kids (so fewer mumndad taxi runs), quiet roads are nicer to live beside, etc.

 

how will mandatory hi-viz improve anything? - people don't see cyclists because they're not looking.

 

cycling saves lives - through increased physical activity, and cleaner air. barriers to cycling will cost lives, not save them.

Edited July 5, 2017 by ads36

[Cyclone]

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

 

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 ----------

 

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

 

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

[TimmyR]

sometimes its hard to see children

hard to see dogs

hard to see cats

hard to see debris on the road

 

hard to see lots of things

 

the mark of a good and safe driver is that he or she has good enough vision to see those things.

 

anyone who argues otherwise is argueing that everyone and everything else should take actions to ensure that a bad driver does not hit them.

how about we just educate the bad drivers.

 

But even with the best vision sometimes in a perfect storm every human will miss something. I am merely saying that it the responsibility of the driver to look but also the responsibility of the cyclist not to assume the driver has seen them. To ride round thinking "all drivers must see me, its their responsibility therefore I don't need to care about riding defensively" is suicide. A lot of cyclists (SMIDSY) take this approach. Yes lets educate drivers, but lets not forget to ride defensively. The original incident could have been avoided by a) the OP being more observant b) the cyclist predicting the OP wouldn't see them and hanging back or pulling out a bit - I do both of those when I see a car about to pull out at a T junction. I was very nearly killed by someone pulling out once (rapidly accelerated just as I was about to pass) but because I'd pulled across to the centre of the road, the driver had time to correct their mistake and I didn't die. Now I'm ready on the brakes always in that situation.

 

As a cycle trainer I would be making it very clear that on a bike you are considerably less visible than in a car and so defensiveness in your riding style is that much more important. Banging on about how drivers "should" see you is not constructive.

Edited July 5, 2017 by TimmyR

[Eater Sundae]

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.

 

I agree. I think road positioning is much more important, not only when approaching junctions, but also in relation to vehicle blind spots and pinch points.

 

I'm not convinced that hi-viz makes much if any difference.

[barleycorn]

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.

 

What constitutes a barrier to cycling as opposed to what should be necessary?

 

You already need several things such as:

Puncture repair kit.

Bicycle pump.

Waterproofs.

Lights.

Knowledge of the highway code.

A bell.

 

Why is it such a barrier to purchase something additional like a high viz sash* or flashing lights when you can get them in the same shop as everything else you need for minimal cost?

Which barriers that are currently in place should we remove in order to increase the uptake of cycling?

If having to buy something so minimal which could increase a cyclists visibility and help prevent an accident is really putting people off taking up cycling then are these really the kind of people we want on our roads? In other words, do we really want people with such a lackadaisical attitude to safety on our roads, be it on a bike or in a 10 ton truck?

 

* I'm not convinced high viz vest have any meaningful benefit, flashing lights on the other hand...

 

And the bolded bit. There was no accident, no one was hit and no one was hurt, it was a near miss.

[Cyclone]

I think you're confusing "legally required to have/wear" with "need".

 

You certainly don't need a puncture repair kit, I don't carry one on my commute. I don't carry a pump either, or waterproofs most days, or the highway code.

 

Nor did I say that the purchase price was the barrier, in fact I listed why they were a barrier, you've apparently ignored that list.

 

You're also victim blaming. You might as well argue to make short skirts illegal because they increase the risk of rape, that's the equivalent of requiring hi vis to help drivers do what they should already do, see other road users.

 

---------- Post added 05-07-2017 at 14:30 ----------

 

But even with the best vision sometimes in a perfect storm every human will miss something. I am merely saying that it the responsibility of the driver to look but also the responsibility of the cyclist not to assume the driver has seen them. To ride round thinking "all drivers must see me, its their responsibility therefore I don't need to care about riding defensively" is suicide. A lot of cyclists (SMIDSY) take this approach. Yes lets educate drivers, but lets not forget to ride defensively. The original incident could have been avoided by a) the OP being more observant b) the cyclist predicting the OP wouldn't see them and hanging back or pulling out a bit - I do both of those when I see a car about to pull out at a T junction. I was very nearly killed by someone pulling out once (rapidly accelerated just as I was about to pass) but because I'd pulled across to the centre of the road, the driver had time to correct their mistake and I didn't die. Now I'm ready on the brakes always in that situation.

 

As a cycle trainer I would be making it very clear that on a bike you are considerably less visible than in a car and so defensiveness in your riding style is that much more important. Banging on about how drivers "should" see you is not constructive.

 

On the other hand, you have to make progress. If I assumed that every car hadn't seen me, at all, ever, I wouldn't ever move. I'd be on the pavement, or probably inside my house.

We have to make certain assumptions about behaviour on the road, such as cars not veering across from the other lane, not pulling out into the side of you, not running into you from the rear. Otherwise it's simply impossible to cycle on the road.

[barleycorn]

I think you're confusing "legally required to have/wear" with "need".

Nope, quite aware of the difference. If you cycle at some point you will need a pump and a repair kit etc. When going to purcahse them why not get something which will improve your safety? Or don't you ccare about your own safety and think it is everyone elses responsibility to look after you?

 

You certainly don't need a puncture repair kit, I don't carry one on my commute. I don't carry a pump either, or waterproofs most days, or the highway code.

At some point you will need one and you carry the highway code in your head

 

Nor did I say that the purchase price was the barrier, in fact I listed why they were a barrier, you've apparently ignored that list.

And I asked what constitutes a barrier and what is necessary. A question you ignored.

 

You're also victim blaming. You might as well argue to make short skirts illegal because they increase the risk of rape, that's the equivalent of requiring hi vis to help drivers do what they should already do, see other road users.

Nope, not blamed anybody and your comparison to rape victims is childish. In a perfect world we could guarantee that we would be seen regardless of what precautions we did or did not take. Unfortunatly we do not live in a perfect world so if there are small measures a cyclist can take to mitigate against the risk of an accident then why shouldn't they take it?

 

---------- Post added 05-07-2017 at 14:30 ----------

 

 

On the other hand, you have to make progress. If I assumed that every car hadn't seen me, at all, ever, I wouldn't ever move. I'd be on the pavement, or probably inside my house.

We have to make certain assumptions about behaviour on the road, such as cars not veering across from the other lane, not pulling out into the side of you, not running into you from the rear. Otherwise it's simply impossible to cycle on the road.

Which is the same for any road user. Doesn't mean you can have a blaise attitude towards your own safety and not take minimal measures to ensure you are seen or, if you haven't been, that you can notice this in advance and/or position yourself defensively.

Edited July 5, 2017 by barleycorn

[TimmyR]

What constitutes a barrier to cycling as opposed to what should be necessary?

 

You already need several things such as:

Puncture repair kit.

Bicycle pump.

Waterproofs.

Lights.

Knowledge of the highway code.

A bell.

DO you? Crikey I must be taking huge risks I sometimes leave the house with none of those (apart from highway code, I did once glance through that). Sure its a good idea to take them but to force people to take those or anything else is a step too far. It doesn't help anyone and will just put people off which overall has a negative impact. Additionally, I agree that wearing high vis increases your chances of being seen and I don't agree with Cyclone that "drivers should do what they're supposed to do" and see you. That is nonsense. People don't see other cars, even buses, it happens. Promote hi vis, give hi vis away free with every bike, wear high vis all the time, get a high vis tattoo on your forehead, but it is not right to make it a legal requirement for the reasons previously stated.

Edited July 5, 2017 by TimmyR

[Cyclone]

Nope, quite aware of the difference. If you cycle at some point you will need a pump and a repair kit etc. When going to purcahse them why not get something which will improve your safety? Or don't you ccare about your own safety and think it is everyone elses responsibility to look after you?

We're not talking about needing a hi vis, we're talking about legally requiring people to wear one.

I've no idea how you can think that's the same as needing a puncture repair kit, or 'needing' lights.

 

 

At some point you will need one and you carry the highway code in your head

I needed one to get my car license, I don't require a physical copy to use a bike.

 

 

And I asked what constitutes a barrier and what is necessary. A question you ignored.

Because I'd already answered it, go back and read the earlier posts.

 

 

Nope, not blamed anybody and your comparison to rape victims is childish. In a perfect world we could guarantee that we would be seen regardless of what precautions we did or did not take. Unfortunatly we do not live in a perfect world so if there are small measures a cyclist can take to mitigate against the risk of an accident then why shouldn't they take it?

To state that cyclists should wear special clothes for their own protection is like telling women to wear chastity belts for their own protection.

I don't think that this measure is one that would improve road safety for the reasons already explained. Reasons you've apparently managed to avoid reading.

 

Which is the same for any road user. Doesn't mean you can have a blaise attitude towards your own safety and not take minimal measures to ensure you are seen or, if you haven't been, that you can notice this in advance and/or position yourself defensively.

 

Yes, it is the same, I agree, I didn't say it wasn't. Nor did I say it was a reason to not cycle defensively, it's something I already do. On the other hand, take this to extremes and you can't cycle at all, so like most things, it requires a common sense approach.

 

Are you a cyclist btw, and do you wear hi vis?

For transparency, I'm a cyclists, pedestrian and motorist, and I have a waterproof which has reflective stripes and is bright blue. However I don't wear it when it's dry.

 

---------- Post added 05-07-2017 at 15:03 ----------

 

DO you? Crikey I must be taking huge risks I sometimes leave the house with none of those (apart from highway code, I did once glance through that). Sure its a good idea to take them but to force people to take those or anything else is a step too far. It doesn't help anyone and will just put people off which overall has a negative impact. Additionally, I agree that wearing high vis increases your chances of being seen and I don't agree with Cyclone that "drivers should do what they're supposed to do" and see you. That is nonsense. People don't see other cars, even buses, it happens. Promote hi vis, give hi vis away free with every bike, wear high vis all the time, but no way is it right to make it a legal requirement for the reasons previously stated.

 

He's deliberately conflating what you might require to be a cyclists generally with the legal requirement to actually have/wear something whilst cycling.

 

If you constantly assume that cars won't do what they should (ie stay in lane, not run you down) then I argue that it's impossible to cycle. How could you progress if you were assuming that cars would run every light, swerve across from the other carriage and run you down from behind.

[barleycorn]

DO you? Crikey I must be taking huge risks I sometimes leave the house with none of those (apart from highway code, I did once glance through that). Sure its a good idea to take them but to force people to take those or anything else is a step too far.

Where did I say that these were things you must have on you at all times as opposed to things which you will need in order to be a cyclist? That fact that you've only ever glanced through the highway code is worrying.

 

It doesn't help anyone and will just put people off which overall has a negative impact.

If having to have lights or buy a puncture repair kit puts people off cycling then quite frankly they are not the type of people that should be on the roads in anything other than public transport (or the passenger of another vehicle, preferably sat quietly in the back)

Additionally, I agree that wearing high vis increases your chances of being seen

I'm not convinced it does under a lot of circumstances, still there are lots of other measure which can, and should be taken.

and I don't agree with Cyclone that "drivers should do what they're supposed to do" and see you. That is nonsense. People don't see other cars, even buses, it happens. Promote hi vis, give hi vis away free with every bike, wear high vis all the time, but no way is it right to make it a legal requirement for the reasons previously stated.

I don't think I've advocated that it should be.