SnailyBoy Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 I cycle and think cyclists should wear hi vis clothing however it isn't guaranteed to make drivers see you. The first day i went to work on my bike i'd only got a few hundred yards down the road before a car pulled out of a junction on me, if i had been on a downhill i'd of gone straight into the side of the car and that was wearing a bright yellow hi vis jacket so it doesn't guarantee anything So do you think hi-vis should be mandatory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 Lights are required, on that we agree. I disagree that this is a barrier because people just entering the world of cycling are free to do so during the daytime without having, owning or using lights. They are also free to do so with absolutely no knowledge of the highway code, although this would probably be dangerous... They are also free to do so without owning, having or using waterproofs. These are simply a matter of comfort. Likewise, they do not require a puncture repair kit to start cycling, although they may well find that they get a flat tyre at some point. Can you see the different here to a legal requirement to be wearing hi vis? Frankly if you say no, I don't believe you. They are not barriers to cycling. They are barriers to cycling at night, in the rain, with a flat tyre. Australia has demonstrated that mandatory use of cycle helmets IS a barrier to cycling uptake, I think that hi vis would be the same. Since you agree that hi vis is not in actuality a safety measure I have no idea what point you think you are making. Threads evolve. When someone says that no, no hi-viz because it's a barrier to cycling then I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask what exactly constitutes a barrier. Is it anything which could potentialy put someone off cycling or are there limits. If there are limits then what are they? Simple question really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NERVY-OWL Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 So do you think hi-vis should be mandatory? I'm not sure, likes been said we should be encouraging cycling, adding extra cost might put people off. Personally from experience seems i was nearly taken out by a car wearing hi vis clothing i'd probably say no it shouldn't be mandatory, i'll still keep wearing mine for a little piece of mind though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 It's an open ended question to which I've no idea. Barriers though, new ones specifically, are any legal requirement which imposes an additional requirement on someone in order to cycle. So that could be to pay something, to own something, to do something. Perhaps there might be things in the future which are a barrier which I still think are worthwhile, I can't tell because I can't see the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 What constitutes a barrier to cycling as opposed to what should be necessary? It's an open ended question to which I've no idea. Barriers though, new ones specifically, are any legal requirement which imposes an additional requirement on someone in order to cycle. So that could be to pay something, to own something, to do something. Perhaps there might be things in the future which are a barrier which I still think are worthwhile, I can't tell because I can't see the future. Excellent, finally an answer the the first half of the question I asked 29 posts ago... so we are in agreement, having to follow the highway code and use lights at night are barriers to cycling.. now onto the second half... which things should be necessary for cycling (but not necessarily a legal requirement) and why shouldn't a potential cyclist obtain these things? Given that these things, whatever they may be, are not barriers then why shouldn't we encourage their use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ads36 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 (edited) because we can, and should learn* lessons from those places where cycling is seen as normal, and the benefits are obvious. (*but it really seems we just don't want to) Edited July 5, 2017 by ads36 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 Would you care to elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike142sl Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 I've just taken up cycling to work - only in my 5th week so far but finding it far more enjoyable than the maxi scooter I used for decades up to now. A Hi Viz vest wasn't even a question of should I or shouldn't I, it was an obvious part of buying the bike to me, along with all the other items such as lights, waterproof, blah de blah. The Hi Viz may not prevent a driver pulling out on me but I'm pretty sure it will massively reduce that particular risk. I'm not the sort to make a style statement when cycling so have no issue about wearing Hi Viz. However, you would not see me wearing Lycra - I would object to that being mandatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ads36 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 Mike, good for you, keep your eyes peeled! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 I coach cycling. And there are ways of being more visible But any motorist who utters the words Sorry mate I did not see you. Needs a retest So cyclists never pull out on motorists then ? What about cyclists having to pass a test before being allowed to cause havoc on the roads ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now