Third of cyclists support mandatory hi-viz clothing claims survey

If I wear hi vis, how will anyone see my rainbow stripes jersey?

Neil753,

I know we've clashed before, but I get the impression that you drive HGV's in areas that have a lot of hi-viz therefore you notice it more. That's the problem many here will have, you like many others are possibly conditioned to look for hi-viz not the person/cyclist.

I happen to notice team colours more than solid colours. Be that cycle tops such as Sky/Garmin.., blue Imprezas with graphics or white Audi A1s with graphics. If you don't believe me, I bet you notice an increase in the number of blue cars or maybe the number of Audis that you see on your next trip. (Look deeply into my eyes, blue cars and Audis. Well it is 31 Oct. )

That is also why I am against riding with lights during the day. People start to look out for the bright/flashing thing rather than the cyclist or the hazard that the cyclist is going to hit. Anyone who has ridden in Holland will know that drivers are conditioned to look for cyclist not a brightly coloured blob possibly attached to a bright/flashing light.

Blue cars and Audis!

@Neil7523
You have got to be ****ing kidding! In one breath you say you are against compulsion; that people have a right to choose what they wear. In another you accuse DEAD CYCLISTS of being 'selfish' and stealing £300million from DYING CHILDREN. What planet are you on? You don't seem to have a clue that taxation doesn't work like this and governments avoid hypothecation at all costs to avoid such specious comparisons.

People who oppose wearing hiviz are defending their right not to have to, but you suggest we are stigmatizing young riders and putting them at risk?! All for joining a debate on the topic.

This is no longer a safety debate but a blame shifting exercise. Blaming cyclist for the cost of injuries in the majority inflicted by oblivious motorists.

I commend you for the high quality of you trolling here but that is all it is. You might say that you oppose compulsion, but you can't then immediately decry those who don't wear Hiviz as selfish. I am sure you will come up with some weasel words to suggest that these are not mutually opposite statements; but really, your 'free to be a dick head if you don't wear it' argument is no excuse for you to stop watching out for anyone not dressed as you think appropriate.

You are welcome to make up your mind and tell us what you really think.

If I am hit by a car, it is going to hurt, I am possibly going to be injured. I could even be killed.

Knowing that I had right of way at that roundabout will be no comfort to my family when I am dead. Being certain that I had right of way will be no comfort to me when I am in a wheelchair, have head injuries, or I am unable to walk for months until my injuries have healed.

So I just don't want to have an accident. Should an accident happen to me, I want to be able to look myself in the eye in the mirror and know that I did everything that I could have done to prevent myself becoming a victim and especially from coming to serious harm.

So, I always wear a helmet. Of course they are not perfect or guaranteed to save you from serious head injuries in all circumstances, but wearing a correctly fitted, quality helmet could be the difference between slight concussion or living the rest of your life with a mental disability.

In my experience, much less than 1% of instances of bad driving is attributable to malicious psychos. Mostly it is attributable to carelessness, lack of concentration, poor spatial awareness, misjudgement of distance and speed etc. These people are not trying to kill other road users. When this type of driver says SMIDSY, I generally believe them.

So what do we do to improve the situation? Educating drivers to take driving seriously and give it their full attention at all times would be wonderful and I would give my full support for this type of campaign. But changing behaviour is always a very slow process. For example, after all the money and years spent on education campaigns, there are still plenty of people out there who think it is safe to drive after drinking alcohol.

So in the meantime, while I wait for all these less than perfect drivers to get their act together, the only thing that I can do as a vulnerable cyclist while I wait for all these dodgy drivers to change their ways is make myself as visible as possible. Apart from the tiny minority of psychos out there, I believe that if I have been seen by a driver, my chances of being hit by him/her are greatly reduced but obviously not impossible. I believe that a combination of Hi-Vis, Reflectors and lights increase my visibility to other road users in all weather conditions. I believe, as a driver, that cyclists wearing similar clothes are more visible to me than a Rapha clad Ninja on a matt black speed machine with no lights on at twilight, but if the latter attire works for you then go for it.

Apparently many cyclists do not share my opinion. Not a problem, I can live with that without resorting to childish insults. However, if you really feel that my decision to cycle around in 'bizarre' clothing looking like a 'dayglo banana' is selfish and/or silly and potentially increases my safety at the expense of yours... tough titty! I really have no sympathy for you.

I don't have a monopoly on weird attire, it is freely available. If you choose not to wear it, you must live with the consequences. Don’t complain that you want the right to choose what you wear (which I fully support) and then disparage, insult and bully those who make an alternative choice. When you do that, it makes you look like a hypocrite.

I think that is my last word on this subject.

Neil753, I hear you. You talk a lot of sense.

Neil,
Nice, so you can say what you want including vile equations comparing cyclists and sicks children; why don't you address that point, that you are not right to use that comparison. It devalues everything you have said. But any contrary position is demonization and verbal abuse? Seems like someone hasn't been on the internet very long where everyone has a robust opinion.

Neither have you addressed the fact you still suggest that I am putting others at risk by 'choosing' to wear the kind of clothes I have worn for the past 15 years and not choosing to wear what you deem appropriate. How lofty you must feel in your HGV cab. Everything you have said has a subtext of loathing and accusation and I refuse to accept the blame that you insist on pushing. I am not responsible for the day that YOU stop looking for anyone not wearing Hiviz. God help anyone out on the road that day.

Neil753 wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

The idea that my comments could bring about legislation is hilarious. I wish I had that much power.

No, of course not. Your negative stereotyping of those who wear hi-viz won't precipitate legislation but, collectively, your comments, and thousands of other comments, on forums, on the street, on blogs, on sportives and club runs, in cycle cafes, and in the cycling press, all conspire to make inexperienced cyclists reluctant to wear hi-viz, when it could save their lives. The ridicule is endemic, and you are part of that problem, even if you don't realise what you're doing.

You are 'spinning' here. I'm not 'negatively stereotyping' those who wear hi-viz, that's you creating a straw-man. I don't much like high-viz, and choose not to wear it, but at no point have I said anything about the nature of those who wear it. I don't know anything about them, after all.

Its entirely and absolutely up to them, I guess they draw a different line between personal fear of danger and a personal judgement of political principle. Everyone is free to make their own decision about what they wear on their own bodies, after all.

As I said, I wear a helmet, which is a compromise in itself (I've had people tut at me for wearing it). I also have a bike positively festooned with lights and reflective material because I got a bit carried away with the concept (and lights are so fantastically cheap now!).

I also think you are wrong-headed if you think 'cycle cafes' and the rest are so influential. The reality is the vast majority of people who might cycle, don't, so what goes on in those tiny circles is not very important.

They certainly don't have any influence on the hoodie-wearing kids who generally ride ninja-style round here, nor on people (mostly women for whatever reason) I know who just think high-viz (and helmets) are naff.

I've never had anything whateoever to do with any 'cycle cafes', yet I already disliked high-viz and helmets when I first took up cycling, precisely because it made cycling into some complicated hobby or special interest rather than a simple means of transport. Cycling is a means of transport for me, that replaced walking for the most part

You have it kind of backwards. People generally would rather not wear high-viz, the more its stressed that cyclists should do so, the more reluctant people will be to cycle (though that's only a very minor part of it, the main deterrent by far is that the roads appear clearly too dangerous).

No to mandatory hi-viz, for anyone or anything. Yes to mandatory good riding, driving, walking etc - and equally-enforced punishments for those who don't practise it.

Why is it certain people cant help but think they can keep telling me what I have to do. I only want to ride my bike. Are they not involved enough at the Womans institute or what ever organisation that they think is superior to my way of life. Go away and bake some cakes or form some committee.

My experience shows that it makes little difference whether hi-viz is worn or not, if the driver, pedestrian, etc. isn't looking, they're not going to see you.

Or to put it another way:
Two thirds of cyclists don't support mandatory hi-viz clothing.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE! make your own judgement, make your own choice, take your own responsibility.
Why are people SO adamant on forcing their thoughts on others? It's fine if you want to wear Hi-Vis or a helmet or anything else you think may protect you and you are free to do so. But you have no authority on lecturing to others to follow suit - do you really think that other cyclists are unaware of the potential dangers they face?

I think all trees should be forced to wear hi-viz.

And all walls, kerbs, parked cars, children, deer, squirrels, cats, dogs, birds, ants and houses.

Yes, they should all be forced to wear hi-viz. After all they "owe a duty and a responsibility to other road users."

I'm down with compulsory hi-viz for cyclists. Fine. Ticketyboo. Happy as a hippo in a swimming pool of mud.

When it's compulsory for other road users - when cars are decked out in bright yellow with reflective panels, when it's compulsory of pedestrians, including the marketing department of a company whose only involvement with cyclists is fixing cyclist shaped holes in windscreens.

I personally think we should all be wearing those Sam Browne belts and only cycle on cycle paths.

I live by the advice given in this advert:

http://youtu.be/yhtDrZ48Bjk

I find it worrying that only 16% opted for reduced speed. We all know the slower the vehicle the greater the chances of survival. I am also nearly sure that there was an experiment that proved that a motorist took in more of their environment at 20mph than at higher speeds. This is the issue that needs to be tackled not token gestures of road safety by enforcing vulnerable road users to wear hi viz, helmets etc.

The yellow and orange associated with hi viz becomes next useless at night time and even over the course of time looses it's day time qualities as it fades. And there is now so much about, that the phrase "familiarity breeds contempt" springs to mind.

The vast majority of drivers neither care about other road users or are so poorly trained that they are oblivious to what is going on around them. Yet the onus is placed on the vulnerable to take greater measures to protect themselves rather than the motorist taking greater responsibility when on the roads.

Personally I wear light colours when cycling and now use lights during the day as well as night time. Yet even in doing so still loose count of the number of motorists who do not see me on a daily basis.

Hi vis helps but what you really need is and set of decent lights. Also claim your road space. There really in no excuse for not having good lights, these days they are better than every and cheap.

I always carry a set of spares. I don't always wear hi-vis, but do wear cycling specific clothing with reflective patches.

Ultimately, being seen is a combination of lights, reflective clothing and assertive road positioning IMHO.

After dark, and particularly in bad weather, you have to be very alert, and DON'T put yourself in risky road positions

Requiring cyclists to wear hi-viz and helmets is victim shaming at it's worst. Like sexual assault, the number one way to avoid cyclist deaths is to have cars and lorries stop hitting them. Anybody who's done any significant amount of time on a bike (or behind the wheel of a car) knows full well that some people, at certain times, wouldn't see a jumbo if it landed in front of them. Reducing the number of bikes (which is the end result of compulsory helmet laws) only makes all cyclists more vulnerable.

I am also very weary of a survey of cyclists where 30% do not think there should be more cycling infrastructure. I don't think I could do a survey of drivers, and get 30% of them not wanting more roads.

I carry lights all year round on the rear. Just remember that in poor visability (rain) you should be using lights. It rains in the day too!
I've done about 15000 miles in the last 3yrs in all weathers & never been knocked off. I wear high vis mostly to NOT give the excuse to a driver to miss seeing me. Seems to work for me.
Yours truly
Defensive rider

This is another of those cases where people will argue about whether something works based on belief rather than evidence.

It takes very little time on google to find that the Transport Research Laboratory could not conclusively demonstrate the effectiveness of hi-viz in daylight. At night as many have said it is lights and reflective that gets seen.

Even if hi-viz is more easily seen that doesn't necessarily make anyone of us safer .... Why?

Does hi-viz make drivers more alert?
Does hi-viz make drivers more sensible?
Does hi-viz effectively desensitise drivers to non-hi-viz?
Does hi-viz make the wearer appear less vulnerable or even less human in the eyes of drivers?
Does clothing with strong big blocks of contrasting colours work better?

I know what I think the answers are and I know others will think otherwise. Some when they think differently like to throw insults around from either direction: that achieves nothing so why do it?

There is plenty of evidence about lights and reflectives but real concrete evidence for hi-viz is somewhat lacking.

Until or unless there is a proper evidence base no one can truly claim to be right.

As a high-viz, helmet-wearing cyclist, I don't think anything should be mandatory.

Make your own choices and deal with the consequences.

It's probably being mentioned before but you do wonder why a supposed pro cycling website is running a article from a survey seemingly done by a motoring interest organisation to seemingly further their agenda...

2/3 don't ; )

What's the quote - There are lies, damded lies and statistics.

Would the same organisation make pedestrians where hi-viz when crossing the road, the majority of whom do not carry lights with them after dark and a fair few where black.

I agree it all shouldnt rest on the cyclists shoulders to be visible and the motorist have no responsibilities BUT our western world revolves around the car, end of story, so we will have to fight hard for recognition.
What if wearing hi viz apparel was easier and more sophisticated?
Ive seen product from a few companies getting better, some items from rapha and new stuff from POC (in case you havent seen http://www.bikerumor.com/2013/10/04/ib13-just-the-essentials-pocs-avip-r... )

If we all dont look like construction workers and dustmen it might be easier to get those numbers of people wearing hi viz higher

Just a thought