Third of cyclists support mandatory hi-viz clothing claims survey

It doesn't matter how cool you design a hiviz jacket to be, how cycling specific, the problem is the colour. I don't 'demonize' yellow wearers but I do think they are twerps conforming to some standard that they think has been imposed on them. Every one I pass brings the day closer that I will be forced to conform to this standard or face being criminalized. Forced to wear a uniform. Every one who chooses to wear that jacket passively erodes my choice.

I see guys wearing yellow jackets and black tights in summer 20+ degree heat because that is what they think a cyclist should wear.

When I tell people I don't drink tea OR coffee they act like I am a pervert; 'What DO you drink?' Consensus is not always right. Never should there be a days when they say 'He doesn't wear hi viz,' FIGHT THE HI VIZ HEGEMONY!

Hi viz does make a difference in my opinion. Driving on a dual carriage way a few weeks ago I spotted a cyclist approx. 500 yards up the road in my lane due to his hiviz jacket, so I had plenty of time to prepare to pass safely. A few seconds later I spotted another rider approx 150 yards away. He was wearing black and I just didn't see him any earlier in the tree shade. Still had plenty of time because I'm quite a slow cautious driver but someone tearing along and not concentrating might not have seen him in time to make an appropriate pass.

I wear a hiviz helmet and have a couple of yellow winter jackets, it can't do any harm.

Compulsion is a definite no for me, better if we produce some comparisons of visibility at different distances and in different conditions so that people can make an informed choice.

Firstly it's one of those surveys where they've only published the results they've chosen to, in the spin they've chosen to put on it. If I can see the full survey, the questions asked and the analysis done (and the people it was aimed at) then I might be a little less cynical.

And secondly - what most others have said. Sensationalist victim blaming at its worst. Dear driver - try getting off the fucking phone, slowing down and looking where you're going, then you'll stop hitting vulnerable road users.

And if hi-vis did ever become mandatory, I look forward to it being enforced in the same way that all other road laws are - ie not at all.

@ Nuclear. No problems glad that's cleared the air. I've learnt to stick with the quotes myself. Was just ironic that I'd opened with "I worry". Anyway. Totally agree with all you say. I'm fed up with people telling me what and what I shouldn't wear on a bike. If someone can't see me at 40 feet (braking distance allowed for 20mph) they shouldn't be allowed to drive.

Neil753, I'm with you. There's some crazy talk in this comments thread.

'Let's not wear Hi-Vis because it makes us look like an out group and it makes people like professional troll Kevin McKenna hate us'

I drive a car. I am a cautious driver with a clean license. I know from experience that I can see cyclists further away if they are wearing fluro colours during low light conditions. I don't wear fluro at the weekends, but I wear it on my weekday commute. I couldn't care less if it makes me look like a clown.

The data might not be there, but I'll let the precautionary principle guide me because despite the lack of scientific study here's what we know:

-When driving, the eye uses a series of saccades to evaluate surroundings

-The eye is most sensitive to colours in the green yellow spectrum

-Anecdote tells us that drivers find it easier to see cyclists in fluro colours

-There is almost no segregated cycling infrastructure in the UK

Calling cyclists in dayglo twerps or clowns isn't helping anyone. UK cycling advocacy has enough to address without this particularly unhelpful infighting.

Reading the responses to this I'm surprised at the animosity. Let's be honest there is no evidence that hi-viz helps that much, so it certainly shouldn't be mandatory. The concern is that by using it as a political football, those in power that make such decisions might be tempted to use it as a solution to the pressing issue of rising cycling deaths and injuries.

As someone that has been riding for 50 years in London, Bristol, Leeds, Manchester in fact most parts of the country, both as a commuter and racer, I have in fact only every been knocked off once and that was by a pedestrian. I have never worn hi-viz (bright racing jersey for me), but do of course ride assertively and always with lights. That said, the behaviour of far too high a proportion of motorists towards cyclists is outrageously dangerous. There are too many people on the road today that have never ridden a bike and simply don't appreciate how dangerous it is and how vulnerable a cyclist can be.

You can make yourself safe in many ways without the need for hi-viz, but without doubt the best is to ride assertively and put yourself in a position in front of the vehicle so you can be seen. The driver won't like you for it but will see you.

Drivers have to be made more accountable towards cyclists on the road, but only compulsory training and legislation will make this happen and a discussion about hi-viz is simply side stepping the issue. It will not reduce cyclist deaths on the road because drivers that hit them do so because they aren't looking and the unfortunate cyclist is not in the right position on the road to force them to see you.

Try a simple test when you are next riding on your own along a busy road. Ride at least 1metre from the kerb. You will find that the motorist might beep you but will pass at least 1metre from your arm. Now move out 1.5m and the driver will give you more room. Then reduce it to 0.5m and you'll find you get given less space. Count the space say 20 cars give you with each distance you ride from the kerb and form your own conclusions.

That's my two penn'orth!

Phew. I agree with Brian. Own the road. Only morons don't use lights from dusk onwards. Many of them are drivers judging by the numpties I passed last night on the M6. Oh. And wear what you want. The most depressing sight in the countryside is horse riders in hi vis vests. With no one thinking it wrong.

Let's say goodbye to hedges
And roads with grassy edges
And winding country lanes;
Let all things travel faster
Where motor car is master
Till only Speed remains.

Poor old Betjeman. Now he wouldn't be wearing dayglo to feel safe and help the motorist.

Of course Andrew, wear what you feel most safe in as that makes you more confident. It's confidence and assertiveness on the road that makes a cyclist less of a victim and more empowered to control the situations we find ourselves in.

There are always the reflective bands if you don't like a hi-viz jacket, less of a fashion statement downgrade perhaps

Well said Brian.

Over the weekend. I carried out an experiment on who I could see and at what distance. I easily saw cyclists and pedestrians from 100 meters in average light and all were in dark clothing. Granted I was walking but if I was driving at 30 mph that's more than enough reaction time. I'll also ask you the question. Do you see a cyclist's rear light or their hi viz at night time. As for day time. If you can't see somebody at 40 feet and not react then you shouldn't be on the road. I've e said before. The hi viz is a red herring to sort out road safety.

As we speak. The government at Holyrood are debating strict/presumed liability. Here's hoping something will come about from this and make Scottish roads a bit safer because the 'be nice' campaign as sure as hell hasn't.

*should have said what do you see FIRST - the light or the hi viz

I don't mean to insult those who do wear high-vis (sorry if I did), but the whole business of pushing it on cyclists I find offensive and so gets me irate.

The pro-high-viz lobby seem to be of the view that all that is needed is for cyclists (and pedestrians) to placate the petrolheads sufficiently. That if we make as many concessions as possible and take the blame for everything and doff our colletive caps and tug our forelocks then they just might stop killing people in such numbers and non-drivers might 'earn' the basic human right of freedom of movement.

Personally there's a limit to how far I'm prepared to take that (I wear a helmet, I have plenty of reflective stuff, but hi-viz is an insult too far). And I don't believe it will work.

The solution is to change the behaviour of motorists. Not for everyone else to keep accomodating them.

Get (most of) the cars off of (most of) the (urban) roads. There is no right to drive.

I used to hate high-viz but it was noticing cyclists wearing it slightly earlier when I was driving that changed my mind. It's not the 'ultimate solution' and is bested used in combination with lights and reflectives (better than high-viz in the dark) so shouldn't be compulsory. I unusually left my high-viz jacket in my bag the other day, as it was hot, and nearly got 'T boned'. It's a bit like the helmet debate in that wearing one may mean you avoid a head injury; likewise wearing high-viz may mean you avoid being knocked off, but it's a personal choice. It's all about personal responsibility and managing risk. People will only get a false sense of security if they think that adhering to various rules and regulations will keep them safe.

I was a passenger in a car driving through Salisbury last weekend and as we approached a roundabout with foliage I was shocked at how much the day-glow yellow clothing (jacket and trousers) the council workers were wearing actually made them harder to see against the bushes behind them. If it wasn't for their van being parked on the roundabout I doubt I would have notice them until we were entering the roundabout.
I was toying with the idea of replacing my no longer waterproof day-glow yellow winter jacket with a different colour and this incident finally convinced me that a bright Red is the way to go (Wiggle now has more of my money). I'm not convinced "yellow" is enough of a contrast to make any difference.
Reflective stripes however are fantastic, but are only of use when the light level is low enough and the car drivers turn their lights on.
We could the brightest objects on the road, but we would still have to deal with "Sorry mate, I didn't see you", or the ones who just neeeeed to get past no matter what the cost.

Hi-viz just seems like a red herring to me. In low lighting conditions white clothing and reflective strips seems a better idea.

Most of the people I see wearing hi-viz seem to get it so dirty that if there is a benefit it seems to fade. So do we have to get it washed spick and span for the proposed legislation too? Tell me what else to do….

One word, choice as I don't need the Government of the day pretending to protect cyclists by doing my thinking for me. I wear it myself but it is sweet fa use against a driver not giving driving its due attention as I know from experience.

I like Hi-Viz. But then again, I like normal clothes. But which is best? There's only one way to find out...

I'd like to share an exchange heard between a well peeved cyclist and a car driver who had just cut the cyclist up.

Cyclist, "How can you not have seen me, I'm wearing a yellow jacket for god's sake?"
Driver, "Because I was not looking!"

At which point I fell off my bike laughing.

Oh do I love stats.

So lets pull this apart, 1000 people asked. 50% men and 50% Hmm suspicious to start with but never mind. Almost half caught out with no lights were predominantly youngsters. So what percentage of the 1000 were youngsters to start with? If you a riding in daylight, why do you need lights? What kind of riding do these people do? How many years had people been riding? More youngsters confessed to being involved in a near miss! So?
We start with a fact of 1000 people and it slowly degenerates into broad statements via the classic % of that group. What a load of blxs!

100% of divorces are caused by marriage.
Out of a sample of 1, 100% said that I was the most attractive and fun to be with person in the world.

Elephant in the room, cars are the problem. Deal with cars and everything else is a non issue.

If your interested in reducing accidents make drivers wear helmets.

If you want to stop people cycling, make it appear as dangerous as possible, force people to wear helmets, hi viz, how about knee and elbow pads...

about pedestrians and Hi-Viz, an insurance company has already tried contributory negligence on a pedestrian for not wearing hi-viz, fairly clear where that debate will end up going!

Oops, not sure where the picture went.

What you see on the left.
Sort of, what I see on the right.