Third of cyclists support mandatory hi-viz clothing claims survey

@ Bez

Study results vary but Sarah Barth, in her road cc piece on HGVs a couple of weeks ago says this:

"A cyclist is just about visible coming up on the left -- but the improvement once you add a high-viz jacket is astonishing."

Neil753 wrote:

I worry that comments such as these may be contributing to the numbers of cyclists being killed or seriously injured. We should be encouraging cyclists to make themselves more visible, not putting them off doing so.

I think those comments are referring to hi-viz dayglo colours which aren't effective at night. I think everybody can agree that wearing retro-reflective clothing like your photo is a good idea.

-nm-
I'm picking too many arguments.

Neil753 wrote:

I know I'm going to be shouted down, but this constant anti hi-vis sentiment is really bad news.

"hi vis clowns"
"big screaming yellow"
"the best way to stand out from the neon sea is to wear black"
"no need to wear hi vis at all"
"won't make the slightest difference"
and, most bizarre of all,
"the one time I wore a hi-vis top is the one time a driver drove into me".

I worry that comments such as these may be contributing to the numbers of cyclists being killed or seriously injured. We should be encouraging cyclists to make themselves more visible, not putting them off doing so.

Your picture appears to be of reflective material, not high-vis, so what is the point of posting it in this context? All it shows is that the 'high vis' part is in fact invisible!
(At least, that's what I think its a picture of - its not that clear what it is!)

You worry that people here are doing harm?

Show solid evidence to support this assertion, or your an arsehole. That simple.

I worry that people like you contribute to the number of fatties on the streets, and worse, the fact that those who do are demonised. Either we both accept we don't have good evidence, or we both think the other is an arsehole (but of course, in public merely say we're "worried").

Which do you think is more productive?

nuclear coffee wrote:

You worry that people here are doing harm?

Show solid evidence to support this assertion, or your an arsehole. That simple.

I worry that people like you contribute to the number of fatties on the streets, and worse, the fact that those who do are demonised. Either we both accept we don't have good evidence, or we both think the other is an arsehole (but of course, in public merely say we're "worried").

Which do you think is more productive?

I assume you were directing that comment at me? It was an observation not an assertion in regards to the 16%. Anyway. I do not appreciate being called an arsehole on a public forum but that's neither here nor there. Also I do a lot to encourage friends and work colleagues to take up cycling. I let them know that they do not need cycle specific clothing. That there are plenty of cycle tracks available if not confident on roads. They come to me for tips on cycling and maintenance. As a result about 20 folk in work have taken up cycling as a leisure activity and 3/4 now commute. But hey. That's not bad for an arsehole who contributes to more fatties on the road.

giff77 wrote:

nuclear coffee wrote:

You worry that people here are doing harm?

Show solid evidence to support this assertion, or your an arsehole. That simple.

I worry that people like you contribute to the number of fatties on the streets, and worse, the fact that those who do are demonised. Either we both accept we don't have good evidence, or we both think the other is an arsehole (but of course, in public merely say we're "worried").

Which do you think is more productive?

I assume you were directing that comment at me? It was an observation not an assertion in regards to the 16%. Anyway. I do not appreciate being called an arsehole on a public forum but that's neither here nor there. Also I do a lot to encourage friends and work colleagues to take up cycling. I let them know that they do not need cycle specific clothing. That there are plenty of cycle tracks available if not confident on roads. They come to me for tips on cycling and maintenance. As a result about 20 folk in work have taken up cycling as a leisure activity and 3/4 now commute. But hey. That's not bad for an arsehole who contributes to more fatties on the road.

No, it wasn't aimed at you. I'm not sure exactly what purpose the "reply" button has here, it doesn't seem to give any indication who you're supposed to be "replying" to, to anybody. Guess I should just stick to quotes in future. It was aimed at Neil753, and it was overly harsh, for which I apologise. That said, I stand by the sentiment - weasel words like "concerned" or not, allege that someone else is doing serious harm (in this case, contributing to the deaths of others), you better have something good to back that up.

Freedom of choice is something I'll always argue for - I find it astonishing how people seem to be so comfortable with tossing it aside - but even so, I doubt that's what this is about.

Put bluntly: what's changed in the last twenty years since helmets became a real proposition? Statistically, not much than can be tied (on a POPULATION level) to better PPE, and I certainly don't feel safer. Now, the only difference is I'm "encouraged" to spend my hard-earned on a dorky uncomfortable hat, and If I don't and am hit it's my fault. And now I'm "encouraged" to buy a dorky jacket, and If I don't and am hit that's my fault too.

Do you honestly think that these people, who are oh so "concerned" as to my safety, are EVER going to turn around and say "right, you've done enough, NOW we need to sort out the shite drivers?"

That's delusional.

If you can't see someone in the daytime, or someone with lights in the nighttime, you're an incompetent driver. If you're driving despite this knowledge, you're an awful human being. The only way things are going to get better is enough people saying "enough, we're not tolerating these twats any more"... and so long as the debate continues to be "how can we make cyclists safely by making their lives less pleasant", that will never happen. That's why these "encouragements" are so abhorrent.

(in the interest of self grammar nazism, you're. No idea how that slipped past)

nuclear coffee wrote:

You worry that people here are doing harm?

Show solid evidence to support this assertion, or your an arsehole. That simple.

I worry that people like you contribute to the number of fatties on the streets, and worse, the fact that those who do are demonised. Either we both accept we don't have good evidence, or we both think the other is an arsehole (but of course, in public merely say we're "worried").

Which do you think is more productive?

Ah, was that vitriol aimed at me? I didn't reply because I thought you were a troll, but I accept your apology. And please accept my apology too, because I genuinely don't know what you're on about. "Contributing to the fatties on the streets"? Sorry, you've got me there.

Alas, I can't give you any "evidence" either, other than I've ridden perhaps fifty thousand miles, mostly with a hi-vis, have never had an accident, or even a close shave, and just "feel" safer when wearing hi-vis, especially when "taking the lane". I'm also a truck driver and, although there might be a trucker out there somewhere that doesn't agree, I can reveal that every driver I've spoken to about this thorny subject confirms that cyclists are more visible when wearing hi-vis. It's only anecdotal evidence from our transport office, but it's' the best I can do, I'm afraid.

But perhaps I can respond to your challenge, even though it's not entirely clear what you're saying.

Quote:

"weasel words like "concerned" or not, allege that someone else is doing serious harm (in this case, contributing to the deaths of others), you better have something good to back that up.

Do I wear a hi-vis? Not always.
Do I think hi-vis should be compulsory? No.
Why not? Because it would discourage cycling.
But is compulsion a possibility? Yes.
Would that save lives? Who knows, but it's probable.
We all want hi-vis to be optional? Yes.
But there's been a fair amount of ridicule towards the whole hi-vis thing? Yes.
And cyclists, just like anyone, don't want to be laughed at? Correct.
So what they wear will be infuenced through peer pressure to some extent? Yes.
And this forum is potentially visible to inexperienced cyclists who are possibly thinking of wearing hi-vis, but may be put off by the comments on this forum? Maybe.
And this vitriol towards those that wear hi-viz could be used by legislators (or those who lobby legislators) to reinforce the argument for legislation? Yes.
The same legislators who don't give a monkeys about whether or not you prefer the latest natty outfit from Rapha, to a hi-vis vest? You bet.
The same legislators that are desperately looking for cost effective ways to reduce the number of accidents involving cyclists? Absolutely.
And what about the "contribution to the deaths of others" remark? Well, seeing as you called me an "a***hole", perhaps I can suggest that if you can't equate potentially pressurising other cyclists into leaving their hi-vis at home with increased exposure to risk then you may not benefit from any further attempts at reasoned debate.

Neil753 wrote:

I know I'm going to be shouted down, but this constant anti hi-vis sentiment is really bad news.

"hi vis clowns"
"big screaming yellow"
"the best way to stand out from the neon sea is to wear black"
"no need to wear hi vis at all"
"won't make the slightest difference"
and, most bizarre of all,
"the one time I wore a hi-vis top is the one time a driver drove into me".

I worry that comments such as these may be contributing to the numbers of cyclists being killed or seriously injured. We should be encouraging cyclists to make themselves more visible, not putting them off doing so.

This is a very naive comment!

First off, what is so bizarre about reporting what happened? Do you not actually cycle then? Are you not aware of how drivers actually behave?

Bright sunny day, day-glo yellow back-pack cover - driver half overtook and swung left straight into me without looking. High vis did me no good whatseover because the guy wasn't actually looking where he was going.

If you think that is 'bizarre' you clearly don't actually cycle in this country so I don't think you really have any business commenting.

And what contributes to the numbers of cyclists being killed or injured is awful driving, lousy road design, and a total lack of interest in enforcing the laws of the road by the police.

You also totally ignore the downside of high-viz day-glo pink & yellow clown gear. That it marks out cyclists as an outgroup of oddballs not worthy of any respect.

You try cycling past certain council estates on a regular basis, and see which sartoiral choice gets you the most grief - an anonymous hoodie like a local, or a high-viz/lycra get-up that marks you out as a middle-class knob!

Heck, I've had abuse thrown at me by hoodie-wearing ninja cyclists looking for a fight merely for having lights on my bike at all (apparently having red lights on the back makes you "look like a c***"!).

And even if you happen to live in a leafy area full of well-behaved people who aren't prone to aggression to anyone they think looks different, the same thing applies at a national and political level. Just check Kevin McKenna's Guardian column where he rants about cyclists being high-vis-wearing weirdos whose lurid bright colours cause accidents by distracting drivers!
Wearing that stuff might help a bit in an immediate sense, but in the long run it just marks you out as an outgroup.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

You also totally ignore the downside of high-viz day-glo pink & yellow clown gear. That it marks out cyclists as an outgroup of oddballs not worthy of any respect.

So here I am, trying to emphasise the vital need (in public forums) not to demonise cyclists who wear hi-vis...
and you come up with this?

Given some of the powers that be who read cycle forums, I think your comment, perhaps more than any other I've seen, has just moved us further towards compulsion.

Neil753 wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

You also totally ignore the downside of high-viz day-glo pink & yellow clown gear. That it marks out cyclists as an outgroup of oddballs not worthy of any respect.

So here I am, trying to emphasise the vital need (in public forums) not to demonise cyclists who wear hi-vis...
and you come up with this?

Given some of the powers that be who read cycle forums, I think your comment, perhaps more than any other I've seen, has just moved us further towards compulsion.

Well, I was trying my best to be polite, but probably slipped a bit there. But you need to recognise _that_ is how many non-cyclists see high-viz cyclists. You seem to be unaware of that.

Just look at any number of anti-cyclist hate-articles in the press by the likes of McKenna or Melissa Kite. Wearing high-viz is counterproductive when it comes to the politics of cycling. It discourages people from seeing cycling as an acceptable means of tranport rather than an odd special-interest hobby and a sport, and hence taking it up themselves, and it encourages aggressive and hostile attitudes from petrolheads.

Can you show us the solid evidence that lurid yellow and orange actually saves lives? That seems like something you ought to be starting with, before telling people to wear it, no? I don't mean a single anecdote of 'oh I can see him better because unlike most motorists I'm actually looking!', I mean a study that takes into account the multiple effects, including social ones.

And stop conflating high-viz with reflective material.

And, as with helmets, if they made it compulsory I'd just give up cycling again,

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Neil753 wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

You also totally ignore the downside of high-viz day-glo pink & yellow clown gear. That it marks out cyclists as an outgroup of oddballs not worthy of any respect.

So here I am, trying to emphasise the vital need (in public forums) not to demonise cyclists who wear hi-vis...
and you come up with this?

Given some of the powers that be who read cycle forums, I think your comment, perhaps more than any other I've seen, has just moved us further towards compulsion.

Well, I was trying my best to be polite, but probably slipped a bit there. But you need to recognise _that_ is how many non-cyclists see high-viz cyclists. You seem to be unaware of that.

Just look at any number of anti-cyclist hate-articles in the press by the likes of McKenna or Melissa Kite. Wearing high-viz is counterproductive when it comes to the politics of cycling. It discourages people from seeing cycling as an acceptable means of tranport rather than an odd special-interest hobby and a sport, and hence taking it up themselves, and it encourages aggressive and hostile attitudes from petrolheads.

Can you show us the solid evidence that lurid yellow and orange actually saves lives? That seems like something you ought to be starting with, before telling people to wear it, no? I don't mean a single anecdote of 'oh I can see him better because unlike most motorists I'm actually looking!', I mean a study that takes into account the multiple effects, including social ones.

And stop conflating high-viz with reflective material.

And, as with helmets, if they made it compulsory I'd just give up cycling again,

I'm not telling anyone to wear anything. I'm merely pointing out that your demonising of people who wear hi-vis, in a public forum, is unwise. I added the pic showing a hi-vis at night to stimulate discussion, given that many cyclists will be riding in the dark at this time of year.

Neil753 wrote:

I'm not telling anyone to wear anything. I'm merely pointing out that your demonising of people who wear hi-vis, in a public forum, is unwise. I added the pic showing a hi-vis at night to stimulate discussion, given that many cyclists will be riding in the dark at this time of year.

I wasn't demonising people who wear hi-vis so much as expressing how insulting I find the nagging to wear the stuff. And it is a simple fact that the more 'high viz' (and helmets) are seen as essential to cycling, the more reluctant normal people (probably, at the risk of generalisations, especially women) will be to cycle.
I hardly know any cyclists or drivers. Most people I know are public transport users and pedestrians. They all think cycling is too scary, and also think the gear you have to wear to do it looks daft.

Also, as I keep pointing out, your picture is of _reflective_ material, not high-viz.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Neil753 wrote:

I'm not telling anyone to wear anything. I'm merely pointing out that your demonising of people who wear hi-vis, in a public forum, is unwise. I added the pic showing a hi-vis at night to stimulate discussion, given that many cyclists will be riding in the dark at this time of year.

I wasn't demonising people who wear hi-vis so much as expressing how insulting I find the nagging to wear the stuff. And it is a simple fact that the more 'high viz' (and helmets) are seen as essential to cycling, the more reluctant normal people (probably, at the risk of generalisations, especially women) will be to cycle.
I hardly know any cyclists or drivers. Most people I know are public transport users and pedestrians. They all think cycling is too scary, and also think the gear you have to wear to do it looks daft.

Also, as I keep pointing out, your picture is of _reflective_ material, not high-viz.

Hello again. Just a quick response out of courtesy, ok?

In all your posts you've managed to slip in some negative comment about hi-viz. It's called demonisation. Maybe low level demonisation, but it has the cumulative effect of putting off cyclists who might otherwise be considering wearing hi-viz. It would be the same if you ridiculed people wearing a helmet, but thankfully the tables are turned and you don't really see anyone doing that any more. If your constant digs and snipes, together with other posters' negative comments, tip us into legislation, your cycling pals will not be too chuffed with you, will they? Talking about hi-vis in general terms is fine, but please try and avoid negative terms, like the ones in so many of the posts on this forum.

As far as the hi-vis in the picture is concerned, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. It's winter, riders will be out in the dark. I posted the pic to stimulate debate. It shows that a hi-vis with reflective material works well when it's too dark to see the yellow parts of the garment, which is rather handy. You seem unhappy with my pic, I'm sorry about that. I'll post both a night pic and a day pic next time.

Incidentally, it's worth pointing out that reflective material does play a part during daylight too, simply because many cars now have their lights on during the day.

Neil753 wrote:

In all your posts you've managed to slip in some negative comment about hi-viz. It's called demonisation. Maybe low level demonisation, but it has the cumulative effect of putting off cyclists who might otherwise be considering wearing hi-viz. It would be the same if you ridiculed people wearing a helmet, but thankfully the tables are turned and you don't really see anyone doing that any more.

Do you not think you're doing the exact same thing? Low level demonisation of people who don't want to wear fluorescent clothing?

Why should people be encouraged to wear helmets and yellow? Because you believe that's what will keep them safe?

Once upon a time people believed that having a live hen next to a boil or lesion would draw out the infection.

farrell wrote:

Neil753 wrote:

In all your posts you've managed to slip in some negative comment about hi-viz. It's called demonisation. Maybe low level demonisation, but it has the cumulative effect of putting off cyclists who might otherwise be considering wearing hi-viz. It would be the same if you ridiculed people wearing a helmet, but thankfully the tables are turned and you don't really see anyone doing that any more.

Do you not think you're doing the exact same thing? Low level demonisation of people who don't want to wear fluorescent clothing?

Why should people be encouraged to wear helmets and yellow? Because you believe that's what will keep them safe?

Once upon a time people believed that having a live hen next to a boil or lesion would draw out the infection.

No, I haven't demonised anyone. All I've done, in response to the most extraordinary vitriol directed toward hi-vis users, is to point out that if people are seen to be ridiculing others then it's likely to lead to compulsion.
I certainly don't want compulsion, I just want inexperienced cyclists to make a decision for themselves without having to put up with irresponsible comments that might put them off.

If you don't want to wear a helmet, that's fine. In fact, I don't either, unless I'm off-road. I'm a fan of hi-vis and you're not. That's fine too; everybody's different.

Neil753 wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Neil753 wrote:

I'm not telling anyone to wear anything. I'm merely pointing out that your demonising of people who wear hi-vis, in a public forum, is unwise. I added the pic showing a hi-vis at night to stimulate discussion, given that many cyclists will be riding in the dark at this time of year.

I wasn't demonising people who wear hi-vis so much as expressing how insulting I find the nagging to wear the stuff. And it is a simple fact that the more 'high viz' (and helmets) are seen as essential to cycling, the more reluctant normal people (probably, at the risk of generalisations, especially women) will be to cycle.
I hardly know any cyclists or drivers. Most people I know are public transport users and pedestrians. They all think cycling is too scary, and also think the gear you have to wear to do it looks daft.

Also, as I keep pointing out, your picture is of _reflective_ material, not high-viz.

Hello again. Just a quick response out of courtesy, ok?

In all your posts you've managed to slip in some negative comment about hi-viz. It's called demonisation. Maybe low level demonisation, but it has the cumulative effect of putting off cyclists who might otherwise be considering wearing hi-viz. It would be the same if you ridiculed people wearing a helmet, but thankfully the tables are turned and you don't really see anyone doing that any more. If your constant digs and snipes, together with other posters' negative comments, tip us into legislation, your cycling pals will not be too chuffed with you, will they? Talking about hi-vis in general terms is fine, but please try and avoid negative terms, like the ones in so many of the posts on this forum.

As far as the hi-vis in the picture is concerned, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. It's winter, riders will be out in the dark. I posted the pic to stimulate debate. It shows that a hi-vis with reflective material works well when it's too dark to see the yellow parts of the garment, which is rather handy. You seem unhappy with my pic, I'm sorry about that. I'll post both a night pic and a day pic next time.

Incidentally, it's worth pointing out that reflective material does play a part during daylight too, simply because many cars now have their lights on during the day.

Well, yes, because I think hi-vis looks silly. What do you want me to say? You think I should have different opinions because...what?

I don't 'demonise' those who feel obligated to wear it, but I doubt very much that any of them would chose to do so if the presence of (badly driven) motorised vehicles didn't make them feel they had to. Those who wear it don't do so because they like it intrinsically or because it fits their sense of style.

I just disagree with your view, I don't know how to make it any clearer.

It depresses me that I even see _pedestrians_ wearing high-viz nowadays. Its as if the entire world now revolves around pandering to motorists.

And even if high-viz makes cyclists more visible to drivers - drivers will just expend most of that gain by using it as a chance to pay even less attention than they otherwise do - texting more, turning their car stereo up louder, and generally driving still more carelessly than usual. That's what drivers generally do with most safety measures.

Lights and reflectors after dark - fair enough, without them cyclists really can be totally invisible and that's a bit much, even if they are only interacting with pedestrians and other cyclists. But lurid yellow during the day is going too far - at this point its the drivers turn to start changing their behaviour.
(And I _might_ be OK with it on those unlit country roads, I dunno, I rarely visit them, the solution may be different out there, but in urban areas the problem is motor vehicles, not the clothing choices of cyclists).

One other thing that bemuses me is how often I see cyclists in full high-viz getup...cycling on the pavement.

And I'm not very happy about helmets either. I've had negative comments about the fact I wear one, and I understand where that comes from, I wear it with some considerable reluctance, but for several reasons I'm prepared to go that far.

The idea that my comments could bring about legislation is hilarious. I wish I had that much power. And, as I say, if the state decides to still further try and suppress cycling (as they have done in Australia with the mandatory helmet law) I'll just give up on it - I will go back to walking and public transport (though with far greater animosity to cars than I currently have).

I'm under no illusions that society really works on the basis of what is right or of respecting basic human rights - whatever politicians _say_ the balance of power in this society is clearly in favour of everyone driving everywhere, eating crap, and getting as fat as possible.

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.