Third of cyclists support mandatory hi-viz clothing claims survey

A significant proportion of actual existing cyclists are rather conservative and/or elitist types. And they represent a tiny percentage of potential cyclists.

I'm more interested in what would encourage the far greater number of _potential_ cyclists (who regard cycling as both too dangerous and too much trouble) to actually take it up.

(Ironically, the one time I wore a high-viz top is also the one time a driver drove into me.)

I do, mind you, think perhaps that the law about having lights should be better enforced. Cars aren't painted bright yellow, but they _do_ have lights on after dark (well, barring one that I saw last week).

Its not unreasonable for motorists or pedestrians to expect cyclists not to be totally invisible after dark, yet about half the cyclists I see round here have no lights at all.

A recent survey found that a third of the British population are stupid.

This just shows that a third of the 1,000 cyclists have been brainwashed by stupid DfT campaigns and hearsay. F**king sheep!

Nearly half of commuters didn't have lights when the clocks went back despite the fact that anyone commuting by bike knows what happens.

Most collisions are caused by driver behaviour, not cyclists. Compulsory annual eye tests should be enforced. Bans for drivers with 12 or more points shouldn't be shelved. People carelessly piloting 2 tonnes + of steel should be made to realise that it is THEIR behaviour that poses the greatest risk to everyone else.

A clubmate was hit by a driver that failed to give way at a roundabout this week. Thankfully he wasn't hurt. He was doing nothing wrong, had bright lights on etc (a following cyclist said he was clearly visible from a distance) but the driver hit him up and didn't stop. Does anyone really think a neon vest would have made any difference?

Hi-viz doesn't work properly at night, whether under street lighting or out in the lanes. It's more effective in dull daylight/dusk conditions but, more importantly, making it compulsory just shifts the responsibility onto cyclists. Insurers are just going to do everything they can to claim contributory negligence so they don't pay out.

I'd support the mandatory wearing of high viz for cyclists if the same was required of pedestrians and all motor traffic was required to have fluorescent paint jobs.

Why should only one group of road users be dictated to in this way?

So, when it is mandatory and the accidents keep happening, what next?

At what point will it be said "alright, cyclists have done enough, now it is motorists who have to improve"?

My guess: never. Which is why I would never support this legislation.

A third of them want hi-viz to be compulsory but only a quarter of them actually wear hi-viz(!), half of them forget lights when it's dark and only 60% wear a helmet? These figures seem to suggest that the people surveyed were car drivers who occasionally ride a bike.

Utter #victimblaming tosh from a company who's business revolves around cars. Where do they find these "cyclists" or are they drivers with bikes stuck at the back of the garage. Doesn't bare any resemblance to the reality I see

I saw this survey a few days ago and it was nonsensical. It talked about brake lights for god's sake!

There should be no need and definitely never any legislation for cyclists to need to wear hi-viz at all. How many cars are black or dull gray for example?

the main issue are the car drivers that simply do not look.

As for lights, the old BS standard should be dumped in favour of EU/german specifications which are much more modern and sensible.

Reflective patches and strips on the rider and bicycle are also good at night and poor visibility.

There is so much ridiculous hi-viz legislation in the UK already, it seems the best way to stand out from the neon sea is to wear black.

Seriously, I think hi-viz overload has desensitised us all from those colours and we just associate it with general day to day monotony.

Viz a viz : Hi-viz = Low-viz

Er . . . no

My experience of wearing high-vis has been that, even if they see you, it doesn't mean they care…

Having commuted on a cycle for in excess of 20 years and social ridden for longer I have tried everything. At the time of my two most serious offs where I subsequently received very good compensation for, I was wearing Hi Viz I was displaying 2 x exposure products on the front and one on the rear. Oh and thankfully a helmet. What did the driver say on each occasion?
You all know, we have all heard. "Sorry I didn't see you"
So what can you really do to stay lucky???

The more I read stuff like this, the more I feel like plenty of existing cyclists suffer from the road safety equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome.

Or maybe it's even more basic - "I faff about with all this stuff already,I refuse to accept it could make no difference, and you should have to jump through the same hoops if you want to ride a bike".

Having been a commuter for the past 5 years, I've worn alot of of different gear and quite often its not always hi-viz. Ironically the closest I've been to an accident has been whilst wearing a big screaming yellow hi-viz coat with my lights blazing away, the driver purely and simply hadn't looked properly. In my personal experience the case is more about drivers not stopping or looking at junctions or generally driving without due care. The past couple of years I've opted for hi-viz gear because it makes me feel a little safer, but is it a false sense of security?

There should be no need for cyclists to dress up like HiViz clowns on the off chance some drivers "glance" picks them up.

This survey by the motor trade is just passing blame and responsibility towards cyclists, the excuse of "proper" cycling attire is just plain daft. The real issue is that the large majority of drivers are driving in auto pilot and not 100% concentrating behind the wheel.