Police claim "nobody wants to play Spot the Cyclist" so wear hi-vis...; Swap first class for bike storage?; Simon Cowell: Cycling my most creative time; Cav out of hospital; CS3 counter tops 2m; Pidcock joins Boxing Day CX party + more on the live blog

If they are wearing Hi Vis they won't get knocked off their bikes.
If by a million to one chance they do get knocked off then they won;t be hurt 'cos they are wearing helmets.
Problem solved!

Cycloid wrote:

.....
It's a no brainer and I think it's only a matter of time until Parliament pass legislation to make Hi Vis compulsory.

.....

That's the point, it's dogma. Viz falls under PPE (in spite of the fact it doesn't actually protect in any way, like say toetectors do) and is therefore the last, (rather than the first) thing that you should invoke for safer roads .

it's interesting too to consider that whereas PPE (lids, lights, viz etc) are frequently brought up as priority to be legislated, very rarely are the other controls in the hierarchy (AKA the ones that actually work).

Elimination - Extraordinarily difficult short of banning motor vehicles from roads (oh if only)

Isolation - eg separated networks

Controls (mechanical) - eg speed restrictors

Controls (regulatory) - eg Tighter controls on who is allowed to drive, and how (eg adherence to RTA)

PPE - plastic hats, happy colours, blinky lights

Cycloid wrote:

It's a no brainer and I think it's only a matter of time until Parliament pass legislation to make Hi Vis compulsory.

I don't understand how that could be enforced - the police would have to look out for cyclists that are effectively invisible to car drivers, so how would the police see them?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Cycloid wrote:

It's a no brainer and I think it's only a matter of time until Parliament pass legislation to make Hi Vis compulsory.

I don't understand how that could be enforced - the police would have to look out for cyclists that are effectively invisible to car drivers, so how would the police see them?

Just arrest all cyclists who're hit by cars - they've proven they're invisible. Simples!

Back in the day, vehicles generally did not use headlights whilst driving at night under street lights on urban roads, only sidelights and drivers would actually flash you to turn them off. Since a campaign to make it 'safer' and everybody now uses headlights it just means seeing cyclists and pedestrian at night under street lights is so much harder when backlit.

bobbinogs wrote:

Ref: high viz. 

This all shows just how endemic cycling ignorance is, and how even many of those who are there to uphold the traffic laws simply don't 'get it'.  They're probably the same coppers who take to social media to highlight that females shouldn't be wearing low cut skirts at night since they are just 'begging for it'...

Well yes. Those particular constables had to be "redeployed" from community safety to road police as they were getting too many complaints for even the Police to ignore......

Sounds like constable Savage (but with misogyny) carrying on as usual to me...

chrisonatrike wrote:

Sounds like constable Savage (but with misogyny) carrying on as usual to me...

Lol, something that would definitely not see airtime these days....

VIPcyclist wrote:

Provided a high vis coat and helmet my arse. Publicity shot IMO.

Yeah, I can believe they drive around with a load of hi vis jackets in various sizes to swap with cyclists existing dark jackets. (note he is not wearing the blue fleecy jacket under the hi vis)

Also what cyclist rides a road bike in trainers? (except me when I just popped to the cash point last night)

wycombewheeler wrote:

..... (except me when I just popped to the cash point last night)

Hope you had you hiviz on.....

Trusted my lights

wycombewheeler wrote:

Trusted my lights

I can't believe that you survived! how on earth were SUV drivers going to see you through their phones??

Don't worry. It was on solid so they could judge the distance

And that's the thing, surely?  Doesn't matter if you are wearing hi-viz if your bike has the required reflectors and lights (switched on, obviously) on it...

brooksby wrote:

And that's the thing, surely?  Doesn't matter if you are wearing hi-viz if the driver isn't switched on, obviously...

FTFY

brooksby wrote:

... Doesn't matter if you are wearing hi-viz if your bike has the required reflectors .....

well it has a rear reflector, because it's part of the mudguard

The first pic is the cyclist, the second and subsequent ones are a totally random person from a publicity shot.

VIPcyclist wrote:

Provided a high vis coat and helmet my arse. Publicity shot IMO.

I'm going to ride around in drak clothing just so the police give me a jacket.  I like free stuff.

Rendel Harris wrote:

"Nobody wants to play spot the cyclist" indeed...judging by this morning's ride across London, even with a Proviz jacket, bright yellow helmet and three lights on the back and two on the front people were going out of their way to avoid playing spot the cyclist.

It is worrying that the roads police can promote a line that it is not the responsbility of people driving to look out for other roads users while moving big heavy metal boxes around at speed.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

"Nobody wants to play spot the cyclist" indeed...judging by this morning's ride across London, even with a Proviz jacket, bright yellow helmet and three lights on the back and two on the front people were going out of their way to avoid playing spot the cyclist.

It is worrying that the roads police can promote a line that it is not the responsbility of people driving to look out for other roads users while moving big heavy metal boxes around at speed.

Sadly, it has a bit of a habit of victim-blaming.  A few tweets earlier, it tweeted about half of motorcycle collisions involving drivers... so motorcyclists, watch out...!

Shameful.

GMBasix wrote:

Sadly, it has a bit of a habit of victim-blaming.  A few tweets earlier, it tweeted about half of motorcycle collisions involving drivers... so motorcyclists, watch out...!

The people commenting on their twitter have a habit of victim blaming too.

Having a discussion with one whose point is that drivers that run into cyclists who have lights and hi-viz do so because of this "Its psychological. We all do it. Even you. Never found yourself staring at something especially when you aren’t 100%" 

Apparently they don't want to "argue" with me when I asked them whether or not they thought people who were not at 100% should be behind the wheel of a 2 tonne weapon.

TriTaxMan wrote:

Its psychological. We all do it. Even you. Never found yourself staring at something especially when you aren’t 100%" 

They're right. It's true. Which is why driving a car should be regarded as something that takes attention all the time. 

I recall a motorcycling friend saying that riding a motorcycle for any sigificant distance should make you tired from the concetration required to stay alive.  The same is true of driving, in order to keep other people alive.  We shouldn't believe the hype that a car should deliver you there in a relaxed state... you should be focused enough on the job that you're not boasting about having driven 5 hours straight; you should know that after 2 hours you need a break, or you're not doing it right.

GMBasix wrote:

They're right. It's true. Which is why driving a car should be regarded as something that takes attention all the time. 

That was the point I tried to make to the person but they just accused me of being argumentative when I asked whether or not they thought it was acceptable for people to be driving if they are not able to concentrate on the road.

Rendel Harris wrote:

"Nobody wants to play spot the cyclist" indeed...judging by this morning's ride across London, even with a Proviz jacket, bright yellow helmet and three lights on the back and two on the front people were going out of their way to avoid playing spot the cyclist.

Indeed, no matter how well illuminated a cyclist is, whether it be lights, Hi-Viz, reflective clothing etc, some drivers will simply not see you, or as is more likely will see you but dehumanise you and move you into the category of "bloody cyclist" and ignore you or attempt to bully you.

For the rest of my brother's life he is going to be dealing with the effects of a partially crushed vertebrae after being hit by an off duty police officer while cycling home from work. It was a bright sunny afternoon and he happened to be wearing a luminous yellow running shirt. That's right, even police don't see you when you are "visible" and in perfect weather conditions.

squired wrote:

For the rest of my brother's life he is going to be dealing with the effects of a partially crushed vertebrae after being hit by an off duty police officer while cycling home from work. It was a bright sunny afternoon and he happened to be wearing a luminous yellow running shirt. That's right, even police don't see you when you are "visible" and in perfect weather conditions.

Sorry to hear that.

Unfortunately it is all too common.  If as a cyclist you do everything right and get struck by a vehicle, the driver will generally be absolved of most things as it was an "accident" but if you fail to wear Hi-Viz or have lights it is your fault because you never made yourself visible to the driver.  Either way it wasn't the drivers fault.