North Wales Police to hand out brightly-coloured gilets to “less visible” cyclists

Do the police need to hand out more visible Mobile Messaging Trailers?

Wait for it...

All this is based on the superficially attractive notion, to people who don't cycle much, that these accidents are due to invisible cyclists. In Lancashire they hand out the totally ineffectual Mobile Messaging Trailer

Dear God no wonder cyclists are being killed with clowns like this in charge.

https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/18621732.pavement-paintings-promo...

at the road safety partnership meeting : "now Jerry how many times have we been over this, cars will be cars and we must respect that. All in favour of the pavement stickers?"

Surely that gilet is simply going to annoy motorists? May as well hand out ones saying don't run me over yer shit bastard.

Without wanting to start a fight or get flamed are the police just allowed to stop you?, don't they need a valid reason and if they do stop you can you just say 'no thanks' and ride on. As not wearing hi-viz isn't an offence then you're surely under no obligation to stop and engage with them.

Are they also handing-out glasses for drivers that can't see, or driving lessons for drivers that don't know how to drive safely?

A think a lot of drivers have no clue as how to drive. Was just walking on a minor road, single carriageway with passing places and of the 3 drivers, none slowed to walking pace and 2 carried on as though we were not there.

Later we were on a 40 stretch and even when there was no traffic the other way, drivers did not move over. One driver slowed to walking pace a little further on so kudos to him.

Mae arwyddion wedi'u gosod i annog modurwyr i adael o leiaf 1.5m i feicwyr

English translation : "hey, my driving is a bit dodge, you won't mind putting on will you?"

If it is warm enough for short sleeves it is normally too warm for a gilet, I normally only wear one with a LS top. Bit of a tangent I know.

What a load of patronising bollocks.
The reason motorists don't see cyclists is because they aren't looking, either they are texting or fucking around with one of the umpteen other gizmos that seem to be an unneccessary distraction in modern vehicles.
Add in motorists being totally unable to use their indicators when overtaking slower vehicles, so that the fourth or fifth car in the queue behind is on top of you before realising that you are there.
Stop blaming the victims for the problems and nick drivers who don't drive to the standards required for the roads.

When a driver puts a cyclist in danger, it's rarely because dark clothes made the person on the bike invisible.

That's the first comment in this topic and remains the essential feature. My own ceaseless war with Lancashire Constabulary began when a driver came down the wrong side of the Sainsbury's access road- 'cutting the corner' on turning right from the public road when I was in the corner waiting to turn right leaving the site. I had a very bright helmet mounted flashing light and a bright constant front light mounted on the handlebar. He hit my right shoulder  with the wing mirror, and he was only inches away from slamming into my front wheel and ramming the stem back into my stationary pelvis astride the top tube. The police decided that the  driver's excuse that he hadn't seen me because it was dark and raining was perfectly acceptable and the initial decision was 'no further action because it was only a momentary loss of concentration'. The police would have taken the same easy decision if I had been splattered over the tarmac because I wouldn't have been alive or conscious enough to give the alternative view of 'I didn't see him'- this is the police 'dream diagnosis' of insufficient evidence!

The driver hit me because he was used to 'cutting the corner' to avoid oncoming motor traffic and wasn't interested in looking out for anything waiting in the corner other than a large motor vehicle. Someone below mentions 'victim blaming', which is what is behind all this 'didn't see him' rubbish- mostly they see you perfectly well but think that 20 cms clearance is quite enough.

If you are driving along a straight road a cyclist wearing Hi Viz a quarter of a mile down the road is very noticible.

It's a no brainer isn't it. "Cyclist should be made to wear Hi Viz". - NO

In 70% of the collisions between adult cyclists and motor vehicles the motorist is totally to blame. The most common explanation is "I did not see the cyclist"

Collisions do not happen when a cyclist is a quarter of a mile down the road. Collisions happen because of something that took place (or did not take place) a few seconds beforehand. At 30mph 3 seconds = 44 yards. The cyclist is there to be seen at this distance, the cause of most collisions is the driver not looking.

The problem we have is that the "No Brainer" lobby will win the argument and Hi Viz will become mandatory.

How about "smile you're on camera" on the back just to unnerve drivers?

As long as they make all drivers of black cars paint hi-viz colour squares onto them, I don't have a problem with this.

I ride with lights on day and night and even my black clothing has reflective detail on. A driver will see you or not see you and as shown with some court cases, they will still get away with the SMIDSY even when the victim is lit up like a Christmas Tree.

Although I could do with a new gillet so anyone let me know which routes I need to cycle to get one?

Do NW Police have special cameras to spot these low visibility cyclists that apparently can't be seen by the public?

Any chance of deliberate wearing of black clothing by cyclists to qualify for a free gilet?