- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Motion Fox FlashBk Expandable hi-vis vestPolice ask pedestrians to wear hi-vis following spate of road deaths in Scotland
Police Scotland is at the centre of a "victim blaming" row after a chief inspector urged pedestrians to wear "reflective or fluorescent" clothing after six people walking were killed after being hit by other road users in just 13 days.
Ch Insp Lorraine Napier argued that in light of the incidents, officers should encourage all road users to keep safe, first asking pedestrians to stay visible. And in response to a request for comment from road.cc, Police Scotland confirmed the force had "nothing to add".
"Pedestrians are considered vulnerable road users and, in winter, particularly when it is dark, pedestrians should wear reflective or fluorescent clothing," she said.
"I would also urge pedestrians to be mindful of their surroundings and to ensure they are not putting themselves at risk."
The comments also asked motorists to "drive with particular care in areas where people may be on foot or crossing roads and ensure the correct vehicle lights are in operation".
Ch Insp Napier insisted Police Scotland is "committed to improving the safety of all road users and particularly vulnerable road users across the country" but received accusations of victim blaming for her assertion that pedestrians should help themselves by wearing hi-vis clothing.
Maybe Police Scotland can stop victim shaming pedestrians and cyclists?
Hi-vis doesn't help at 1:30pm.https://t.co/M9M3yyzQ4G
— Stuart Barrett (@two_truths) February 10, 2023
@PoliceScotland victim blaming. Saying if you don't wear high viz, even in well lit environments then it's your own fault.
DRIVERS KILL PEOPLE. You need to address this and stop this obsession with victim blaming and high viz @kfullermusic
— G61_YPLAC (@G61_YPLAC) February 9, 2023
How have we got to a point where pedestrians are being advised to wear reflective or fluorescent clothes, in case they need to cross a road? motorists are simply asked to ensure their headlights are working and clean, I think driving to the speed limit would also be good advice
— Philippa Cochrane (@philippac72) February 10, 2023
In a tragic timeline of events, 42-year-old John Stanley Lewis was killed when hit by a driver on the A9 in Perth on 25 January, the first of a series of six pedestrian fatalities between then and February 6.
An 89-year-old man died in hospital four days after a collision with a cyclist in Linlithgow on 29 January, while a 75-year-old man was killed after being hit by a driver in Hamilton on February 1.
The next day, student Chinenye Vera Okonkwo, 33, died after a two-car crash in Glasgow city centre, with a 79-year-old man and a 64-year-old man killed in Edinburgh on February 4 and Glasgow on February 6 after being hit by the driver of a bus and a car driver respectively.
Ch Insp Napier, who is also a commander of road policing, confirmed that specialist officers were investigating each of the six incidents to fully establish the circumstances.
On average, 37 pedestrians died annually on Scotland's roads between 2017 and 2021, according to Transport Scotland statistics, meaning 16 per cent of the yearly average was suffered in just under two weeks.
Concerns about the police asking pedestrians to protect themselves with hi-vis clothing mirrors the treatment cyclists often receive — with requests for riders to make sure they have lights, bright clothing and helmets a regular feature of roads policing, especially on social media.
In 2020, the Metropolitan Police denied that an operation handing out hi-vis vests to bicycle riders in the English capital constituted victim blaming. Meanwhile in November 2021 Northern Ireland's road policing unit said that "nobody wants to play spot the cyclist" and recommended hi-vis clothing, prompting the following reply including one of their Surrey counterparts' tweets.
How have you turned this into a discussion about high viz?
We have cars covered in it and big flashy lights and drivers STILL don’t see us. pic.twitter.com/e4PF8v7uqu
— Roads Policing - Surrey Police - UK (@SurreyRoadCops) June 26, 2020
In May of last year, broadcaster and pedalling presenter Jeremy Vine shared a video of a police officer riding alongside him in full hi-vis being close passed by a lorry driver.
The clip prompted Detective Chief Superintendent Andy Cox, head of crime at Lincolnshire Police and national lead for fatal collision investigations, to remind motorists that they have "a responsibility to protect vulnerable road users".
And wearing hi-vis did little to protect the road.cc reader who submitted yesterday's Near Miss of the Day video, in which an oncoming driver veered across the centre of the road, only pulling away from the rider at the last second — despite the cyclist having lights, reflectors and fluorescent clothing.
"Lights, reflectors and hi-vis — if they ain't looking they won't see you," our reader concluded.
It is not the first time Police Scotland's communication to vulnerable road users has been questioned either. Just a few months ago the force was accused of victim blaming after advising cyclists – but not drivers – to "pay attention to road signs, markings and particularly red lights".
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- Veganpotter 2 hours 4 min ago
He should never be able to drive again.
- Veganpotter 2 hours 12 min ago
He wouldn't have gotten so far with a bent link. He could have hypothetically bent a link on a barrier but that can happen with any chain. This...
- David9694 2 hours 43 min ago
Vauxhall van and Salvatori delivery truck stuck in width restrictions in Church Road, Murston...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 47 min ago
Don't come round 'ere with your "why not fix it so that everyone can use it" nonsense!...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 51 min ago
Thank you for the local knowledge. One out of two ain't bad? And you get the best of both worlds currently... Presumably there are people who...
- Dhill 3 hours 56 min ago
I agree with you. Just enjoy riding a bike. Easy to forget that one simple thing.
- Steve K 4 hours 25 min ago
He also writes articles from there saying that people whom work from home are all skivers who should be back in the office
- Rendel Harris 5 hours 35 min ago
By no means claiming that Armstrong was the only doper in that period but your claim makes no sense: the average speed is taken on the time of the...
- wtjs 6 hours 4 min ago
I suffered a close pass by a BMW driver 2 or 3 years ago. 10 yards later he was stopped by temporary lights. It's all on video: there's no swearing...
- ManicDrummer 6 hours 54 min ago
Electromagnetic pedals you say? Call the witch finder general!
Add new comment
117 comments
OK - for anyone who wants context (who am I kidding?):
25th January "A9 in Perth"
13:30
Dual carriageway de-restricted ring road. Should be zero pedestrians here except maybe using crossings at the roundabout at the north end.
https://www.scotland.police.uk/what-s-happening/news/2023/january/man-di...
29 January Blackness Road, Linlithgow
10:20
20mph at one end, 30mph mostly - urban road, but next to park / not next to houses the whole way.
An 89-year-old man died in hospital four days after a collision with a cyclist
https://www.scotland.police.uk/what-s-happening/news/2023/february/witne...
1 Feb Bothwell Road, Hamilton
08:50
Busy 4-lane "urban road" - albeit with some 20mph limits for schools (!)
A 75-year-old man was killed after being hit by a driver in Hamilton.
https://www.scotland.police.uk/what-s-happening/news/2023/february/appea...
2 Feb St. Vincent Street, Glasgow
19:40
City centre street (20 mph?)
33 year old woman (pedestrian) died after a two-car crash in Glasgow city centre
https://www.scotland.police.uk/what-s-happening/news/2023/february/appea...
4 Feb Haymarket Terrace
17:35
City centre street (very busy area - transport hub with bars etc.) 20mph
79-year-old man died after being hit by a bus driver.
https://www.scotland.police.uk/what-s-happening/news/2023/february/appea...
6 Feb Bartiebeith Road, Glasgow
20:30
Urban - appears to be something of a "connector road", 30mph
64-year-old man who was walking a dog - hit and run
https://www.scotland.police.uk/what-s-happening/news/2023/february/appea...
So that's 3 "dark" and 3 "light" - albeit one at 08:50.
Different places, rather different circumstances. The first one seems really odd e.g. no reason at all for pedestrian to be there. We've got a collision with a cycle, a bus, a hit and run, a multi-car collision. We've got mostly "urban" situations.
But Police Scotland choose this moment to say "hi-vis and reflectives though".
Each one of those needs even more context before anyone can identify a cause for each victim, however, it does appear that visibility of the victim is not a common factor.
Being visible is appropriate in context. Walking on a country lane will have me assessing road position, who is wearing what (I'll walk behind Mrs S in her bright pink that she has a penchant for if I think my ancient but serviceable brown ski jacket is a problem.i think the mis-step, assuming that the reporting is accurate is that any advice should be biased to those who can make the most difference, which should mean at least 90% car advice and 10% other road users. Unfortunately, drivers are pretty immune to advice on their driving.
I do think that the psychological dynamics of driver behaviour need leveraging. I can tell that if I drive at 20mph in a 20, other drivers are accepting, and I like to believe that it makes them consider it appropriate whereas if they follow someone at 30, they are also likely to consider it a demonstration of it also being acceptable (or possibly a demonstration of locals knowledge on the likelihood of getting caught). Just telling people to drive properly is not an effective strategy and these days you are just as likely to trigger our wartime logistical compatriots to justify loudly and publicly why it is wrong to submit to the jackboot that is the Highway Code.
Hear hear. (We miss things like Beyond the Kerb's casebook - unless you know of other efforts like that?) Of course more detail requires not just money but more importantly a culture of seeking facts and an acceptance of complexity and nuance. Sadly this often appears incompatible with politics! Small p - just getting your ideas heard / changes made over all the competing distractions and interests.
Yes. On the plus side - decades of road building and motor car promotion show that a) people certainly *do* respond to the "infra" (the environment) and designers understand that - albeit they are tasked currently with "make driving (fast) attractive". b) We know that some pretty potent psychological levers exist to be pulled - we're humans, not econs and our selfish behaviour is moderated in a huge range of ways.
Nice turn of phrase. It also leads to some paradoxical ideas (which may have merit - not sure) like "we can only promote active travel by not being negative about driving and NOT mentioning cycling..."
I guess it's like visibility - all depends on the context.
It is certainly the case that cycle lanes are seen as for the benefit of cyclists, but actually they are more likely, if properly implemented, to benefit motorists, with reduced stress of having to deal with the blighters and being able to join their queues without interruptions.
To many people willing to jump on a conspiracy bandwagon to be able to do nice things for everyone seems to be the big problem, and all those councils who are convinced that cyclists are to be dealt with like living statues and crusty jugglers.
Well, this morning was instructive. In two minds as to whether to go out in heavy fog, definitely of the below 100 metre visibility variety but it seemed that motorists were generally ok, aside from when passing, as they couldn't see well, they took risks.
Didn't have any problems being seen in my yellow gilet (bright but not technically hi-viz in my book), and dhb orange top, two lights on the rear and bright forward light, but I would say 50% of the car drivers had unlawful lighting.
Either:
- daylight running lights, no rear lighting.
- Side lights only.
- No lights.
There clearly is a problem with automatic lighting where people don't know to check whether it has activated, and they don't understand that it is less likely to activate in fog. People also clearly don't think about that they have no rear lighting either. Automation has actually made drivers more dangerous.
There were a few occasions where our group felt that the lack of lighting reduced our ability to respond to oncoming cars.
What's really annoying it's knowing we are going to spend the next month being dazzled at night by those drivers who don't switch off their dog lights again.
Or deafened by the barking...
Grrrr.
I've found the trend for dog lights to be very useful on shared use paths in the evenings.
Are there any official stats on how many motorists have been KSI by a cyclist riding into them?
see page 22
https://www.pacts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/PACTS-What-kills-most-on-the...
I'd love to know the circumstances where a car driver/passenger was KSI'd in an incident where a pedal cycle was involved.
If this was really a thing I'm pretty sure it would be newsworthy so you should be able to find it with a search. Even in our "don't care about road death" news environment. Like "cyclist kills pedestrian" it would have a "man bites dog" appeal to the journalist?
Alternatively this may be due to how this information is coded - possibly it might be "driver hit cyclist with their car and also died as a result"? Could be "driver swerved to avoid cyclist and ran off the road and died?" I have no idea and would encourage anyone who could provide more context to these numbers to do so as a valuable public service!
"Involved" does not imply any causal relationship and nor does it preclude the cyclist also being injured. So an incident like this one from yesterday could fit into that statistic if the driver/passenger of the car was also KSI (in that particular case there is no suggestion the driver was injured, but they easily could have been).
Reverse red flag act needed!
I propose all vulnerable road users should be preceeded (and followed) by a person waving a red flag, to protect vulnerable motorists from the trauma of innocently killing someone.
If it saves one life...
It's interesting that our pro-car anti-cyclist bridge dweller has previously stated on this forum that any collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian is 100% the cyclist's fault, even if the pedestrian is drunk out of their mind and falls into the road in front of the cyclist, yet apparently that doesn't apply to drivers and it's definitely the pedestrian's fault if they get hit whilst wearing dark clothes at night. One wonders what he'd say if a cyclist dressed in impeccable hi vis and with a full complement of lights and reflectors hit and killed a pedestrian wearing dark clothes and walking in the road?
Motorists: not driving wherever you want whenever you want is basically fascism.
Also Motorists: you can't leave the house without a hi-vis permission slip, otherwise you deserve to die
Shurely"not driving wherever you want whenever you want *as fast as the law allows or a bit more according to common practice* is basically fascism."
Police Scotland make the Keystone cops look professional.
Nothing but hired thugs of the Scottish government.
It's well foggy this morning. Should I light up accordingly or assume that every driver is going to be driving responsibly enough to see me without..?
I feel like the hi-vis argument falters a lot when riding a bike, because we are equipped with bright lights (or should be, anyway) that, surely, are more conspicuous than some fluoro shiny jacket?
Happy to be shown correct research if I'm wrong.
Aye, I've never felt the need for hi-vis as I feel reflective gear works a lot better when dark, but run one blinking front and both a blinking back and static bright back light during the day and add a static 400 lumens at the front for night riding.
The increased effectiveness of lights+hi-vis over lights-only is probably in the 'no sh*t sherlock' category of science.
Dunno, I find that just a belt is usually enough to hold my trousers up most days....
Or it might be "common sense" but not actually true. I don't know, just saying that an apparently obvious conclusion does not always stand scrutiny.
Sounds like you think it's worth a study. Sounds interesting; do let us know the results.
Ok sherlock. My study is going to be at night.
Definitely the latter. Good luck and godspeed. I hope I don't see you in the news section of Road.cc later today (after your next of kin are informed of course).
Made it with no problems, absolutely beautiful ride.
Also went out - it was lovely! As it happens had no lights no high vis AND no helmet, on a very upright bike, on local roads at only slightly slower than the speed of the traffic. Didn't die, didn't run into anyone. I just went a bit slower when needed and didn't rush to overtake eg. the road sweeping vehicle as I couldn't be sure I could see far enough past it or what its movements would be.
Slowed to a crawl past some folks out with boisterous dogs.
Not difficult really. Oh - but it wasn't a "purposeful journey", and I wasn't doing it in part to maintain or enhance my status. As you were!
Nice one, not sure what the purpose of the personal dig at the end was for, but happy for you.
Pages