L&B Police is quite keen on 'telling' cyclists to be 'safe' - and handing out Hi Viz vests (sometimes paid for by Lothian Buses).
It certainly seems to be 'normal' for commuters.
This is currently on an EN story -
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Hi Viz (rules?)
(91 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
I find it difficult to settle my own views on promotion of hi-viz for cycling and even for kids going to school.
On the Pro side: if there is evidence that hi-viz works, then on a personal basis there might be a short term benefit to wearing it.
Against it: it kind of promotes the idea that cycling is dangerous. Wearing of hi-viz also seems to shift the burden for safety from the driver to the cyclist, which must be wrong. I would be prefer to see a much higher standard of driving, where drivers are aware of other around them and drive to the conditions. Unfortunately improvements in driving standards are unlikely to be made without concerted government action.
There is also a benefit of the individual vs benefit of the group argument. Will drivers becoming accustomed to seeing cyclists in hi-viz make it more risky for those that don't?
Posted 12 years ago # -
..the idea that cycling is dangerous
Compared to other forms of local transport, such as the car, cycling is dangerous, so it makes sense to get the benefits while minimising the risk.
shift the burden for safety from the driver to the cyclist, which must be wrong
Maybe, but it is pragmatic to get the person at risk (and therefore with strong motivation) to take the action required, especially where the action is easy and very low cost.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I witnessed a commuter in full yellow High viz jacket helmet cover and rucksack cover nearly taken out by a car that just pulled out right in front of him the other day.So it doesn't always matter what you wear the occasional driver still won't see you. Personally I refuse to wear the stuff. I'd like to say for the well thought out reasons that Amir posted above but actually I think it looks stupid.( on me of course everyone else that wears it looks stylish and sweetly pretty).
Posted 12 years ago # -
I think the photograph captures it pretty well for me, it clearly suggests that the stationary Police officer without High Viz is in much more danger than the Officer with.
Or Paramedic, or workman, or anyone else who wears high viz. There is a valid argument about whether or not it increases safety (as in number or collisions), but there really is no arguing that someone, be it a Workman, Policeman, or Cyclist IS more visible - again the photograph demonstrates this pretty well.
So high viz makes anyone more visible, that is it's function, and I don't actually think it suggests more danger ie the Policeman etc.
Posted 12 years ago # -
What? There's 2 police officers in that photo???
Posted 12 years ago # -
Hard to disagree on the benefits of hi-viz for the individual in the current road environment but I still see it as something badly wrong with our way of life when the environment is considered so dangerous that kids should wear it when walking near a road.
But why is there no promotion of hi-viz paint for cars? It would only seem logical...
Posted 12 years ago # -
I don't bother because I've never found it to make the slightest difference. I get way more response from motorists wearing black and carrying a D-lock than in a bin man suit ;-)
I seem to be a bit of an outlier though in that I think there's no problem with people being hard to see - they are there to be seen and the problem is drivers not looking (or deliberately doing something stupid). In fact, the more accomplished I become as a rider the more I'm convinced the best thing you can do for your safety is to look unsafe.
I was relating to Becky at the hustings last week that I almost ran down a cyclist in Marchmont a few months ago, who had head-to-toe hi-viz and two front lights - I just drove right out from a T junction in front of him (by complete chance, he wasn't any further forward or going much faster).
Posted 12 years ago # -
I pack a hi viz shoulder belt between the autumnal and vernal equinoxes for use in foggy conditions.
To wear a hi viz vest for regular cycling would be overkill...
... unless you're especially keen on sporting the ever-fashionable highlighter pen stationery look
Posted 12 years ago # -
I don't wear it. Personal choice (I do wear reflective gear in the dark).
I try to ride in such a way that I'm visible anyway - very very very few of my incidents (which aren't really, in the grand scheme of things, that frequent) come from someone not seeing me at all. Far more are caused by people seeing me and thinking they'll do what they're going to do anyway. Hi-viz won't stop that, they've seen me anyway.
I'd also advocate cars are painted in hi-viz colours, after all drivers hit other cars quite frequently - maybe it's because they can't see them?
Posted 12 years ago # -
I've heard "SMIDSY" once too often, so don't wish to even give them that defence...
So, my minimum is an EN471:2 vest, supplemented by more reflective tape whenever I'm wearing ankle straps, gloves, jacket (green), helmet hood...
I know objectively that road positioning [1] will be more effective, but if you're arguing about it (in court?) after the fact, road positioning is too ephemeral.
[1] Or having a small child alongside you. Probably ties in with Dave's "Oooo, that's dangerous" vibe!
Robert
Posted 12 years ago # -
According to the Department of Transport's "Road Accidents Great Britain 1991, The Casualty Report", black cars have the most accidents and yellow cars have the least [sic] accidents.
In isolation, hi-viz material is helpful, in the same way that daytime running lamps are helpful. A relatively small number of occurrences against a large wash of nothing terribly special makes things stand out. But when every occurrence is made visible to the same degree, you no longer have the ability to discriminate. That's why the recommended hi-viz scheme for Police vehicles is not a single colour but two contrasting colours. But in 'our' terms it also eliminates choice. What does this mean for cyclists as a group? Are cyclists sufficient in number that homogeneous hi-viz would still be effective against being not seen?
Anecdata suggests that against the overwhelming danger presented by operators of lethal machinery, the onus on the vulnerable to make themselves visible is still outweighed. That hi-viz (etc.) may not be sufficient, because of human error, suggests that such homogenity should never be encouraged or mandated.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"........I think there's no problem with people being hard to see - they are there to be seen and the problem is drivers not looking (or deliberately doing something stupid)......."
Exactly, many drivers are not looking for *any* hazards when they make observations, they are looking, either conciously or unconciously, for hazards which they perceive will affect them. Bicycles (and to an extent motorcycles) are not perceived as a threat.
If you want (non-scientific!) evidence, pick a route where you are regularly left hooked, cut in on, you know the sort of thing, generally abused and frightened, ride it a couple of times in good visibility in "normal" rig and then in a hi-vi tabard, I bet you'll experience minimal difference in the number of people who "don't see you".
Then try it in dark trousers, white helmet, and emergency services style hi-vi waistcoat, ideally on a white MTB (please however do not dress up as Police/Ambulance, we're only after a general "look"),...
I'll bet you notice a distinct change in the way many vehicles behave around you. It's not that you are any harder or easier to see, or that they hadn't seen you before, it's that their subconcious went "uh-oh it's maybe a Policeman/medic, am I behaving?" and you therefore became another road user as opposed to another bit of clutter filed away as "not relevant to me".I first noticed it about twenty years ago when I borrowed a white BMW bike with an orange stripe down the sides, it was like a magic trick being suddenly visible to everyone, despite wearing "normal" bike clothes/helmet. I observed it again a few years later when I had cause to drive an old Vauxhall Cavalier when the local Police were still using Chevettes, coming home from work one manky night with a mate both in shirt and dark tie, all of a sudden all the nearby traffic was obeying the speed limit and signalling properly, took us a couple of minutes to work it out mind you....
The other drivers could see me/us no better or worse, but they noticed me/us because we looked like we might be a threat.As someone pointed outnot so long ago, even a hawaiian shirt can do the trick, as it makes many car drivers look twice, and on the second look they actually register you are there, "seeing" us is not the problem, registering us is imho, and all the hi-viz going wont help that when it (hi-vi)is the commuting norm.
Of course if conditions are poor then Hi-Vi, and especially retro-reflectives can make you much more visible, but in good conditions, imho, it carries no advantage at all.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"I've heard "SMIDSY" once too often, so don't wish to even give them that defence..."
I guess that's where I'm coming from - I don't hear (or experience) SMIDSY that often, but see plenty of SMIDGAF.
Posted 12 years ago # -
LOL.. true that, innit
its always SMIDGAF, which turns into SMIDSY if legally required
Posted 12 years ago # -
And for some reason SMIDSY is regarded as a valid excuse.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Highway Code rule no 59 recommends High Viz (and helmets) be worn by cyclists at all times (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069837).
Slightly off topic, and I know this rule is not 'mandatory', but we (as in cyclists) always chastise motorists for not following the rules, and frequently brandish Highway code rule no X, and rule no Y in our defense of whatever.
But in my opinion this is just another instance of us following the rules as *we* see fit, and given it is defined in the Highway Code, it is completely understandable when motorists think we are breaking the rules (we are) when we don't conform!
I know, I know, I've got this thing about rules, it's the OCD!
Posted 12 years ago # -
Edited as I've just re-read rule 59 "•light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light"
So light coloured clothing is equally appropriate should one not with to look like you are at work..
I'd still like to know who to complain to in order the get the helmet bit changed from "should" to "may" however!
Posted 12 years ago # -
Recommendations are not rules.
BTW Baldcyclist, if cycling on one of those pavement paths, would you dismount at every "Cyclist dismount" sign. I wouldn't but I would feel kind of guilty.
Posted 12 years ago # -
@baldcyclist - your earlier remark about the 15mph FRB limit did resonate with me, as I do breach it daily, while hypocritically abusing motorists for breaching speed limits elsewhere.
But you go too far here. Shonky ill-informed recommendations aren't actually rules, are they?
Posted 12 years ago # -
I've started stopping at red lights that's enough conformity for me! :-)
Posted 12 years ago # -
Hmmm. Very interesting point Baldcyclist. I think it's worth looking at the HC again and seeing differences in view on applicability.
One thing I would say is that most of the rules for driving are based around making sure you don't cause others harm; the hi-viz 'rule' in the HC for cyclists is about possibly not having harm caused to yourself.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I'll take assertive riding over hi viz any day.
I'm certainly not a fan of the hi viz tabard - I get hot enough cycling that the last thing I want to do is stick on an extra layer which doesn't look particularly comfortable or breathable. And they do make cycling look a bit "other" to me.
Interestingly, in Australia the guys doing the jobs that normally require the hi viz tabard in the UK (construction workers, street cleaners, etc) all had hi viz tops - basically, what looked like dry-flo/breathable material, but with flouro yellow top halves. They looked a lot more comfortable wearing those than your average Brit brickie in his hi viz.
Posted 12 years ago # -
To extend an idea with a cycling nation. I was speaking to a Dutch girl on my Japanese drumming course who, since coming to Scotland, has stopped cycling. By the by, but on the hi-viz side apparently in Dutchland the construction workers don't wear hi-viz either.
Posted 12 years ago # -
....OK, I did deliberately do a little prodding.
But I do find the responses a little interesting...
"
BTW Baldcyclist, if cycling on one of those pavement paths, would you dismount at every "Cyclist dismount" sign. I wouldn't but I would feel kind of guilty.
""
But you go too far here. Shonky ill-informed recommendations aren't actually rules, are they?
"I'ts like I wrote the rules, and published the website ;0, rather than simply quote from it.
Kind of demonstrates how when one group of society [enter motorist / cyclist as appropriate] feels the rules are stupid [enter parking in cycle lane or speeding / wearing high viz and helmets as appropriate] then they become quite vocal against the silly rules...Posted 12 years ago # -
I wear a stupid hi-vis tabard with reflective bits in the dark because my winter coat is black and I don't want to be the subject of a report stating "The cyclist, who was wearing a black coat..."
In daylight I reckon if people are not going to look then they are not going to look regardless of what I'm wearing.
Posted 12 years ago # -
@baldcyclist Indeed. It's almost like the idea of "grouping" people by transport mechanism when there's almost total overlap and expecting them to behave significantly differently is a bit unrealistic ;-)
When I ride or drive I try never to worry about the law or highway code, most things should be highly self explanatory. Is it a good idea to do 50mph past this primary school? Not so much. Even 30mph is probably too fast -> slow down. However I drive (and cycle) well over 5mph limits in car parks, for instance.
Probably I'm just evil.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Don't get me wrong, I have a helmet, wear it in some circumstances and support the right of others to wear them when / were they want.
I just don't want it used as an excuse to get a criminally dangerous driver off the hook/a joke sentence if he ploughs through me at 60mph then claims contributory negligence "because he wasn't wearing a helmet like the highway code reccomends".I endeavour to obey all the laws, and consider seriously the reccomendations, and I try to ride/drive in a sensibe and considerate manner (it's up to others to judge if I succeed!)
I complain when others disobey the highway code in a manner which hurts/frightens me or those around me, regardless of their choice of transport.It's not an in group / out group thing. It's wanting to be able to travel safely, and without intimidation (attempted or successful!) out on the roads, whatever mode of transport I choose.
imho...
Posted 12 years ago # -
mmm I personally feel happier in hi-viz because I normally wear dark or black clothing. Even if it doesn't make a massive difference I would rather feel that I'm wearing something a little more likely to get me noticed than were i to cycle in my normal street wear. That's just my personal feeling though. I feel safer wearing it, but I have only been cycling in the city for just over a week.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Not quite as direct as the 'rule' on hi-viz for cycling, but rule 3 for pedestrians... how many of us always comply?
3
Help other road users to see you. Wear or carry something light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions.Posted 12 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
