Cycling UK Forum

Adding a sentence to the ‘Introduction’,
“However, liability should not be based on wearing extra safety aids in the case of pedestrians and cyclists.” and revising Rule 59, omitting ’should’ as below.

Rule 59
https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82
Rewording Rule 59,
Clothing.
• Wear appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
• Wear light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light
• Wear reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.
• If wearing a cycle helmet please ensure it conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened (evidence for the safety benefits of helmets is still under consideration).

Steady rider wrote:

Adding a sentence to the ‘Introduction’,
“However, liability should not be based on wearing extra safety aids in the case of pedestrians and cyclists.” and revising Rule 59, omitting ’should’ as below.

Rule 59
https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82
Rewording Rule 59,
Clothing.
• Wear appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
• Wear light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light
• Wear reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.
• If wearing a cycle helmet please ensure it conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened (evidence for the safety benefits of helmets is still under consideration).

Is the above suitable changes to the Code?

The utility cyclist wrote:

Steady rider wrote:NO!
total removal with ref hi-vis, helmets and reflectives unless applied equally to cars/vans/HGVs etc and their drivers

Warin61 wrote:

The utility cyclist wrote:

Steady rider wrote:NO!
total removal with ref hi-vis, helmets and reflectives unless applied equally to cars/vans/HGVs etc and their drivers

Yet to sight a car wearing a helmet

If these 'rules' were applied to pedestrians then it would apply to drivers and passengers as soon as they leave their vehicles. That would include trains, planes and ferries. It would also apply to Police Officers, and they would need to set an example.

The utility cyclist wrote:it should recommend hi-vis colours for ALL vehicles and reflectives

Cunobelin wrote:It always amuses me when I nip down to the local Asda / Lidl/Tesco Supermarkets

They have risk assessments in place where any employee in the parking areas needs to wear HiViz

The utility cyclist wrote:NO!
total removal with ref hi-vis, helmets and reflectives unless applied equally to cars/vans/HGVs etc and their drivers

661-Pete wrote:

The utility cyclist wrote:it should recommend hi-vis colours for ALL vehicles and reflectives

That's me snookered then.

My car is black.....

During daylight, black vehicles are 12 percent more likely than white cars to be involved in an accident. Not only are cars with low-visibility colors more likely to be involved in any crash, they are also more likely to be in a severe or life-threatening accident. Other low-visibility colors include blue, silver, gray, red and dark green. White cars are the safest cars to drive due to their high visibility during daylight and at dusk and dawn.

AlaninWales wrote:https://www.reference.com/vehicles/color-car-accidents-35bc1c8e7f375cd6

During daylight, black vehicles are 12 percent more likely than white cars to be involved in an accident. Not only are cars with low-visibility colors more likely to be involved in any crash, they are also more likely to be in a severe or life-threatening accident. Other low-visibility colors include blue, silver, gray, red and dark green. White cars are the safest cars to drive due to their high visibility during daylight and at dusk and dawn.

661-Pete wrote:Is it?

AlaninWales wrote:https://www.reference.com/vehicles/color-car-accidents-35bc1c8e7f375cd6

During daylight, black vehicles are 12 percent more likely than white cars to be involved in an accident. Not only are cars with low-visibility colors more likely to be involved in any crash, they are also more likely to be in a severe or life-threatening accident. Other low-visibility colors include blue, silver, gray, red and dark green. White cars are the safest cars to drive due to their high visibility during daylight and at dusk and dawn.

661-Pete wrote:

AlaninWales wrote:https://www.reference.com/vehicles/color-car-accidents-35bc1c8e7f375cd6

During daylight, black vehicles are 12 percent more likely than white cars to be involved in an accident. Not only are cars with low-visibility colors more likely to be involved in any crash, they are also more likely to be in a severe or life-threatening accident. Other low-visibility colors include blue, silver, gray, red and dark green. White cars are the safest cars to drive due to their high visibility during daylight and at dusk and dawn.

By that argument, White Van (and of course the proverbial Man, at the wheel) ought to be the safest vehicle on our roads.

Is it?

[XAP]Bob wrote:

661-Pete wrote:

AlaninWales wrote:https://www.reference.com/vehicles/color-car-accidents-35bc1c8e7f375cd6

By that argument, White Van (and of course the proverbial Man, at the wheel) ought to be the safest vehicle on our roads.

Is it?

In terms of not being hit by other people then quite possibly...

661-Pete wrote:

[XAP]Bob wrote:

661-Pete wrote:By that argument, White Van (and of course the proverbial Man, at the wheel) ought to be the safest vehicle on our roads.

Is it?

In terms of not being hit by other people then quite possibly...

Unless you count the number of times they get thumped by an angry cyclist's fist after passing too close.....