Mandatory Helmets and hi-vis to be considered in government eview

[Cunobelin]

...
Under street lighting I can see pedestrians dressed in black half a mile away, I can spot discarded clothing on the floor no problem. I don't need someone dressed in dayglo to be able to avoid them.....

And, when I ride with oil rape seed fields in flower both sides were I daft enough to wear my yellow hi-vis jacket I'd be better camouflaged than your pro SAS undercover soldier!

Ian

One of the other questions about HiViz is illustrated by the Army!

I have a spent many years in "Service Towns" where a large majority cycle commute wearing Camouflage.... yet the carnage that should ensue never ever seems to happen

Either the Army needs to drastically redesign their camouflage or HiViz is not as effective as some would claim

[Bonefishblues]

...
Under street lighting I can see pedestrians dressed in black half a mile away, I can spot discarded clothing on the floor no problem. I don't need someone dressed in dayglo to be able to avoid them.....

And, when I ride with oil rape seed fields in flower both sides were I daft enough to wear my yellow hi-vis jacket I'd be better camouflaged than your pro SAS undercover soldier!

Ian

One of the other questions about HiViz is illustrated by the Army!

I have a spent many years in "Service Towns" where a large majority cycle commute wearing Camouflage.... yet the carnage that should ensue never ever seems to happen

Either the Army needs to drastically redesign their camouflage or HiViz is not as effective as some would claim

Well not against a road/urban background, anyway

Apropos of camouflage, and elderly gent in the village was in the habit of taking a daily stroll wearing, yes you guessed it, a camo jacket. One day he had heard me coming around a bend and had stepped onto the verge and was standing stationary against a small copse. I saw him, but later than I was comfortable with, irrespective of the fact he wasn't on the roadway or in any danger. I mentioned this to him when we next met, and he now wears a hi-viz waistcoat. Not sure what that says, if anything, but he does contrast with trees* rather well.

*Mind you, US hunters wear bright orange by law, and plenty shoot each other every year

[reohn2]

.......*Mind you, US hunters wear bright orange by law, and plenty shoot each other every year

You don't need to wear bright orange in the US to get shot,attending a music concert,school,church or just being black seems to qualify

[bovlomov]

*Mind you, US hunters wear bright orange by law, and plenty shoot each other every year

If you are trying to shoot someone in a forest, it's quite handy if they are wearing orange clothes. And if you are looking for a cyclist to run over, it's handy if s/he is wearing hi-vis clothing. Could it be that cyclists aren't being run over despite their hi-vis clothing but because of it?

[The utility cyclist]

We've had an announcement (re-launch?) of a govt., review into cycling safety and some sensation-seeking journo popped in something about helmets and hi-viz. If I can mix metaphors, the red rag has hooked the debate.

It seems hard to imagine the govt., going beyond the quasi-compulsion in the HC but even harder to imagine that being rescinded.

Back at the ranch, we are exchanging clever points among ourselves which won't affect the wider debate one jot.

Why are you so sure?
Surely to have even a resemblance of parity and balance with respect to safety of road users either the mentions of helmets and hi vis are removed or applied to all users. Why should that be so difficult or even seem extreme or unusual if we are using 'facts' and what we know to be true with respect to how the inclusion in the HC is being used against vulnerable road users as a tool to punish and remove freedoms and not uncommonly even injustice?
I think that it should be taken seriously to remove all mention of it, i think CUK and other organisations should be pressing for removal of any mention of hi-vis and helmets otherwise it is a clearly unbalanced, bias and discrimnatory mouthpiece that aids in the punishment of people on bikes to the point of death and serious injury.
I don't understand how people cannot see the damage it does and how unbalanced the 'advice' is, especially since that advice is making safety worse!

[thirdcrank]

I'm not sure, or I should have said so.

[Bonefishblues]

I'm not sure, or I should have said so.

I think your judgement is probably correct.

[pjclinch]

One of the other questions about HiViz is illustrated by the Army!

I have a spent many years in "Service Towns" where a large majority cycle commute wearing Camouflage.... yet the carnage that should ensue never ever seems to happen

Either the Army needs to drastically redesign their camouflage or HiViz is not as effective as some would claim

When I was a teenager my coat of choice was generally a DPM army-style one. My bike was my primary form of transport, used daily. The roads were more dangerous in the 70s/80s than they are now, and I was on a Raleigh Olympus with steel wheels where the brakes didn't really do much if it was wet, and yet the only vision related accident in all that time was when I rear-ended a stationary car in heads-down mode in heavy rain. The car was quite visible, or at least would have been had I been, errrr, looking where I was going...

Pete.

[thirdcrank]

... The roads were more dangerous in the 70s/80s than they are now, ...

Just to satisfy my curiosity, what's the basis for saying that? In particular, what definition of "dangerous" are you using? I speak as an army-surplus jacket man, but not really from choice.

[reohn2]

.......The car was quite visible, or at least would have been had I been, errrr, looking where I was going...

Pete.

And therein lies the problem.
Mrs R2 and I watch other drivers carefully when I in the car,it's amazing the number who simply don't look where they're going and are distracted by some form electronic device or other,or simply don't look far enough in front of them whilst driving.
Helmets and or hi-viz are useless with such idiots on the roads

[The utility cyclist]

I'm not sure, or I should have said so.

Except you did. You said it was even harder to imagine that the wording in the HC would be removed/changed. That indicates you think it won't with a certain amount of sureity otherwise you would have said something different or not made the statement at all
Indeed you went onto say that anything discussed here won't have any bearing elsewhere again a quantified statement.
So, I askagain, why are you so sure that those things won't happen?
Is it because you believe the idea of removing the wording is ridiculous in the first instance, that wording is already balanced, that the wording does no harm to vulnerable road users and/or that the representives at the review have the same viewpoint or wouldn't cross their minds to think about such. Or you have nofaith in the ability of those representing us in the review and that they or others connected to cycling policy never read the forums here to get a gist of what like minded people think about safety et al?

It's important to understand why you and others feel so sure nothing will change and why.

[Wanlock Dod]

...Or you have nofaith in the ability of those representing us in the review and that they or others connected to cycling policy never read the forums here to get a gist of what like minded people think about safety et al?...

We recently reviewed our drugs policy, which is broadly aimed at protecting public health. The review was "evidence based", but the rising rate of drug related deaths was not considered to be relevant information (and hasn't for quite some time) so it was pretty easy to conclude that the revised policy should be business as usual.
That hardly fills me with confidence about a review of cycling safety, will cyclist deaths actually be considered as relevant evidence or the inconvenient kind of evidence that should be excluded?

[thirdcrank]

I'm not sure, or I should have said so.

Except you did. You said it was even harder to imagine that the wording in the HC would be removed/changed. That indicates you think it won't with a certain amount of sureity otherwise you would have said something different or not made the statement at all
Indeed you went onto say that anything discussed here won't have any bearing elsewhere again a quantified statement.
So, I askagain, why are you so sure that those things won't happen?
Is it because you believe the idea of removing the wording is ridiculous in the first instance, that wording is already balanced, that the wording does no harm to vulnerable road users and/or that the representives at the review have the same viewpoint or wouldn't cross their minds to think about such. Or you have nofaith in the ability of those representing us in the review and that they or others connected to cycling policy never read the forums here to get a gist of what like minded people think about safety et al?

It's important to understand why you and others feel so sure nothing will change and why.

I can only look at the way these things happen. AFAIK, this was a promised review into cycling safety, which had been in the pipeline (long grass?) for some time and seemed set to stay there. IIRC, when it was first announced it was largely about things like poor levels of enforcement. Unfortunately, just as there was pressure from Cycling UK for the review to be revived /carried out / expedited we had the well-publicised trial and conviction for furious cycling of Charlie Alliston. Against that background, when a media release was issued about the review, some sensation-seeking hack asked if this would include helmets and hi-viz, receiving a stock answer on the lines that everything would be considered. (If anybody wants to quote any detail, please feel free to clarify the picture here. What I'm saying is the basis of my opinion.) We then had the situation of some people interpreting this as a government proposal to introduce mandatory helmets and hi-viz. NB, this isn't the only thread on the subject, which shows how effective sensation-seeking hacks can be.

Now, I can't see anything in there to suggest that the current govt., is currently trying to alter anything in this regard, although they may eventually spot it would be a jolly good wheeze to drum up some public support. Put another way, I've not seen any of the usual signs that they are planning to do anything (usual signs being spin at the informal level, proposals for consultation more formally.) Beyond that, with the current advice in the HC, I can't see they would feel the need to use precious parliamentary time with primary legislation.

I'm truly bemused that my personal observation on this should cause you so much interest.

[pjclinch]

... The roads were more dangerous in the 70s/80s than they are now, ...

Just to satisfy my curiosity, what's the basis for saying that? In particular, what definition of "dangerous" are you using? I speak as an army-surplus jacket man, but not really from choice.

Without digging in to too much detail, start with the Wiki entry on GB road casualities.

You can dig further if you want, particularly separating for cyclist casualty rates, but the main take-away is the roads have been getting safer since the mid-60s for values of "safer" that involve not getting an ambulance ride. As soon as you start looking at more trivial stuff than incidents involving blue flashing lights the data becomes remarkably poor because reporting is patchy.

Pete.

[pjclinch]

...Or you have nofaith in the ability of those representing us in the review and that they or others connected to cycling policy never read the forums here to get a gist of what like minded people think about safety et al?...

We recently reviewed our drugs policy, which is broadly aimed at protecting public health. The review was "evidence based", but the rising rate of drug related deaths was not considered to be relevant information (and hasn't for quite some time) so it was pretty easy to conclude that the revised policy should be business as usual.
That hardly fills me with confidence about a review of cycling safety, will cyclist deaths actually be considered as relevant evidence or the inconvenient kind of evidence that should be excluded?

I very much hope it's the case that cycle helmets and hi-viz are very much less of a political/moral/ethical hot potato than drug use, where it has indeed been the case for years that the fact that what we do doesn't help anyone except criminal gangs doesn't seem to register with policy makers who are running scared of "giving in" to people with a jib they don't like the cut of.

If the Get Britain Cycling enquiry done by the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group is any indication (and it may be), then chances of TPTB actually listening to people who know what they're on about are at least tangible.

Pete.