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

[[XAP]Bob]

but the advantages seem to be going mostly to the motorists

cycle around in black gear if you want, I will wear reflective gear.

But by doing so you are actively endangering people.

Because you are training motorists that all road users should be dressed like a highlighter.

When I'm driving I have no issue spotting pedestrians in suits (which are traditionally very dark and matte), I don't find it difficult to spot cyclists, with or without lights.

Interestingly I would also expect not to drive into a concrete block, a broken down car, or a collapsed pedestrian.

The ONLY issue is that many motorists expect to be able to drive at a speed generally exceeding the speed limit on a road whilst not actually looking out for anything even remotely unexpected.

[Phil Fouracre]

but the advantages seem to be going mostly to the motorists

cycle around in black gear if you want, I will wear reflective gear.

But by doing so you are actively endangering people.

Because you are training motorists that all road users should be dressed like a highlighter.

When I'm driving I have no issue spotting pedestrians in suits (which are traditionally very dark and matte), I don't find it difficult to spot cyclists, with or without lights.

Interestingly I would also expect not to drive into a concrete block, a broken down car, or a collapsed pedestrian.

The ONLY issue is that many motorists expect to be able to drive at a speed generally exceeding the speed limit on a road whilst not actually looking out for anything even remotely unexpected.

Hammer and nail, couldn't put it better myself, the last sentence especially!!

[Phil Fouracre]

Oops! Can't sort this quotes business out

[[XAP]Bob]

Oops! Can't sort this quotes business out

You need to remove the [/quote] from just before my line "But by doing so..." and move it to just above your text/

[Phil Fouracre]

Thanks! Technology and me

[Barks]

Last statement from me. I object to the view that somehow I am ‘endangering others by wearing reflective gear’. There are some on this forum who are such zealots about their particular thing that they can’t see the bigger picture. I see real value in reflective clothing be that for cycling, walking, running, dog walking, swimming in rivers (I do that as well) or anywhere else where I want to maximise my chances of being seen by others who may be operating cars or boats in my vicinity in poor visibility or at night. Do I want to see Personal Protection Equipment being mandated for everyday use NO, but if in certain circumstances I feel that they appropriate then I will use them. The only people endangering others are those who are inconsiderate to others and ignoring the conditions around them - there are laws in place they are to follow. If they don’t my expectation is that they are brought to account and punished appropriately. This is not happening and all campaigning efforts should be geared towards improvements in this aspect not introspective nuanced arguments about relatively inconsequential bits of plastic.

TTFN

[The utility cyclist]

Those wearing hi-vis and helmets can't see the bigger picture, that's part of the bigger picture problem as I outlined.
We already have bans/restrictions/criminalisation on not being able to ride without helmets which exclude and punish, we've seen the disastrous effects of inflicting hi-vis and helmets and people simply want to ignore the facts and the bigger picture.
I object to peoples choices putting my life at risk more, responsible for removing my freedoms, responsible for excluding me from cycling in certain events and certain countries, responsible for inequality in the legal and justice system.
Those who can't accept the damage they are doing to society as a whole and other cyclists through their choices are zealots, thanks a lot!

[thirdcrank]

Those wearing hi-vis and helmets can't see the bigger picture, that's part of the bigger picture problem as I outlined.
We already have bans/restrictions/criminalisation on not being able to ride without helmets which exclude and punish, we've seen the disastrous effects of inflicting hi-vis and helmets and people simply want to ignore the facts and the bigger picture.
I object to peoples choices putting my life at risk more, responsible for removing my freedoms, responsible for excluding me from cycling in certain events and certain countries, responsible for inequality in the legal and justice system.
Those who can't accept the damage they are doing to society as a whole and other cyclists through their choices are zealots, thanks a lot! (My emphasis)

Somewhere above you wrote something along the lines that you would do anything you could to prevent this happening. I don't know if you really do anything about this by campaigning to a wider audience or whether you restrict yourself to these attacks on other riders. If you do campaign in this style, then you may be contributing to the stereotypes about cyclists which might eventually lead to this type of legislation being introduced.

As to the "bigger picture" you haven't some sort of monopoly here. I've posted several times over a period of some years that as a conventionally respectable person that I can appreciate that my wearing hi-viz etc., normalises it. I've also posted that although I have doubts about effectiveness, especially of helmets, if things go wrong, I'd not want my family to have any extra battles to fight. I'd not wish a bad crash on anybody, but at inquest / compo claim time, "He had this thing about wearing hi-viz" might mean two opposite things, one according with the Highway Code and the not doing so. IMO, when this all went in the HC, any battle was lost.

Try adjusting your own blinkers.

[tatanab]

[in the year 2025] That my boy is how helmets, hi-vis and daytime lights became normalised. Cycling clubs and professional teams disappeared from the UK because all looked the same, and individual recreational rides were limited by the lifetime of the batteries required by the high power lights, and hence touring ceased. I remember the days when ---[/in the year 2025].

Edit - I forgot to add cameras to record every second of every ride.

[pwa]

but the advantages seem to be going mostly to the motorists

cycle around in black gear if you want, I will wear reflective gear.

But by doing so you are actively endangering people.

Because you are training motorists that all road users should be dressed like a highlighter.

When I'm driving I have no issue spotting pedestrians in suits (which are traditionally very dark and matte), I don't find it difficult to spot cyclists, with or without lights.

Interestingly I would also expect not to drive into a concrete block, a broken down car, or a collapsed pedestrian.

The ONLY issue is that many motorists expect to be able to drive at a speed generally exceeding the speed limit on a road whilst not actually looking out for anything even remotely unexpected.

I respect your intentions and follow your logic, but I think you are just wrong on this. One morning last week, in the grey phase just before sunrise, I was driving down a nearby B road that has no pavement when I encountered a pedestrian wearing very inconspicuous clothing. For a moment I thought he was part of a bush that, from my angle, was directly behind him. His face was the only thing that did not look like vegetation. Now I am not a fast driver and I did react in time, but I did feel that walking on that road, in that light, with what were in fact camouflage colours, was unwise. I see genuine Health and Safety as something that should be addressed by taking all reasonable measures that can reduce the risk of harm. That means first and foremost the driver doing their bit, of course, but it does also mean other road users ticking their boxes too. We all have things we can contribute to the situation, and if one of us fails to do so we remove one possible safety measure and rely even more on the other remaining safety measures. Your approach to clothing might make more sense when we have only driverless motor vehicles on the roads and the potential for human error by a driver eliminated for good.

[pwa]

Those wearing hi-vis and helmets can't see the bigger picture, that's part of the bigger picture problem as I outlined.
We already have bans/restrictions/criminalisation on not being able to ride without helmets which exclude and punish, we've seen the disastrous effects of inflicting hi-vis and helmets and people simply want to ignore the facts and the bigger picture.
I object to peoples choices putting my life at risk more, responsible for removing my freedoms, responsible for excluding me from cycling in certain events and certain countries, responsible for inequality in the legal and justice system.
Those who can't accept the damage they are doing to society as a whole and other cyclists through their choices are zealots, thanks a lot!

I think we do understand your thinking, and it does make some sense to us, but we reject your conclusion about what we should do because we know that next time we go out on our local roads, if we ditch the hi-viz, our families will be just a bit less likely to see us return. You cannot guarantee to me that I will be as safe tonight without hi-viz as I would with it. I'm not putting my neck on the line for some ideal here because my life is not just about me, it is about my family. I'm not taking a chance to test your hypothesis.

I also doubt that wearing plain clothing will educate careless drivers. Some will just take too much educating.

[thirdcrank]

On a general point about the possible results of wearing hi-viz, there seem to be two conflicting "anti hi-viz" arguments, sometimes advanced by the same people.

Not wishing to put words in mouths, here's my summary:-

Wearing hi-viz tends to normalise it to the extent that anybody not wearing it is somehow unexpected and, therefore, endangered.

Wearing hi-viz doesn't work because it's not as conspicuous as many believe.

Beyond this, there's some agnosticism in that nody is really sure - as in decent evidience - of the extent to which being seen extends to being noticed in the sense of proper allowance being made for their presence.

It seems absurd to say it but I've always believed in the value of hi-viz since before it was invented in its present form. That's based on personal experience and, dare I say it, observation. Now, I do know that being sure myself that "all the better to see you with" means merely that I don't believe I become less careful and considerate just because I see somebody that bit sooner - ie no other evidence - but I'd take some convincing it was not so. And plenty of others would probably feel the same if pressed. Also, dressing up "I don't like wearing hi-viz" with any argument you like needs good evidence too.

[Cunobelin]

There are also practical reasons.

I wear a good quality waterproof jacket that wicks moisture to the surface to make it comfortable, and stop. condensation

On teh outside there is a surface that beads water, which then flows off, making it waterproof


You then stick a layer of clothing on top that prevents the entire function of the waterproof..........

[Adnepos]

I think we have ventilated our differences on this issue now!

How about seeing if we can agree our common ground. Then we can find out whether we can disagree and how to achieve what we want!

For starters:

1. Dissuade insurers that cycle helmets (and fluoro) are essential for their cover
2. Remove mention of cycle helmets and fluorescent from Highway Code Rule 59 (miracles do happen and the attempt may provide benefit)
3. Ensure the Government Review considers the evidence on helmets and hi-vis rather than believing what interested parties tell them -and then help them come to the right conclusion. I mention 2 because it may help 3.

[Psamathe]

I think we have ventilated our differences on this issue now!

How about seeing if we can agree our common ground. Then we can find out whether we can disagree and how to achieve what we want!

For starters:

1. Dissuade insurers that cycle helmets (and fluoro) are essential for their cover
......

One way to help that along is to provide publicity for insurers who do not make such requirements. Money talks and when those companies with such requirements see others without such requirements making healthy money then they will review their requirement (they are driven by money). also, if they start losing customers that will apply further pressure.

Maybe cycling organisations who are pro-choice should publish a list of companies who do not make such requirements (rather than adopt a company with those requirements for it's pushed cover!).https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=111440

Ian