Can hi-vis clothing do harm?

[Cugel]

I don't see it as scaremongering at all. For the greater part of the time and for the majority of riders, this will be no more than just another discussion. It's hardly scaremongering to note that the worst sometimes happens, which is when the arguing starts, generally made no easier by the rider having come off worst in the unequal exchange. Survivors' justice.

The logic of this argument is that we stop doing anything that might harm us, as it will badly affect those who care about us. Even if you don't stop doing potentially harming things, your argument suggests that any such activity should include a vast raft of safety devices. (Better get that suit of armour ordered). Finally, your argument also suggests that those who actually cause the harm have a legitimate (as in "works in court cases") way to excuse their harm-causing.

Cugel

[thirdcrank]

My argument is that hiviz is established as a safety aid in many situations, the relevant one being on roads. Like it or not, it's widely seen as a "good thing."

Taken as a whole, the legal system isn't fair to the weak. Even if an injured party eventually gets redress, it can be a long and slow road getting there and there are all sorts of pressures to settle at a discount. I'm saying no more than this is more raw material for the foot draggers reducing the insurers' costs.

I really don't mind what people wear as it's generally none of my business but when they do make the choice, imo it's best they are informed.

[pwa]

I don't see it as scaremongering at all. For the greater part of the time and for the majority of riders, this will be no more than just another discussion. It's hardly scaremongering to note that the worst sometimes happens, which is when the arguing starts, generally made no easier by the rider having come off worst in the unequal exchange. Survivors' justice.

The logic of this argument is that we stop doing anything that might harm us, as it will badly affect those who care about us. Even if you don't stop doing potentially harming things, your argument suggests that any such activity should include a vast raft of safety devices. (Better get that suit of armour ordered). Finally, your argument also suggests that those who actually cause the harm have a legitimate (as in "works in court cases") way to excuse their harm-causing.

Cugel

The fact that it is unjust to blame a cyclist's choice of dark clothing for the fact you drove into them does not mean that it won't help your legal case. It might. I choose not to hand that tool to any numpty who knocks me off my bike. Surely you can understand that, even if you choose differently.

[mattheus]

My argument is that hiviz is established as a safety aid in many situations, the relevant one being on roads. Like it or not, it's widely seen as a "good thing."

So is the Right To Bear Arms.

Show me examples of "The hi-viz Excuse" creating a legal problem for a rider post-crash. I've given you two first-hand examples to the contrary.

Ball's in your court.

[Jdsk]

I don't see it as scaremongering at all. For the greater part of the time and for the majority of riders, this will be no more than just another discussion. It's hardly scaremongering to note that the worst sometimes happens, which is when the arguing starts, generally made no easier by the rider having come off worst in the unequal exchange. Survivors' justice.

The logic of this argument is that we stop doing anything that might harm us, as it will badly affect those who care about us. Even if you don't stop doing potentially harming things, your argument suggests that any such activity should include a vast raft of safety devices. (Better get that suit of armour ordered).
...

I don't think that it does. Only that we should assess risks and take reasonable precautions.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

My argument is that hiviz is established as a safety aid in many situations, the relevant one being on roads. Like it or not, it's widely seen as a "good thing."

So is the Right To Bear Arms.

Show me examples of "The hi-viz Excuse" creating a legal problem for a rider post-crash. I've given you two first-hand examples to the contrary.

Ball's in your court.

The right to bear arms is an excellent example of what I was trying to say.

Among your other stuff which I let go is this

Drivers that feel guilty will make excuses - it's human nature. But they are nearly always twaddle, as is evident to anyone involved with a brain (and most judges, policemen and lawyers do have brains, fortunately)

It is meaningless, except perhaps as a statement for support the legal system in this context.

In matters of civil law - about which I know virtually nothing - I'm generally happy to use Martin Porter as a source and it's a matter of regret that he discontinued his blog. IIRC, tucked away in there is a case involving a child injured on a country road. The matter of hiviz was raised an again IIRC, when the case eventually reached court - unusual for a civil case - the hiviz was deemed irrelevant, but the injured child + family had endured all the hassle of going to court.

Anyway, I'm in the happy position of being able to post in a moderate manner - even if that causes unintended irritation - pretty much as I please.

One point about a discussion like this is that there are at least two going on at once. Beyond the technical/legal stuff we have philosophy which edges towards dogma. This is why apostacy is such a source of annoyance.

[Nearholmer]

Beyond the technical/legal stuff we have philosophy which edges towards dogma.

I think you’re right about that.

My “dogma” is pretty simple: I’ve got to wear something, so I might as well wear something bright orange, because it might help to make me a bit more visible, although I fully understand that it’s not a magic cloak of invulnerability, so use flashing lights, and try to keep my wits about me too, and even that isn’t perfect protection, because I’m fallible, and so is everyone else.

And, I freely confess that I find it a tad challenging to get my head round one or two of the other sets of logic expressed in this thread, although I respect everyone else’s right to have their own “dogma”.

[mattheus]

Beyond the technical/legal stuff we have philosophy which edges towards dogma. This is why apostacy is such a source of annoyance.

It seems that when other people present technical and legal facts, you label it as dogma. A peculiar form of apostacy, if I may say so ...

[Cugel]

Perhaps if we notice the cognitive dissonance represented by the often vastly different expectations, norms, traditions and other safety practices across different groups who are in similar dangers, it might help to clarify why some of us are wary of going down a behavioural route that requires the purchase and wearing of endless "safety aids" not required in other domains?

There are many everyday activities, from driving a car to gardening to going up and down the stairs (and a hundred others) that have associated dangers. Many such activities have dangers from the failure of others to take account of our presence.

We don't, as a norm, expect everyone in a car, or walking on a pavement next to a road, to wear a helmet; or to have a dayglo orange coat or car. Not even sidelights-always-on is a requirement. Yet so called road traffic accidents kill and seriously maim thousands every year in the UK alone. Mostly in cars and many pedestrians. Only cyclists are expected to take endless additional "safety" precautions.

When gardening or negotiating the stairs, we don't have a helmet on; or special protective clothing; or anything other than our normal apparel and equipment. You might put on a pair of gloves for the brambles.

And so forth.

*********
The reason helmet and hi-viz discussions take place at all is that marketing and the subsequent victim blaming have somehow come to cause the zeitgeist to expect cyclists to take far more "safety precautions" than others in similar potentially harmful situations. So far, there are no associated legal requirements, perhaps because these "safety aids" when examined more objectively, are found wanting, ineffective or even a added danger in themselves?

By all means make a risk assessment and find ways to reduce the risk. But don't mistake that process for buying heavily advertised products just because others do; or following a fashion. DO try to avoid inventing rationalisations after the fact for often blindly-followed mass-media induced cultural buying habits.

Cugel

Cugel

[mattheus]

Well said, Cugel Cugel.

[Nearholmer]

somehow come to cause the zeitgeist to expect cyclists to take far more "safety precautions" than others in similar potentially harmful situations.

I’m not totally convinced that’s the case.

Looking only at roads, the other modes of transport on roads are subject to a lot of safety precautions.

For people walking, the biggest safety precaution is the provision of a dedicated and semi-segregated space, the pavement, and in busy places pedestrian safety is aided by things like zebra crossings, and speed restrictions on vehicles.

For people driving, the safety precautions that have evolved since c1900 are almost too numerous to list: competence licensing for drivers; speed limits; numerous warning/advisory signs; road markings; traffic lights; segregated routes for high-speed driving; annual basic fitness for use check of the vehicle (MOT); crash-survival features in the vehicle, including seat-belts; electronic assist systems ………

On a bike on most roads I’m still in pretty much the same position as the first bloke who rode a “safety bicycle” in terms of safety features, save possibly that the brakes and lights are a bit better, but the bad news is that the environment on the road in most places is several times more “cyclist unfriendly” than it was in 1900 (except probably for the road surface).

I’m as keen as anyone to see public money spent on safety precautions to help me when I’m on a bike, in the same way that it is spent on making me a bit safer as a pedestrian, and a fair bit safer as a driver, and luckily I live in a city where (to a degree almost unique in Britain) it has been …….. hundreds of miles of motor-traffic free shared-use paths. And, when using those do I feel the need to dress as a tangerine/Christmas-tree? Do I have any serious concerns about my children using them? No, because the risk profile is massively different from the road.

In an ideal world (The Netherlands?), a heck of a lot would be done to make it sensibly safe for everyone to move about their village/town/city safely by bike, and to travel between villages/towns/cities similarly, but at the moment many roads are a bit “Wild West” for cyclists, the sorts of places where individual wit, and individual precautions, however small their affect, are necessary. Maybe that shouldn’t be the case, but I honestly believe that it is the case.

[pwa]

Perhaps if we notice the cognitive dissonance represented by the often vastly different expectations, norms, traditions and other safety practices across different groups who are in similar dangers, it might help to clarify why some of us are wary of going down a behavioural route that requires the purchase and wearing of endless "safety aids" not required in other domains?

There are many everyday activities, from driving a car to gardening to going up and down the stairs (and a hundred others) that have associated dangers. Many such activities have dangers from the failure of others to take account of our presence.

We don't, as a norm, expect everyone in a car, or walking on a pavement next to a road, to wear a helmet; or to have a dayglo orange coat or car. Not even sidelights-always-on is a requirement. Yet so called road traffic accidents kill and seriously maim thousands every year in the UK alone. Mostly in cars and many pedestrians. Only cyclists are expected to take endless additional "safety" precautions.

When gardening or negotiating the stairs, we don't have a helmet on; or special protective clothing; or anything other than our normal apparel and equipment. You might put on a pair of gloves for the brambles.

And so forth.

*********
The reason helmet and hi-viz discussions take place at all is that marketing and the subsequent victim blaming have somehow come to cause the zeitgeist to expect cyclists to take far more "safety precautions" than others in similar potentially harmful situations. So far, there are no associated legal requirements, perhaps because these "safety aids" when examined more objectively, are found wanting, ineffective or even a added danger in themselves?

By all means make a risk assessment and find ways to reduce the risk. But don't mistake that process for buying heavily advertised products just because others do; or following a fashion. DO try to avoid inventing rationalisations after the fact for often blindly-followed mass-media induced cultural buying habits.

Cugel

Cugel

But buying a top in eye-catching colours isn't buying something extra. It is buying a top that you were going to buy anyway, but choosing one colour in preference to another. Wearing a yellow top is as easy as wearing a blue top. The helmet, yes, is an additional purchase, but a relatively infrequent one.

For gardening my safety equipment includes the RCD for power tools and thornproof gloves, as you say, for handling prickly stuff. I have a chainsaw helmet / visor that I wear when using our petrol hedge cutter, or when strimming. Marigolds when handling weedkiller. Safety glasses when chiselling stone. In the house we have the usual smoke and carbon monoxide alarms. I use a dust mask when sanding stuff. The list of safety precautions in the house and garden goes on and on. None of it signals high danger. None of it is meant to put you off doing something you want to do. And I doubt it puts people off doing gardening or DIY or whatever.

In the boot of our car we have one of those fold-up warning triangles the French insist you have, along with a hi-viz vest in case we have to change a wheel in a dodgy spot. I've never had to use them though.

Horse riders are another group encouraged to increase visibility. There have been several incidents in my region in recent years in which drivers have ploughed into a horse, so I'd be using the dayglo if I were riding a horse on the roads. I'd still be riding on the lanes though.

Safety equipment used to be seen as odd, but times have changed and people do not see it as something special anymore. Having safety equipment associated with an activity no longer means that activity must be abnormally dangerous. Safety equipment is now normal.

[hoogerbooger]

Blaming a driver for running you down doesn't undo the damage to yourself....even when it's clearly their fault. We're the ones that get hurt. It's a simple risk assessment matter.

Ask my missus who spent 5 years recovering to get back to more or less pain free cycling. As a result we have opted to be close to Day-Glo 24/7 ( a touch of hyperbole) It was very clearly the drivers lapse of concentration.......but we no longer buy cycle clothing or helmets that could be recessive......it's not worth the extra risk.....because the consequences are potentially so high.......if you end up being the unlucky #od that ends up as a SMIDSY.

[Vorpal]

The danger in Hi Viz is that it becomes victim blaming.

Cyclists & pedestrians cannot prevent being hit. It is not on them to get missed by inattentive drivers.

There's nothing wrong, in principle, with giving drivers the best possible chance not to hit you by wearing bright colours, or lighting yourself up like a Christmas tree.

But this gets turned around when people become victims of traffic violence.

"I didn't see them."
"They were wearing dark clothes."
"Ninja cyclist"
"It was raining and they didn't have hi vis on."

In addition, promotion of hi vis & other 'safety equipment' for cyclists is often in lieu of substantive action to improve road safety. It's a big fat red herring, and I, for one, would just as soon never see or hear another word about it.

Anyway, this has been covered in lengthy threads before.

viewtopic.php?t=134469
viewtopic.php?t=111201
viewtopic.php?t=134910

[mattheus]

somehow come to cause the zeitgeist to expect cyclists to take far more "safety precautions" than others in similar potentially harmful situations.

I’m not totally convinced that’s the case.

Looking only at roads, the other modes of transport on roads are subject to a lot of safety precautions.

For people walking, the biggest safety precaution is the provision of a dedicated and semi-segregated space, the pavement, and in busy places pedestrian safety is aided by things like zebra crossings, and speed restrictions on vehicles.

For people driving, the safety precautions that have evolved since c1900 are almost too numerous to list: competence licensing for drivers; speed limits; numerous warning/advisory signs; road markings; traffic lights; segregated routes for high-speed driving; annual basic fitness for use check of the vehicle (MOT); crash-survival features in the vehicle, including seat-belts; electronic assist systems ………

On a bike on most roads I’m still in pretty much the same position as the first bloke who rode a “safety bicycle” in terms of safety features, save possibly that the brakes and lights are a bit better, but the bad news is that the environment on the road in most places is several times more “cyclist unfriendly” than it was in 1900 (except probably for the road surface).

Big difference here: cars are the main thing on the roads killing people. Pedestrians are not a danger to each other, cyclists are not dangerous on any meaningful statistical level.

So it's pretty reasonable to have speed limits, licensing, vehicle inspections etc ...

This is not philosophy. Nor dogma.