Highway Code and advice on cycle helmets

[AlaninWales]

Provides a useful set of links for the next time this comes up thanks




This post contains no sarcasm or attempt at wit.

[Tonyf33]

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/7077
added a link showing where the information is published, Transport Select Committee, Written Evidence.

The problem I have with the authors' suggested 're-wording' is that it mentions hi-vis/reflectives stating that it 'helps other road users see you in daylight & poor light", after all the actual evidence regarding helmets, there is no mention anywhere how the author plucked seemingly out of the air these extra safety aids efficacy???

"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.

Both of these statements in my opinion are misleading at best & reliance on such produces a small risk compensation factor never mind that there is no hard evidence that hi-vis/flourescents/reflectives work. It also further propagates the blame culture/potential loss of compensation if not worn, especially if/when it becomes the norm to wear them (along the same lines as helmets) thus by not wearing it you are somehow at fault, albeit partially.

We should be expecting as a bare minimum that motorvehicle drivers are able to see other road users and drive accordingly (i.e. safely/respectfully) adhering to the laws as we have them (which are fine for the most part).

It's akin to saying all dark coloured vehicles and/or those without reflective banding that are involved in an incident are partially to blame just based on colour or the lack of multiple reflective bands/strips..a total nonsense.

Remove ALL references to helmets and hi-vis completely from the highway code is what the CTC should be aiming at, given the recent CTC's backing of the turbo-gate rubbish I'm not holding my breath

[Steady rider]

https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82
it is from the Highway Code

'light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light'

Should it be included?.
Last week I came across a chap with a large sized fluorescent jacket and from a distance you could pick him out early, size combined with colour.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18245309

The suggestion made:
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).

Omitting 'should' and adding a sentence to the Introduction both act to protect cyclists in accident compensation aspects. The above would be listing advice without much legal status and specific instruction '“However, liability should not be based on wearing extra safety aids in the case of pedestrians and cyclists.” would I think have a good legal status.
This would give both pedestrians and cyclists more legal protection to wear normal clothing, without courts having to consider how bright was the clothing or reflective in compensation aspects. The main issue would be who was at fault in causing the accident.

I don't think that sufficient evidence could be provided for removing advice to wear 'light-coloured/fluorescent/reflective clothing'.

[Tonyf33]

I don't see any clear evidence that supports the statements made in the first instance yet they are included, being able to see someone from a distance in hi visibility colours is anecdotal, I can see people/things not in his vis from a distance also.
It is the weight of expectation that the highway code puts upon vulnerable road users to wear these so called safety aids when motorised vehicles with the greater responsibility/potential for greater damage are not, not that I'm suggesting they do because as I said that would be ridiculous as well.

To suggest that a cyclist is somehow hidden from sight due to not wearing his vis/reflectives etc is a total nonsense, I can easily see people/vehicles/animals/structures from hundreds of yards away without, those whom can't need to have their license revoked due to eyesight problems. clearly it is the ability to bother to look & driver attitude that are the deciding factor in whether one is actually 'seen' and approriate action taken.. Supporting hi-vis/reflectives just falls into the same piit that Helmets will eventually bring us to...more blame culture on the victims

[Steady rider]

I think you make some good points about the blame game. Motorists and the insurance system are looking for any excuse to reduce payments. For cycle helmets a number of reports can be provided to support a change to the Highway Code. For clothing a number of reports detail a potential benefit from wearing hi vis/ fluorescent clothing. Very little if any evidence can be provided to oppose recommending their use.

My suggestion of adding to the Code,
“However, liability should not be based on wearing extra safety aids in the case of pedestrians and cyclists.”
In practice it may result in full payment if wearing normal cloths. I expect it would stop reductions due to not wearing hi vis/ fluorescent clothing.

A lot of detail can be put before a court if they intend to make a judgement on wearing this or that, below is link that gives some idea of the level of detail that could be provided. The responsibility should primarily be with the driver.

http://www.bikereconstruction.com/Docum ... 202013.pdf

“The Effect of Conspicuity on Bicycle Accident Reconstruction,” James M. Green, P.E., 1990.

The 1990 article reported increased detection distances from 400 feet to 2200 feet during the day by wearing fluorescent clothing. This tends to miss one important point, being in view, if drivers are too close to the vehicle in front, the view is reduced, if vehicles are parked near to junctions the view can be reduced.

[mjr]

For clothing a number of reports detail a potential benefit from wearing hi vis/ fluorescent clothing. Very little if any evidence can be provided to oppose recommending their use.

It's only a potential benefit. There have been studies showing that you can be seen from further about in some situations, but are there any studies showing a reduction in collisions as a result?

What is high-visibility anyway? http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/repor ... idents.htm say "[T]he message seems to be that the most conspicuous outfit will be dictated by the lighting conditions and local environment at the time, which may be extremely variable within the confines of even a fairly short ride."

Furthermore, ‘The influence of a bicycle commuter’s appearance on drivers’ overtaking proximities: An on-road test of bicyclist stereotypes, high-visibility clothing and safety aids in the United Kingdom’ http://opus.bath.ac.uk/37890/ suggests there is no significant change to driver behaviour if people are wearing stereotypical hi-vis clothing. If behaviour doesn't change, how can there be an actual benefit?

Do we really need evidence that promoting special clothing is a bad idea? Logically, if you discourage people from cycling just because they aren't wearing special clothing when there's no demonstrated (rather than potential) benefit, then it's a clear negative public health outcome.

[Steady rider]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18245309

CONCLUSIONS:

Low cyclist conspicuity may increase the risk of crash-related injury and subsequent time off work. Increased use of high-visibility clothing is a simple intervention that may have a large impact on the safety of cycling

'may increase' , 'may have a large impact' ,

It may be more useful to have national speed limits for day and night conditions, e.g. 60 mph day time, 50 mph night time, rather than trying to see people dressed in a variety of cloths.

The above approach

'Increased use of high-visibility clothing is a simple intervention

' places the need to dress as prescribed on cyclists or pedestrians with no change to driving habits. It is changes to the driving requirements that need to change.

[mjr]

Now follow the link from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18245309 back to http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/14/1/11.long and see the full statistical horror of the study: it's preliminary results by asking for self-selected self-reported memories (a pretty unreliable source) of riders in New Zealand's largest sportive in 2006 (so not representative of cyclists in general even just in NZ) who gave email addresses (nothing like filtering by a variable which probably also biased the population to make it younger and more male), including whether they thought they wore fluorescents 0, 25%, 50%, 75% or 100% (not even ranges, ouch!) and how often they crashed: apparently they have 0.5 crashes per rider per year which seems rather high to me, given how quiet most NZ roads are.

The best thing in that paper is "Follow-up is planned for 5 years" but that would have ended in 2011 and the last publication about it listen on the study leader's page http://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/faculty/ ... 686F303639 is from 2010...

At best, I'd say I doubt those preliminary findings apply to the general UK population, weather and traffic conditions well.

[Steady rider]

Just replying so that the information relating to Lords Greaves, who asked about when the Highway Code is expected to be revised, is highlighted to cyclists.

Cyclists: Safety
Questions

Asked by Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to strengthen the cycle safety provisions of the Highway Code in accordance with proposals by British Cycling and the Cyclists' Touring Club or in any other way.[HL5477]
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD): The Highway Code was last revised in September 2007, and there are currently no plans to carry out another revision, which is a time consuming and expensive exercise. Nevertheless, when the next revision to the Highway Code is carried out the rules on cycling and cycle safety will be reviewed, as with other sections of the document. Any changes will be subject to public consultation.

In May 2013 the Cyclists’ Touring Club (National Cycling Charity) voted to improve safety and seek changes to the Highway Code, (vote 2665 for, 7 against, refer
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... rt2013.pdf
http://www.ctc.org.uk/file/Public/agmagenda.pdf

[mjr]

The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD):

Thanks. A minister that's LD, eh? That made me look and it seems that was from 2014 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/l ... 6w0001.htm - anyone know if anything visible happened since?

These and similar evidence-free rules remain in the Highway Code and have recently been abused by a minister to bash bikes yet again, rather than do anything more likely to actually reduce casualty numbers.

[thirdcrank]

Unfortunately, the CTC welcomed the 2007 revision of the HC:

Highway Code cracked: more than 40 rules changed!

.... There will be a short stakeholder-only consultation to confirm that all parties are happy with the final wording, and the new version will go into effect before the summer. ....CTC will be pressing for a couple of changes to tidy up the final version, and is asking cyclists to support us by signing an online petition.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6188

They will never be in a position to undo the damage done then.

[[XAP]Bob]

Looking further up the thread I see a discussion about high vis.

Last week I approached a cyclist from behind - the first thing I saw was their predominantly black top. Significantly closer I could see that the top of the top (wide band and over the shoulders) was actually 'high viz', but I was at least a hundred yards closer by the time I saw that...

[Steady rider]

Adli seem to have a limited colour range for cycling. Some bright colours but some near black tops.
https://www.aldi.co.uk/c/specialbuys/sp ... lar&page=0

[[XAP]Bob]

Adli seem to have a limited colour range for cycling. Some bright colours but some near black tops.
https://www.aldi.co.uk/c/specialbuys/sp ... lar&page=0

Bright <-> Black
Seems like a range to me...
What do you want them to have - the full RAL colour chart in each store?

[Steady rider]

My local Aldi store had some cycling gear in, I noticed some dark tops, not to my liking from a safety view point. In my view Aldi should sell bight tops, easier to see, than dark tops. I gather a lot of people do not agree with my view judging by what many people wear or they judge the products in some other way. I generally only buy bright tops, knowing I may use them for cycling at some time, if not bright I would most likely not use it for cycling.