Cycling UK Forum

Wow . Spectacular thread drift. What about the original question? I'd like to know the answer.

from

http://www.bikecommuters.com/2010/10/17/sharrow-vests-from-calebs-creations/

any good?

cheers

davegtt wrote:As both a cyclist and driver I wouldnt appreciate seeing that Hi-Vis either. Not because of the image of potraying an officer but because of how people react to it. Take speed cameras for example, even if the safety concious person sticking to the speed limit who get surprised when they see a speed camera - they automatically reach for the brake pedal, alot of drivers instinctively react to things like the police in a suprised mode and can easily cause more accidents than they can stop (Does this make sense?).

Not everyone will do this but there are those who might be chatting to someone in the car, singing to their favorite song - basically not 100% concentrating (concentrating enough to notice a normal bike light mind etc) but as soon as they see police they realise they have not been concentrating on if they are sticking to the speed limit and can react in such a way of shock.

I assume you can provide statistics that back up the assertion that seeing a police officer causes accidents.

I quite like POLITE vests but it's possible that the linked example goes a little bit too far with the blue and white check.

If we tried to ban POLITE vests then we should also ban loads of maintenance vans - like when motorway traffic suddenly slows because everyone is panicking about the "police" van ahead with its hi-viz and reflective panels.

I'm still interested in the OP's question. It sounds cool.

The Mechanic wrote:...I assume you can provide statistics that back up the assertion that seeing a police officer causes accidents.

you will have noticed that 'safety cameras' are -in contrast to their original installations- now almost invariably well-signposted beforehand. My understanding is that this move was at least in part motivated by the observed increase in the accident rate at the points nearby where the cameras hove into view. These accidents were caused by people behaving in an erratic fashion when they saw the camera.

cheers

Brucey, there's 2 points I disagree with you on.

The FCUK thing - the point is that although people recognise the likeness it's exploiting they know it's not the same thing. Prosecuting for any obscenity law that the real thing might infringe would be a waste of time 'cos it isn't it. You might manage a passing off case under trademark law but nothing else.

Cyclists are a hazard that people need to react to and process correctly - not a distraction. I'm sure that your choice of words was just unfortunate but we're not something to be dismissed so a measure of discomfort is appropriate. The jacket is just a version of hi vis that addresses the noticing part of visiibility too. When I learnt to drive there was a long wait for the test so the instructor had the luxury of trying to teach me to drive rather than just pass the test. He often used to try and distract me when I was driving because, in his view, it happened in reality and if you couldn't cope with it you weren't fit to drive. Both these jackets and the negative reaction to them are symptoms of the poor driving standards we accept now.

If drivers can't react sensibly when they notice a Policeman you have to quetion whether they're fit to be on the road at all. If the argument is that it's up to us to cope with continually falling standards with no challenge than the logical conclusion is that we'll have to give up cycling.

The elephant in the room is that no-one will address the issue of why these jackets are effective.

I didn't say the FCUK was illegal, just confusing. Most people did a double-take when they first saw such a thing and this may have distracted them from doing something else.

I'm not saying it is necessarily unsafe for the person using the POLITE vest BTW; more that it might not be strictly legal to wear such a thing, and that it might distract other road users and therefore cause an accident of another kind.

As I may have mentioned previously, accidents with cyclists are generally caused by

a) people who didn't see the cyclist, and

b) people who saw the cyclist but didn't react correctly (e.g. habitual close passers).

At a personal level I am all for anything that makes me more visible to other dozy road users. However I'm not in support of compulsion for such things (with the possible exception of reflexite on new tyres) and I am aware that if reflexite vests etc become 'the norm' then other folk who are quite legally but not similarly clad start to become relatively less visible and more likely to be squashed.

The average motorist these days is more cosseted, more distracted etc than ever before and if they do learn how to react to cyclists when they pass their test then they seemingly quickly forget. The average car driver is likely to say 'oh I would never ride a bike instead because it is too dangerous' but this notion does little if anything to moderate their own behaviour; where do they think this danger arises...?.

I have often thought that a TV advertising campaign that points out that someone on a bike could be someone they know or a family member or something might change people's behaviour; I think that many motorists drive round in 'tin box' mode i.e. they treat cyclists like other tin boxes (to be cut up, close-passed and generally intimidated etc) and quite unlike (say) pedestrians.

I'd quite like a holographic vest that makes me appear to be four feet further to the right. Or perhaps just a sticky-out thing that transfers a million-volt- engine-ECU destroying bolt into any close-passing car....

Dream on, huh...

cheers

The Mechanic wrote:I assume you can provide statistics that back up the assertion that seeing a police officer causes accidents.

Off course I can't but at the same time I never said such a thing. I said the reaction to it can likely cause a panic and create another accident. Arguing in defence of this POLITE jacket proves my point, subconciously you know if you saw this you would probably mistake it for a POLICE jacket and make a swifter reaction (swifter does not nessecarilly mean safer - most likely a rash reaction such as stomping on the brake to slow potential speeding) rather than just seeing a just as bright jacket with no wording on it and slowing down for whatever hazard is in the road.

I'm another that dislikes the 'polite' signage- be it on vests, signs or other. There are folks out there with cars and motorbikes (usually commuters I guess) deliberately painted and marked to make people think of police when they see them. I suspect a desire for folk to let them pass is an ulterior incentive.

I can imagine there's a certain level of 'cry wolf' possibly resulting from the preponderance of such vests etc. And if not yet, it is a potential that should be considered.

This is certainly an outcome of the prevalence of the speed camera signs Brucey refers to- they are often placed where there are no cameras, (which I had thought illegal), and when there really are cameras folk invariably still slam on when they notice them- particularly in those dodgy locations where they're not obvious until the last minute, which seems rather more common in Scotland for some reason.

davegtt wrote:

The Mechanic wrote:I assume you can provide statistics that back up the assertion that seeing a police officer causes accidents.

Off course I can't but at the same time I never said such a thing. I said the reaction to it can likely cause a panic and create another accident. Arguing in defence of this POLITE jacket proves my point, subconciously you know if you saw this you would probably mistake it for a POLICE jacket and make a swifter reaction (swifter does not nessecarilly mean safer - most likely a rash reaction such as stomping on the brake to slow potential speeding) rather than just seeing a just as bright jacket with no wording on it and slowing down for whatever hazard is in the road.

The sight of PCSOs must create road havoc!

I think the get-out for the 'signs with no cameras' is that the signs sometimes refer to 'police safety cameras' (i.e. mobile ones that are in use some of the time) rather than fixed installations.

Perhaps someone else can clarify.

cheers

Brucey wrote:I think the get-out for the 'signs with no cameras' is that the signs sometimes refer to 'police safety cameras' (i.e. mobile ones that are in use some of the time) rather than fixed installations.

Perhaps someone else can clarify.

cheers

You could well be correct Brucey. Same outcome though; people get blase and don't believe the signs and... slam on irrespective of anyone being behind them, etc.

Can't see how you can object. They are not suggesting impersonating anything. That would be having the word police on it.
They attract attention which is what you need.
I see a motorcycle regularly that is yellow, covering blue stickers and the rider has "polite rider" on the headlight shroud.
He is and people see him. They also give him space.
I am nearly as conspicuous on my m/c. Ex police reflective jacket(no logo ) . Yellow bike. Now looking for some reflective blue plastic. Sorry but responsible or worrying about some ones over sensitive reactions is second place to staying alive.

Somebody needs to help me out with the convoluted logic (and I use the term loosely) of this argument.

So, a hi vis vest that might be mistaken momentarily for a policeman is an unacceptable hazard that we can't expect motorists to cope with it and will cause mayhem. But real policeman and police vehicles aren't.

and

Lots of people routinely flout the law when they drive so the sight of any likely enforcemant is a hazard to them and we must deal with this by making sure that they're never confronted with it. Is this because the routine flouting is OK and needs no action 'cos the war on the motorist is over?

I think I've got it now but I have to try really hard or common sense takes over.

mattsccm wrote:Can't see how you can object. They are not suggesting impersonating anything. That would be having the word police on it.

The offence includes wearing "any article of police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive"
where "article of police uniform" includes "anything having the appearance of such an article".

That isn't far off a description of the items we're discussing. "so nearly resembling... as to be calculated to deceive" may be important here. This isn't fancy dress garb for your local disco it is designed and purchased (though tellingly not sold) on the premise of tricking other road users into thinking you are a police officer (albeit for perfectly harmless reasons).

I repeat my earlier point that we'd be the first to complain if motorists started zooming around in not-quite police cars