My work had been very spruce of cyclists and we've got a great cycle users group who have had some great dialog worn the bosses and made things happen.
Out of the blue one of the desk jockies had suddenly decided we all need to wear hi viz all the time. Currently it is mandatory in low light conditions only as a sensible compromise.
We would like to keep it how it is. Are there any good arguments for/against? I feel making it mandatory would deter some users, so be an overall negative.
How can they tell you what to wear on your way to work?
When are the bikes being used? On the commute to work? Or while at work? Are they providing the hi viz?
is it really a huge issue ?
i wear one - because while out on the road in my car i noticed how much more high viz reflectives caught my eye in low sunlight conditions - which my commute is when its not dark - west to east in morning and east to west at night.
Well, it makes sense in low light/poor visiblity conditions as you say.
But if someone drives into you on a sunny day, I don't think it makes any difference whether you were wearing hi viz or not,they clearly werent looking.
Can you get hi viz jerseys?
say great and find the most expensive cycling Hi-viz you can and say you will have to provide these as normal Hi-viz waistcoats are not designed to be used on a bike...
http://www.proviz.co.uk/hi-visibility-cycling/hi-vis-gilets-vests/nathan-led-cycling-vest
You might need a life jacket if there's puddles on the way in.
The only possible argument against is..
'I don't want to.. I DON'T LIKE IT! WAAAAHHH'
Out of the blue one of the desk jockies had suddenly decided we all need to wear hi viz all the time. Currently it is mandatory in low light conditions only as a sensible compromise.We would like to keep it how it is. Are there any good arguments for/against? I feel making it mandatory would deter some users, so be an overall negative.
If they are asking you to wear hi-viz at all times during working hours and on company premises, I don't see what argument you have against it. It's a reasonable request - it's not like they're asking you to do something illegal or immoral.
Your employer may feel that it is in their best interests to reduce the risks to you as cyclists on company property.
I can't see an issue here.
Whats your job?
Whats your job?
Police...
If they are trying to dictate what you wear at work they may have a point, but if they are dictating only what [i]cyclists[/i]* wear on the way to work they can get bent**. If your bike storage is on company site you'll have to walk from the gates to the bike store.
*I'm presuming they aren't trying this on with driving commuters - also presuming you aren't getting paid mileage for riding to work
**If you normally have pretty good cyclist/management relations maybe word it better than that.
Not you the OP!
make it a fair policy and do this to other vehicles used as alternatives
[img] 
[/img]
Your work aren't the only ones.
Now that the push for a mandatory helmet law seems to be gaining some traction there are already calls for high-viz to be compulsory too.
http://road.cc/content/news/97298-third-cyclists-support-mandatory-hi-viz-clothing-claims-survey
http://road.cc/content/news/77369-coroner-cyclists-have-duty-other-road-users-wear-high-viz
After that we should get around to licences, registration, taxation, insurance, bike MOTs...
waaaaaa waaaaaaa it does strike a bit of "im an adult i dont want to - ill lie on the floor and say im right on my death bed"
much like helmet rules.
i loved TJs evidence on that. - every time i countered it with another factual study that said the opposite to what he said he dismissed it as flawed data.....
The only possible argument against mandatory hi viz, for those hard of thinking yunki, is it moves emphasis for not getting hit from the driver to the cyclist. Hi viz may well be sensible in some circumstances, but to enshrine it in law is not.
Not you the OP!
I know... 😯 🙄
but this isnt about law . its about a company protecting its assets (ie you)
i agree neither should be law - the law thats needed is strict liability.
Do pedestrians have to wear hi-viz on site?
Now that the push for a mandatory helmet law seems to be gaining some traction there are already calls for high-viz to be compulsory too.
It'll never happen. The EU have been trying this for donkey's years with motorcyclists (hi-viz, daytime running lights, CE marked leathers, compulsory body armour, the list is endless). Defeated at every turn.
Mandatory at all times? Do you mean at all times while at work? Not at all clear to me what the employer is actually proposing.
WAAAAAAAHHHH... WAAAAAHHHH..
The only possible argument against mandatory hi viz, for those hard of thinking yunki, is it moves emphasis for not getting hit from the driver to the cyclist.
That and it perpetuates the false notion that cycling is [i]INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS[/i] and requires specialist safety equipment.
And belief that it is dangerous is the single biggest factor that stops people cycling in the UK.
That and it perpetuates the false notion that cycling is INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS and requires specialist safety equipment.And belief that it is dangerous is the single biggest factor that stops people cycling in the UK.
Hear, hear!
And, the whole, 'have to wear lycra' brigade. All of these things are stifling growth in cycling.
does the employer have any evidence to show that cyclists are/would be safer when wearing hi viz? An answer along the lines of "well its obvious init?" isn't good enough
do they have any information on the costs, and if so what are they going to do about that?
etc etc
The only possible argument against is..'I don't want to.. I DON'T LIKE IT! WAAAAHHH'
No, the argument is at what point do you stop?
Helmets are a good idea - make them compulsory. Hi-viz is a good idea - make it compulsory. Using a car instead is a good idea - make it compulsory.
There's a big (huge, massive) difference between saying that a certain safety feature is advisable, and making it a legal requirement. If we made every possible safety feature a legal requirement, we'd never be able to get out of bed.
Oh, and contrary to your "Waaah" baby-like argument, it's the pro-compulsion people who treat grown adults like children, unable to look after themselves.
'I don't want to.. I DON'T LIKE IT! WAAAAHHH'
Seems like a perfectly reasonable argument to me.
OP needs to clarify several points:
Do they mean while riding the bike or at work?
Where do you work and what do you do?
What is the access to your work like? If, for example, it has a yard with lots of trucks or members of the public driving in then I can see their point. Hell, even if it's just office workers you are sharing road access with I can see their point.
Are they willing to provide or help out with decent high vis gear? worth asking as they may subsidise some nice winter high vis for those commuting in winter and summer high vis for those in summer too.
+ maybe they just want to protect their staff and try and stop any of you being injured or killed as ultimately it could affect their business if you are.
As others have alluded to, we need more info.
Are they telling you what to wear while riding to/from work?
While riding a bike as part of work (e.g. police or travelling between sites)?
Or while on the site?
If the first one then why just bikes? Do they check all employee's cars to make sure all the lightbulbs are working?
That and it perpetuates the false notion that cycling is INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS and requires specialist safety equipment.
And belief that it is dangerous is the single biggest factor that stops people cycling in the UK.
Well said
I think high vis a good idea, but the way it's often implimented isn't great - standard high vis jackets do not make good cycling attire.
I'd put forward suggestions for a more cycling specific garment with reflectives, or even just a reflective sash type thing.
"Do pedestrians have to wear hi-viz on site? "
on ours they do - and hardhat/safety glasses and safety shoes.
none of the above and you will be dragged over the coals very quickly.
I'm going to take a wild guess and suggest the people proposing this at the OP's place of work don't cycle
Tell them to buy you all one of these: http://www.morvelo.com/hemisphere-fluro-green-cycling-gilet.html
Or these: http://www.rapha.cc/classic-wind-jacket/
Or these: http://www.rapha.cc/hardshell-jacket-1/
So the argument against is that it's the first step on a slippery slope?
"belief that it is dangerous is the single biggest factor that stops people cycling in the UK"
as a completely unrelated point - our drivers and road systems are the single biggest factor that stop people cycling because like it or not our drivers make it dangerous - hiviz and helmets wont stop these drivers though - i was hit last year- wearing my helmet and my highviz and my lights - driver didnt look before crossing oncoming traffic.
most folk i speak to in this industrial estate say - yes we would cycle if there was a segregated cycle path from near where i live to near here (population centres to industrial zone is not un reasonable) but as it is there is not unless you work in town and live in westhill.... and so we sole occupy our cars.
[i]'I don't want to.. I DON'T LIKE IT! WAAAAHHH'[/i]
This would be my response. Maybe replacing WAAAHHH, with a swear word + off.
I'd be interested to know HOW they can make it compulsary?
I leave home to get to work without hi-viz. I arrive at work without hi-viz... Then what?
I don't think they can enforce anything outside of the office/work activities either. When i got splatted commuting to work their insurance didn't cover me, my stuff or my actions until i was at work, or unless I was carrying out work activities on site etc.
So the argument against is that it's the first step on a slippery slope?
Several arguments:
- it's a slippery slope
- it's singling out cyclists for special treatment
- it perpetrates the idea that cycling is dangerous
- it infantilises people
- it'd be impossible to enforce
- it won't work
If it's work related then they should have carried out a risk assessment and published it.
Hi-viz? The reflective bits effectively only work when it's dark and headlights are in use. The dayglo bit only comes in to its own in that half light period at dawn and dusk, outwith then it's no better or worse than any bright colour (possibly not even as effective as a "different" colour which would stand out from the norm, as opposed to "just another light green top").
An argument against - British weather. How many hi-viz items would I need to purchase to account for all weathers?
Currently choose from-
2 jackets (waterproof, wind proof);
3 base layers
3 short sleeve shirts
2 long sleeve shirts
dependent on weather, expected weather and what's in the wash.
(Ok, base layers don't need to be hi-viz!)
If it's as a condition for use whilst on company time or for using their bikes (even the ones you 'bought' under the cycle scheme) then there's not much you can do really. I'd expect the company to provide it if they consider it PPE though but don't go expecting overpriced bike kit.
[img] ilBR)hO6sR(Q~~60_35.JPG)
[/img]
OR in an completely outthere idea - you could just stick a high viz vest over what ever you currently wear - works for me - which i wear out of choice
it even says visitor on the back of it !
If you really want to put them off just mention about liability if your hit while wearing their mandatory hiviz.
My boss tried a similar thing.
"Your not allowed to cycle across the yard without a hiviz."
"Fine, I'll spray your Audi rep mobile bright yellow because you drive like a ****"
Last I heard.
"Do pedestrians have to wear hi-viz on site? "on ours they do - and hardhat/safety glasses and safety shoes.
none of the above and you will be dragged over the coals very quickly.
+1
What's wrong with high-vis?
And it's not entirely the same as pedestrians, if it's not a building site or industrial site with things moving about then pedestrians tend to be on pavements with other pedestrians, and cars (big obvious, well lit things) on the roads with bikes (not always big obvious well lit things). Follow a cyclists under a bridge/trees at this time of year and without lights/high vis they all but dissapear from view. Outside of work it's your own choice to be a cycling ninja, but if work is paying you to ride a bike then they have a responsibility to make that activity as safe as possible.
- it's a slippery slope [b]to more HSE gone maaaaddddd?[/b]
- it's singling out cyclists for special treatment [b]most workplaces where there's a danger (moving weicles, or just needing to see if anyones nearby before doing somethign) require high-vis[/b]
- it perpetrates the idea that cycling is dangerous [b]so are building, driving a HGV, being a driving instructor, and anythign else were high-vis is mandatory)[/b]
- it infantilises people [b]no, they did a risk assessment and decided that wearign high-vis would reduce the risk of not being seen[/b]
- it'd be impossible to enforce [b]person a not wearing high-vis when required, person b bolloks them, rule enforced[/b]
- it won't work [b]in what way?[/b]
If using the bike at work for work purposes, then fair enough, the employer has a legal responsibility for the safety of their employees. If requiring you to wear it on your commute, then it's down to the individual (unless you are in work time for your commute). If its your own time can wear what you want - cammo gear, clown suit, mankini - take your pick.
On the plus side, you might get some free kit out of it to save you getting splatted by the big metal boxes!
[i]you could just stick a high viz vest over what ever you currently wear [/i]
I get hot & sweaty enough as it is!
Wouldn't bother me in winter, but in summer? Too hot, and a waste of money.
Can they also make it compulsary for people who drive to work
-stick to all speed limits
-use their indicators correctly
-use motorway lanes as directed by the highway code
-treat other road users with respect
❓
I'd support that.
I'm up for enforced reversing into parking bays too. But the main reason is idiot pedestrians seeing a reversing car and thinking they can nip past it.
I thing a big argument against is why? On what basis is management suggesting it in the first place? If it's a company/site wide thing and affects everyone fair enough. If drivers*/pedestrians don't need hi viz on site why do cyclists.So the argument against is that it's the first step on a slippery slope?
Builders, police, firemen all sorts of professions have uniform/ppe regulations whilst at work pretty sure none of them have dress codes for getting to work.
until they need to cross a road in which case break out the Hi Viz or employ a lollipop lady presumably, but I did already suggest pushing bike across site if they insist the site is dangerous.if it's not a building site or industrial site with things moving about then pedestrians tend to be on pavements with other pedestrians,
*unless you have drive thru offices nowadays they walk at some point too.
Thisisnotaspoon has said it quite neatly there..
I'd really love to be in the against camp but the arguments just really don't make any sense, with the very deepest thinkers breaking it down to 'they don't have to, so why should I'?
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.......and ha!
OP has posted a very vague question, OP hasn't yet returned to explain, and so STW has kicked off.
Well **** it I'm in - H&S has brought us massive benefits, most of which had to be introduced through legislation that forced people to do it.
Seatbelts in cars? I'm not wearing that, dont treat me like a child I can decide for myself, its a slippery slope, driving isn't dangerous I've never had an accident in my life, blah, blah, blah.
Humans? act like the apochryphal Lemmings half the time.
ah ok i see - so its percieved disadvantages vs ACTUAL disadvantages.
my hivis is mesh and doesnt seem to make me any warmer on my commute (when its never really warm anyway)
Another thought (may not have thought it through properly yet so feel free to de-construct it) choose how you want to treat us, I'd say we're between pedestrians and cars. We're quick moving legit road users* like cars but we're also soft and squishy like pedestrians. So lump us in with one of those, if cyclists are fast moving objects and need hi viz then cars need it too. If cyclists are soft and squishy then all pedestrians need hi viz. Picking on cyclists as the minority group is not on.
Transportation cycling as it is is not a dangerous activity please stop trying to define it as such.
*I'm aware pedestrians can use the road aswell but if there's a pavement custom suggests they use that.
Seatbelts in cars? I'm not wearing that, dont treat me like a child I can decide for myself, its a slippery slope, driving isn't dangerous
There are several obvious differences between mandatory seatbelts and mandatory high-viz - but perhaps the most startling obvious one is that if mandatory seatbelt legislation [i]did[/i] put people off driving then that wouldn't be a bad thing! In fact they'd likely benefit from it.
Humans? act like the apochryphal Lemmings half the time.
Would you or anyone be happy to have their boss tell them to paint their car flouro orange and wear a crash helmet whilst driving to work? Surely if it is [i]for safety[/i] then you'd be a lemming to argue against it?
[i]my hivis is mesh and doesnt seem to make me any warmer on my commute[/i]
But does it make you any [i]safer[/i]? 😉
"Transportation cycling as it is is not a dangerous activity please stop trying to define it as such."
your right - it isnt .... in holland and parts of germany, france and denmark where they provide infrastructure for transportation cycling to take place.
in the uk where your lumped in with the metal boxes full of idiots well..... (FWIW i cycle for transport and im talking from experiance)
dez b doesnt make me any less safe - unless im being saught out as an easy visible squishable target by an HGV with a chip on his shoulder.
I wish there was some law made that forced people who run to wear hi viz in the dark, some of the unlit sustrans paths are populated by blody runners, wearing dark clothes and headphones,its so hard to see them, i have various reflectors, good lights and a helmet and cycle at a speed i can hopefully stop.
If you know a runer, tell them to wear hi viz wghen running, or buy them one for christmas,possibnly with a slogan on the back i cant ride a bike so have to run.
My son's school lollipop man was dressed like this
[img] 
[/img]
holding a big yellow sign.
He still got mown down and killed
Its the [url= http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/thousands-caught-speeding-on-waterlooville-road-where-lollipop-man-died-1-4941206 ]drivers[/url] who need sorting.
project - i have bright lights so see them , but you want to see the 2 abreast headphone brigade jump when i unleash the hornIT on them.
in the uk where your lumped in with the metal boxes full of idiots well...
...your risk per km travelled is roughly the same as walking and waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less than riding a motorbike. Is the company insisting on high-viz for motorcyclists?
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/risks_of_travel.htm
I wish there was some law made that forced people who run to wear hi viz in the dark, some of the unlit sustrans paths are populated by blody runners, wearing dark clothes and headphones
Likewise unlit ninja dog walkers who walk black dogs, at night, on the end of black extendable leads.
And then complain my light is "too bright" 😯
"your risk per km travelled is roughly the same as walking and waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less than riding a motorbike. Is the company insisting on high-viz for motorcyclists?"
and your numbers will be skewed by sunday motorcycle warriors.
i wonder if the cycling numbers are skewed by those sunday warriors mtbing beyond their ability at gnartress too ?
Do any of the guys in the against camp wear any sort of brightly coloured or even hi-viz when commuting?
Or do you try to blend in with your surroundings or wear drab?
I'm interested to see how much you stand by your beliefs..
I tend to wear brighter clothes to 'encourage' motorists to see me, with reflective elements at night..
Should I be doing that?
GrahamS - seriously I have actually spent time pondering what form a car helmet could take, because I see that as my largest single risk hazard in an accident - bourne out by the motor industry, side air bags will be de rigeur within the next few years. If you crash frontal impact is by miles the best protected, side impact is shit because your proximity to hard ojects and lack of energy absorption. Head injury from side impact is really really bad.
I wish there was some law that forced drivers not to run down cyclists.
Do any of the guys in the against camp wear any sort of brightly coloured or even hi-viz when commuting?
Or do you try to blend in with your surroundings or wear drab?I'm interested to see how much you stand by your beliefs..
Do you understand the difference between choice and compulsion? It really is quite an important point in this argument, much as you'd like to dismiss anybody with a different opinion to yours as "WAAAAHHH"
[i]Do any of the guys in the against camp wear any sort of brightly coloured..[/i]
I wear mostly red or orange and wear a bright orange rucksack. If they don't see that they wouldn't see hi-viz.
Yunki I was given a mesh high viz vest by the cycle user group at work (optional), I tried it in winter, still warmer than usual and the bad fit meant I couldn't look over my shoulder properly - and it didn't suddenly stop all the attempted left hooks or people pulling out of side streets in front of me. I swapped to a sam brown belt, don't do much road riding now so don't normally use it.
Do try to wear colourful tops with reflective trim but black is a popular colour by clothing manufacturers, my most used jackets are both red, gillet is blue/purple with reflective trim.
Just coz I argue against this doesn't mean I think hi viz is a bad idea, I wear a helmet on almost every ride but I'm still 100% anti compulsion.
Until the OP gives some context, I'm calling troll, and a mighty fine one at that!
Ok..
I think it's the anti-compulsion bit that I struggle with.. You agree with the idea unless someone is telling you to do it..
It seems like such a weak argument with little or no substance outside of being obstinate..
what happens when you go out for an XC night ride and you route includes a tiny bit of road? Will you be dressing in hi viz for the entire duration? Will you walk that section? What if you want to nip to the shop down the road on a sunday morning it's a bright clear day and your hi viz commuter wear is in the wash?It seems like such a weak argument with little or no substance outside of being obstinate
Cycling is a good thing in our obesity epidemic country, we should be promoting it not putting obstacles in place.
Do any of the guys in the against camp wear any sort of brightly coloured or even hi-viz when commuting?
Or do you try to blend in with your surroundings or wear drab?
Well my rain jacket ([url= http://road.cc/content/review/5058-endura-helium-jacket ]Endura Helium[/url]) is red and has a couple of reflective patches and strips on it:
[img] 
[/img]
Other than that my riding kit is mostly black and I ride a black bike... BUT I have a powerful front light (Gloworm X2), two bright rear lights (FibreFlare and Lezyne FL1), a rear reflector, scotchlite wraps, and reflective highlights on my shoes and helmet.
I'm interested to see how much you stand by your beliefs..
My beliefs are that these things should not be mandatory - not that they shouldn't be used.
Exactly the same goes for helmets.
On the scale of accident prevention it's worth remembering that Hi-Viz doesn't actually do anything to protect you. A risk assessment will quickly tell you that by the time you're relying on being seen to prevent injury you should be considering other steps to protect people from vehicles/themselves.
This is assuming it's an on-site scenario. If your statement is referring to the the commute, then if they're willing to purchase said item, fantastic. I'd happily take a full set of Altura summer and winter kit on the company account. lights as well?
I think it's the anti-compulsion bit that I struggle with.. You agree with the idea unless someone is telling you to do it..It seems like such a weak argument with little or no substance outside of being obstinate..
Should these people be forced, by law, to wear high-viz jackets and helmets:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
this is average commuter wear round here from what i can see.
I think it's the anti-compulsion bit that I struggle with.. You agree with the idea unless someone is telling you to do it..It seems like such a weak argument with little or no substance outside of being obstinate..
Well, probably most of us think that a bit of regular exercise is a good thing (it's certainly widely agreed among health professionals).
I wonder if you would support anyone who argued that exercise should be made compulsory?
The "weak argument" against compulsion is that by and large we live in a free country, and our freedoms should only be restricted where there is a strong argument for this. Some jobsworth thinking it's generally a good idea (even if true) is not in itself sufficient reason.
Should these people be forced, by law, to wear high-viz jackets and helmets:
No
No
No
Yes - well an iron mask and a coat saying
I BUM DOGS