[Closed] My work wants to make hi viz mandatory. What's the Argument for/against

Well that's a surreal argument graham if ever I saw one 😆

I don't really know to be honest.. A part of me would be slightly appalled at the change, but you guys seem so sure of your position that I thought one of you might be able to explain why I would feel that way..

I'm no wiser really..

We see threads every day about the latest incident on the road, but yet people still scream that their Grandad (and a couple of girls and Cameron) fought the Germans with the sole purpose of freeing us from the tyranny of increased safety measures..

Well that's a surreal argument graham if ever I saw one

Why? They are [i]real[/i] people cycling.

Not MAMILs. Not wannabe MTB gods. Just (mostly) [i]normal[/i] people cycling [i]normally[/i] for basic transport, without feeling they have to put on lycra, gloves, special shoes, a helmet and high-viz jacket.

Much like you'd see in a country where cycling was the social norm:

I'd much rather that cycling in this country looked like that rather than this:

[img] [/img]

Or even this:

[img] [/img]

yunki - Member

It seems like such a weak argument with little or no substance outside of being obstinate..

compulsion will mean more people die from lack of exercise, and save more or less no-one.

I respect view and beliefs. But in the same token, like those that have views/beliefs based on an invisible friends requirements, I disagree that they have any part in any logical argument.

The Americans are up in arms about Obamacare, as an infringement of the right to individual choice. So who's up for dismantling the NHS?

You won't be FORCED to wear a helmet but you will be FORCED to carry a credit card if you want to be scraped off the road/trail by an ambulance. In fact how annoyed you guys must be that you are forced to use credit cards now, when you still insist on carring your blanketyblank chequbooks and pens? 😉

Can I please just point out for the record that I don't give a toss what anyone wears, I'm just interested in the motives behind the very strong feelings on this issue..

I'm just interested in the motives behind the very strong feelings on this issue..

It's lunchtime, it midweek, we are having a lively debate to relieve the boredom of being stuck inside instead of being able to be on the trails (with or without helmet, lycra etc)

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?

In winter / at night, always. But on a sunny June morning, when it's over 20C at the start? No way.

The Americans are up in arms about Obamacare, as [s]an infringement of the right to individual choice.[/s] it might cost rich people money and for some reason socialism (aka helping others) is downright ungodly. And unamerican (which is the same thing).

FTFY.

I'm just interested in the motives behind the very strong feelings on this issue..

I wouldn't say I have [i]very strong[/i] feelings on it - I just think it is a debate worth having.

Also it depends on your commute. 15 miles through a city centre is a lot different to my 6 miles on towpaths and cycle paths.

I still don't get the "it's not up to me to make myself visible, it's up to others to look out for me" argument. If I was a soldier in Afghanistan, I wouldn't start bleating if my CO told me I had to wear extra body armour because a desk jock back in the MoD felt that my risk of getting injured without it is too high. "But sir, it's not up to me to protect myslef, it's up to the Taliban not to shoot me! Have a word!" 🙄

It's all down to the old, taking responsibility for your own actions argument again, isn't it?

If I'm going to do something potentially risky, I'm going to take all precautions to reduce the risk of my getting injured or killed. This is especially true where other people's behaviour could have an impact on my wellbeing, because, in general, other people are blind, inattentive retards.

As far as the OP is concerned, he/she hasn't given us any context; he/she also hasn't said whether it is just cyclists who are being singled out or if it's everyone on site. If it's the former, then I can understand the concern but my response in that situation would be to comply with my employer's wishes on the condition that it applies to all employees and not just those on bicycles. If it's the latter, again I ask, what's the issue? Your employer has a duty of care while you are on theire time and premises.

Until the OP gives some context, I'm calling troll, and a mighty fine one at that!

At this stage, I'm inclined to agree.

Also it depends on your commute. 15 miles through a city centre is a lot different to my 6 miles on towpaths and cycle paths.

Yep, why should the law (or my employer) force me to wear high-viz and a helmet on this commute?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

It's all down to the old, taking responsibility for your own actions argument again, isn't it?

Exactly.

So we don't need compulsion.

Because that would be very much the [i]exact opposite[/i] of taking responsibility for your own actions!

It's all down to the old, taking responsibility for your own actions argument again, isn't it?

Which is exactly why we need to get away from trying to change the actions of those who aren't causing the problem and onto those who do. Don't you think it would be better for the soldier in Afghan to get rid of the snipers?

johnellison - Member

...If I was a soldier in Afghanistan...

which is completely irrelevant.

cycling, by and large, is safe.

making people wear hi-viz, will give the impression that it's dangerous* (it isn't, with a little training), this will stop people from cycling, this will cost lives.

(*any danger comes from dozy drivers doing stupid things, hi-viz doesn't stop this)

I'm going to take all precautions to reduce the risk of my getting injured or killed.

Really, far better to apply ALARP principles.

Also worth noting Hi-Viz doesn't really change the Risk, as it has no effect on the consequences of being hit, and makes little statistical difference to the probability of being hit.

I'm just interested in the motives behind the very strong feelings on this issue..

It's another stick to beat any cyclist unfortunate enough to get hit by a driver with too. No helmet or hi viz well that's contributory negligence.

The exercise thing is something I believe is worth discussing too. Travelling by bike instead of car is "free" exercise but requiring a change of clothes or safety equipment is always going to suppress numbers, we do want a more active less fat population don't we?

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.**

** Disclaimer - some parts of this conversation have been embellished as they were thought of after the event.

It's all down to the old, taking responsibility for your own actions argument again, isn't it?

If it's the latter, again I ask, what's the issue?

and makes little statistical difference to the probability of being hit.

Possibly not, but if it reduces the probability even a tiny amount, isn't it better than no reduction at all?

...If I was a soldier in Afghanistan...

which is completely irrelevant.

Extreme example for comedy effect, anyone??

[url= http://www.thisfrenchlife.com/thisfrenchlife/files/psre_gilet_triangle.pdf ]revised french rules[/url]

for info, the UK isn't alone in this.

Does mean you can get Hi viz that has a decent cut.

Extreme example for comedy effect, anyone??

Is that a variant of the Edinburgh defence?

It's all down to the old, taking responsibility for your own actions argument again, isn't it?

+1

if its dark or getting dark I wear stuff that's reflective/hi-vis and go out for a ride. I do it with out thinking. I'm going to make every effort to be seen.

If you don't, that' your choice and I'm fine with that.

if it reduces the probability even a tiny amount, isn't it better than no reduction at all?

If there are no side effects then maybe - but as discussed, that's not the case.

Possibly not, but if it reduces the probability even a tiny amount, isn't it better than no reduction at all?

Ban cars, a large part of the problem is solved, the reduction would be statistically huge.

Most journeys don't need to be driven, most are less than a couple of miles. any able bodied person doesn't need to drive them. So statistically minimal impact on peoples ability to get around.

^^^ FACT
🙂

I believe the stats also suggest that compulsory helmet use for car occupants would make a big difference to survival rates, not heard richard hammond* suggesting helmet compulsion tho.

*only famous person I could think of who has survived a crash

i second that motion.

(does that make it law now)

🙁

Reflective stuff can make a big difference, but not convinced Hi-Viz colours have the same impact as there is so much around now, school kids, cyclists, road workers, builders. Plus no colour is of use when riding in the dark, then good lights and reflectives are best.

Though the Hamster was wearing a helmet, as was the other high profile person I can think of, Maria de Villota (RIP).

Do any of the guys in the against camp wear any sort of brightly coloured or even hi-viz when commuting?

If it's overcast, raining or dark, I turn my lights on. If it's sunny, if a driver didn't see me, I suggest a dayglo tabard wouldn't make any difference.

My car is dark grey.

For commuting at the moment I wear on of those Vulpine gilets, which is a bit green, and has some reflective bits. I also have some rather splendid metal trouser clips with reflective bits. Everything else is standard clothing that I wear at work. I have some nice little USB chargeable Electronz front and back lights on my brompton and I seem to manage just fine cycling in west and central London without being crushed by motor vehicles on a daily basis. I also wear a nice rapha cap in black with a pink stripe.
But maybe after nearly 30 years of commuting by bike I've earned the right to decide what the risks might be.

Not read the thread yet - but have we done Hierarcy of Hazard Controls yet

The hierarchy of hazard controls are, in order of decreasing effectiveness:
Elimination
Substitution
Engineering
Administration
Personal protective equipment

Any organisation that's skipped the 1st 4 and jumped to 5 hasn't done a risk assessment, and the HSE will think they are idiots.

number 5 is the last defence and the least effective.

where does the road planners favourite bike safety stratagem come on that list gwaelod? "Engineering" sounds a bit posh for a tin of green paint.

Do any of the guys in the against camp wear any sort of brightly coloured or even hi-viz when commuting?

Sadly, I'm rather like Graham. 🙁

Red jacket with some Scotchlite flashes. Respro ankle bands, and then some stonkingly good lights. (Moon Shield x 2 at the back, and a Moon 500 lumen jobby on the front, with some POS Knog as a back up front light.)

Waddya mean "sadly"?? 😥

I always pictured you more like this Flashy:

[img] [/img]

Any organisation that's skipped the 1st 4 and jumped to 5 hasn't done a risk assessment, and the HSE will think they are idiots.

number 5 is the last defence and the least effective.

Geniune question. How would that work if, for example, the point being discussed was 'cycling whilst at work'? If the employer could not effectively undertake the first 4, then PPE might be reasonable in reducing risk?

Hmmmm, keepin' it steezy there, Graham! 🙂

Did the OP come back? Or did they just drop a fluro-yellow grenade, and run off giggling?

My main issue with 'mandatory hi-vis' is that it encourages people to think that they have no further requirement to take reasonable care. I see lots of cyclists riding with hi-vis who don't have lights, don't look behind them when making manoeuvres or take, what appears to me, to be sensible measures when cycling on public roads.
I'd rather that there became an understanding of how to behave on roads (and on cycle paths) and a general level of tolerance and some give-and-take rather than requirement to wear something given to you be a bean counter who's never actually undertaken that activity and is doing it because they don;t want to deal with the issue.

[img] [/img]

i think what gwalods sayings is that they should substitute the bike for

"Lesanita2 - Member
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."

Good for you, wish mine did.

"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 wear them all the time when i'm at work, lots of trucks and machines about. I don't have to wear one at home so i'd be a bit upset if i was being told i had to wear one there. Don't see how they can make you.

"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. "

Would wearing one all the time be so bad? How would it be overall negative?

The OP hasn't even said if its anything to do with cycling? He just said the have a good cycling group at work.Are work just making them wear one all the time?

OP needs to get back with more details. As Jamie said above, hi-vis bomb has just gone off and OP has run for cover watching everyone fight over a question that doesn't even exist.

I think that hi-viz is now so pervasive that people 'switch off' and don't notice it any more.

OP I doff my cap to you, vague-as-you-like-comment on a random subject and bish-bash-boff

Troll-tastic 🙄

Has the Op said what he does for a living yet?

I pronounce this thread trolltastic and you lot have the hook, line and hi viz sinker.

Has the Op said what he does for a living yet?

Hides under bridges and traps goats?

OP needs to get back with more details

Don't hold your breath. pussywillow, bikeind and richmtbguru could learn a thing or two.

Didn't the helmet laws in Australia just cause less people to use bikes?

Great, less deaths on the roads but far more heart attacks later. I hope the comments by coroners were evidence based but alas probably not....

I still don't get the "it's not up to me to make myself visible, it's up to others to look out for me" argument. If I was a soldier in Afghanistan, I wouldn't start bleating if my CO told me I had to wear extra body armour because a desk jock back in the MoD felt that my risk of getting injured without it is too high. "But sir, it's not up to me to protect myslef, it's up to the Taliban not to shoot me! Have a word!"

HAHA, they do though. Plenty of squaddies complain they reduce mobility when they need it most and they have a fair point - trying to run across an open field full belt? Oh I'm sorry you're wearing 25-30lb all up vest full of slabs of solid ceramic and now someone's opening up at you with a PK and your mate takes one to the face. Now you've got to haul him out as fast as possible while bullets are kicking up dust everywhere. Fat lot of good those plates were but they might pull something like trying to deny your family the payout if you cop it whilst wearing cardboard in the inserts.

I believe the stats also suggest that compulsory helmet use for car occupants would make a big difference to survival rates, not heard richard hammond* suggesting helmet compulsion tho.

*only famous person I could think of who has survived a crash

Yup, I'm sure 6 point harnesses, helmets and a full welded roll cage would reduce lives lost on the road. Better make it mandatory.
This thread reminds me of one I commented on a while back about limiting the driving times of under 30's. More molly coddling.

So the op still hasn't put any of this into context?

Right, I'm going to burn my bar in protest against hi viz.

"Yup, I'm sure 6 point harnesses, helmets and a full welded roll cage would reduce lives lost on the road. Better make it mandatory."

you might think. but badly designed and badly fitted rollcages and badly adjusted harnesses do more harm than good 😉

Just get them to buy you a nice Endura or Gore wear hi viz coat.. will be ideal to wear commuting over the winter.

Why would you not want to be seen ?

apologies for not getting back sooner. the restrictions would apply just within the fenced site's that I work in. It is approximately 1 mile by 1 mile site.

some great points made above. thanks so far. keep them coming if you can

In which case, OP: suck it up buttercup!

Their site, their rules.

Be thankful that the "desk-jockey" didn't just decide that cycling was a risk they'd rather not manage and outright ban cycling on site, which they'd be entitled to do.

you might think. but badly designed and badly fitted rollcages and badly adjusted harnesses do more harm than good

So do helmets.

Boom.

I'm an arse really.

If its just on their site, then they can enforce it. I know of one site where we do work that they use bikes to get about on as the site is huge. Its hi-vis, hard hat, safety specs and boots on there and if you don't, you're off.

You originally said "Currently it is mandatory in low light conditions only as a sensible compromise". Who says when its low light? Perhaps one persons low light is anothers bright light so to take the issue away and stop conflict they just gone full time on it.

Can't really see it being a major issue.

Then there's probably a good reason behind it.

We have H-Viz for people who work in forklift and truck areas. Most companies do the same.

If it doesn't apply to people walking in the same areas then raise that. Then everyone will have to wear one.

I think that hi-viz is now so pervasive that people 'switch off' and don't notice it any more.

That's right, that's why i wear full forest camouflage when out and about. It makes me more visible.

Oh wait....

arse or a sheeple one or the other ....

as i pointed out in a lengthy arguement - the one thing i took away from uni is that it seems most studies set out with a conclusion and a data set is constructed to fit that conclusion.

the helmet one was funny - apparently helmets do not slide across tarmac they apparently stop rigidly and instantly causing rotational injurys.

Thus they should make tires out of helmets due to superior grip properties.

Who says when its low light?

Why would you not want to be seen ?

Why would you ask a question without reading the rest of the thread?

apologies for not getting back sooner. the restrictions would apply just within the fenced site's that I work in. It is approximately 1 mile by 1 mile site.

Okay then as edlong said, suck it up. Within the site they have a duty of care and can enforce whatever safety clothing they deem suitable.

So do helmets.

Boom.

Okay then as edlong said, suck it up. Within the site they have a duty of care and can enforce whatever safety clothing they deem suitable.

Why? Why would they want or need to?

If there are any vehicles moving about, I think it's fairly safe to say that Hi Viz is more, well, how should I put this

HIGHLY VISIBLE

therefor reducing the risk of a forklift mowing you down.

Yep agree with the above - their site their rules tbh.

On a loosely similar note I recall someone on here (PeterPoddy I think) worked at a site, where for H&S reasons, staff HAD to reverse into parking spaces so they could drive out forwards at the end of shift. Or something very similar.

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,

Last time I checked far more pedestrians were killed on the roads than cyclists. In fact the Highway Code states pedestrians should

Help other road users to see you. Wear or carry something light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions. When it is dark, use reflective materials (e.g. armbands, sashes, waistcoats, jackets, footwear), which can be seen by drivers using headlights up to three times as far away as non-reflective materials.

Only cyclists seem to get criticised for not wearing PPE though.

On a loosely similar note I recall someone on here (PeterPoddy I think) worked at a site, where for H&S reasons, staff HAD to reverse into parking spaces so they could drive out forwards at the end of shift. Or something very similar.

most places I visit you have to go in forward as the windows of the offices are above the parking spaces, this does make sense.

The reverse parking thing is pretty much standard through the oil industry. It's complete b*llocks though, not one person I've spoken to in the H&S departments can show of any evidence it's safer. Still makes them look good in the end of year stats, and it's cheap to implement. Whereas say fixing the offshore rigs so they are safe to work on would cost money, and hey, visitors rarely see the state of them anyway.

irc - Member

Only cyclists seem to get criticised for not wearing PPE though

mostly - but then there was this attempt by Churchill insurance

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9854441/Girl-hit-by-car-should-have-been-wearing-high-visibility-jacket-Churchill-claims-in-multi-million-pound-compensation-battle.html

Bethany Probert was 13 when she was hit by a car as she walked home from a nearby riding school in Silverstone, Northamptonshire, at around 4.30pm in December 2009.
Now 16, she suffered traumatic brain damage and has a range of health problems including physical disabilities and memory loss, her mother Jo Twyman said.
The case reached the High Court last July where a judge cleared Miss Probert of any contributory negligence and held the driver's insurers fully liable, meaning she would receive full compensation of between £3 and £5 million.
But now the Court of Appeal has given insurers Churchill permission to appeal against the decision, putting at risk the compensation which would cover the cost of adapting a new home for the teenager's needs and her ongoing care.
Bethany's solicitor Richard Langton, of Slater & Gordon, said: ''One of the key issues they say is that she should have been wearing a high-vis jacket but i don't know anyone who owns one, never mind wears one.

I commend the Rapha hi-viz gilet to you in that case. It is elegant, sporty, nicely cut and un[b][i]believably[/i][/b] pink. 😉

Reverse parking is safer and generates less accidents than drive-in parking.
Think about it - you reverse into a nice, static, clear parking space where there is little chance of another car crossing your path,
or:
you reverse out, with no lateral visibility, into the flow of traffic.

Statistics do back this up, hence why it is enforced by many employers.

The reverse parking thing is pretty much standard through the oil industry. It's complete b*llocks though,

Once you start drivn a van reverse parking makes alot of sense. I always reverse park unless i need something big out the back doors

Their site their rules fair enough. If pedestrians/drivers don't have to wear it I might be a bit peeved, like I said earlier lump us in with one group or the other, but as I originally said you could always push your bike around site if pedestrians are exempt and you don't want to wear/carry hi viz

For those suggesting cycling is really safe, the figures do not add up to that...I am not a 'we must wear high viz and helmets by law' person at all - but we must work harder to help cycling be safer.
To the OP, I would suggest that training all the car drivers and cyclists would be of more use than high viz...
(See page 4, fig 3)

And first page, bullet point 2 on this report points out that only cyclist and coach passengers are seeing a rise in deaths on roads - against falls elsewhere.

One of the reasons why there's a growth in cyclist K&Is is that there's been a huge growth in the numbers of cyclists, some of whom are not very good at cycling on roads. My understanding is that countries with large numbers of ordinary cyclists have low rates of K&Is because it means that most car drivers are also cyclists and understand why buzzing past people a hairs width away is annoying and dangerous and also because there's a lot of cyclist everywhere and they can't all be ignored and mown down. Differences in judicial systems and apportionment of liability probably have an effect as well.

Not sure what the OP's problem is. If it's within the workplace and they ask you to wear a high-viz then just do it. I can't see why anybody would bother wasting their breath arguing against it - at worst it's a minor inconvenience, but it may just stop you getting run over after dark.
Ask anybody who's worked on a construction site in the last few years and they'll tell you high-viz vests are mandatory, day or night, whether there are vehicles moving around, or if you're indoors. The same goes for warehouses where there's a mix of pedestrians and fork lifts, etc.
I've worked on sites where high-viz, gloves, boots, hard hat and safety specs are all compulsory - anybody who thinks the rules don't apply to them is shown the door.

Google and Samsung provide company bikes for people to cycle around their respective (gigantic) campuses. No hiviz for cycling on their sites that I've ever seen.

I guess your employer thinks they know better than these two behemoths of the modern era, but I suspect they are wrong.

I have a bit of hi-viz on me normally [back-pack, cycling top], I always wear a helmet when off-road and increasingly when on road [I have a fancy helmet!].

But... I would be very, very angry if my employer started dictating my choices [u]outside [/u]of work.

Frankly we are creeping towards totalitarianism on many fronts, how long before a urine test at the start of the day [for a desk job]?

Ultimately the UK has some of the safest roads in the world, to reduce casualties further would task either;

1. Massive capital investment e.g. tearing up congested, small city streets.
2. Massive inconvenience for users e.g. 20 mile an hour zones.

I drive, I cycle recreationally and I walk to work. I'm happy with the risks of all and as a pedestrian-cyclist I'd happily put up with a lot more 40mph speed limits in exchange for smoother, wider roads.

Alex

Lol at oldandpastit - do you dial into reality much ?

Number 2 please Alex

I've worked on sites where high-viz, gloves, boots, hard hat and safety specs are all compulsory - anybody who thinks the rules don't apply to them is shown the door.

Matt outtanabout I think if you include the other health benefits of exercise people are still better off cycling than driving to work

*well that's my argument, I [i]think[/i] it is others aswell

matt_outandabout - Member

For those suggesting cycling is really safe, the figures do not add up to that... ...first page, bullet point 2 on this report points out that only cyclist and coach passengers are seeing a rise in deaths on roads - against falls elsewhere.

possibly because there has been an increase in the numbers of cyclists?

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.

The lets make everything compulsory is a worrying trend.