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

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.