Forum menu
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?
the Umpires, obviously!
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.
tend to agree with this. Unless hi viz would only be compulsory for cyclists and not for pedestrians, you will have a hard time arguing against it. But ask them for the evidence that hi viz reduces risk anyway...
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 - MemberOnly cyclists seem to get criticised for not wearing PPE though
mostly - but then there was this attempt by Churchill insurance
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,
I have this image of people keep backing over the edge of the dock
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 don't think anyone is arguing against this, the argument* is that cyclists shouldn't be singled out for hi viz - or if they were trying to impose the rules outside of work.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 - MemberFor 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.
i don't think anyone is arguing against this, the argument* is that cyclists shouldn't be singled out for hi viz - or if they were trying to impose the rules outside of work.
They aren't trying to impose rules outside of work - it's within the employer's mile square compound, and therefore part of the workplace. The OP hasn't given any more info on what sort of site it is, but it seems likely that the cyclists are sharing the route with other vehicles - lorrys, forklifts, diggers, tippers, who knows??
Their site, their rules, etc.
Any discussion of making high-viz compulsory on the public highway or cyclist safety on the roads in general is irrelevant in this case - it's on private property and if the landowner/employer wants cyclists to wear high-viz while travelling across their site then it's their prerogative.
I say go for it, I still find it funny
[img] 
[/img]
I have seen Hyundai shipyard workers cycling alongside sections of ship, and Boeing use bikes, but the health and safety regime is huge and they are given specific training. So sorry but bluff, it's not the same as the urban jungle.
My god is this still going..ffs!
I'd just don the high viz vest at the site entrance, there should be a risk assessment you can see though. Better to remove the risk by segregation before PPE but I wouldn't make an issue of it.
epic troll. Well done op.
These would be a welcome addition to any environment but I think compulsory is a bit strong
[img] 
[/img]
Ive not read all five pages, but did the op answer if the hi viz is at work or at home/commute?
If its at work, someone does an RA for the task, says hi viz may help with safety. Work provides the safety equipment. Operatives trial it, then management review, report, make decision, which could be compulsory. If its on the commute, have they provided the bike (bike to work scheme?) Then strickly speaking they could provide rules for this also. Company car users may have to accept rules to drive by or loose the car, even out of hours. You may not be being paid, but its their property your thrashing around on/in. If not either of these, they could suggest you do this, as they do want you at work rather than hospital, but its then your choice, doubt its enforcable.
Trouble is, as a lot of places go over to permanent hi-viz, folk get used to only looking for hi-viz (& assuming everyone will be in it), & you've even more chance of being hit.
we know that now, we didn't five pages back when this all started. OP wording was vague and could have meant several possibilities.They aren't trying to impose rules outside of work - it's within the employer's mile square compound, and therefore part of the workplace.
after disappearing for a while OP [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/my-work-wants-to-make-hi-viz-mandatory-whats-the-argument-foragainst/page/4#post-5470124 ]has got back to us[/url] so quite possibly not a troll.epic troll. Well done op.
IanW - Member
My god is this still going..ffs!
My thoughts exactly!
"there should be a risk assessment you can see though. Better to remove the risk by segregation before PPE but I wouldn't make an issue of it.
"
agree segregation may well be better - but your RA measures should not stop at that if theres still a risk .... which on our facility there is ...
IanW - Member
My god is [b]Viz[/b] still going..ffs!
My thoughts exactly!
Fixed it for me; issue 230?!?
I have seen Hyundai shipyard workers cycling alongside sections of ship, and Boeing use bikes, but the health and safety regime is huge and they are given specific training. So sorry but bluff, it's not the same as the urban jungle.
Trouble is neither of those employers would appear to be working on an UK site and therefore not subject to 1974 H&SAW etc. Act.
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 suspect these two have a very good traffic management plan in place on campus that segregates pedestrians and cyclists from motorised traffic. If they can show this is how it works Hi-Vis would not be necessary once the risk assessment has been carried out and documented.
Trouble is neither of those employers would appear to be working on an UK site and therefore not subject to 1974 H&SAW etc. Act.
Sure enough, but your point has got absolutely nothing to so with anything we are discussing
and anyway....
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 suspect these two have a very good traffic management plan in place on campus that segregates pedestrians and cyclists from motorised traffic. If they can show this is how it works Hi-Vis would not be necessary once the risk assessment has been carried out and documented.
Google and Samsung.......not talking about the UK either 🙄
..if you slip into the back room, you’ll see them: 1,300 green, blue, red and yellow Google Bikes, stacked Santa’s workshop-style as far the eye can see.[img]
[/img]
This building is the nervous system for a remarkable campus-wide bike-sharing program that doubles as a mirror of the search giant’s corporate culture.
On any given day, you can find about 700 of the bikes scattered like toys across Google’s Mountain View campus. All morning long, Google’s private shuttle buses drop off employees in front of clumps of bikes. The Googlers mount up and ride to work. Jimenez and Mac are part of a seven-person army that keeps them up-and-running, seven days a week.
-- http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/04/google-bikes/
And it's sunny too. Gits!