[Closed] Should Hi -viz tabards be made compulsory for cyclists

*round of applause for epicyclo*

It was broad daylight and I was wearing a new dayglo-yellow waterproof jacket at the time.

If you'd have been skyclad she wouldn't have hit you 😀

No.

Wearing high-viz made me feel like a target when I used to commute in all the gear. Switched to stealthy and didn't have anywhere near the number of problems. I'd say weekly near misses to quarterly.

More importantly, cyclists kitted out to the nines in 'safety' gear makes cycling an unattractive option for potential cyclists. "Look how dangerous it must be!". The more people who cycle in 'normal' clothing the better - and it'd teach drivers to actually pay attention.

or, and this is a REALLY wild idea, we could have cyling LANES... like, separate from the mindless fools in their metal boxes......no sorry that would just be silly

jonah tonto - Member
or, and this is a REALLY wild idea, we could have cyling LANES... like, separate from the mindless fools in their metal boxes......no sorry that would just be silly

what like with pavements and pedestrians you mean?

The funny with with hi-vis stuff, or just the stupid yellow jackets that some people wear, is that they are not actually very visible, especially is no light is aiming directly at it. So the cyclist rides along with a crappy little light thinking that their clothing is awesome!

I wear black and have 1500 lumens ready to go! Although my Hope R4 on the lowest setting mounted on my head seems like a good compromise between being seen and not blinding everyone.

Got doored last night on the way home. Not serious just bruises to hand, knee and shoulder. The man said 'I'm sorry, it was my fault, I was looking forward'. It wouldn't have made any difference what I was wearing.
Cycle lanes I hear you say. Until motorists are taught what they are, and what the lane markings mean. They are a waste of money plus give IMO a false sense of security. That solid line dividing means Do Not Cross AT ALL. It is not an invitation to park while on the phone,dropping the kids off or popping to the shop. Neither are cycle lanes the appropriate place to leave the remains of a broken windscreen, or plastic splinters of smashed bumpers, side light lenses etc.

I watched one of those Police TV programmes last week where the voice stated that the police were pulling over into a lay-by to wait for the perp to pass, it was a cycle lane. 🙄

I would not want to wear luminous kit:
Not sure it actually makes you much safer in many situations
Makes you look like a numpty, putting more people off cycling
Surely it should be the onus on all road users to be more aware and wear suitable lights/clothing/glasses as needed for the conditions>?

I tried a hi viz jacket for urban commuting at dusk - I am convinced it improved things - less near misses / more room given. Reflective stuff is a great help as well in the dark

Edinburgh council rules for cycling while at work ie going on home visits is yo must wear hi viz but a helmet is only advised.

Compulsion would be wrong for all the reasons covered above.

Interesting how many people are against Hi viz compared with helmets Active or passive safety?

I think a lot of people get confused between hi-vis for use in daylight and reflective for use in the dark.

I wear a hi-vis gilet commuting in daylight. I wear reflective clothing commuting in the dark (rural comute).

No, I don't think they should be compulsory.

Agreed - I have black shorts, green jacket for a rural commute / off road work, but it is covered in reflective bits.
I have / would wear brighter for a busy city commute.

Or if a car or other vehicle is going to hit you, is even haveing a christmas tree with full flashing lights and fairy strapped to your back going to make them slow down and avoid you.

I can remember riding along the M4 on a motorbike and pretty much only seeing another bike at the last minute thanks to just one fairly dim brakelight that could easily get lost against the cars ones further ahead.
Then I realised I looked exactly the same to other road users.

However, not mandatory, no.

This may be of some relevance (do do it again, even if you've seen this experiment before):

The number of people in the general populace that "miss stuff" from their research is pretty high.

No.

For the reason epicyclo stated, of course not.

Maybe re-testing drivers every 5 years would result in greater road safety for all users. But compulsory hi-viz? The defense lawyers for idiot drivers would love that one.

Hi viz stuff is at its most useful at dawn/ dusk, in the proper dark (non-city riding) you would be better off with reflective stuff.

I think that the compulsory wearing of Hi Vis vests whilst riding on the road (and only on the road) would possibly help reduce accidents but it would not be the correct way of improving road safety for cyclists and other road users.

Road safety should be improved by better driver training.

I drive a lot of miles for work in the South of England and I'm shocked at the standard of driving I see at times. I am sure it's similar for the rest of the country's driving standards too.

I'm convinced that many drivers only think about themselves and where they need to get to. I have probably been guilty of this myself in the past. An example of this is when I've been riding my bike on the road and a vehicle has overtaken me, only to swerve back in front of me and brake hard in front of me because there is a queue of stationary traffic 15 to 20 metres in front of me and my bike. When challenged as to why the driver needed to cut me up, only to stop right in front of me, the driver feigned innocence. Another example of this attitude of me me me is with the attitude of drivers squeezing through gaps (with the resultant clipping of wing mirrors) only to stop another 20 or so metres further on.

I would like to see a program of driver re-testing. Every year? Every 5 years? I'm not sure how regular re-testing should be but I think re-testing is the best way of improving driving standards. I also believe that when people arrive from overseas they need to pass a British driving test before they can drive. I doubt it will ever happen, so I'll give road riding a bit of a miss thanks.

i dont think it should be a requirement, although i do use it.
dont think it would kill cycling, people have been saying that about helmets for years too, but i do agree with what someone above said about becoming de-sensetised to it due to overuse.
much better, imo, would be to force drivers to stop using their mobiles while driving, which 'might' free up some concentration for the road ahead.
it is truly staggering how many drivers do it.

In 17 years of daily cycle commuting, I have only been hit by one car and that was within a week of buying an altura hiviz jacket. As it was cut off me by the paramedics I haven't used it again. I don't think it should be compulsory, as I agree it takes the onus off drivers responsibilies. As for looking a bell end, I think hiviz is the least of a cyclists worries. I feel sorry for the folk who seem to believe the injury or death of a cyclist not wearing hiviz is natural selection or less tragic.

If you listen to all the tools on here banging on about how car drivers are trying to kill them; then surely this will just make us an easier target?

the creeping opinion that suggests that victims of crime are somehow partly responsible if they don't take "measures" is a problem in our society.

The answer is of course properly teach everyone to pay attention on the road and be aware of what's going on around them. The "I didn't see him" should be an immediate 3 points or hefty fine, or maybe even a ban. EVERYBODY who uses the road should be safe from harm, not just car drivers, and it shouldn't be an excuse that I wasn't dressed in flouro.

the moral equivalent of this is the cops offering stab vest to the patrons of known violent pubs on a friday night. anybody here think that's ok?

Not just driver awareness training, but also cyclist training would be a good thing - it never ceases to amaze me how dangerously some people cycle on roads!
I love the way some lycra-clad cyclists say no to hi-vis, cos it would make them look a numpty! 😕
And for the record, I feel naked without a hi-vis/reflective.

I suspect it'd be policed as effectively as having to have front, rear and pedal reflectors. How come all cars aren't high-viz? Most popular colour for a car at the moment is tarmac grey.

Research has shown that you get passed with more room if you look like a human on a bike, rather than a cyclist. I certainly find there's a difference when I'm riding my more sit-up-and-beg bike in normal clothes, compared to MTB in ride gear.

there's no hard statisitical evidence that they make cycling safer, so no, they shouldn't be cumpulsory.

I wear one of these now the nights have drawn in
[img] [/img]
Aside from making you look like a Tron extra, it does actually work.
I think high vis orange stands out more from yellow IMHO.

Pedal reflectors? i think they are a huge help as they really really stand out and can't be confused for anything but a cylist. Personally my bikes have reflective tape all over including on the pedals and I use decent lights if not mega powerful lights but don't really worry over what I am wearing and would never faff about with tabards or sam browne belts or other extra add on gear,

I assume no one has seen me at all times.

I have to say I like the idea of some kind of licence for riding a bike. This has to be one of the few areas in life that can have a major impact on others without recourse.
I consider that if the cycling licence was incorporated into the regular driving licence it would oblige all car drivers to spend time on a bike just so they can get a feeling of what it's like to be a cylist and equally it will be something that the police can remove from rljers and their dickhead mates.
Make drivers more aware, don't give them more excuses.

I consider that if the cycling licence was incorporated into the regular driving licence it would oblige all car drivers to spend time on a bike just so they can get a feeling of what it's like to be a cylist

what if you can't ride a bike ? not all adults can.

I've had people at work state (Times, Telegraph, Daily Mail types...) that hi-viz clothing should be mandatory for cyclists.....

I usualy agree as a cyclist .... which gets thenm nodding at their own wisdom....

I then politely suggest that all cars should be painted statistically safe colours...... which gets an interesting response.....

FWIW I normally commute in hivis + lights reflective tape

Im getting a hi viz next week with "ECILOP" on the front and back,

Like it or not (and I don't) it's on its way. Two weeks ago "the EU" announced that cyclists should be, and I quote, "encouraged" to wear hi-viz. So far we have only seen one form of encouragement come out of Europe and that is compulsion. Perhaps cyclists should be more supportive of the motorcycle world's opposition to similar proposals for "PTW" users.

No great surprise that they are more visible in the half light as that is what they are designed for.

what if you can't ride a bike ? not all adults can.

[img] [/img]

After many years of just wearing what came out of the drawer I took to wearing hi-viz on the commute (17 miles Bath-Bristol)a few years ago and have this year taken to daylight running LEDs too (Exposure on the front, Smart Lunar on the back).
They're just another tool in the box alongside route choice and general Cyclecraft (riding properly, defensively, assertively etc)
But, like helmets I'm vehemently against compulsion.
Even wearing all that kit I still get too many drivers pull out on me - it's not so much that they 'don't see me' it's that THEY ARE NOT LOOKING or they see me and think "It's only a cyclist".
Plus wearing 'kit' seems to fuel the twisted logic of some of the moron's who deliberately give you less space or drive dangerously merely because you are there (I notice I get treated far better riding to the shops wearing jeans and a beanie).

I love my Chevron courier bag, commute with it every day just for the reflective bits:

[img] [/img]

i wear a yellow jacket for commuting during the colder months (had it on for a couple of weeks now)

i think its the dawn/ dusk hours where it's the most use - lights are good in the dark but not much use when its a bit lighter.

don't think compulsion is a good idea at all.

Pedal reflectors? i think they are a huge help as they really really stand out and can't be confused for anything but a cylist.

nickc - Member

the creeping opinion that suggests that victims of crime are somehow partly responsible if they don't take "measures" is a problem in our society.

Perhaps. But perhaps failing to see a stealthed-out cyclist with only a wee single-LED light they got out of a cracker fitted isn't a crime.

Only for peeps that insist on wearing baggies, camelbacks and peeks as they are clearly uncomfortable with their surroundings and should be positively identified as potential hazards!

Yes, all cyclists should wear hi-viz.

And while we're at it, perhaps all pedestrians should wear hi viz too. And helmets in case they trip over. And cars should probably have more hi-viz on them too.

And trees and lamp-posts cos they hurt lots when you hit them so they should be easy to see as well.

And it'll no doubt be enforced by the police who have obviously enforced the rules of the road and pulled over the dozens of drivers I see each day who are on the phone or who jump lights or cut up other road users or drive uninsured cars. Now they've dealt with all those miscreants, they're probably a bit bored and looking for something else to enforce...

TBH, considering how many people ride with no lights, adding another legal requirement that everyone would ignore probably isn't the way to go.