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 cyclists* 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

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

http://road.cc/content/news/76314-nz-ministry-transport-considering-coroners-call-hi-vis-clothing-be-made

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 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.

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 don’t want to.. I DON’T LIKE IT! WAAAAHHH’

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