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 real people cycling.

Not MAMILs. Not wannabe MTB gods. Just (mostly) normal people cycling normally 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:

Or even this:

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 an infringement of the right to individual choice. 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 very strong 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?

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 exact opposite 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..

well I’ve got strong feelings about people trying to restrict how I ride my bike for no good reason. Hopefully hi viz compulsion would be unworkable but you’d have thought helmet comp would be too but Oz managed it (with a drop in cycling iirc) Is it blanket 2 wheels in public = hi viz? what about mtbers? Daytime aswell as night? or are we talking only when it’s dark? What about cloudy days etc etc.

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?

majority of the time cyclists are injured by other peoples actions, so we have to take on their responsibilities too?

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

I don’t think anyone here has an issue if it’s company wide on company time/property.

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??

revised french rules

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:

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.

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.