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

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.

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 – Member

Only cyclists seem to get criticised for not wearing PPE though

mostly – but then there was this attempt by Churchill insurance

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9854441/Girl-hit-by-car-should-have-been-wearing-high-visibility-jacket-Churchill-claims-in-multi-million-pound-compensation-battle.html

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 unbelievably 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)
http://www.rospa.com/leisuresafety/Info/Watersafety/inland-waters-risk-assessment.pdf
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.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/245383/rrcgb2012-00.pdf

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 .

But… I would be very, very angry if my employer started dictating my choices outside 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’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.

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.

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 think it is others aswell

matt_outandabout – Member

For 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.