didn’t notice the retractable lead though!!! … Maybe animal leads should be hi viz!!

maybe arseholes should be strangled with their own stupidly long dog leads….or I guess you could just ban them, dangerous things. Grr

Dunno oldgit the onus should be on the driver not to hit people\things pushing it onto everyone else is buying into car is king mentality and erring on victim blaming. But I will admit if you’re going running in full on ninja gear at night on unlit roads some reflective syrips might be a good idea.

I run on road. I run off road. Sometimes I might wear something bright. Sometimes I wear black.

So there.

If you read the highway code

Anything to remove responsibility from drivers, same as all cyclists should wear helmets, hi viz etc.

My local running club are a PITA they should wear something bright and preferably not dart across the road in groups. Bloody hazard

My other half runs on the lanes where we live. I drove past her one evening when she was head to toe in black. She was pretty much invisible. Bought her a load of day-glo with lots of reflective stuff on it and now she shows up clearly and early to drivers. In an ideal world it wouldn’t be necessary as all drivers would be careful and attentive. However, I’m pretty sure the world is not ideal so this seems a sensible way to reduce her risk at minimal cost and zero inconvenience.

I think you need to give folk a chance to see you before they kill you.
in saying that, the one time I was walloped by a car when on the bike, I was wearing reflective gear.

I have an orange Howies DyFi shell that I wear . Really because it’s a multi use thing.

Anything to remove responsibility from drivers

despite sometimes choosing to wear reflective/high viz can’t agree more – i hope to survive to the day when driving a vehicle in way that has no or only limited concern for pedestrians or cyclists is considered by the majority as anti-social – sadly today it is accepted as the norm – dressing kids in high viz and telling old folks not to cross the road because other folks have some far more important things to do seems very odd

in saying that, the one time I was walloped by a car when on the bike, I was wearing reflective gear.[/quote]aye the amount of people mown down while brightly dressed and using lights – or just in broad daylight with good visibility – shows hi viz won’t save your arse so it’s a bit messed up when it’s wheeled out as a defense/mitigation so often.

The more people who wear reflective and highviz the easier it is for people to drive faster without hitting anyone. Eventually the only people outside will be a few hard core people in highvis whilst everyone else cowers inside or can’t be arsed to dress up like an electric satsuma to walk 5 mins to the shop.

Anything to remove responsibility from drivers

Weird how people actively want to delegate their safety to a total stranger. You’d have thought natural selection would have weeded them out by now.

I understand the arguments abour risk compensation but they are contested.

Also, not sure traffic is any faster than when I started driving 30 years ago. Tbh I think people stick to speed limits more because maybe volumes, speed cameras, or fuel costs.

Increased traffic volumes may well be making drivers more distracted and that’s a problem?

On the original question, I think it’s because lots of exercise clothes and all running stuff has reflective bits on it even if it isn’t day glo. Doesn’t bother me that my clothes have some reflective stuff on, although I avoid dayglo.

Weird how people actively want to delegate their safety to a total stranger.

2 parts to the argument, I know there’s dickheads out there who don’t look properly so I tend to buy brightly coloured cycling jackets with reflective trim, doesn’t mean I’m happy with the situation or the bullshit comments along the lines of “no hiviz/helmet is wreckless and you deserve what you get (or Darwinism in action)” and I’ll still argue against any sort of compulsion while still actually using some of the stuff people want making compulsory myself.

ex ravers innit

antigee – Member
Anything to remove responsibility from drivers
despite sometimes choosing to wear reflective/high viz can’t agree more – i hope to survive to the day when driving a vehicle in way that has no or only limited concern for pedestrians or cyclists is considered by the majority as anti-social – sadly today it is accepted as the norm – dressing kids in high viz and telling old folks not to cross the road because other folks have some far more important things to do seems very odd

For starters, it’s the responsibility of a pedestrian to look both ways, and only cross the road when it’s clear to do so.
Walking out in front of a moving vehicle who has every right to be there, then complain because they get hit, because it’s someone else’s responsibility is just stupid.
The same with running or walking along narrow twisty country lanes in the dark; as a driver, I have every right to be able to drive along those lanes at a reasonable, legal speed, with respect to the prevailing conditions, but I can’t be expected to assume there’s going to be someone dressed head to foot in black in the middle of the road round any random corner.
It’s the responsibility of a pedestrian to make themselves as visible as possible, and to get to one side when they hear or see a vehicle coming.
It’s what I do, if I find myself on a narrow road after dark, although I always have a torch with me, if I hear a car, especially from behind, I get as far off the road as possible; I consider it my responsibility to do so for my own safety.
The last time was on the Fosseway, near Castle Combe, which is very steep and narrow, with vertical banks either side, so I had my little torch on strobe, pointing down and back. It’s amazing how quickly a car slows up and pulls out, around you.

This thread comes across like a bunch of petrol heads discussing cyclists.

I have every right to be able to drive along those lanes at a reasonable, legal speed, with respect to the prevailing conditions, but I can’t be expected to assume there’s going to be someone dressed head to foot in black in the middle of the road round any random corner.

and who will you be blaming if you drive into a deer or fallen tree (for example) there’s plenty of unlit none hiviz stuff you’re supposed to be able to avoid. BTW darkness is a prevailing condition so you should be adjusting your driving and speed for that.

scott_mcavennie2 – Member

STW comes across like a bunch of petrol heads discussing cyclists.

ftfy

Well to add to my comment earlier my Ron Hill hi viz fillet does have a teeny red flashing light on its back pocket, nowt on the front though, but then I running mostly off-road so I’m kinda lucky.

If your headlights illuminate only a certain length of road, then you should be driving so you can stop within that distance. This may mean going slower than the “hoping the road is empty” technique many use.

The only exception is when saving a few seconds of your time is more important than the remainder of someone else’s about to be shortened life.

The same with running or walking along narrow twisty country lanes in the dark; as a driver, I have every right to be able to drive along those lanes at a reasonable, legal speed, with respect to the prevailing conditions, but I can’t be expected to assume there’s going to be someone dressed head to foot in black in the middle of the road round any random corner.

I go faster than posted limits, when safe to do so, because many local ones are political rather than based on actual road hazards;

Don’t worry, he’s a good driver though..

Don’t worry, he’s a good driver though.

I think its an example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

For starters, it’s the responsibility of a pedestrian to look both ways, and only cross the road when it’s clear to do so.
Walking out in front of a moving vehicle who has every right to be there

News bulletin – some roads have such high volumes of traffic (travelling at the maximum legal speed) that finding a clear time to cross requires judgement that a lot of kids and some older people lack
adjusting speed and driving to be considerate to other road users is an appropriate way to use the right given to drive a vehicle rather claiming drivers rights to exclusive use of road space

News bulletin – some roads have such high volumes of traffic (travelling at the maximum legal speed) that finding a clear time to cross requires judgement that a lot of kids and some older people lack
adjusting speed and driving to be considerate to other road users is an appropriate way to use the right given to drive a vehicle rather claiming drivers rights to exclusive use of road space

Punctuation?

So you are saying that hi-viz is actually there for those who aren’t able to cross roads properly? I would argue that those people shouldn’t be allowed out of the house unsupervised.

no I think what I was trying to say higher up in the thread was that its seems very sad that to have kids wearing hi-viz is considered an acceptable alternative to drivers being more considerate towards other road users – as you argue there is an alternative which sadly is what happens

sorry about the lack of punctuation I’ll stop reading the classified on pinkbike and get out my economist style guide

antigee – Member
…and driving to be considerate to other road users is an appropriate way to use the right given to drive a vehicle rather claiming drivers rights to exclusive use of road space

Shame a few more don’t understand this, but I suppose the rules of common decency don’t apply to our self-appointed road warrior SMIDSY elite.