Another cyclist thread

Health and safety on a work site is a different argument to safety travelling to work.

Tolstoy wrote:

Health and safety on a work site is a different argument to safety travelling to work.

I don't see how the visibility aspect is any different.

But where is this idea of cyclists being 'invisible' coming from? I see hundreds of them on a daily basis with no problem whatsoever. This idea people should light up like a Christmas tree because others are not using due diligence comes across as trying to pass the buck.

I accept that all road users need to take responsibility and nobody's saying that anyone's invisible. It's about heightening visibility. Where did the idea that building site workers are invisible come from? It's about taking every measure possible to ensure the safety of all road users. This is just one aspect of it, I know there are other issues regarding inconsiderate drivers and there's an awful lot of buck passing going on, from both sides of this debate.

You cannot possibly believe that a cyclist riding on a dark night/morning wearing dark clothing is as visible as one not.
This isn't just about drivers and cyclists, there's the small matter of pedestrians as well, many of which are elderly.

I also feel that a hi vis vest might take away excuses from inconsiderate drivers.

The truth is on a public forum these debates just go round and round in circles changing absolutely no one's position. I don't really understand why you started this thread as there have been countless in the past going other the same well-trodden ground by all road users. The talk of making helmets compulsory gets trotted out every six months or so by a government agency when the reality is funding any new law enforcement initiatives is highly unlikely to get approval however indignant people get.

I'm walking away from this discussion as we all know how it ends.

In that case, I don't really understand why you contributed to it.

For the record, I am neither a driver nor a cyclist and I thought I could approach it from a neutral point of view, I have tried to be relatively impartial but became aghast at the resistance to safety measures and reason given for it. I think I have pointed out ad nauseam that drivers can be more than inconsiderate.

boroughonian wrote:

In that case, I don't really understand why you contributed to it.
For the record, I am neither a driver nor a cyclist and I thought I could approach it from a neutral point of view, I have tried to be relatively impartial but became aghast at the resistance to safety measures and reason given for it. I think I have pointed out ad nauseam that drivers can be more than inconsiderate.

I think you've come across as open-minded on the topic. Quite a lot of people have entrenched opinions though so (as Tolstoy observed) these debates tend to become defensive and polarised.

I've found it interesting anyway; I'd not really considered any arguments against high-vis jackets - to me they are the most essential safety garb on a bike (with full length sleeves, by the way). That's based on how many cars pull out or pedestrians step out on me when I'm not wearing one, and also on how difficult it can be to see people in dark clothing at night time, if the lighting is poor. The dazzling quality of car headlamps and most bike lights exacerbates this.

I can sort of see the idea that if most people wear a high-vis then it indirectly makes the odd ones out more vulnerable. But does that make people selfish for wearing them?!

PeteStaples wrote:

boroughonian wrote:

In that case, I don't really understand why you contributed to it.
For the record, I am neither a driver nor a cyclist and I thought I could approach it from a neutral point of view, I have tried to be relatively impartial but became aghast at the resistance to safety measures and reason given for it. I think I have pointed out ad nauseam that drivers can be more than inconsiderate.

I think you've come across as open-minded on the topic. Quite a lot of people have entrenched opinions though so (as Tolstoy observed) these debates tend to become defensive and polarised.

I've found it interesting anyway; I'd not really considered any arguments against high-vis jackets - to me they are the most essential safety garb on a bike (with full length sleeves, by the way). That's based on how many cars pull out or pedestrians step out on me when I'm not wearing one, and also on how difficult it can be to see people in dark clothing at night time, if the lighting is poor. The dazzling quality of car headlamps and most bike lights exacerbates this.

I can sort of see the idea that if most people wear a high-vis then it indirectly makes the odd ones out more vulnerable. But does that make people selfish for wearing them?!

Thanks Pete, although I wouldn't be as polite as you, entrenched? Hmmm. I was learning too, I actually now see the argument against helmets, I don't agree but I see it. I'm struggling to find a negative in the wearing of hi vis vests though.

Tolstoy wrote:

But where is this idea of cyclists being 'invisible' coming from? I see hundreds of them on a daily basis with no problem whatsoever. This idea people should light up like a Christmas tree because others are not using due diligence comes across as trying to pass the buck.

That's not really true.

Yes - it's everyone's responsibility to look out for everyone else, but, especially now that nights and mornings are dark, it makes a huge difference when people make some effort to make themselves visible.

Yes, it's personal choice (other than lights - which I thought cyclists were required to have when it is dark), but if you choose to wear nothing that helps other people to see that you are there then you should expect fewer people to see that you are there, which could lead to really unfortunate consequences.

I really try hard to look our for all other road users, and I don't tear around at high speeds, but - with the best will in the world - some people are only visible when you're almost on top of them, which gives you less time to react.

boroughonian wrote:

I accept that all road users need to take responsibility and nobody's saying that anyone's invisible. It's about heightening visibility. Where did the idea that building site workers are invisible come from? It's about taking every measure possible to ensure the safety of all road users. This is just one aspect of it, I know there are other issues regarding inconsiderate drivers and there's an awful lot of buck passing going on, from both sides of this debate.
You cannot possibly believe that a cyclist riding on a dark night/morning wearing dark clothing is as visible as one not.
This isn't just about drivers and cyclists, there's the small matter of pedestrians as well, many of which are elderly.

I also feel that a hi vis vest might take away excuses from inconsiderate drivers.

I agree: it makes perfect sense for any road user to make themselves as visible as is reasonably possible to those they share the road with.

Obviously, if one is driving an HGV, they will be noticed, but users on two wheels (motor and pedal cyclists), because of their lower visual profile, should take additional steps, and wearing high-viz gear is definitively a good idea for them.