Cyclists gets a finger wag !

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Milkfloat

An Peanut
Location
Midlands
Milkfloat offered his opinion on one outcome, regardless of the data supporting or disproving the safety enhancement claims for hi-vis. I'm asking for his opinion should another outcome be true.

I did not state that high-vis provided any safety enhancement. I simple said that if enables people to feel safe riding a bike, then that is fine.

Personally, I have reflectives and lights, but no high vis. In fact most of my kit is black so it does not show the stains.
 

Shut Up Legs

Down Under Member
I saw an unlit cyclist at around 6.45pm last night. So did the car following him.

It did cross my mind however, that a couple of lights would probably be a bit more useful than his helmet.

HTH :smile:
How did the car see the cyclist? :scratch: I've heard of self-driving cars, but self-thinking?

Sorry, couldn't help that. I agree about the lights: they're always more useful than a helmet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mjr

Big Andy

Über Member
Thanks for those, have had a quick read through and will try to find the time to have a more thorough read through at some point, there are some interesting points but very few definite conclusions can be drawn, however my initial impression is that hi-viz is worn because of the perception that cycling is dangerous in the presence of motor vehicles, and not that it's the wearing of hi-viz that creates the impression that cycling is dangerous. Also that some of what puts people off is the perception that hi-viz clothing is somehow weird, perhaps people suggesting that wearing hi-viz is to "dress like Space Lemons" is what puts people off?

So I am still of the opinion that cylcists should be free to choose what "safety" apparel they wear without peer pressure or ridicule from either side of the debate.
 

Milkfloat

An Peanut
Location
Midlands
And I'm asking you what if it deters people?

Then concrete steps need to be taken to fix that. Simply shouting that his-vis is a red herring does not help, you won't convince people that high-vis is bad when 'it stands to reason'. People need to be encouraged other ways, such as;

Presumed Liability
Segregation where appropriate
Driver education
Tougher laws / implementation of existing ones for poor driving
etc.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
So I am still of the opinion that cylcists should be free to choose what "safety" apparel they wear without peer pressure or ridicule from either side of the debate.
Why should that be the case? It's not true for motorists - try driving around in an F1 helmet and see what happens when you get stopped by police. Usually the freedom to swing your arm stops at the other person's nose, so if wearing hi-viz is harming other people by discouraging them from cycling and contributing to the reverse of "safety in numbers" (danger in rarity?), it should be banned. It's not and it's probably not that important, but most of the peer pressure and ridicule tends to come from the H&H zealots and nicknaming it the Space Lemon look is nowhere near as bad as the pressure applied to any disbeliever.
 

martint235

Dog on a bike
Location
Welling
Then concrete steps need to be taken to fix that. Simply shouting that his-vis is a red herring does not help, you won't convince people that high-vis is bad when 'it stands to reason'. People need to be encouraged other ways, such as;

Presumed Liability
Segregation where appropriate
Driver education
Tougher laws / implementation of existing ones for poor driving
etc.
I'm not sure I'll ever be a fan of segregation. Possibly useful on a bridge or on a new straight road but generally I find that roads go where I want to go and a segregated cycle lane tends to get in my way plus as soon as a cycle lane is built motorists assume I have to be in it.

Zero tolerance on existing laws is what I'd do first followed by education for drivers.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
To be fair, they are on largely segregated cycle paths, in a country with strong presumed liability, with drivers that are used to cyclists by the thousand. We get Dodgy Dave in a tipper truck trying to make his 15 load of the day.
Not as segregated as you may think, in a country that only got strong presumed liability long relatively recently (long after mass cycling), with drivers that don't seem much better-behaved than English ones IMO (I've had a near-miss over there which could easily have happened here). I feel the road designs are better and give cyclists a chance to see the nobbers coming, but I doubt it's anything to do with nobbers being able to see the cyclists or not - the ones who don't care still don't care.
 

Big Andy

Über Member
Why should that be the case? It's not true for motorists - try driving around in an F1 helmet and see what happens when you get stopped by police. Usually the freedom to swing your arm stops at the other person's nose, so if wearing hi-viz is harming other people by discouraging them from cycling and contributing to the reverse of "safety in numbers" (danger in rarity?), it should be banned. It's not and it's probably not that important, but most of the peer pressure and ridicule tends to come from the H&H zealots and nicknaming it the Space Lemon look is nowhere near as bad as the pressure applied to any disbeliever.
As far as I can see it's not the wearing of hi-viz that is particularly discouraging people from cycling, its the perception that its dangerous when not segregated from motorists, that perception causes some to not cycle and some to wear hi-viz. Cause= Perception of danger, effect = some to not cycle and some to wear hi-viz.

On here most ridicule seems to be aimed at those that choose to wear, hi-viz/helmets. There are very few H&H zealots on here.
 

glasgowcyclist

Charming but somewhat feckless
Location
Scotland
I'm not sure I'll ever be a fan of segregation. Possibly useful on a bridge or on a new straight road but generally I find that roads go where I want to go and a segregated cycle lane tends to get in my way plus as soon as a cycle lane is built motorists assume I have to be in it.

Zero tolerance on existing laws is what I'd do first followed by education for drivers.

Driver education has been going on for decades and hasn't got us anywhere. The zero tolerance I'd go for, but the biggest thing that could be done that will vastly increase the numbers of those cycling is segregated infrastructure. We need to cater for all ages and abilities, not just those of us who are prepared to tough it out with motorised traffic. (Perhaps this would be better with a thread of its own as I'm guessing it's nearly as divisive as helmets.)
 

Big Andy

Über Member
Thinking more about it, perhaps forums like this are contributing to putting people off cycling. To read some posts it appears that every motorist is an idiot who isn't looking where he's going, if a non cyclist was reading some of the posts he wouldn't go near a road on his bike.

It's not my experience of riding on the roads though, can only recall 1 occasion where the motorist was driving so as to cause me an issue.
 

martint235

Dog on a bike
Location
Welling
Driver education has been going on for decades and hasn't got us anywhere. The zero tolerance I'd go for, but the biggest thing that could be done that will vastly increase the numbers of those cycling is segregated infrastructure. We need to cater for all ages and abilities, not just those of us who are prepared to tough it out with motorised traffic. (Perhaps this would be better with a thread of its own as I'm guessing it's nearly as divisive as helmets.)
I'm not against it being there, in the same way I'm not against people wearing helmets. As I said though, the real issue is that when segregation is present, motorists believe I'm obligated to use it.
 
Top Bottom