Hi-Viz, sensible precaution or victim blaming?

[mcshroom]

Thanks for the article. One of the idiotic execs at work is trying to push through mandatory high-viz for cyclists on site and this is a useful piece in our rebuttal.

 

[slowmotion]

Paint your frame black
Wear camouflage clothing
Jump red lights
Go up the side of stationary trucks
Don't use lights. They're for pussies.

It's all everybody else's fault, innit?

 

[RedRider]

Paint your frame black
Wear camouflage clothing
Jump red lights
Go up the side of stationary trucks
Don't use lights. They're for pussies.

It's all everybody else's fault, innit?

No, it's all your fault. Even though you're a five-year-old walking to school. I know this because BMW brainwashed me.

 

[glenn forger]

Wear camouflage clothing

I can't find any!

 

[Spinney]

Another good OP there, snorri. That BMW education link in the article is beyond satire. Just awful. I'm angry about it.

I may get shot down here, but what is so awful about it? It is simplistic, but it is aimed at children.
And they do mention reflective, not just bright colours.

 

[Spinney]

And going back to the orignal article, it said this:

The big losers here will be pedestrians, as smaller proportions of walkers will volunteer to wear hi-viz for what is still seen (so far) as a normal, non-hazardous activity.

Which seems to be ignoring the very basic and obvious fact that most pedestrians will be walking on footpaths and not on the road. If a car KSIs a pedestrian on a footpath there is likely to be some other reason than the driver not seeing them.

 

[Spinney]

People cross roads. Not everywhere has footpaths.

Agreed, but most people look before crossing. This is not quite the same as a car overtaking* a cyclist or pulling out in front of one because they haven't seen them. I wasn't saying that all pedestrians would be on paths, but most of them will be, and especially in streetlit areas where hi-viz will do little good anyway. How, then, will they be losing out by not wearing hi-viz?

*edit: I mean a car hitting a cyclist instead of overtaking them...

 

[Linford]

People cross roads. Not everywhere has footpaths.

You weren't taught the green cross code as a kid ?

 

[snorri]

. I wasn't saying that all pedestrians would be on paths, but most of them will be, and especially in streetlit areas where hi-viz will do little good anyway. How, then, will they be losing out by not wearing hi-viz?.

Walkers on rural roads, people just getting about or enjoying a popular form of exercise, are seldom seen nowadays due, I believe, to the unpleasantness of sharing the roads with increasing numbers of motor vehicles.
It would be a sad day if pedestrians on such roads were required to wear hi-iz or reflectives but with the hi viz evangelists in full flight one wonders if perhaps that day is not so far away.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

People cross roads. Not everywhere has footpaths.

This part of the discussion reminds me of the Churchill insurance case earlier this year. They tried to get out of paying the full costs because the victim, knocked down on a rural road (no pavement) while walking home from the stables, was not wearing hi-vis. Mercifully, they lost the case. This time.... But worth bearing in mind if your car insurance is coming up for renewal.

I guess I look at the hi-vis question a bit like this.
1st consideration: Danger on the road? Remove the danger for all road users.
2nd consideration: Danger still on the road? Take reasonable steps to protect yourself and lobby for stricter laws to remove, or further reduce, the danger.

The second consideration is a response - a sensible precaution, if you like - to the 1st consideration (willfully) not being dealt with. And of course, if the driver's not looking, or having his breakfast, or phoning, or fiddling with the sat nav, applying makeup, reading a newspaper, or book, responding to the 2nd consideration will never make the driver see you.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Link re the above

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

The bottom line is that it is, as ever, those posing danger shifting responsibility to those on the receiving end.

C'est exact.

 

[Linford]

The bottom line is that it is, as ever, those posing danger shifting responsibility to those on the receiving end.

If a car is parked on the road at night, its owner is legally obliged to display a reflector or a lit headlight...what is so different to someone wandering up an unlit road with ninja clothing ?
You seem to think it is everyone elses responsibility than yours to stop you getting run over on the road at night time. You also have a duty of care to yourself which is AFAIK a legal definition.

 

[Spinney]

If a car is parked on the road at night, its owner is legally obliged to display a reflector or a lit headlight...what is so different to someone wandering up an unlit road with ninja clothing ?
You seem to think it is everyone elses responsibility than yours to stop you getting run over on the road at night time. You also have a duty of care to yourself which is AFAIK a legal definition.

Assuming agreement with this (I tend to agree, but I know not everyone does), there is more than one way for a pedestrian to take responsiblity for their own safety.

Wearing hi-vis/reflective clothing may help.
Having a torch may help.
Listening out for approaching cars and standing back to let them go past may help.

I think I 'm agreeing with most here that hi-vis should not be mandatory for anyone (railway workers etc excepted). But I don't see anything wrong with those of us who choose to wear it doing so.

The most vulnerable I've felt walking on a road at night was the A5 approaching Ogwen Cottage. Got down off the Carneddau at dusk, and had a few miles to walk back to the car. Busy road. There was a verge to walk along, partly parked up, but I was wary of anyone suddenly choosing to pull in without seeing me. In the dark my walking gear is remarkably ninja-like. My solution is to wear my head torch pointing backwards, so at least there is a light bobbing along above the verge.

(My other technique, when I'm carrying a walking pole, is to wave it around in a random fashion to encourage motorists to give me a wide berth! )

 

[Linford]

Night time is actually much safer for peds if they are lit or wearing something bright, carrying a newspaper etc than at dawn or dusk as the eye is tricked byt he contrast between sky and ground.