Hi-Viz, sensible precaution or victim blaming?

[deptfordmarmoset]

I take it you've not heard of Euro Ncap . They rate cars not just on their abilities to protect the occupants, but also how pedestrians fare when run over by one.
The sad fact is for all of the changes and improvements in car design safety, if you get run over by a car at 40 or 50, then the odds of you surviving are substantially less than at 30 or 20. If one does wear a piece of clothing to help drivers see them earlier, then that translates into reaction and braking time which will in turn reduce the risk of injury, or indeed the severity of the injury itself.
I sustained a life changing injury as a pillion on a PTW when I was 17 (riders fault) and spent the best part of 6 months on crutches, and I can happily testify that prevention is far more valuable than any compensation payout. ..that is ultimately what the high vz and reflective is looking to achieve.
(no legal training, just some dealings with RTAs and the legal system over the years).

Oh yes, I've heard of the Ncap testing. But when the salesman comes over to tell you how the car fared in the Ncap test, he's less likely to use ''when you knock a pedestrian down, they're more likely to survive because of this, that and the other,'' and more likely to say ''if someone drives into you, Ncap says this car did well.'' The point being that danger gets exported. And that throwing off of danger, as far as I can see, is a complete failure of the basic health and safety principle. The expectation that car drivers can drive into things and knock them down with impunity is a further extension of that H&S failure. If you can't see where you're sticking your car, or control it competently, any alleged low visibility should have no place in the courts.

 

[ufkacbln]

You mean a deliberate act ?

Yep - given the information that is out there it is a deliberate decision to endanger others.

Goes way back to Clotaire Rapaille's reptile theories.

The people who buy these will be those who know they are poorer drivers and are going to have accidents but simply want to make sure that when they do the other person will come out the worst

 

[Linford]

Oh yes, I've heard of the Ncap testing. But when the salesman comes over to tell you how the car fared in the Ncap test, he's less likely to use ''when you knock a pedestrian down, they're more likely to survive because of this, that and the other,'' and more likely to say ''if someone drives into you, Ncap says this car did well.'' The point being that danger gets exported. And that throwing off of danger, as far as I can see, is a complete failure of the basic health and safety principle. The expectation that car drivers can drive into things and knock them down with impunity is a further extension of that H&S failure. If you can't see where you're sticking your car, or control it competently, any alleged low visibility should have no place in the courts.

Well the Euro Ncap can be held accountable for this. Spen King...inventor of the (luxury 4x4 sector in the) Range Rover as well as many iconic cars back in the day was very critical about the way that new cars have been built so strong with massive A-pillars that these structural members can obscure another vehicle from the drivers vision. Year on year, the rear visiblity gets worse with every model they bring out.

The tragic thing is that at the age of 85 in 2010, he died as a result of a collision between himself as on his cycle and a van
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motoring/charles-spencer-spen-king-1925-2010

 

[Linford]

Yep - given the information that is out there it is a deliberate decision to endanger others.

Goes way back to Clotaire Rapaille's reptile theories.

The people who buy these will be those who know they are poorer drivers and are going to have accidents but simply want to make sure that when they do the other person will come out the worst

If you are a car driver, you know that a pedestrian will always come off worse for a collision...it isn't rocket science.

 

[ufkacbln]

If you are a car driver, you know that a pedestrian will always come off worse for a collision...it isn't rocket science.

Exactly, the moral decision to inflict greater damage and injury in that accident though is surely unacceptable?

 

[StuartG]

I will happily wear a helmet on the day it is compulsory that all BMWs be painted bright yellow. Just in case I don't see one

 

[buggi]

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.

what a twat. If he does, get every cyclist to strip back to black as they leave site.
different horses for different courses. I think my hi viz green is most visible at dawn, bright pink in the day and black with reflective stripes at night. Also black works in bright sunshine coz it gives a good sillouette. Ultimately, drivers should open their frickin eyes but if they see my flash of pink that is preferable to them not seeing me at all. Maybe we should all ride naked, they would bloody well see us then!

 

[buggi]

It's a sad fact of life that humans are fallible so if everyone can contribute to make it safer then its all for the greater good. Its not right that cyclists are blamed for wearing black or being on a black bike but if by wearing a flash of white or colour alerts a driver so they don't end up dead then that can only be a good thing. It doesn't mean a driver should be let off for killing them if they don't, its just better not to be dead in the first place.
we, as cyclists, are tuned in to other cyclists, so we spot them a mile off when we're driving, but its not even covered in driving tests, and so sadly most drivers are not tuned to us and we're considered nothing more than a nuisance. It's not right and it needs to change, but currently that's the way it is.
I gave way to a cyclist who had, what i would describe as, a BS Standard front light as i pulled put of work the other day, and he was all in black. I saw him immediately but I remember thinking how crap the light was and that he was lucky it was me that was next out of work, cuz no doubt one of my numpty colleagues would probably have knocked him off. He wasn't doing anything wrong, he was perfectly legal, its just a sad fact that sometimes a reflective stripe or something can help save us from motons. And if it doesn't, at least their insurance company can't argue we weren't dressed right in bid to reduce our compensation.

 

[mcshroom]

what a twat. If he does, get every cyclist to strip back to black as they leave site.
different horses for different courses. I think my hi viz green is most visible at dawn, bright pink in the day and black with reflective stripes at night. Also black works in bright sunshine coz it gives a good sillouette. Ultimately, drivers should open their frickin eyes but if they see my flash of pink that is preferable to them not seeing me at all. Maybe we should all ride naked, they would bloody well see us then!

Even more out site has a 20mph limit. Braking distance for a car at 20mph is supposed to be 12m. The legal requirement for a driving licence is that you can read a number plate at 20m. Anyone who cannot see a cyclist (who is a damn sight bigger than a letter on a number plate) in a 20mph zone, radioactive lemon clad or not, should not hold a licence in the first place.

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 2757656, member: 45"]I didn't know that. What changed?[/quote]


Underpants most certainly!

 

[mcshroom]

Radioactive Lemon, is that special issue?

Available from all good nuclear PPE suppliers, right next to the atomic oranges