Police Acknowledge Drivers at Fault - So Hand Out Hi-Viz!

[Red Light]

<rantmode>
Why should I wear hi-viz while some one-handed driving asswipe in a lowered Corsa or £100k Merc is left alone to continue saying "Screw you, I've got a car" because no-one bothered to assess him properly in his attitude to being a driver?
</rantmode>

You need the hi-viz so they can see you out of their blacked out tinted windows

 

[Recycler]

Motorcyclists and cyclist research is different, but there are common issues and problems

Of course there are differences between motorbikes and bikes but a 37% reduction in motorbike accidents is surely big enough to make us think? Whether the reduction for us would be 27% or 47%, I don't know, but I think it is most unlikely that there will be no effect for bikes.

 

[Red Light]

. For some reason, Government does not want to give out this message and I don't know why.

Its because motorists not only pay a lot of money to the Government. They are also one of the few groups that seem to want to pay much more than is necessary by buying bigger less fuel efficient cars.

 

[atbman]

Corrected story (aka rational response by police):

"Officers said in two-thirds of cases, vehicle drivers were at fault and have begun a series of events to hand out new glasses to drivers."

 

[steveindenmark]

I ride bikes and motorbikes.

A few years ago there was huge resentment to wearing vis vests when it came to motorcycling but that attitude has taken a huge U turn, on mainland europe anyway. We are not being forced to wear them but we realise that it does give us a better chance to be seen.

I can only speak from my own experience but the difference when I ride with and without one is massive. Drivers actually seem to see me and give me more room. It is like taking and invisibility cloak off. It does appear that we are pasting ourselves into a corner though, and that vis vests will be forced upon motorcycle riders by some MEP. We have done half the work ourselves.

The vis vest I wear on my bike and motorbike is designed for motorcycling and is fitted and has a zip. It doesn`t flap around like those velcro fastening, flappy things that the police hand out out.

I find it odd that grown men are quite happy to wear a red polka dotted man of the mountain shirt but won`t wear a vis vest.

This is always going to be a personal choice, unless a law is passed. I think it is best just to accept that other people are free to make their own choices.

Steve

 

[ufkacbln]

It is about utility

I want to grab my Brompton from the front door get on it, nip round to the shop.

I do no want to have to put on a helmet, hi viz, Sam Brown belt knee and elbow pads (as one government site suggested was a requirement) and a protective suit.

I want to wear normal clothes and shoes.

 

[Red Light]

France has introduced a law in 2008 requiring cyclists to wear hi-viz at night and in poor visibility when cycling outside built up areas. Around 50% of cycle mileage in France is done outside built up areas. There has been no reduction in the French cyclist ksi as a result of the law.

And contrary to Steveindenmarks comments, motorcyclists are being made to wear hi-viz from next year in France and it has kicked up quite stink in the motorcycle community.

 

[jdtate101]

If they MUST hand out Hi-Viz, then perhaps some free farnese vini kit?:

 

[PK99]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. A quote from a BBC News article talking about the increase in 'serious cycle crashes':

"Officers said in two-thirds of cases, vehicle drivers were at fault and have begun a series of events to hand out high-visibility equipment to cyclists."

So, we have an acknowledgement that in the majority of cases vehicle drivers were at fault. And the response is obviously not to address that issue, but to 'educate' cyclists.

Oh dear...

Would you have a similar view if police were pointing out the risk of bike theft and handing out vouchers for locks?

So, we have an acknowledgement that thieves were to blame. And the response is obviously not to address that issue, but to 'educate' cyclists

 

[redcard]

Would you have a similar view if police were pointing out the risk of bike theft and handing out vouchers for locks?

Don't be silly.

Do you think rape victims should be given longer skirts?

 

[simon.r]

Would you have a similar view if police were pointing out the risk of bike theft and handing out vouchers for locks?

Yes, I think I would. We seem to be moving towards a culture of blaming the innocent.

Had your bike stolen? - that's your fault for not locking it up.
Had your car window smashed? - that's your fault for leaving your ipod on your car seat.
Been assaulted? - that's your fault for going into town on a Friday night.
Been mugged? - that's your fault for walking home alone at 3am.

I'm pragmatic enough to realise that it makes sense for me to lock my bike up, not leave my ipod on my car seat etc etc and I nearly always wear hi-viz when riding (my decision, for whatever reason). These things are all my personal choice, but if I choose not to do them I object strongly to being made to feel guilty if someone else steals my bike, smashes my window or knocks me off my bike.

The bottom line, IMHO, is that too much efort is put into coercing the innocent and not enough effort put into catching the guilty.

In the case of the OP there will be a number of police officers handing out the hi-viz gear. What I'd like these police officers to do instead would be to accompany a commuting cyclist, note the inevitable left-hooks, SMIDSYs, close passes etc then 'have a word' with the offending drivers. I think this would be more effective and importantly it would target the guilty, not the innocent.

 

[PK99]

Yes, I think I would. We seem to be moving towards a culture of blaming the innocent.

Had your bike stolen? - that's your fault for not locking it up.
Had your car window smashed? - that's your fault for leaving your ipod on your car seat.
Been assaulted? - that's your fault for going into town on a Friday night.
Been mugged? - that's your fault for walking home alone at 3am.

I'm pragmatic enough to realise that it makes sense for me to lock my bike up, not leave my ipod on my car seat etc etc and I nearly always wear hi-viz when riding (my decision, for whatever reason). These things are all my personal choice, but if I choose not to do them I object strongly to being made to feel guilty if someone else steals my bike, smashes my window or knocks me off my bike.

The bottom line, IMHO, is that too much efort is put into coercing the innocent and not enough effort put into catching the guilty.

In the case of the OP there will be a number of police officers handing out the hi-viz gear. What I'd like these police officers to do instead would be to accompany a commuting cyclist, note the inevitable left-hooks, SMIDSYs, close passes etc then 'have a word' with the offending drivers. I think this would be more effective and importantly it would target the guilty, not the innocent.

You are confusing "blame" for past events with sensible advice regarding future safety.

When I was training as a Supporter for Victim Support the approach was that the crime always remains the responsibility of the criminal but that it was part of the Victim Support role to offer guidance to avoid folks becoming repeat victims. And it was sad just how many were repeat victims, not learning the harsh fact that there will always be some nasty people out there and it is wise to take sensible precautions - eg don't go to the cash machine and count your money on the street, do check the credentials of anyone arriving at the door "from the gas". don't walk through through the gang of yoofs in the park talking on your iphone etc etc

What guidance should i give to my 18 year old daughter?
"It is your right to walk a mile and a half home half cut from the train station along london streetsat 1am. Do it!"
or
"Get a taxi" ?

 

[Silver Fox]

You are confusing "blame" for past events with sensible advice regarding future safety.

When I was training as a Supporter for Victim Support the approach was that the crime always remains the responsibility of the criminal but that it was part of the Victim Support role to offer guidance to avoid folks becoming repeat victims. And it was sad just how many were repeat victims, not learning the harsh fact that there will always be some nasty people out there and it is wise to take sensible precautions - eg don't go to the cash machine and count your money on the street, do check the credentials of anyone arriving at the door "from the gas". don't walk through through the gang of yoofs in the park talking on your iphone etc etc

My thoughts exactly.

Ignorance can be bliss when it comes to crime prevention because bad things only happen to other people. We all have a responsibility to take reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of ourselves and property because if we don't, sooner or later the criminal fraternity will take advantage.

My advice, get a taxi.

 

[fossyant]

When are the police going to hand out a few Exposure 6 packs then ?

 

[Boris Bajic]

Don't be silly.

Do you think rape victims should be given longer skirts?

This is the second time this slightly disturbing analogy has been used in this thread.

If it has any merit, it lies only in shock value. In this context, the comparison seems as inappropriate as it is ill-considered.