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

[Recycler]

The Duty of Care to oneself is integral to any safety system.

Which brings us back to the Supermarket Car Park.

Is there a failure to exercise that duty to protect yourself if you do not wear HiViz when negotiating the car park?

We really have gone the full circle now!
If you've read my other postings you'll see that I do favour the use of Hi Viz even though I don't always wear it. I do think that it is sensible to use it so, in that sense, I suppose I would have to say that I think we have a duty to wear it.
On the other hand, that is only my thinking, I don't know if it has been tested in court, and I wouldn't really want to see its use being made compulsory though I wouldn't lose any sleep if it was.

 

[Grizzly]

The Duty of Care to oneself is integral to any safety system.

Which brings us back to the Supermarket Car Park.

Is there a failure to exercise that duty to protect yourself if you do not wear HiViz when negotiating the car park?

I do hope that this point is being made to stimulate discussion and that you don't actually think we should have to wear Hi-Viz in a carpark. It's a simple case of the worker being exposed to the risk more often than the shopper so their is more risk to the worker. I have to wear PPE at work that the public don't need to wear in the same circumstances, purely because I am exposed to the risks far more often and therefore more likely to be involved in an incident.

 

[ufkacbln]

I do hope that this point is being made to stimulate discussion and that you don't actually think we should have to wear Hi-Viz in a carpark. It's a simple case of the worker being exposed to the risk more often than the shopper so their is more risk to the worker. I have to wear PPE at work that the public don't need to wear in the same circumstances, purely because I am exposed to the risks far more often and therefore more likely to be involved in an incident.

It is a point for discussion.

It is also the fact that schools now promote HiViz for kids walking to school, but not for those walking often on the same road from a car.

 

[Grizzly]

It is a point for discussion.

It is also the fact that schools now promote HiViz for kids walking to school, but not for those walking often on the same road from a car.

We live in a society of people who want rights but without the responsibility. You know the type, "I have the right to drive but I'm not responsible for any accident". How many people have an accident and actually stand up and say "it was my fault"? So society tells the victims they should have done something different so as to prevent a re-occurrence, wear a Hi-Viz, don't walk down that alley. I fully support the argument that no one goes out in a car with the intention of killing, but that does not mean that person should not be held responsible for their actions, or more often lack of actions. To finish my point, cars aren't Hi-Viz so why should I have to be?

 

[Recycler]

, cars aren't Hi-Viz so why should I have to be?

Nobody is saying that you have to wear Hi-Viz. However, it could be argued that, as we have to take responsibility for ourselves, it may be advisable to use Hi-Viz.

 

[Dan B]

Taking responsibility for oneself and taking responsibility for every other motorized idiot out there could be considered two quite different things.

 

[ufkacbln]

Taking responsibility for oneself and taking responsibility for every other motorized idiot out there could be considered two quite different things.

Which is the real point

The culture is unfortunately the opposite.

If only the same money, effort and evangelistic zeal was given to driver training that is given to campaigning for cyclists to "protect themselves" from the drivers who desperately need that training then the benefit would be far greater.

 

[Sara_H]

Seems to me that HiViz is going to be have to be added to the "Helmet and Headphones Debates" section.

For my two pennorth' we've already seen motorists/police/judges/coroners using the "he wasn't wearing a helmet" argument to shift the blame in serious accidents involving cyclists. I think we're in danger of getting into the same situation with the hiViz.

 

[jdtate101]

I'll never wear Hi-Viz. I just find it really ugly, irrespective of the safety arguments, I just plain don't like the colour!!

I think the danger of this "blaming the victim" stance is that we will have a slow creep to Hi-Viz being a legal requirement for cycling on the road. I really hope this can be avoided, as it's just another nanny state approach to accident prevention, rather than addressing the real issue, which is the slipping standards in driving, and the increase in anger and rage on the roads.

 

[Red Light]

I'll never wear Hi-Viz. I just find it really ugly, irrespective of the safety arguments, I just plain don't like the colour!!

I think the danger of this "blaming the victim" stance is that we will have a slow creep to Hi-Viz being a legal requirement for cycling on the road. I really hope this can be avoided, as it's just another nanny state approach to accident prevention, rather than addressing the real issue, which is the slipping standards in driving, and the increase in anger and rage on the roads.

And anyway the evidence from France where it is a legal requirement for cyclists, is that it hasn't prevented any accidents.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Seems to me that HiViz is going to be have to be added to the "Helmet and Headphones Debates" section.

For my two pennorth' we've already seen motorists/police/judges/coroners using the "he wasn't wearing a helmet" argument to shift the blame in serious accidents involving cyclists. I think we're in danger of getting into the same situation with the hiViz.

I'm a cyclist who usually rides in a cotton cap. I've been knocked off while hatless and emergency services have been called.

I've had polite and well-meant advice from ambulance crews, the Police and the staff in A&E about wearing a helmet. I don't enjoy being advised to do things I don't want to do and see little need for, but we are all adults and worse things can be said.

Never having died, I haven't had a coroner's report written about me, but I have to say I do not feel this growing culture of 'victim blaming' that gets frequent mention.

Has there been a case in the UK where blame has been shifted in part or in whole onto the cycling party in a collision on the bsais that he/she was not wearing a helmet?

I ask in ignorance, not to prove a point. I shall be very happy to read of several cases where this has happened. I have never heard of one.

 

[Sara_H]

I'm a cyclist who usually rides in a cotton cap. I've been knocked off while hatless and emergency services have been called.

I've had polite and well-meant advice from ambulance crews, the Police and the staff in A&E about wearing a helmet. I don't enjoy being advised to do things I don't want to do and see little need for, but we are all adults and worse things can be said.

Never having died, I haven't had a coroner's report written about me, but I have to say I do not feel this growing culture of 'victim blaming' that gets frequent mention.

Has there been a case in the UK where blame has been shifted in part or in whole onto the cycling party in a collision on the bsais that he/she was not wearing a helmet?

I ask in ignorance, not to prove a point. I shall be very happy to read of several cases where this has happened. I have never heard of one.

Yes, there was a link on here recently of a case of a gentleman who died after three seperate drivers all ran him over - they were all absolved of blame and the coroner commented that the gentleman may not have died had he been wearing a helmet. in fact it seems fairly clear that they were all driving too close and too fast for the conditions, otherwise they should have been able to avoid him.
I also read in fairly regularly in news reports of accidents detailed description of what the cyclist was wearing, no outright blam attatched, but the subliminal message is there. It shouldn't be an issue, so long as the cyclist is legally lit.
Whilst I agree that it's wise that cyclists should take sensible precautions, the starting point needs to be a massive re education/shift in focus whereby drivers should expect a cyclist or pedestrian to be using the road and drive accordingly - and I don't see that happening. At the moment as a society we drive as though roads are the sole preserve of those in motorised vehicles.

 

[Boris Bajic]

I'll never wear Hi-Viz. I just find it really ugly, irrespective of the safety arguments, I just plain don't like the colour!!

I think the danger of this "blaming the victim" stance is that we will have a slow creep to Hi-Viz being a legal requirement for cycling on the road. I really hope this can be avoided, as it's just another nanny state approach to accident prevention, rather than addressing the real issue, which is the slipping standards in driving, and the increase in anger and rage on the roads.

Tee Hee.... Aren't you the person who posted about ripping an aerial off a car and throwing it across the bonnet.

I imagine that was done in something not unlike anger and rage. It also demonstrated (if true) alarmingly poor standards of conduct on the road...

If my memory has let me down here and you did not post that tale, please forgive me for this terrible slander.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Yes, there was a link on here recently of a case of a gentleman who died after three seperate drivers all ran him over - they were all absolved of blame and the coroner commented that the gentleman may not have died had he been wearing a helmet. in fact it seems fairly clear that they were all driving too close and too fast for the conditions, otherwise they should have been able to avoid him.
Whilst I agree that it's wise that cyclists should take sensible precautions, the starting point needs to be a massive re education/shift in focus whereby drivers should expect a cyclist or pedestrian to be using the road and drive accordingly - and I don't see that happening. At the moment as a society we drive as though roads are the sole preserve of those in motorised vehicles.

A link to the thread would be helpful, but from my reading of your post, the blame (or otherwise) for the collisions and the helmet issue seem unconnected.

A coroner cannot make a judgement about the cause of an accident on the basis of protective clothing. Saying the poor chap might have suffered different injuries had he been differently dressed has no connection with the apportioning (or otherwise) of culpability.

You mentioned coroners and others using the 'he wasn't wearing a helmet' argument to shift the blame. This does not appear to be what happened here. Is there a case in the UK where culpability/blame for a collision was altered on the basis of protective clothing not being worn by a cyclist?

I'm not one of the helmet crazies... I usually ride without one and I have no Hi-Viz although I like to wear bright colours.

 

[Sara_H]

http://road.cc/content/news/34847-c...ree-cars-should-have-worn-helmet-says-coroner