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

[Red Light]

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.

I think your views are over-sensitive and in the minority. When I posted the analogy earlier in the thread I got 13 likes for it. The analogy is in any case relevant. In both cases the potential victims of serious assault are being blamed rather than the perpetrators.

 

[Boris Bajic]

I think your views are over-sensitive and in the minority. When I posted the analogy earlier in the thread I got 13 likes for it. The analogy is in any case relevant. In both cases the potential victims of serious assault are being blamed rather than the perpetrators.

I'm happy to be in the minority on this one. I'm in a minority in my distaste for capital punishment, my admiration for David Byrne and my habit of putting apple in vegetable soups.

Bike theft, RTCs and serious assault are all things that I've had more to do with than I should like. I see no appropriate comparison, but do not want to stand against thirteen 'likes' on a web forum; surely to do so would be the 21st-century mark of Cain.

I am clearly being oversensitive, but I will try to live with it.

 

[classic33]

I can't reference this, but in Cycling Today (that shows my age) there was a write-up by a guy who had travelled the same route with and without high visibility gear with similar results.

However there was a massive improvement in driver behaviour when he wore a black suit, silver buttons on the epaulettes and a Policeman's helmet.

The conclusion was that the best way to become visible was to look like a Police Officer!

Have'nt we been there with the hi-vis "polite" vests. Always got given more room when wearing that.

 

[Grizzly]

Like Boris I too have experience of being mistaken for the Police whilst ridding a motorbike, the only difference was what was written on the back of my jacket and the green and yellow squares on my vehicle opposed to blue and yellow that the Police have. The difference in driver attitudes towards me was unbelievable, polite manners, indicators and respectful driving all round. But most Police are aware of this as they don't drive marked vehicles 24/7. I would try and argue that surely this difference in attitudes towards bikers in different gear shows that drivers are aware of road users on two wheels, its their attitude that is different. The only thing that sticks in my head is that when ridding with blue lights and sirens going it is unbelievable how many road users were unaware of my presence. Then when they did eventually yield (sometimes after several miles) they would never look at you or attempt any sort of apology, they seemed to just grip their steering wheel tighter and stair straight ahead like a mad man, almost as if in denial of their stupidity.
On the point of handing out Hi Viz, is there evidence to suggest that wearing it reduces the chance of being involved in an accident caused by a driver not seeing you? I can see someone suing the Police after they are hit by someone whilst wearing the Hi Viz they have been given. You know, "the Police mislead me into thinking I would be safer if I wore the Hi Viz they gave me".

 

[redcard]

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.

I'm sorry if my facetious comment caused you some disturbance.

 

[steveindenmark]

Red Light..I didn`t know about that in France, but I am not surprised.

I think motorcyclists fall into 2 groups on the whole. Sports bikes riders and touring riders. Most of the shouting will be coming from the sports bikes riders.

If Rossi comes out next season to race in a vis vest, all the sports bike riders will be wearing them

Steve

 

[dawesome]

Slutwalks
This year Guardian readers and others have been debating the Slutwalk phenomenon. I won’t go into these debates here (personally, I don’t quite see how a word like “slut” can be “reclaimed”) except to note two key messages that Slutwalk supporters have been making. These are that:
1. There is no evidence to link the nature of a woman’s clothes with the chances of being assaulted.
2. Insofar as there is any connection between women’s clothing and the excuses made by rapists it is just that: excuses. Furthermore, if a belief system contains the idea that womens’ clothing is a key factor in generating rape, then that belief facilitates rape, is dangerous, and suggests that the belief system needs some critical evaluation.
Is there some connection between ideas around women’s clothing as a factor invovled in sexual assault and those around hi-viz and pedestrians and cyclists being knocked down?
Now, I’m not suggesting that you should never wear bright clothing when cycling. Nor - of course – that carelessly knocking a pedestrian down with a car is the same as sexual assuault. An analogy is just that – an analogy, which I hope stimulates productive thought.

The most basic rule of safe driving, in the Highway Code and elsewhere, is to “Never drive in such a way that you can not stop within visible distance“. But this is eroded, not just by failure to have proper speed limits and their compliance, but by the assumption that if motorists don’t “see” their victims, it is the victim’s fault. Whether by lengthening sight lines or other measures, the underlying belief system thrusts the onus of risk on to motorists actual or potential victims. It is not just a lack of speed control, or the failure to weed out motorists who can’t see where they are going. It is a general culture – promoted by the “road safety” lobby – that you don’t have to fulfil a responsibility to properly watch out for those you may hurt or kill.

http://rdrf.org.uk/2011/06/of-slutwalks-and-hi-viz-the-politics-of-victim-blaming/

​

 

[ufkacbln]

I still feel uncomfortable with the responsibility of the individual to "avoid" crime.

If something is unsafe, should we look at making it safe, or avoiding it?

The end result are a series of ghettos and "No-Go" areas where the criminals rule and the innocent simply are not allowed. Then as the victims dry up, the crimonals move on to the next area, and the innocent are again advised "don't go to ******", again the criminal wins.

Surely the answer is to deal with the criminals?

 

[ufkacbln]

But, I digress.... back ti HiViz

Go to Tesco/Asda/Morrisons/Safeways and they will have risk assessments stating that HiViz is necessary in the car park for their employees.

How can they justify exposing members of the public to the same risks without such protection?

Surely the risk should dictate that they should make HiViz compulsory for shoppers negotiating the car park as well?

 

[Recycler]

I still feel uncomfortable with the responsibility of the individual to "avoid" crime.

If something is unsafe, should we look at making it safe, or avoiding it?

The end result are a series of ghettos and "No-Go" areas where the criminals rule and the innocent simply are not allowed. Then as the victims dry up, the crimonals move on to the next area, and the innocent are again advised "don't go to ******", again the criminal wins.

Surely the answer is to deal with the criminals?

On that basis, do you not bother to lock your front door when you leave home?

 

[Recycler]

But, I digress.... back ti HiViz

Go to Tesco/Asda/Morrisons/Safeways and they will have risk assessments stating that HiViz is necessary in the car park for their employees.

How can they justify exposing members of the public to the same risks without such protection?

Surely the risk should dictate that they should make HiViz compulsory for shoppers negotiating the car park as well?

A company has different obligations (HASAW legislation) to its employees from those which it has towards customers.

 

[ufkacbln]

On that basis, do you not bother to lock your front door when you leave home?

Yes, but I do not hire armed security guards.

 

[ufkacbln]

A company has different obligations (HASAW legislation) to its employees from those which it has towards customers.

Exactly, but they still have a "Duty of Care" to the public.

 

[Recycler]

Exactly, but they still have a "Duty of Care" to the public.

We're in danger of going round in circles here.......

You also have a "duty of care" to yourself. It seems to me that taking simple precautions to protect yourself from the known foolishness of others is a sensible thing to do. However, I also respect your decision to do nothing.

If you don't want to wear Hi viz or a helemt on your Brompton, that is fine by me. I don't think it wise, but it is your decision.

FWIW I don't think it is wise when I forget to use a helmet or to don Hi-Viz either.

 

[ufkacbln]

We're in danger of going round in circles here.......

You also have a "duty of care" to yourself. It seems to me that taking simple precautions to protect yourself from the known foolishness of others is a sensible thing to do. However, I also respect your decision to do nothing.

If you don't want to wear Hi viz or a helemt on your Brompton, that is fine by me. I don't think it wise, but it is your decision.

FWIW I don't think it is wise when I forget to use a helmet or to don Hi-Viz either.

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?