# Hi-Viz, sensible precaution or victim blaming?



## snorri (31 Oct 2013)

http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/10/31/hi-vi...trians-sensible-precaution-or-victim-blaming/


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Oct 2013)

Robert Davis........

There is a brilliant book by him

_*Death on the Streets: cars and the mythology of road safety*_
_*
*_


----------



## Biker Joe (31 Oct 2013)

As a cyclist I would advocate' Be Safe Be Seen'. Happy in the knowledge that I am that much more visible to others.
As a driver I am pleased when I can easily see cyclists or pedestrians when they are wearing Hi Vis jackets or other items.


----------



## Kies (31 Oct 2013)

for a cyclist it's a sensible precaution, same as using at least one front and one rear light after dark.


----------



## glenn forger (31 Oct 2013)

Unlit cyclists feature in fewer than 2% of vehicle/cyclist collisions. I think I read black shows up better in daylight? May be wrong.


----------



## Kies (31 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Unlit cyclists feature in fewer than 2% of vehicle/cyclist collisions. I think I read black shows up better in daylight? May be wrong.



what percentage of cyclists are unlit, and are wearing black after dark?


----------



## TheDoctor (31 Oct 2013)

Reflectives and lights are visible from huuuuuuge distances.
Hi-viz on it's own - not so much. It's like helmets - makes you feel safer, but doesn't really make you safer.
*hides*


----------



## RedRider (31 Oct 2013)

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


----------



## MontyVeda (31 Oct 2013)

i wear a dreadful 'normal' jacket and will be til spring... it's *grey*. 

I can honestly say that to date, all drivers have managed to avoid me


----------



## Ern1e (31 Oct 2013)

Ok going of slightly side ways on this tread last night approx 11.00 pm whilst taking the family mutts out meet a nieghbour returning home after parking his car and he says just watch down the road there is a bloody looney riding a bike with no lights and yes a few moments later said bike rider dressed in black (yep all black) rode past us the nieghbour mutters what a kn*b, so then I ask him did you see the guy on the road bike who just went past ? NO why so it's why the hell did you see the one without lights and the guy that just rode by with enough lights to well you know the story, so please could someone explain this one to me because I always wear Hi Viz night and day 2 lights front and 3 at the rear and one on each wheel and some just do not see me. I am thinking that it may be safer to just wear black dump all the lights and go for it ?


----------



## gaz (31 Oct 2013)

Hi-viz? No thanks. I wear all black this time of the year, even at night. My clothing has tactically placed reflectives that are positioned in key locations to make best use of them.
Putting them on the upper body is mostly next to useless.


----------



## RedRider (31 Oct 2013)

*The link in the OP poses this question:*



> *If*
> 
> There is limited, minimal, zero or negative evidence for the short-term benefits of wearing hi-viz clothing when walking or cycling
> There is the possibility that, as hi-viz wearing spreads, people carrying on their daily business using benign modes of transport – which should be seen as mainstream and normal – are possibly more at risk if they do not wear hi-viz
> ...



The BMW campaign is aimed at children. Am I the only one to find it creepy and sinister?


----------



## Linford (31 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Unlit cyclists feature in fewer than 2% of vehicle/cyclist collisions. I think I read black shows up better in daylight? May be wrong.



2%...have you got a source for this number ?


----------



## glenn forger (31 Oct 2013)

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study



> The study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found that in 2% of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was a likely contributing factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time.


----------



## ianrauk (31 Oct 2013)

gaz said:


> Hi-viz? No thanks. I wear all black this time of the year, even at night. My clothing has tactically placed reflectives that are positioned in key locations to make best use of them.
> Putting them on the upper body is mostly next to useless.




This....
I do wonder if some people actually don't realise that hi-viz doesn't work at night, under street lighting and headlights and looks like any other 'normal' washed out colour. And as Mort says above.. people do seem to confuse Hi-Viz and reflectives.


----------



## mcshroom (31 Oct 2013)

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 (1 Nov 2013)

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 (1 Nov 2013)

slowmotion said:


> Paint your frame black
> Wear camouflage clothing
> Jump red lights
> Go up the side of stationary trucks
> ...


 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 (1 Nov 2013)

slowmotion said:


> Wear camouflage clothing



I can't find any!


----------



## Spinney (1 Nov 2013)

RedRider said:


> 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 (1 Nov 2013)

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 (1 Nov 2013)

2743306 said:


> 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 (1 Nov 2013)

2743306 said:


> People cross roads. Not everywhere has footpaths.



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


----------



## snorri (1 Nov 2013)

Spinney said:


> . 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 (1 Nov 2013)

2743306 said:


> 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 (1 Nov 2013)

*Link re the above *


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (1 Nov 2013)

2743450 said:


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


C'est exact.


----------



## Linford (1 Nov 2013)

2743450 said:


> 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 (1 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> 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 (1 Nov 2013)

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.


----------



## mcshroom (1 Nov 2013)

...and all times are a lot safer if the person piloting over a ton of metal actually drives with due care and attention. 

That you seem to believe there is a responsibility for the pedestrian to highlight themselves to the driver instead of a responsibility for the driver to look where they are going shows how skewed thinking has become in favour of drivers.


----------



## Spinney (1 Nov 2013)

mcshroom said:


> ...and all times are a lot safer if the person piloting over a ton of metal actually drives with due care and attention.
> 
> That you seem to believe there is a responsibility for the pedestrian to highlight themselves to the driver *instead *of a responsibility for the driver to look where they are going shows how skewed thinking has become in favour of drivers.



I don't think anyone is saying 'instead'. Yes, the driver should be looking. But some of us are saying that it might be a good idea if pedestrians/cyclists could make it a bit easier for the drivers to see them. That's all.


----------



## Spinney (1 Nov 2013)

2743678 said:


> And when that good idea becomes an expectation?


You are implying that we shouldn't do things that are a good idea just in case they become an expectation?


----------



## Spinney (1 Nov 2013)

This comes down to good for the individual v common good, I guess (and in the case of hi-vis, neither is really demonstrated from evidence).

I'll stick to wearing hi-vis on the bike most of the time, and not when walking.


----------



## RedRider (1 Nov 2013)

Spinney said:


> 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.


My gripe is not really with how effective the BMW campaign might be, I'm sure it's pitched at the right level for primary age kids.
It's not really with the idea hi-vis/reflective/bright clothing makes a kid less likely to die when going about his/her everyday activities even though the evidence for this is weak to non-existent.
I do have a problem with BMW getting free advertising under the guise of education, just as I do with the likes of McDonald's getting product placement in schools 'cos they sponsor a pencil or something, but that's not the thing that really gets my goat either.
What galls is the stuff that Adrian and DM have been talking about upthread. We all know there's a class of driver who think that we cyclists, not they who kill and maim are the problem. Well let's promote this mindset when the brain is plastic! It's the whole concept of BMW getting into schools, the heads of children and working on the neuroses of parents to imply they're somehow irresponsible for wearing or letting their kids wear brown. It's the implication that drivers can be excused poor skills and lack of care because someone's shoelace doesn't have a reflective tag.


----------



## Spinney (1 Nov 2013)

RedRider said:


> My gripe is not really with how effective the BMW campaign might be, I'm sure it's pitched at the right level for primary age kids.
> It's not really with the idea hi-vis/reflective/bright clothing makes a kid less likely to die when going about his/her everyday activities even though the evidence for this is weak to non-existent.
> I do have a problem with BMW getting free advertising under the guise of education, just as I do with the likes of McDonald's getting product placement in schools 'cos they sponsor a pencil or something, but that's not the thing that really gets my goat either.
> What galls is the stuff that Adrian and DM have been talking about upthread. We all know there's a class of driver who think that we cyclists, not they who kill and maim are the problem. Well let's promote this mindset when the brain is plastic! It's the whole concept of BMW getting into schools, the heads of children and working on the neuroses of parents to imply they're somehow irresponsible for wearing or letting their kids wear brown. It's the implication that drivers can be excused poor skills and lack of care because someone's shoelace doesn't have a reflective tag.


OK, I can see your points, and I think I agree.


----------



## Linford (1 Nov 2013)

2743755 said:


> I am warning that decisions may have consequences and they may not be what was wanted, making things that appear a good idea on first glance not to be.



What you really appear to be saying is that you actually don't want to carry any responsibility on a personal level for keeping yourself save in a potentially dangerous situation, and would rather leave it to chance.

I've got an idea...you dress up in matt black, I can dress up in high viz and reflective clothing (and a light to be sure), we can walk down a given narrow country lane for a couple of miles (you on one side, me on the other) when there is a bit of drizzle and see who gets run over first.


----------



## Linford (1 Nov 2013)

2744334 said:


> OK but I choose the drivers


If it doesn't make a difference either way, you'd not need too....what with it being a 'blind' test and all....


----------



## mcshroom (1 Nov 2013)

If the drivers are blind then high-viz won't help you


----------



## booze and cake (1 Nov 2013)

Riding a bike with no lights at night is dumb and asking for trouble, and even with hiz viz or reflective clothing is still breaking the law. But I don't see a problem with not wearing Hiz-viz reflective clothing cycling at night if you have lights. I don't see harm in wearing it, but I don't see enough evidence to make it mandatory.

There is also a difference between 'sorry mate I did'nt see you' and 'sorry mate I was'nt looking' and I'm sure some of the tragedies on the road have been cases of the latter argued as the former. Unfortunately in the latter instance being lit up like a chrimbo tree is no guarantee of safety.



2743450 said:


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



I think there is an element of truth in this, its easy to make a cheap shot to avoid addressing the more obvious inadequacies that are at the root of the problem. Take this classic example today from TFL's Peter Hendy (who deserves a forceful kick in the plums for his statement in this article). 

http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2013/1...-years-with-serious-cycle-injuries-up-18.html

In view of all that is going on around campaigning at the moment the reasoning for the Boris Bike safety record seems a ridiculous statement, and diverts the criticism away from motorists and TFL's own (in)actions onto cyclists. Look at the number of pedestrians being killed, they number more than the cyclists but I don't see him advocating that all pedestrians have flashing lights front and rear.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (1 Nov 2013)

@Linford. You seem to have some kind of grounding in the law, whereas I have spent a lifetime expressly trying to avoid the law, but you may be able to help me on a point. I remember a time when, under health and safety regulations, people had an equal responsibility for their own and other's safety. This may still be the case, but I see little evidence of it. Car designers have spent inordinate amounts of time and money increasing the safety of cars for the user (because, obviously, it's the buyer who pays for that added safety). However, that increased driver safety leads to a tremendous imbalance in that ''equal responsibility'' bit. Apart from the removal of the Rolls Royce sticky-up diving lady on the bonnet and a cursory look at crumple zones and their slightly reduced impact on bones, there is precious little thought gone into the people outside the car. I happen to believe that this imbalance is beyond being at a critical point. The added security for the car user leads inevitably towards a revised style of driving, and that revised style of driving leads to the transferral of danger to the outside.

What I want to know, is which part of the law condones, or even permits, that transferral of danger to the outside? 

(This may seem a little off topic, but it is relevant to the idea that the endangered is responsible for protecting against dangers posed by others.)


----------



## Linford (1 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> @Linford. You seem to have some kind of grounding in the law, whereas I have spent a lifetime expressly trying to avoid the law, but you may be able to help me on a point. I remember a time when, under health and safety regulations, people had an equal responsibility for their own and other's safety. This may still be the case, but I see little evidence of it. Car designers have spent inordinate amounts of time and money increasing the safety of cars for the user (because, obviously, it's the buyer who pays for that added safety). However, that increased driver safety leads to a tremendous imbalance in that ''equal responsibility'' bit. Apart from the removal of the Rolls Royce sticky-up diving lady on the bonnet and a cursory look at crumple zones and their slightly reduced impact on bones, there is precious little thought gone into the people outside the car. I happen to believe that this imbalance is beyond being at a critical point. The added security for the car user leads inevitably towards a revised style of driving, and that revised style of driving leads to the transferral of danger to the outside.
> 
> What I want to know, is which part of the law condones, or even permits, that transferral of danger to the outside?
> 
> (This may seem a little off topic, but it is relevant to the idea that the endangered is responsible for protecting against dangers posed by others.)



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).


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Nov 2013)

mcshroom said:


> 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.




We had something similar and supported it fully!

Then pointed out that there were pedestrians waking along the same road, and that the incident logs showed that there were more pedestrians hit by vehicles onthe site than cyclists.

It was amazing how the idea was quickly dropped!


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> 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).




The question is with all this knowledge you are still allowed to market a vehicle with absolutely no contribution to pedestrian safety.

A driver is able to choose to inflict greater damage to pedestrians on a whim!


----------



## Linford (1 Nov 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> The question is with all this knowledge you are still allowed to market a vehicle with absolutely no contribution to pedestrian safety.
> 
> A driver is able to choose to inflict greater damage to pedestrians on a whim!



You mean a deliberate act ?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (1 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> 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 (1 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> 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 (1 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> 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 (1 Nov 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> 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 (2 Nov 2013)

Linford said:


> 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 (8 Nov 2013)

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 (8 Nov 2013)

mcshroom said:


> 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 (8 Nov 2013)

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 (8 Nov 2013)

buggi said:


> 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 (8 Nov 2013)

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


Underpants most certainly!


----------



## mcshroom (8 Nov 2013)

2757639 said:


> Radioactive Lemon, is that special issue?


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


----------

