Sussex police target motorcyclists about Hi Viz
cunning-stunt
Posts: 614
I work in magazine production and get to peruse a rather wide variety of magazines. While doing a motorcycling mag last night I read an article about Sussex police pulling motorcyclists over and giving them a lecture about Hi Viz vests before issuing a vest to the poor soul (who was doing nothing wrong and had his/her time wasted) for free.
I don't own a motorbike myself but the article struck a chord because it went on to state that the helmet law for motorbikes came about in pretty much the same way. The official line from the police is that most accidents occur because drivers didn't see the motorcyclist so they wish to merely 'advise'.
This lecture was in daylight.
With all the current debate about helmets for bicycles being compulsory raging and already been and gone concerning motorbikes (and this is not the thread to discuss that issue) is this possibly the first rumblings of cyclists being forced to wear silly clothing anytime we're on tarmac?
Anyone been stopped by plod for not having reflective clothing on? The law requires lights front and back after dark but that's it as far as I know?
I don't own a motorbike myself but the article struck a chord because it went on to state that the helmet law for motorbikes came about in pretty much the same way. The official line from the police is that most accidents occur because drivers didn't see the motorcyclist so they wish to merely 'advise'.
This lecture was in daylight.
With all the current debate about helmets for bicycles being compulsory raging and already been and gone concerning motorbikes (and this is not the thread to discuss that issue) is this possibly the first rumblings of cyclists being forced to wear silly clothing anytime we're on tarmac?
Anyone been stopped by plod for not having reflective clothing on? The law requires lights front and back after dark but that's it as far as I know?
=========================================
Dot 4 in the eye hurts. Trust me
Dot 4 in the eye hurts. Trust me
0
Comments
-
cunning-stunt wrote:possibly the first rumblings of cyclists being forced to wear silly clothing anytime we're on tarmac?
In the grand scheme of things it would be a bad idea though, eh?
Just that I can't see it being very easy to Police.
On a M,Cycle you have a number plate so Plod can track you down if you're not complying and manage to give them the slip, they haven't got that to fall back on with cyclists.0 -
A newcomer on another forum suggested that existing forum members should wear hi-viz jackets with their forum names on, so that he could identify them out on the trails
0 -
It's another case of rather than saying "Drivers: Pay more attention", the message being given out is "Drivers: Keep doing a bad job, we'll force everyone else to make concessions to minimise the chances of you hitting them".
There was a news story on the main site about cycling on the road while listening to an iPod, and I got shot down when I commented that people operating the dangerous machinery (cars, vans, buses) should take responsibility for their actions and behave in an appropriate way, considering a small mistake can kill somone. Instead it's vulnerable road users having to anticipate bad driving in order to stay alive, and that's somehow acceptable.
But......the police have no power to MAKE you wear the hi-vz. It's like when they give out neighbourhood watch stickers, or the UV pens to mark your property, they can offer them, but you don't have to use it.0 -
bails87 wrote:But......the police have no power to MAKE you wear the hi-vz. It's like when they give out neighbourhood watch stickers, or the UV pens to mark your property, they can offer them, but you don't have to use it.
Not at this present time.
You never know what's around the corner though.0 -
I can't see it happening though. TBH, my bike lights are almost as bright as a cars, and one's on my head, so I can point it where I need it to get drivers' attention. If anyone fails to see me then they'd probably have not seen a pedestrian crossing the road, or a parked car. They don't need hi viz. Nor do fallen trees, escaped horses, or potholes. Driving is hazardous, hence the hazard perception section of the test. It's not something that should be done without concentrating and hazards should be expected.
And then we get the problems of a child, riding their bike in the park, do they need hi-viz? Or is it only on roads? What about cycles lanes? Cycle lanes that are part of the road, or that are seperated by a rasied kerb? How about professional road races? Can't imagine TDF riders will be too impressed by the aerodynamic implications of a hi-viz vest from B&Q.
If you're following the other rules re lights and reflectors, then there's no need for hi-viz. And if you're riding around in the dark with no lights, then are you really going be the kind of person who'll wear hi-viz?!0 -
As a motorbike rider I agree with the hi viz jacket as they do stand out and this is something that you notice as a driver plus a bonus of keeping flies of your harder wash jacket.
I also think that we should adapt the french system for having hi viz jackets in the car for all occupants in case of a breakdown. This isn't me being health and safety obsessed but I have nearly hit someone walking along the road with a petrol can in hand it makes you think it could have been me in that situation and for the sake of a £3 hi viz vest he would have stood out like a sore thumb. This isn't going to stop all accidents of this type as my brother will testify who wearing hi viz head to toe has been knocked down twice whilst working behind cones!
More drivers should be prosecuted for causing crashes not accidents as I have been cut up by drivers laughing as they did having no idea that knocking me off my bike for their entertainment could leave me in a wheel chair. Bikers that wear head to toe black and ride without their headlight on (harder to do now since most bikes don't have the option) should expect not to be seen.
One area of law that needs looking at urgently is the flashing light situation on cycles as they stand out so much more and attract attention but the law states that it must be a steady light. Most good coppers turn a blind eye to it but their are plenty willing to make it an issue.0 -
i stick a vest on over whatever i'm wearing if i'm going to be on the roads day or night, the high viz is pretty effective in the daytime gloam this time of year....its an easy way to improve your visibilty and given the potential outcome of not beeing seen i rekon its a no-brainer....
they're free from work and also keep your back clean, bin it when it gets too mankey.0 -
if you've ever had to change a driver-side tyre on the hard shoulder of a busy m-way you know why.0
-
on the news the other day, it was said that the majority of road cycling accidents were either due to crap road safety by the cyclist or women cyclists..... most likely to be both combined...
Oh AND that the worst offenders were Londoners.... which is about right.
I don't think I saw one commuter in London that I didn't think "what a plank, wonder how long it'll be till he gets knocked off".
Anyways... I don't see many plod on the trails... shouldn't this be in the commuting section?
0 -
pte1643 wrote:CraigXXL wrote:I also think that we should adapt the french system for having hi viz jackets in the car for all occupants in case of a breakdown.
I can see this probably ending up as being a Europe-wide law.
That one makes sense to me, at least on motorways where you don't expect peds and cyclists, just other cars doing 55+mph. In a 30 zone it's a bit odd. You can walk on the pavement with no hi viz, but if you're waiting on the pavement because your car's broken down then you need hi-viz for some reason. Actually, I had some guy leap out of his car into the first lane of the motorway in front of me once, bloody scary!0 -
-
CraigXXL wrote:Some of us have to go along roads to get to the trails
Yes.. but I would say that the majority of MTB'ers do actually wear helmets (unlike our commuting counterparts), and if we're going to be out on the trails at night, we wouldn't be going without lights....0 -
bails87 wrote:That one makes sense to me, at least on motorways where you don't expect peds and cyclists, just other cars doing 55+mph. In a 30 zone it's a bit odd. You can walk on the pavement with no hi viz, but if you're waiting on the pavement because your car's broken down then you need hi-viz for some reason. Actually, I had some guy leap out of his car into the first lane of the motorway in front of me once, bloody scary!
It makes sense on roads with no pavements too - country lanes and A-roads where you might have to walk along the road to get to a phone or petrol station in the dark...0 -
llamafarmer wrote:bails87 wrote:That one makes sense to me, at least on motorways where you don't expect peds and cyclists, just other cars doing 55+mph. In a 30 zone it's a bit odd. You can walk on the pavement with no hi viz, but if you're waiting on the pavement because your car's broken down then you need hi-viz for some reason. Actually, I had some guy leap out of his car into the first lane of the motorway in front of me once, bloody scary!
It makes sense on roads with no pavements too - country lanes and A-roads where you might have to walk along the road to get to a phone or petrol station in the dark...
Sorry yeah, those are the kinds of roads I mean. It's just the idea of having to use hi-viz ewhen you're in a well lit, 'slow', area with a fair amount of ped traffic. Does the law still apply there?0 -
bigbenj_08 wrote:CraigXXL wrote:Some of us have to go along roads to get to the trails
Yes.. but I would say that the majority of MTB'ers do actually wear helmets (unlike our commuting counterparts), and if we're going to be out on the trails at night, we wouldn't be going without lights....
Hahaha, I dare you to go on the commuting forum and tell them they're in danger unless they wear a helmet. :twisted: Also, I don't think helmets has anything to do with this. A helmet won't stop me getting hurt when I get hit by a lorry. I'd rather not get hit than be told off for not doing something to mitigate the effects of someone else's incompetence and recklessness.
As for going out at night without lights, that's already illegal, so why do we need another law that essentially says, "if you break one law, then follow this one"?
If someone goes to the effort of wearing hi viz, they'll probably be using lights. The people who use neither at night now, will continue to use neither. They're already breaking the lights law, so they'll break the hi-viz law.0 -
0
-
bigbenj_08 wrote:
Haha, nice work. I think they've realised you're not serious though. You should have mentioned uninsured drivers though (see the Westminster Bike Police thread)
You win a manky seatpost, only got to pay postage. http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... 8&start=130 -
cunning-stunt wrote:I don't own a motorbike myself but the article struck a chord because it went on to state that the helmet law for motorbikes came about in pretty much the same way. The official line from the police is that most accidents occur because drivers didn't see the motorcyclist so they wish to merely 'advise'.
This lecture was in daylight.
With all the current debate about helmets for bicycles being compulsory raging and already been and gone concerning motorbikes (and this is not the thread to discuss that issue) is this possibly the first rumblings of cyclists being forced to wear silly clothing anytime we're on tarmac?
Cyclists and motorcyclists make up the highest proportion of road traffic casualties (in the case of motorcyclists, they/we make up 3% of all road traffic but account for 20% of fatalities).
Where the accident has been the result of a collision between the motorcyclists/cyclist and another vehicle, the reason for the collision is usually given that the driver of the other vehicle "didn't see" the victim. This is very often not because the victim wasn't wearing bright or hi-viz colours or riding with lights on (I always used to ride with main beam on on the motorbike during daylight hours), but because the other party wasn't looking.
I have an acquaintance who is a motorcycle policeman. He was once knocked off his bike whilst responding to an incident, on a dry summer day in broad daylight. He was wearing hi-viz, had his blues-and-twos going and his headlamp flashing. The (female) driver who t-boned him emerging from a side road said that she hadn't seen him.
Wearing hi-viz can improve your chances in traffic and to be honest I'd rather look like a flying reflective banana than have to be picked out of the grille of a BMW, but wearing hi-viz and/or showing lights does NOT absolve other road users of their duties.
There was a move above 12 years ago by the European Union to introduce compulsory daylight running lights, hi-viz clothing, crash bars and (I kid you not) air bags for motorbike. After vigorous campaigning by the BMF (British Motorcycling Federation) and MAG (Motorcycle Action Group), this attempt was dropped, since it was felt that better driver education and proper enforcement of the regulations as they are were a better proposition.
So no, I don't think that it's the first rumblings, although it probably is a misguided if well-intentioned attempt by the force concerned to promote road safety to motorcyclists.0 -
dave_hill wrote:although it probably is a misguided if well-intentioned attempt by the force concerned to promote road safety to motorcyclists.
Agreed, the problem is that motorbikers and cyclists are likely to already be very aware of road safety, so it's possibly a waste of resources. I'm much more alert when I'm on my bike on the road than my car (but then I find myself much more alert when driving up Jacobs Ladder than riding it ).
As you say, any amount of hi-vz won't help if a driver simply doesn't look, it's too easy to go into 'cruise' mode when driving, and approach junctions expecting them to be clear. In those situations a lorry is enough to snap you back into paying full attention, but a bike might not be.0 -
Commuters, in Norwich, all need to be severely fckin slapped.
A scooter sceamed through a red light at a pedestrian crossing, no attempt to slow down and he couldnt see if anyone was going to cross. Was red for about 30secs and he screamed down the middle of the 2 lane traffic straight through.
Cyclist commuters go through red lights/4 way junctions all the time around here and shout at the motorists when they beep at them because the cyclist cut them up due to going through it.
It makes me freakin so mad seeing other cyclists act like this, I just dont understand why they think they can do it without causing an accident or scaring the crap outa someone unneccesarily.0 -
A modern push bike rider has everything except indicators and that's down to the Individual0
-
Fair point, but every morning I see commuters even those in hi viz jackets helmets etc etc do the same thing so I honestly dont see how wearing a hi viz is going to make any difference.
Its down to education more than anything, yet nothing is done about it.0 -
This could never be enforced anyway. Look at the number of nutjobs on bikes (I won't call them "cyclists") riding round in the dark without any lights at all.
The problem is a much bigger one and it's all about bad driving. If anything we should be supporting organisations like the IAM who campaign for better driving standards across the board.0 -
tjwood wrote:This could never be enforced anyway.
Just like headlights on motorcycles I suppose.
Dave, very astute post and it was actually an MAG um mag I was reading.
I knew I shouldn't have mentioned the helmet thing..=========================================
Dot 4 in the eye hurts. Trust me0 -
I also think that we should adapt the french system for having hi viz jackets in the car for all occupants in case of a breakdown.
There's more than that to the French hi viz law (also in Spain and Italy)
Outside of built up areas at night, all pedestrians and cyclists are required to wear them too...
Is it enforced? Not really, no.
It's still seen by some people as encroaching their right to wear the dullest clothing whilst riding a bike without lights or walking the dog on roads without pavements :?0 -
I can sort of see the point, the number of ninja commuters (on push or motorbikes) is just mad. With motorbikes, people say "The bike has lights on", which is great unless you fall off, and all of a sudden you're a black cordura shadow on a black road at night. It's not rocket science that it's better to be highly visible than not, some motorists still won't look but not all.
I think there's mixed messages, the law only says you need teh reflectors and a wee joke light, but with just those a cyclist's still not very visible without street lighting. And lots of cycling gear has "visibility" but it usually means "there's a silver bit on the sleeves" but makes very little difference. Or, it's got rubbish slightly reflective piping or stickers on.
I got a load of 3M retroreflective tape for applying to fabric a few years back and splatched 2 big strips right up my rucksack, and from a distance on a dark road it's far more visible than my 35W 12V motorbike tail lights never mind my pushbike lights.
I'd be against a mandatory law but I think it's daft to dismiss the idea of hiviz. What I'd like to see is better advertising/branding, more use of proper ce reflectives instead of stupid token efforts.Uncompromising extremist0 -
Northwind wrote:I can sort of see the point, the number of ninja commuters (on push or motorbikes) is just mad. With motorbikes, people say "The bike has lights on", which is great unless you fall off, and all of a sudden you're a black cordura shadow on a black road at night. It's not rocket science that it's better to be highly visible than not, some motorists still won't look but not all.
There's also the fact that a single headlight can get "lost" in all the others at night in heavy traffic.0
