Cycle gurad survey

Ollieda

Just be sent a link by my insurance comapny cycleguard. Survey is ment to be about road saftey and asks standard questions like what type of cyclist are you, what are thwe worst habits for drivers.....etc.

Come to one question:

Do you feel that any of the following should be made compulsory for cyclists? (Multiple Choice)
Options:
Helmets, Reflective Clothing, Lound horns on bikes, Third party liability insurance, road tax.

Now whilst I agree on some of the above being good ideas (helmets, reflective clothing, insurance) I DO NOT think for one minute that any of these should be made compulsory, they should all remain a personal choice. However cycleguard have decided that you can't refuse to choose any.

Probably won't make any difference to anyone but it's things like this that annoy me. You never know when some anti - cycling type might get hold of any results, can just imagine some headline in the daily hate "Survey shows cyclists want compulsory road tax for bikes" or something to that effect!

Crapaud

It's a pisspoor survey that doesn't have a 'none of the above' tick box. I'd write it in, crossing out the others, and send it back.

Maybe they were hoping that nobody would want helmets, reflective clothing, loud horns or road tax and go for the insurance so they could make a few bob.

deptfordmarmoset

The only one worth thinking about, for me, is the 3rd party insurance. It's the only one that takes into account the danger a cyclist might represent to others - the first 2 are about the dangers represented to cyclists and the road tax option is a long - nay eternal - conversation into the void.

But on balance, cycling is a right not a legally-inspired populist cost benefit analysis conducted solely because cyclists are indiscriminately included in the category of drivers, who have consistently shown themselves incapable of competent risk-assessment without killing others and are sanctioned by a system that makes lawyers richer, so I think I'm against the compulsory bit. Vaguely....

EDIT: I've just reread that paragraph and, whilst it's completely unreadable, I think it still makes sense. Well, at least to me it does.

Ollieda

I plumped for reflective clothing in the end, it's the only one to me that (if it were to ever be taken up) is of definate benifit - easier to be seen, is easy to comply with - the vast majority of cycle clothing has some high viz element and fairly easy to enforce.

However, i still think it's a piss poor survey. I only complied as there was a prize draw and I love a freebie regardless of what it is and its use to me - ironically in this case it's a high viz vest!

Crapaud

Ollieda wrote:

I plumped for reflective clothing in the end, ...

... love a freebie regardless of what it is and its use to me - ironically in this case it's a high viz vest!

There's a thought, Ollieda. Did they actually mean reflective clothing or hi-viz? It's one of these things that are often confused. If they meant the builders bright yellow vests, then no - they're an abomination and offend mine eyes - they're unnecessary (helpful in daylight, but unnecessary). On the other hand, if they meant reflectives, (sam browne belts, ankle and wristbands, etc) for night use, then maybe. Personally, I find them very useful when I'm driving. Ankle bands, especially, stand out and scream slow two-wheeled vehicle in the dark, but they're not clothing.

Flasheart

Where I work, although I'm office based, anyone who ventures in the yard thst we're based in has to wear a hi viz vest when outside an office etc. After a while ( a couple of months) is seemed that the only people that you DID actually notice were the non-compliant people & they really did stick out a mile.

With regard to Cycleguard's questionaire..tell em to shove it mate

Ollieda

Crapaud wrote:

Ollieda wrote:

I plumped for reflective clothing in the end, ...

... love a freebie regardless of what it is and its use to me - ironically in this case it's a high viz vest!

There's a thought, Ollieda. Did they actually mean reflective clothing or hi-viz? It's one of these things that are often confused. If they meant the builders bright yellow vests, then no - they're an abomination and offend mine eyes - they're unnecessary (helpful in daylight, but unnecessary). On the other hand, if they meant reflectives, (sam browne belts, ankle and wristbands, etc) for night use, then maybe. Personally, I find them very useful when I'm driving. Ankle bands, especially, stand out and scream slow two-wheeled vehicle in the dark, but they're not clothing.

I've always considered a high viz vest (what seems to be on offer in the prize draw) one of those builder's vest types. High viz I take to be any clothing with high visability, which is why I say most cycling gear has some high viz element to it. The actual question on the survey was reflective clothing.

Our insurance for the uni cycle team requested we wear high viz whilst cycling, we took this to be high visability clothing (not those crappy vests) and they seemed happy with that

MattC59

The only proper Hi-Viz clothing is something that is both hi-viz in colour and has reflective panels etc.
A standard hi-viz vest, without reflective panels isn't hi-viz at night. Likewise, a black jacket with reflective panels, is only hi-viz at night, or when people are driving with their lights on.
So technically, most of the hi-viz stuff that we buy is only part time hi-viz.

Pross

Third party insurance would be my vote if it were viable to enforce it.