New Highway Code Changes Come Into Effect Saturday 29th January

I agree, but it is a part of the safety solution, cyclists could and should help themselves with their personal safety by adopting it, especially when so many still like to ride on a road without any lights on, or maybe one not working, i see some that do, just like some irresponsible car drivers venture with bulbs gone.

The problem is often the selfishness of the road user (driver or cyclist) who because of their situation are willing to take a chance as it is unlikely they’ll get caught or be in an accident, unfortunately the just this once mentality will happen more than just this once. Hi vis exists for a reason, it makes common sense to do everything to be safe as you can in my eyes.

Hi Vis is used as a stick to beat cyclists with. Studies have shown Hi Vis can make you invisible to motorists in certain conditions and statistically doesn't make a rider safer.

Similar with stuff like helmets - a driver is likely to give a non helmet wearing rider more room. Strange eh? When you look into this stuff in depth there is far much more to it than you would think.

I agree though that cyclists should use lights where appropriate along with other safety measures. But we all know that you can't really mandate these as how are you going to round up all the local kids on bikes riding with no lights?

The main thing, in my opinion, is that where there is cyclists who disobey the rules of the road, the consequences of these actions are minimal. yes, they are frustrating, but as previously mentioned they rarely kill anyone. Cars on the other hand cause very serious consequences for disobeying the rules of the road. here are figures in this thread that back that up.

Everyone should obey the rules and make themselves as safe as possible but we know there are always the exceptions. Sadly in the UK car is king so frustrated drivers don't have to worry too much.
 
With regard to rule 1, think its probably aimed more at large HGVs. The amount I see that undercut the junction and go up on the pavement is astonishing, if a pedestrian is waiting there they could easily be wiped out.
Rule 2, they way I read it, once the cyclist knows he's been seen by the vehicle, he moves over to let it pass. Just a case of more visibility for traffic behind, and to slow them down. Not a big deal if the cyclist actually moves over.
Rule 3 is just basic driving awareness, no argument at all.
Rule 4 is just getting people in the habit of looking over their shoulder when exiting their vehicle. If kids are taught when learning to drive, it will be the norm. Us oldies will struggle to get our left arm over our bellies.
 
If you look into this issue it's not as 'grey and white' as you suggest. For example at this time of the year when the sun is low hi vis clothing can make you invisible when travelling into the sun, whereas a dark jersey lets you be seen.
Sorry that is rubbish. Yes HiVis may not make you any more visible against a setting sun but it will not make you "invisible" and in any case you are talking about a situation that lasts for at most half an hour a day on a road running East-West. One of the routes I use out of Darlington (Staindrop Road) is understandably very popular with cyclists, it is relatively quiet and recently fully re-surfaced with a lovely layer of proper tarmac (not a shovel of grit and lick of tar) I can tell you that it is far easier to spot a brightly clad cyclist than one in all black, dark grey or best of all camouflage gear!

That doesn't mean that people do not still hit brightly coloured objects or people it just improves your chances.
 
I don't understand why when drivers talk about making things safer for cyclists/pedestrians their first recourse is to always mention Hi-Viz & helmets, when PPE is the least effective measure for improving safety.
View attachment 32354

Drivers are introducing danger into the environment by travelling at 30mph+ in 2 tonnes of metal but somehow they still want to blame the other person for not being demonstrably visible, when in the vast majority of collisions the other person/vehicle is there to be seen, it is just the driver is not paying attention.

View attachment 32355 View attachment 32356
You don’t think Hi-Vis is important, you don’t think it can be helpful, seriously?

I wonder why it is given out and made compulsory in many a workplace? I find it easier to spot someone at distance wearing hi Vis than a grey or black clothing, if you see them sooner then your awareness and reactions can be processed sooner.

Every little bit helps. Of course there will be instances where it may be irrelevant due to say an irresponsible driver messing with a radio or CD player, mobile phone etc and not paying attention, but to suggest you don’t understand why it can be important seems odd. I am sure insurance companies, police, solicitors would ask the question and take account of such factors in any accidents, its relevance will depend on the individual circumstances of any collision, naturally.
 
And with all that dangerous law breaking a cyclist, on average, kills 1 pedestrian a year. Care to tell us how many pedestrians car drivers kill?
I refer you to my “Gbh” analogy. I don’t think you realise that defending a crime by saying there are worse crimes isn’t actually a defence
 
If you`ve ever done more than ride around the park - high vis does not:-
I stopped there.
You think because I advocate wearing high visibility clothing I don't cycle.
Get a grip.
On the occasion where I've been off my bike or had very near misses it has never been my fault, always the motorist. In town more than in the country we literally take a dance with the devil and have to assume that every motorist is an imbecile not just many of them.
I also think that cyclists have a responsibility to be seen.... and that means NOT wearing dark clothing. If you have an accident you may be complicit. Wear bright clothing at least and lights also help.
So don't lecture me on bike safety.
 
Hi Vis is used as a stick to beat cyclists with. Studies have shown Hi Vis can make you invisible to motorists in certain conditions and statistically doesn't make a rider safer.

Similar with stuff like helmets - a driver is likely to give a non helmet wearing rider more room. Strange eh? When you look into this stuff in depth there is far much more to it than you would think.

I agree though that cyclists should use lights where appropriate along with other safety measures. But we all know that you can't really mandate these as how are you going to round up all the local kids on bikes riding with no lights?

The main thing, in my opinion, is that where there is cyclists who disobey the rules of the road, the consequences of these actions are minimal. yes, they are frustrating, but as previously mentioned they rarely kill anyone. Cars on the other hand cause very serious consequences for disobeying the rules of the road. here are figures in this thread that back that up.

Everyone should obey the rules and make themselves as safe as possible but we know there are always the exceptions. Sadly in the UK car is king so frustrated drivers don't have to worry too much.
I understand some of your points and agree cars are generally more dangerous than bikes, however, the issue is the person in control, not the equipment itself per se. An idiot behind a wheel is more likely to be a bigger danger than an idiot on a bike, yet they can both cause serious incidents to others. The more visible you are the better, there is a reason black cars are more likely to be in an accident. it is better for everyone to be more visible, it really is quite simple.
 
You don’t think Hi-Vis is important, you don’t think it can be helpful, seriously?

I wonder why it is given out and made compulsory in many a workplace?
TBH I don't. IMHO all wearing it does is removes the driver's excuse that you weren't visible, it wouldn't stop the incident in the first place as most of them are as a result of poor driving rather than people driving into hidden objects.

I'd love to see a study that shows its introduction has had a reduction on workplace injuries.
 
cycling-jersey-1024x683.jpg
 
So high vis does help cyclists be seen, and that has been statistically proven. No doubt someone will be along to argue against these findings soon.

Meanwhile none of this really has any effect on the new highway code rules.

I cycle a lot in a city. Some roads it would really only be someone with a death wish that would ride in the middle of the road.
 
Sorry that is rubbish. Yes HiVis may not make you any more visible against a setting sun but it will not make you "invisible" and in any case you are talking about a situation that lasts for at most half an hour a day on a road running East-West. One of the routes I use out of Darlington (Staindrop Road) is understandably very popular with cyclists, it is relatively quiet and recently fully re-surfaced with a lovely layer of proper tarmac (not a shovel of grit and lick of tar) I can tell you that it is far easier to spot a brightly clad cyclist than one in all black, dark grey or best of all camouflage gear!

That doesn't mean that people do not still hit brightly coloured objects or people it just improves your chances.

It's a shame we all can't ride and drive on that one road to which your point is entirely based around :ROFLMAO:
 
I can clearly see two cyclists (also several cars, a post box & some trees), do I win a prize?

One is in the sun and one is in the shade! But yes, as a competent driver I can easily see both cyclists and wouldn't hit either.

It's a bad job when people have to post bad evidence why they might hit a cyclist then blame the victim / cyclist isn't it?
 
Hi Vis is a red herring and everyone is getting a bit worked up about it. This basically sums up Hi Viz"

Cherry Allan, campaigns and policy coordinator at British organisation Cycling UK, points out: “The research suggests that it may help drivers to spot pedestrians and cyclists more readily, but there was no evidence by how much and it was impossible to say whether that made them safer, as spotting them was one thing and driving safely around them another.”
 
So high vis does help cyclists be seen, and that has been statistically proven. No doubt someone will be along to argue against these findings soon.

Meanwhile none of this really has any effect on the new highway code rules.

I cycle a lot in a city. Some roads it would really only be someone with a death wish that would ride in the middle of the road.

Hi Vis is a red herring and everyone is getting a bit worked up about it. This basically sums up Hi Viz:

Cherry Allan, campaigns and policy coordinator at British organisation Cycling UK, points out: “The research suggests that it may help drivers to spot pedestrians and cyclists more readily, but there was no evidence by how much and it was impossible to say whether that made them safer, as spotting them was one thing and driving safely around them another.”
 
Back
Top