Compulsory High Vis for motorbikers? Us next?

[james01]

http://www.eveningstar.co.uk/news/ipswi ... _1_1070421

There've been rolling road block protests by bikers on many major roads today against a potential list of EU regulations which may become law. Many of the regs concern emissions, d.i.y tuning and modifications, but one of them is for compulsory high vis jackets (not just vests but full length sleeved jackets). As a cyclist I'm concerned than we'll be next on the list. Just when we need to persuade people that cycling is as normal as walking we may have legislation which supports the idea that it's a specialist sport requiring special clothing. This would be a disaster for moves to get people to cycle instead of drive a couple of miles to the shops - it'll be quicker to grab the car keys when you run out of milk rather than rummage for the vest (and helmet? - but that's another story...) in order to get togged up legally.

[snibgo]

I can imagine the UK government mandating hi-viz, h*****s and anything else for cyclists.

But I can't imagine that coming from the EU level. At least, not while the Dutch and Danes cycle.

[PaulB]

I heard a BBC reporter describing travel in the Indian sub-continent the other day. He told of families riding motorbikes, with dad at the controls, toddler on the petrol tank, mum on the back holding a babe in her arms and no shoes or protective clothing. He commented that the "west" was becoming too risk averse and it was ruining our taste for adventure. I agree with him. My wife has a great idea. Why not let us eat what we want, smoke and drink if we want and do dangerous or risky things? Then we would die younger and the pension problem would be solved! I want to wear out, not rust out, which is why at 61 I'm having a go at snow boarding.

[BSRU]

When I used to commute to work by motorbike, I always wore a high viz jacket/vest but never wore them when out went out for pleasure rides. My point being I made a choice based on my personal experience and no-one mandated me to to wear high viz. Obviously the police have lots of spare time to be chasing motorcyclists for not wearing the right coloured clothing.

[karlt]

I heard a BBC reporter describing travel in the Indian sub-continent the other day. He told of families riding motorbikes, with dad at the controls, toddler on the petrol tank, mum on the back holding a babe in her arms and no shoes or protective clothing. He commented that the "west" was becoming too risk averse and it was ruining our taste for adventure. I agree with him. My wife has a great idea. Why not let us eat what we want, smoke and drink if we want and do dangerous or risky things? Then we would die younger and the pension problem would be solved! I want to wear out, not rust out, which is why at 61 I'm having a go at snow boarding.

Which is fine, but I'm not sure that whilst letting you risk your life we should also allow parents to put their children's lives at risk. Quite different things.

On the subject at hand, we should not let our paranoia get the better of us. Motorcycle helmets have been mandatory for decades now but whilst there are one or two voices talking about making it so for cyclists, it really currently doesn't have teeth, and it certainly isn't being mooted on the back of the motorcycle legislation.

[Mike Sales]

Which is fine, but I'm not sure that whilst letting you risk your life we should also allow parents to put their children's lives at risk. Quite different things.

On the subject at hand, we should not let our paranoia get the better of us. Motorcycle helmets have been mandatory for decades now but whilst there are one or two voices talking about making it so for cyclists, it really currently doesn't have teeth, and it certainly isn't being mooted on the back of the motorcycle legislation.

Parents are trusted to make many decisions about their children's safety. In this context noone proposes legislation to stop children being brought up so exercise averse that obesity will shorten the child's life.
Cycle helmets are compulsory in some countries, and the argument starting from motor cycle helmets was used in those countries, and is used in this.
Incidentally, when some states of the USA repealed the motorcycle helmet law at the same time as the 1973 oil price rise the death rate for motorcyclists went up. The helmet lobby used this to "prove" that helmets worked. They used a graph showing this as the cover of a report. John Adams in "Risk" redraws the graph, disagregating the data, to show that the rate went up more in the states which did not repeal the law. The rise was because more people used motor cycles when petrol became more expensive. Typical helmeteer dishonesty.

[TonyR]

France made hi-viz compulsory for cyclists outside of towns and in poor visibility. Although half of French cycle journeys are out of town, there is no visible effect on the number of cyclists being hit by motor vehicles after the law was introduced. AFAIK there is also no research period on the effect of hi-viz in general on accident rates. Its just assumed that being more visible will make you safer but there is no evidence for it that I can find.

[karlt]

Which is fine, but I'm not sure that whilst letting you risk your life we should also allow parents to put their children's lives at risk. Quite different things.

On the subject at hand, we should not let our paranoia get the better of us. Motorcycle helmets have been mandatory for decades now but whilst there are one or two voices talking about making it so for cyclists, it really currently doesn't have teeth, and it certainly isn't being mooted on the back of the motorcycle legislation.

Parents are trusted to make many decisions about their children's safety. In this context noone proposes legislation to stop children being brought up so exercise averse that obesity will shorten the child's life.
Cycle helmets are compulsory in some countries, and the argument starting from motor cycle helmets was used in those countries, and is used in this.
Incidentally, when some states of the USA repealed the motorcycle helmet law at the same time as the 1973 oil price rise the death rate for motorcyclists went up. The helmet lobby used this to "prove" that helmets worked. They used a graph showing this as the cover of a report. John Adams in "Risk" redraws the graph, disagregating the data, to show that the rate went up more in the states which did not repeal the law. The rise was because more people used motor cycles when petrol became more expensive. Typical helmeteer dishonesty.

To clarify, the point about children's safety was in regard to them being carried "riding motorbikes, with dad at the controls, toddler on the petrol tank, mum on the back holding a babe in her arms and no shoes or protective clothing". I don't think our not allowing that is being "too risk-averse".

[Mike Sales]

Which is fine, but I'm not sure that whilst letting you risk your life we should also allow parents to put their children's lives at risk. Quite different things.

On the subject at hand, we should not let our paranoia get the better of us. Motorcycle helmets have been mandatory for decades now but whilst there are one or two voices talking about making it so for cyclists, it really currently doesn't have teeth, and it certainly isn't being mooted on the back of the motorcycle legislation.

Parents are trusted to make many decisions about their children's safety. In this context noone proposes legislation to stop children being brought up so exercise averse that obesity will shorten the child's life.
Cycle helmets are compulsory in some countries, and the argument starting from motor cycle helmets was used in those countries, and is used in this.
Incidentally, when some states of the USA repealed the motorcycle helmet law at the same time as the 1973 oil price rise the death rate for motorcyclists went up. The helmet lobby used this to "prove" that helmets worked. They used a graph showing this as the cover of a report. John Adams in "Risk" redraws the graph, disagregating the data, to show that the rate went up more in the states which did not repeal the law. The rise was because more people used motor cycles when petrol became more expensive. Typical helmeteer dishonesty.

To clarify, the point about children's safety was in regard to them being carried "riding motorbikes, with dad at the controls, toddler on the petrol tank, mum on the back holding a babe in her arms and no shoes or protective clothing". I don't think our not allowing that is being "too risk-averse".

The family on a motorbike was in India. If you want to interfere in India you will find many examples of much worse actual harm to children, not just potential harm. I don't think that there is much of a problem of motorbike overloading in Britain. There is a problem of Government imposing laws on people for their own good. More especially on minority groups like cyclists.
The push for forcing us into helmets is rather more than "one or two voices". I fear BeHit is more influential than that. Virtually every photo of cyclists in non specialist publications, and most in cycle mags, has the cyclists in helmets. There have been several attempts in Parliament to get a law passed. Many people seem to believe helmets are already compulsory, and most that they should be. Other countries have Hi Viz laws, and helmet compulsion. I don't think you can fairly label concerns about laws being imposed on us as paranoid.
I stand by my point about interfereing between parents and children. Your attempt to justify this by bringing in a case from a very different culture is not a fair one. Parents carrying children on bikes or in trailers have been criticised. From what I have read in this forum, most members would agree with me that the duty of government in relation to road safety is to make roads actually safer by restraining the dangerous (to avoid ambiguity I mean those in charge of motor vehicles) not by obliging the endangered to use "safety equipment" which has not been proved to be effective.

[karlt]

I was just pointing out that the fact that we don't do the same sort of things as they do in India is not evidence that we are too "risk-averse", and I do not think it would be a good idea to allow people to do that here. In otherwords, I disagree with PaulB and the BBC reporter that:

I heard a BBC reporter describing travel in the Indian sub-continent the other day. He told of families riding motorbikes, with dad at the controls, toddler on the petrol tank, mum on the back holding a babe in her arms and no shoes or protective clothing. He commented that the "west" was becoming too risk averse and it was ruining our taste for adventure. I agree with him.

But it's really quite a separate issue from whether anyone will try to enforce Hi-viz legislation in the UK on the back of any intended requirements on motorcyclists.

There're enough other issues that are happening at any given time that I'll start getting giddy about this one if and one someone starts proposing it. I also can't find any attempts to get a law passed outside of NI - I'm open to being pointed in the right direction. When I think there's a serious risk of this happening, you can count on me to oppose it. But I really don't think that currently there is.

[byegad]

We all know how visible Hi Viz isn't. My only Motorcycle accident was when I was wearing Hi Viz bib and headlights on. I rarely wore Hi Viz and rarely rode with my lights on on daylight.

[Goosey]

France made hi-viz compulsory for cyclists outside of towns and in poor visibility. Although half of French cycle journeys are out of town, there is no visible effect on the number of cyclists being hit by motor vehicles after the law was introduced. AFAIK there is also no research period on the effect of hi-viz in general on accident rates. Its just assumed that being more visible will make you safer but there is no evidence for it that I can find.

How many french cyclists do you see wearing hi-viz vests? ever?

[CJ]

France made hi-viz compulsory for cyclists outside of towns and in poor visibility. Although half of French cycle journeys are out of town, there is no visible effect on the number of cyclists being hit by motor vehicles after the law was introduced. AFAIK there is also no research period on the effect of hi-viz in general on accident rates. Its just assumed that being more visible will make you safer but there is no evidence for it that I can find.

How many french cyclists do you see wearing hi-viz vests? ever?

About six months after they passed that law I had an email (about panniers) from a Brit who lives over there and organises cycling holidays. So I asked him about it. He had not observed that anybody seemed to be wearing these hi-viz gilets around his area, or any activity to enforce the law.

[irc]

He had not observed that anybody seemed to be wearing these hi-viz gilets around his area, or any activity to enforce the law.

But this is the UK where EU laws are gold plated and sellers of bananas prosecuted for using the "wrong" measure. I predict that if a HiVis law is brought in for cyclists there would be prosecutions.

[CJ]

But this is the UK where EU laws are gold plated and sellers of bananas prosecuted for using the "wrong" measure. I predict that if a HiVis law is brought in for cyclists there would be prosecutions.

I am sure you are right. Indeed I almost added a paragraph to that effect. Thanks for saving me the trouble.