Hi-vis Compulsory

[Geordie Stu]

Reading in this weeks MCN. Police are to ramp up a campaign to get more riders to wear safety vests.

The article goes on to read. Thousands of motorcyclists could be stopped by police for not wearing high-visibilty clothing as more forces adopt a policy already seen in the South-east. Riders will be pulled up & given a lecture on "being seen" as well as reflective vests put on over leathers.

Motorcycle lobbyists say the schemes signals a shift of blame onto riders for accidents caused by drivers who don't see them (SMIDSY)

The Motorcyle Action Group (MAG) believes its a step towards reduced insurance payouts for riders NOT in hi-vis, to be followed by new laws making the gear compulsary.

The group is urging riders stopped to make a formal complaint to the relevant force.

[Dabz]

wearing hi-vis can't hurt..it's only vanity that makes people not want to wear vests or jackets

[R2D2]

Aye, but it's a slippery slope to allow the police to start pulling bikes over when they haven't broken any laws. I agree with the MAG on this one, and if I get pulled and lectured for not wearing a high-vis, a polite letter will be on its way to the force concerned.

Besides, when was the last time you saw a copper pull over a dark-coloured car and say "now, that's not a very visible paint colour you're picked there...", get the driver bollocked for being late for work and tell them to paint the thing yellow?

Chris (who does wear his high-vis occasionally)

[Kevinb]

Never have worn one and never will.
If someone can't see a 6'5" 300lb monster on a 1700cc bike with its lights on then they shouldn't be driving.
Do the police go around in bright cars all the time. No they also drive black Volvo's and BMW's without 'Police' all over them when they don't want to be seen.

[Geordie Stu]

Its not the wearing of Hi-vis I object too its shifting the blame on to us if someone doesn't see us. whether wearing Hi-vis or not.

[Ducatista]

Aye, but it's a slippery slope to allow the police to start pulling bikes over when they haven't broken any laws.

Under UK law the police can already pull you over without any reason to do so.

I have mixed feeling on this.
Clearly the intention is to stop bikers killing or maiming themselves which I think most of us would agree is a good intention and possibly a good use of tax payers money consdiering the expense of a facility (£1.25M when I did bikesafe in 2005).
Remember that word "lecture" is MCNs interpretation and their interest is to sensationalise.

Motorcycle lobbyists say the schemes signals a shift of blame onto riders for accidents caused by drivers who don't see them (SMIDSY)

Well let's play devils' advocate for a moment.
Do you have a responsibility for being seen and avoiding accidents on the public highway?
I don't agree with Chris or Kevin that a car is the same as a bike for visibility purposes, it also doesn't incurr the same risk or death or serious injury or the same economic or human cost.

So the argument boils down, what risks/costs should we be able to take in a public space and on a public budget? and how much choice should we have?
For example should we allow people to climb mountains when there's a chance they might incurr hugh expense in terms of search and rescue.

Personally I see nothing wrong in encouraging people to wear high viz but it should remain optional. We already have compulsorary helmets and most motorcyclist voluntarily wear a lot more armour for their own protection. I believe both the MCN and MAG articles are a bit sensational, but then it's important that someone points out the dangers and stops this being the thin end of the wedge.

Motorcycle lobbyists say the schemes signals a shift of blame onto riders for accidents caused by drivers who don't see them (SMIDSY)

I think that's a leap in logic, but I do think riders have to take some responsibility if they value their life/health.

The Motorcyle Action Group (MAG) believes its a step towards reduced insurance payouts for riders NOT in hi-vis, to be followed by new laws making the gear compulsary.

Huge leap in logic and sensationalist.
Put me off joing MAG tbh (sorry fj, jsut sayingn how I felt when I read it).

The group is urging riders stopped to make a formal complaint to the relevant force.

I would urge people to withold judgement.
None of the police officers I know would "lecture" you (MCN's words).
Do you think a complaint is a good way to waste tax payers money when the police are trying to protect your health, safety and tax bill?
I would urge people not to make their mind up on how the police are dealing with this and make your mind up once you've actually spoken to them.
Those of you who have been on bike safe will know that they are a nice bunch of guys.

Remember that hi-viz is not the only way to be seen.
Positioning and speed are factors as well.
It's dangerous to believe you are invincible just because you are wearing hi-viz.

Its not the wearing of Hi-vis I object too its shifting the blame on to us if someone doesn't see us. whether wearing Hi-vis or not.

The police aren't doing that stu.
That's stuff that's made up by MAG and MCN by some huge leaps in imagination.

[Geordie Stu]

Through out the article the Police are saying the same message "Be Seen & Be Safe"

Aren't we seen enough bright coloured clothing, lights etc, the wearing of Hi-vis doesn't mean you won't be seen.

More education for car drivers instead of targeting bikers

[Ducatista]

More education for car drivers instead of targeting bikers

Have you passed on your proposals for consideration?

[Dabz]

I really can't see how a suggestion to save peoples lives can be bad. Cars don't have to be hi-vis no, but the are able to have accidents and more often than not there's no injury to the driver. Bikes have accidents and usually result in injury, so you can't compare one with the other. I don't agree withit being compulsory, but don't see how people can be so against something that is being suggested with their own safety in mind.

Plus bearing in mind this is from MCN which is effectively a tabloid newspaper, it's probably nothing to worry about in the first place :P Next week they'll be claiming all bikes are to be made o have 4 wheels

[ZZR600Dude]

As a car driver as well as a biker I can say from personal experience that my eye is always drawn to a biker in hi viz in the distance. A lot of car drivers who arent looking out for bikes will also subconciously spot the hi viz thinking it a traffic cop.

Can't see the problem with it being made law myself. All new bikes have to have lights on permanently as a saftery feature. I remember when seat belts became law in cars and loads of people complained, but I wouldnt drive one now without. If Hi Viz became law then in a few years people would think nothing of putting it on.

Think part of the problem is the limited range of hi viz available as most make you look like your off to do a days work at the building site.