Coroner wants fluoro' cycle vests made compulsory

Roy asks me "I take it your 'compulsory insurance against injury, higher ACC levies and no-appeal-permissable organ donor mark' should also apply to motorists who don't take every safety precaution?"  My point all along is that those who have most to gain by taking safety precautions have the most reason, if they take the non-utopian view that changing everyone else's actions will be a long if not impossible process, to do so. There is no reason why a motorist should not wear a safety helmet if s/he feels the risk justifies it. The statistics of head injuries per km travelled by car and by bicycle that could have been prevented by wearing a helmet may encourage them to do so. Perhaps Roy will back up his assertion that "there are many sorts of accidents where they would help" with figures to convince drivers. As it happens I support compulsory 3rd party insurance for all vehicles and no-appeal-permissable organ donation where prospective donors have indicated their wish. It is in my view iniquitous that the dead person's will regarding granny's tea-set is taken with great seriousness in law but the desire to benefit other people in the most profound way after death is subject to the superstitions of relatives, or perhaps their "yuck" reaction to the idea of the dead person being cut up.

I'm more than happy to wear bright clothing and a helmet if I'm on a bicycle (before I gave up cycling because it is too unsafe around heavy car traffic). I'm not going to suffer under the delusion that a cycle helmet does me all that much good in a collision with a car. I'm interested in seeing measures that avoid the accidents happening at all - bright clothing and good cycle lanes are a start, but what is really needed is a culture change where cyclists are seen as first class citizens on the road. Oddly enough, the parts of the USA I've been to feel a lot safer for cyclists and pedestrians, because car drivers are terrified of being sued or having their insurance premiums go up. Hype.O.Thermia, I take it your "compulsory insurance against injury, higher ACC levies and no-appeal-permissable organ donor mark" should also apply to motorists who don't take every safety precaution? Using that logic it seems reasonable to insist that motorists wear helmets too, as there are many sorts of accidents where they would help.

Isn't that the point, that cyclists wearing high-vis vests (without a back-pack obscuring their back) and with good bike lights are seen? Yes, as a motorists I see those ones easily and at a fair distance.

And of course drivers must try to watch out for all other road users. And watch out for unpredictable events such as animals and people dashing out onto the road or stepping out from behind a parked car without looking. And watch what is coming behind them when turning because of the barmy give-way rule. And contend with multiple lights and reflections and weather conditions. And drive on badly constructed roads, just like cyclists, that are poorly thought out and make sharing difficult.

As for the notion that roads should be made safer and 100% of drivers should drive safely 100% of the time, it may be a few years before that happens. In the meantime, what should the prudent cyclist do? Complain about drivers and road design instead of taking all reasonable precautions to keep him/herself safe?

I suggest that those who already make themselves highly visible should encourage other cyclists to do likewise, because believe me, there are all too many who are no more than a dim shadow at the edge of the road until the motor vehicle is so close that if anything else occurs so that the driver wants to veer towards that side of the road, by the time he/she sees the cyclist it may be too late.
I think they may think that because they can see other traffic, others can see them.

Compulsory high-vis clothing? I am not keen on "solving" every problem with more rules, and agree that more awareness all round is a better answer. At the same time, I think any cyclists who do not take good care of their own safety might well be regarded as contributing to accidents where lack of visibility to "a reasonable competent driver" is a big factor.

Not that that is much use when the cyclist has enduring damage to his body. No amount of blame, no amount of punishment, will undamage a smashed body.

...and yet I've been skittled three or four times. You talk of responsibility? You seem to forget far too many drivers fail to take real responsibility for what they do behind the wheel. When you get behind the wheel it is your responsibility, nay, a requirement by law to be aware of other road users, if you are not, then you probably shouldn't be driving. That's not whining, that's reality.

I agree that wearing high-vis gear is obviously a very sensible thing to do (and I do all the time when cycling). But I think it's a sad reflection that the coroner's first recommendation is to make these vests compulsory rather than oh.. I dunno, up the efforts to make roads safer for cyclists. Or even better, get them off the road altogether, where possible. Poor visibility is a secondary problem to cyclists being forced into dangerous situations by inconsiderate road design. I would think that a big push to address problem areas nationwide would save a lot more lives than this idea, especially as the majority of commuting cyclists I see already do wear high-vis gear. And it would benefit all road users alike.

The idea that high-vis vests should be compulsory is lunacy. We should be encouraging more people to cycle, not discouraging the few who do. The requirement to wear helmets is a bad start - it discourages people from cycling and there is much debate over its effectiveness in reducing injury. Add high-vis vests (and probably ban backpacks over the top of them at this rate) and you can absolutely guarantee that fewer people will cycle. One of the attractions of a bike, beside the fact that the exercise is good for you, is its convenience. The more awkward you make it to get on your bike and go down the road to the local dairy, the fewer people will do it. They'll drive instead. The fewer the cyclists, the more the danger for those who are cycling. Rather than reducing the numbers still further, better to increase the numbers and increase drivers' awareness of the possibility of cyclists being on the road and of the consequences of hitting them. How about giving cyclists right of way over cars *everywhere*, and strict liability for drivers in accidents involving bikes? Might even make a few drivers think about the risks they're taking with other people's lives.

I support cyclists' freedom to resist strenuously all safety measures proposed, including their freedom to refuse to wear helmets, if this freedom comes with an obligation to wear the consequences.

This may take the form of compulsory insurance against injury, higher ACC levies, and no-appeal-permissable organ donor mark such as a tattoo or a chip such as those used for dog identification.

By no appeal I mean that relatives would be unable to refuse recycling of dead cyclists.
The same should apply to all high-risk activities.

It is time to get away from nanny-statism AND from the "all rights, no responsibilities" attitude.

The reason cyclists who would like to be safe on the roads should embrace whole-heartedly all safety measures available is that it makes no difference how much a cyclist is in the right compared with a car driver; the amount of blood spilt by the cyclist will always be greater than that spilt by the driver should an accident caused by carelessness by either party occur.

Stop whining about everyone else and look after yourselves first. If you do not take every sensible precaution, being the most vulnerable, your grizzling sounds like infantile petulance.

Too many of you cyclists don't know how invisible you are in the middle of traffic even with your flashing bike lights (a great improvement on the old kind), your tiny (compared with car lights) rear lights sometimes obscured by jackets and back-packs and barely noticeable in a moving cluster of headlights, street lights, shop lights, reflections off windows and wet streets, and low sun at a glaring angle.

Cyclists, get someone to take you for a drive on a drizzly day, and at night, and at the deceptive twilight time when it's not really dark but just dark enough for narrow profiles to disappear into.
Take care. Please. It's not fun to lose a friend in a cycle accident and no matter whose fault it is - dead is dead. Please don't lose sight of that.

While we are at it, require all cars to be painted fluorescent colours (or have fluorescent stripes), and require all motorists to wear helmets too. That would decrease the road toll far more than putting more restrictions on cyclists. Making the use of headlights compulsory on the open road is a good start though.

Why not the whip aerials that cyclists used to have in order to be seen? Now if a flashing light could be fitted on top of one of those?

The guy was wearing fluoro. How does then making everybody wear fluoro suddenly make cycling safer? Making cyclists wear fluoro will make everybody think that cycling is dangerous. It's not dangerous, its safer than being a pedestrian. Should we make pedestrians all wear helmets and fluoro too?

High-visibility vests and brightly coloured helmets must be made compulsory for cyclists. Cyclists are hard to see if they are wearing the darker shades of clothing, especially on dull or wet days. The piece of road between Allanton to Mosgiel is a very dangerous piece of road indeed and there have over the years been many bad and fatal accidents in that area.