- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Cyclists in high-vis (CC licensed image by garryknight)Police stop Evesham cyclists to warn against dark clothing
Police in Evesham, Worcestershire have been tackling cycling safety by warning riders of the dangers of wearing dark clothes, and handing out high-vis accessories.
More than 30 riders were stopped in a ‘Be Safe Be Seen’ exercise conducted by the Safer Roads Partnership and West Mercia Police.
Uniformed officers stopped cyclists wearing dark clothing or who didn't have lights during the morning and evening rush hours on January 6 and 26.
Riders were offered safety advice and high-vis products safety advice about the importance of keeping themselves visible and high-vis cycling products to help keep them safe on the roads, such as flashing armbands, high-vis rucksack covers and lights.
Anna Higgins, communications manager at the Safer Roads Partnership said: “Our ‘Be Safe Be Seen’ cycle safety initiatives are a proactive way of raising awareness about the need for cyclists to make themselves as visible as possible on the roads.
"We’ve run a number of similar initiatives across Warwickshire and West Mercia over the past few months and have engaged with over 350 cyclists.
"Unfortunately some of the cyclists we spoke to just didn’t recognise the dangers involved in not being visible. A couple of cyclists we spoke to during the early morning initiative had lights or high-vis gear at home, but didn’t feel that they needed them, even though it was still very dark at that time."
It's not the first time police have pushed the message that high-vis clothing equals safety on the roads, even though the research on the subject is equivocal at best.
In 2009, cycling charity CTC was critical of Hampshire Constabulary for stopping riders who were wearing dark clothing.
A CTC spokesman said at that time: “It’s curious the police are stopping cyclists for not breaking the law when there are so many motorists who break the law every day, and I think a much better use of police resources could focus on drivers breaking the law."
Research findings on the efficacy of high-vis are inconclusive.
In 2013, a University of Bath and Brunel University study found that no matter what clothing a cyclist wears, around 1-2 per cent of drivers will pass dangerously close. The researchers concluded that there is little a rider can do, by altering their outfit or donning a high-visibility jacket, to prevent the most dangerous overtakes from happening.
Also in 2013, an Australian study drew an important distinction between reflective clothing and hi-vis, highlighting that the former is the best way to be seen in the hours of darkness.
At the end of 2014, a Danish study concluded that high-vis jackets worn by cyclists appeared to reduce incidents leading to injury, though that study also found that there were fewer reported incidents of solo crashes among the high-vis wearers.
That study was also criticised for being funded by the jacket manufacturer.
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- nextSibling 17 min 14 sec ago
The point of limited-run models like these isn't to make a profit. It's a marketing exercise to get the brand in the media via filler articles that...
- slc 26 min 20 sec ago
There wiil be some people outside the scheme that are affected other than being denied rat-runs. Google Maps is now routing drivers down Troopers...
- OnYerBike 35 min 19 sec ago
I can see the Fitness to Drive assessment should come first to inform the approach to prosecution, but it shouldn't be an alternative per se....
- FionaJJ 48 min 6 sec ago
Seems like a flaw. I wonder who decided that? Surely it's in everyone's interests to come up with an agreement that a portion of the car-park be...
- chrisonabike 53 min 10 sec ago
Don't forget the hour record!...
- brooksby 1 hour 5 min ago
https://metro.co.uk/2024/11/25/uncle-picture-welcome-sign-car-crash-kill...
- pockstone 1 hour 37 min ago
See my comment on the live blog...I think it's pretty clear who the real baddie is.
- Steve K 3 hours 24 min ago
It is, apparently, "packed with high visibility reflective details on back and shoulder."
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 29 min ago
The Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC) was one of the most important battles of the ancient world, where 7,000 Greeks, led by the Spartans under...
Add new comment
130 comments
all the other things mentioned are more important than that, but it seems there is often time to stop cyclists and advise them to wear the questionable high vis, studies have shown no difference in closes pass whether wearing bright or dark clothing, so the benefit is questionable. Strangely wearing 'police' or even 'polite' on a vest does result in fewer close passes, suggesting drivers are well aware of what they should do, but simply do what they think can get away with.
If there is time to 'advise' on hi vis then there is time to enforce driving laws
Yes I can. How about cyclists breaking this law: 69 You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)
If they start giving out free rapha hi vis, tell me where, I'll be straight round
The one study I seem to remember came to the conclusion that Hi-Viz is a waste of time, unless it can be mistaken for police, why? Because drivers simply don't give a shit. It doesn't actually matter when they see you they will overtake in the same manner regardless unless they believe that the overtake will have repercussions.
Solution is simply enforcement.
Hi Viz and helmets are different matters. I always make myself as visible as possible. Good lights even in the day and high viz (not necessarily flouro) definitely reflective at night. I don't wear a helmet. They're not very helpful on the road.
When the article says the police Stopped cyclists it implies that they were detained under some special power. What actually happened was that the police went and spoke to some cyclists to point out that they weren't very visible. My latest SMIDSY was a van that pulled out in front of me despote flashing frot lights and high Viz. The driver immediately out and massively apologetic was in the local road club. It proved to me that in many cases the driver is not being malicious or anti cyclist. It's just a fact that cyclists' visible profile on the road size and speed is not as large as a lot of other vehicles. Ok you can sit on your rights not to do anything about that and you can take faux offence at the police for pointing that out to you and you can lambast motorists for not being the most arttentive at all times.
Or you can do what you can to shift the odds a bit in your favour on the smidsy.
There's also a lot of bad philosophy flying about. I could easily say that hi viz and expensive flashing lights don't work becaus that van driver / cyclists still didn't see me . But you can never actually show or prove the number of times that it did work and the potential smidsy never happened.
Back to what is high viz. It doesn't have to be the tabard or the yellow flouro just about thinking whether this dark coloured jersey I am about to put on the best thing I could wear on this dim day or is it more like camouflage.
I agree with you on lights. I have some very good ones. I defy anyone not to see them from the rear. (cyclist van driver not withstanding) I'd say from the front as well. But I doubt the cops would have wanted a chat with me . It's more likely that the chat was with the unlit (no need for lights in the day!!) people wearing dark clothing.
you don't have to take the police advice if you don't want to. You don't have to put window locks on your house or make sure the shed is padlocked. You can ignore them. So likewise you don't need to get on their case just for offering some advice to vulnerable homeowners or vulnerable road users.
There's no point going on about smidsys if you're not even trying
This is essentially the issue....99% of near misses are just motorists not caring, paying attention or just generally with an attitude of cant be bothered waiting. Until an example is made motorists will continue with this approach.
If the official position of the RDRF is that cyclists shouldn't do anything to help themselves however marginal that help might be, simply because those actions do not fit in with the RDRF agenda, then it seems to me they do not have cyclists interests at heart and rightfully deserve to be saddled with the modified acronym: Really Dangerous Retarded F***wits. See above if you feel offended.
The RDRF position seems to be akin to telling people not to even attempt to make healthy food choices because it is entirely the supermarket's responsibility to ensure everything they sell you is healthy and then blaming government and regulators for not ensuring junk food is kept off the supermarket shelves. Meanwhile, in the real world, innocent people, who could have taken some action, are being unnessesarily harmed because they don't know who to believe or what to do.
And yet, who is going to take charge and break this cycle of blaming the others?
Certainly not Evesham Police by handing out hiviz jackets to cyclists....
I'd find that a mite irritating, not least because it would be in the context of the millions of times I've seen the police ignoring dangerous or illegal behaviour by motorists.
Its a bit disingenuous to make a distinction between 'detained' and 'asked to stop so the cop could have a word with you'. Everyone knows full well what hassle a police officer can put you through if they decide you aren't being co-operative, so who is going to ignore such a 'request' and whizz off? Whether its a 'special power' or not is irrelevant, if a cop asks to speak to you you are going to co-operate (and force yourself to be polite).
Drivel. First you lie about your opponent's stance, then you invoke an analogy that doesn't remotely work. Is that the best you can come up with?
I mean, where is your evidence that harassing one party (the vulnerable one) and constantly sending the message that if they get killed its their own fault, and that cycling (and even walking) is inherently dangerous requiring special equipment, preventing harm?
On the contrary the end result is likely to be to (a) dissuade people from cycling at all, and (b) encourage drivers in thinking its everyone else's responsibility to stay out of their way. The end result is likely to be more mortality, not less (not least via heart disease and pollution effects).
In reality, this one stunt is quite a minor one, and not really worth getting so worked up about (and I think asking cyclists to use lights is fair, as that is actually the law) but what irritates me is your unthinking assumption that it must be a good thing and no-one can have doubts about it.
From a document on the RDRF website:
It says it right there. RDRF view traditional road safety advice - which includes advising cyclists how to help themselves (helmets, hi-vis etc.)- as part of the problem. You also have the good Dr's own comments on this very article to go along with. Not to mention the RDRF website which is full of similar comical nonsense.
You seem unable to let go of your straw man or to understand an obvious logical distinction. RDRF has a point - traditional 'road safety' does at least as much harm as good, because it promotes the view that its everyone else's job to avoid being hit by motorists.
But you said that RDRF opposes cyclists wearing helmets, high viz etc. Not that they oppose nagging or harrasing cyclists to wear them. Those are two different things.
Now its possible they see voluntary high-viz wearing as setting a bad precedent in establishing a norm - in much the same way some feminists don't like Muslim women voluntarily choosing to cover up - but that's very much a secondary issue, and not one I'd go along with myself.
Well, you edited your reply whilst I was responding and added this:
I've never advocated harassing cyclists or said it's their own fault if they are killed. But what you've eluded to here really is the cruz of the anti-movement isn't it? This irrational belief that we cyclists are being harassed, prejudiced and discriminated against whenever people are trying to help. The result of which is, without any actual evidence, is to espouse crazy meritless theories and hypothetical scenarios that serve this warped agenda.
Quite. Having returned to the comments on this it's still evident that there are a few on here who really seem to have a persecution complex which blinds objectivity. It seems impossible for them to divorce one issue (police providing road safety advice) from another (the requirement for drivers to drive safely especially around vulnerable road users). The two are not incompatible.
You come across as a shell-shocked person repeating the mantra "it's ok, there's no issue" over and over as psychological self defense.
Else, you're clearly not riding on the same roads as we are. Or seeing the same court cases, or lack of, as we do.
Do most cyclists though? Your evidence? and what your saying is the same problem, there is very little enforcement of traffic offences regardless. But if you want to save lives and make the environment better, where would you start? with the c2% of journeys that are by bike or the much larger percentage that are by car?
I was simply answering your question - Yes I can imagine a crime where law breaking would be so tolerated, and thats the example I gave. All sorts of road users break traffic laws. I'm not saying 'most' cyclists break this particular law
Nethertheless your points about traffic enforcement and the environment are valid too; I quite agree.
The argument of cyclist always running red lights assumes motorists are whiter than white and never speed, follow the highway code, dont enter bus lanes, always stop at red lights etc etc. its bullshit. Just as many motorists breaking the law as cyclists on any given day.
Many cyclists do break those laws, its true. But motorists do so at least the same rate. Just go to a major junction and watch the failed amber-gamblers. It would indeed be good if those laws were to actually be enforced on all.
Its true though that the only law cyclists seem to break far more than motorists is the one about having lights after dark. I don't often see cars without lights on (though it does happen).
Feel free to continue living in your delusional bubble. But you could try reading the news occasionally.
Most of us appreciate all of the above good work that the police do.
There is enough work to be done enforcing real laws etc however that means coppers should not be playing fashion police and stopping people on bikes cos they're not dressed like a Village People refugee.
I don't expect the police to be stood on corners handing out hivis or stopping motorists in the (pointless) ASL. I would like them to target the drivers fiddling with phones whilst in traffic, queued or otherwise. Also target the speeding drivers. We don't make enough use of cameras. I would replace every flashing speed sign with a cam or at least put one alongside.
Hivis is at best a distraction from the real issue which is inconsiderate/distracted or dangerous driving. Anti social driving is a big thing in the UK, and doesn't just affect people on bikes, but everyone other than people in cars.
I don't believe hivis makes a blind bit of difference and lots of research backs this up. If it's light you should be able to see someone regardless of what they are wearing. If you cannot then you are not looking or going to fast to look properly. At night hivis doesn't work. I am referring here to flouro colours, not retro reflectives. Most of the gear I wear after dark has reflective areas, and they are helpful.
I can see the car pulling out in front of me and even the one left hooking me. there might not be much time to react, but being hit from behind is totally outside the cyclists control.
Read this:
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/inquest-into-death-of-micha...
Then try saying that again.
Not me for one: MY opinion is that the powers that be have cut road policing as an 'invisible' policing cut for a very long time.
Yes, the priorities are probably more or less correct given the number of available officers.
We have too few officers, esp on the roads.
Stumps, which is illegal, not wearing hi-viz or driving into a cycling box whilst using the phone?
The Police will never be able to enforce the law fully, as I have stated before the police can never enforce the law, the law only works because most people accept it. This isn't a dig at the police just a factual statement that there are far more potential offenders, ie people, than there are police to enforce the law.
On the basis that the police can only do so much the question is what would be the most productive use of police time. Is it to say to a cyclist you should wear hi-viz? or is it to say to the driver you should not be on the mobile, speeding, dangerous driving etc.
I start from a standard risk pyramid scenario, PPE is always the last step. Look at the dangers and fix them first, the problem on the roads is predominately car drivers, and if you look at death rates HGVs are also a problem, put the effort into correcting behaviour and the roads become nicer places for residents, cyclists, pedestrians. Once drivers start playing by the rules, then feel free to chastise cyclists.
So...thepolice doing the stops clearly saw the darkly clad cyclists in order to stop them...hmmm!
I will stop wearing black/dark kit (which has reflective detailing) when they stop selling black motor vehicles. Or when they invent a hi-viz that's as slimming as black.
I wouldn't criticise the police for giving crime prevention advice to people to reduce their chances of being a victim of burglary.
So why would I do so for providing advice and materials which may reduce people's chances of being a victim of less than perfect driving?
I don't think that advising people to fit window locks means that the police tacitly approve of burglary. So why would I think that advising cyclists on how to improve their visibility to other road users means they tacitly approve of poor driving?
And while I don't think window locks will make my home impregnable, they may improve my chances. Equally wearing clothing that is light in colour, reflective or 'hi-viz' won't render me invulnerable but it may improve my chances.
A persecution complex is however unlikely to do so...
So long as it doesn't impair your bike ride, it just seems to make sense to make yourself as visible as possible in my mind.
High-viz is an interesting one though - I'm not sure about the new LED lighting, but hi-viz definitely doesn't work so well for the frequencies at which older fluorescent street lights operated and the new reflective fabrics that are coming on the market are way more effective.
As far as lights are concerned, it's just stupid not to use them after dark and this time of year, it's no hardship to leave a flashing rear light in the day time, too.
Pages