- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Motion Fox FlashBk Expandable hi-vis vestPolice ask pedestrians to wear hi-vis following spate of road deaths in Scotland
Police Scotland is at the centre of a "victim blaming" row after a chief inspector urged pedestrians to wear "reflective or fluorescent" clothing after six people walking were killed after being hit by other road users in just 13 days.
Ch Insp Lorraine Napier argued that in light of the incidents, officers should encourage all road users to keep safe, first asking pedestrians to stay visible. And in response to a request for comment from road.cc, Police Scotland confirmed the force had "nothing to add".
"Pedestrians are considered vulnerable road users and, in winter, particularly when it is dark, pedestrians should wear reflective or fluorescent clothing," she said.
"I would also urge pedestrians to be mindful of their surroundings and to ensure they are not putting themselves at risk."
The comments also asked motorists to "drive with particular care in areas where people may be on foot or crossing roads and ensure the correct vehicle lights are in operation".
Ch Insp Napier insisted Police Scotland is "committed to improving the safety of all road users and particularly vulnerable road users across the country" but received accusations of victim blaming for her assertion that pedestrians should help themselves by wearing hi-vis clothing.
Maybe Police Scotland can stop victim shaming pedestrians and cyclists?
Hi-vis doesn't help at 1:30pm.https://t.co/M9M3yyzQ4G
— Stuart Barrett (@two_truths) February 10, 2023
@PoliceScotland victim blaming. Saying if you don't wear high viz, even in well lit environments then it's your own fault.
DRIVERS KILL PEOPLE. You need to address this and stop this obsession with victim blaming and high viz @kfullermusic
— G61_YPLAC (@G61_YPLAC) February 9, 2023
How have we got to a point where pedestrians are being advised to wear reflective or fluorescent clothes, in case they need to cross a road? motorists are simply asked to ensure their headlights are working and clean, I think driving to the speed limit would also be good advice
— Philippa Cochrane (@philippac72) February 10, 2023
In a tragic timeline of events, 42-year-old John Stanley Lewis was killed when hit by a driver on the A9 in Perth on 25 January, the first of a series of six pedestrian fatalities between then and February 6.
An 89-year-old man died in hospital four days after a collision with a cyclist in Linlithgow on 29 January, while a 75-year-old man was killed after being hit by a driver in Hamilton on February 1.
The next day, student Chinenye Vera Okonkwo, 33, died after a two-car crash in Glasgow city centre, with a 79-year-old man and a 64-year-old man killed in Edinburgh on February 4 and Glasgow on February 6 after being hit by the driver of a bus and a car driver respectively.
Ch Insp Napier, who is also a commander of road policing, confirmed that specialist officers were investigating each of the six incidents to fully establish the circumstances.
On average, 37 pedestrians died annually on Scotland's roads between 2017 and 2021, according to Transport Scotland statistics, meaning 16 per cent of the yearly average was suffered in just under two weeks.
Concerns about the police asking pedestrians to protect themselves with hi-vis clothing mirrors the treatment cyclists often receive — with requests for riders to make sure they have lights, bright clothing and helmets a regular feature of roads policing, especially on social media.
In 2020, the Metropolitan Police denied that an operation handing out hi-vis vests to bicycle riders in the English capital constituted victim blaming. Meanwhile in November 2021 Northern Ireland's road policing unit said that "nobody wants to play spot the cyclist" and recommended hi-vis clothing, prompting the following reply including one of their Surrey counterparts' tweets.
How have you turned this into a discussion about high viz?
We have cars covered in it and big flashy lights and drivers STILL don’t see us. pic.twitter.com/e4PF8v7uqu
— Roads Policing - Surrey Police - UK (@SurreyRoadCops) June 26, 2020
In May of last year, broadcaster and pedalling presenter Jeremy Vine shared a video of a police officer riding alongside him in full hi-vis being close passed by a lorry driver.
The clip prompted Detective Chief Superintendent Andy Cox, head of crime at Lincolnshire Police and national lead for fatal collision investigations, to remind motorists that they have "a responsibility to protect vulnerable road users".
And wearing hi-vis did little to protect the road.cc reader who submitted yesterday's Near Miss of the Day video, in which an oncoming driver veered across the centre of the road, only pulling away from the rider at the last second — despite the cyclist having lights, reflectors and fluorescent clothing.
"Lights, reflectors and hi-vis — if they ain't looking they won't see you," our reader concluded.
It is not the first time Police Scotland's communication to vulnerable road users has been questioned either. Just a few months ago the force was accused of victim blaming after advising cyclists – but not drivers – to "pay attention to road signs, markings and particularly red lights".
Dan is the road.cc news editor and has spent the past four years writing stories and features, as well as (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. Having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for the Non-League Paper, Dan joined road.cc in 2020. Come the weekend you'll find him labouring up a hill, probably with a mouth full of jelly babies, or making a bonk-induced trip to a south of England petrol station... in search of more jelly babies.
Latest Comments
- brooksby 52 min 50 sec ago
I think I also said, which isn't in your quote, that a lot of people don't have the savings or the spare disposable income to buy even a 'cheap'...
- kingleo 5 hours 15 min ago
I can never understand why prosperous Kinston on Thames has no problem with cyclists going through the busy medieval pedestrianised part of the...
- dh700 1 hour 6 min ago
Should have been a lifetime driving ban -- and lengthy prison sentence -- the first time he hit someone and left them to die on the side of the...
- dh700 5 hours 33 min ago
The entire concept of "safe cycling routes" is insane, and bassackwords. A town near me is debating officially designating about 5% of its roads...
- mattw 7 hours 4 min ago
Reading this story, it's worth noting:...
- Car Delenda Est 7 hours 9 min ago
Did the report make any mention of the pope defecating in the woods?
- JLasTSR 6 hours 46 min ago
Of course it comes from boeuf but we are still using it that is the very point. Just like we use what are essentially archaic terms or essentially...
- mattw 7 hours 29 min ago
The Fr Russell Rd one looks horribly narrow, with a pedal-strike kerb against the cycle track on one side.
- Hirsute 8 hours 20 min ago
Nuclear powered one. https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24653246.bramfield-nuclear-engineer-turns-be...
Add new comment
117 comments
Not personal at all, I don't know you! You're quite right - as the latter part wasn't directly to you but a general point I should have made that its own post on the thread, my bad!
Yeah, personal may have been the wrong choice of word...'little' is maybe better.
Could be wrong, but I think the misunderstanding is that chris used the phrase "as you were", as in, "carry on as you were", and you read it as "I wasn't doing it in part to maintain or enhance my status, as you were."
Yeah, possibly a case of me interpreting it how I wanted to interpret it at the time.
Yup. I should write less, more carefully.
As for "status" - I could be wrong but it would seem that the entire sales history of the motor car is predicated on that. Bigger cars of course are partly because "look - more room inside" ... partly.
Correct. Of course I made the mistake of assuming that no-one reads what I write...
The snark at the end was just a note - to no-one specifically - that of course we see driving particularly as a high-status activity. So all trips by car are purposeful (a "journey") and often required - as opposed to those by other modes ("I had to drive to the park... I need the car to get to my my tiddlywinks club meetings..."). Plus the most "important" people drive and indeed the bigger the car the more important.
Road users! Is it dark, or you think you can't see very well? Help save lives by going slower and looking more carefully. Or consider a different mode of transport - or not going at all!
Scottish police! Consider making everyone safer by publishing this helpful advice!
Living in Norway, pedestrians are 'asked' to wear reflective elements on their clothing (often just an armband or a dangly keyring-ish thing) during the dark months (lots of them in Norway). Nobody talks about victim blaming here. As a driver, I am so grateful that pedestrians follow this advice. All you need is some reflective element - full hi-viz is not necessary. It's mostly a culture thing - Norwegians take responsibility for their own safety and do what is necessary (within reason). A combined culture of looking after others but balanced with a level of responsibility for oneself seems to work. At least there doesn't seem to be a polarised debate where you are either a victim blamer or you believe all drivers are reckless.
I think in this country it's the first part of this sentence which is the problem for a significant number of road users. The probem is that the selfishness of these individuals is not being disincentivised so more responsibility is being put on vulnerable road users. I do not feel we have got the balance right.
I came to say exactly this too! not that I live in Norway anylonger, but I am always on the lookout for the reflex keyring, we used to get a new one every autumn at school, over here they are extortionatly expensive for somereason. but I would have them on each membe of the household at all times through the dark months if I could.
The main issue is the police has a go to response of people falling back on PPE for their own protection rather than castigating the motorist for their shoddy roadcraft. I have no issue in wearing reflectives. I do have issue with motorists not paying attention. The other week while on holiday I was out walking. I was wearing a light coloured jacket and the weather was clear and dry. Due to there being no footpath I was walking against traffic. As I was passing a group of cars parked up on the other side some individual approaching from behind opted to squeeze past me and the parked vehicles missing me by scant inches. I just had to stumble and I would have been under their wheels. All they needed to do was scrub their speed. I had taken responsibility. They hadn't.
Does the wildlife also utilise this? Drive assuming there might be a deer, badger, fox, wolf, boar or elk that will be hard to see and pedestrians should not be much different.
Finland did spray reindeer antlers with a reflective coating for a while
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-26244339
Until we live in this perfect Utopia of total segregation of all forms of transport and zero misjudgement on anyone's part I think I'll carry on minimising my risks of being in a collision. If this means helping other road users seeing and avoiding hitting me, so be it.
During the daytime all road users should be able to see one another without dressing up in special clothing. Note that I say should. Sadly it is not always, for a host of reasons, the case. At night though it's a different story. If I cross the road at night, typically wearing : black jeans, black coat, black hat, then I take extra care because I know that the otherwise law abiding motorist is not, yes not, going to see me until, either, they have to slam on or run me over. Of course if I'm walking on the path I expect that no motor vehicle will bother me ; sadly my expectations are not always met. Same logic for cycling.
So, if you're driving at night during a storm, and you hit a fallen tree, who's fault is it? You (the driver) for not driving within the limits of the conditions, or the tree for not being painted in hi-viz and having lights on it?
Ah - that's an unavoidable accident. Because the only logical alternative would be that the tree was entitled. Like people walking round without making themselves sufficiently visible.
Nuance - currently there is some responsibility on the person getting hit sadly, simply because everyone knows much of the environment's dominated by vehicles driven by humans who're more or less in control. Although that responsibility's limited because:
a) the amount you can reduce the risk yourself by is likely pretty limited (without significant effort e.g. don't go out)
b) society considers (and teaches) that driving is rather mundane. That there are only "freak accidents" and the odd "dangerous driver". (Rather than the actual business of driving always being more or less of a risk.)
However mass motoring is a fairly recent development. It and how we provide for it doesn't have to stay that way.
Can we do better? That obviously needs a defined goal. If we could change the goal of the transport system from "the maximum throughput of motor vehicles consistent with safety" to "the safe and efficient movement of humans" different possibilities start to emerge.
Is such a system possible? That's exactly the goal in NL. Is the system stable / self-sustaining? Early to say but the Dutch are apparently still going in the direction of more cycling rather than less after 40+ years. Can we in the UK get there from here? Several other places have managed to make progress in that direction, but ... answers on a postcard.
I'm on the 'meet me half way here camp' on this. As with cyclist, pedestrians don't need to be lit up like a Christmas tree, but neither should they be Ninja's. Pedestians & cyclists need to make a reaonable effort to not be invisible in the dark, motorists and cyclist need to be able to stop in the distance they can see in the dark. Either party fails and someone gets hurt.
The worst "colours" are not black but lighter Grey's which blend into the road. A solid black cyclist, while not ideal, is more visible than the guy in grey, or the one in 10 year old lycra who insists on "winking" at you.
Why they are allowed to sell those matt grey German jobbies bemuses me, especially as from the rear they aren't obliged to have lighting except in that legal grey area of poor visibility.
Ch Insp Napier insisted Police Scotland is "committed to improving the safety of all road users and particularly vulnerable road users across the country"
This statement is completely at odds with their strenuous (and so far successful) efforts to avoid providing an online portal for reporting bad road behaviour. Despite other large organisations using near miss data to improve H&S performance this is lost on them.
People are offering to do part of their job for them for no money and provide what is possibly the best evidence of traffic offences - video evidence. It's about time that rotten police forces are sacked if they're not prepared to deal with road crime in a sensible fashion. People are dying and then this idiot bangs on about hi-viz - that's insulting to the victims and their families.
"I would also urge pedestrians to be mindful of their surroundings and to ensure they are not putting themselves at risk."
Pedestrians almost never put themselves at risk, as the risk comes almost entirely from drivers going too fast for the conditions. If you hit a pedestrian on a dark road, then it's your fault for going too fast to see them before you had time to stop; it is not the pedestrian's fault that you were driving too fast.
This is just the latest iteration of the "everything must be done for drivers" mantra so common today. Never mind the war on motorists, they won't be killed by pedestrians or cyclists, so this is just victim blaming, and Ch Insp Napier should have been emphasising most strongly the responsibility of the driver not to kill vulnerable road users.
I'm sorry but as a cyclist or a pedestrian you've got to have SOME responsibility for your own safety. Reflective's make such a difference when it's a very dark environment. Obviously a law abiding cyclist will give other road users a heads up that they're there with their lights, pedestrians not so. But with wearing any kind of reflectives, if that makes other road users aware at the earliest possible chance for them to know that you're there it gives them more chance to drive appropriately to the conditions. It's not about everything being done for drivers, it's about common sense and keeping people safe.
So, if you're outside at night near a road of any kind you're a pedestrian. You could be walking the dog, getting off a bus or just putting the bins out. Where do you draw the line? I do hope you attempt to use the words common sense at some point if you reply. Because it's not being applied one bit in this situation by the police
Apologies if I didn't make it clear, I meant more walking on unlit roads as in country lanes etc. if you're near a road and you get struck that's a totally different situation completely.
Do I get told off for not using the words common sense? Doh!
You can't argue with the logic of some of the commenters on here - because there isn't any.
Some genuinely do believe that if a person goes for a walk in the dark while wearing dark clothing and gets hit but a car, it is entirely the car driver's fault. Despite common sense and the Highway Code (esp rule 3).
Some will even tell you that a proportion of cycle helmets kill their owners.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-51139789
That's a very sad series of events. Is that an example of a killer helmet?
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1227.html
From that article "A doctor in Sweden lamented, with regard to strangulations in that country and its child helmet law, "We know we have killed, but we can't show we have saved anyone"
Pages