There are plans afoot to force motorcyclists to wear high visibility clothing. They’ve effectively forced us all to ride with daytime headlamps by taking away the off switch on new bikes despite there being absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this makes riding any safer.
There is an article in the latest Motorcycle Rider (not online) that covers this latest intrusion by the powers that be into our liberty to make our own decisions.
The Federation International de Motocyclisme (FIM) has pointed towards the downsides of forcing riders to wear reflective jackets. For FEMA (Federation of European Motorcyclists Association) the question of compelling European citizens to wear certain types of clothing is even more fundamental. Both associations agree that decision makers should take the motorcyclists’ view into account before taking any decision on the issue.
Frankly, I feel both organisations are starting off on the wrong foot as is is effectively agreeing that decisions need to be taken at all, conceding ground from the outset. There is no need for anyone to make any decisions about what we wear. The rider and the rider alone should be making the decision. Giving these bastards an inch will merely encourage them – they have already won the argument that “something” must be done as opposed to nothing.
In its latest newsletter the FIM made reference to the protests of riders in France objecting, among other things, to the mandatory wearing of highvisibility vests. According to FIM many fluorescent vests, when put over modern motorcycle jackets, could disable features like climate control vents aimed at protecting the rider from hot, cold or humidity. Moreover FIM is giving the example of Ecuador where riders are forced to wear a vest made of fluorescent straps, “a design that is both uncomfortable and dangerous as the straps can easily snag in the event of a fall”.
Many years ago I worked despatch riding and nearly had a nasty accident when the Hi-Vis vest came undone and lifted up in front of my face obscuring my view of the road. At around 70mph on the motorway, it was a frightening experience. I never, ever, rely on my visibility to keep me out of trouble when on the bike. There is only one effective method of accident avoidance and that is defensive riding. You always assume that every other road user is an idiot and hasn’t seen you (and you won’t be far wrong). You take responsibility for their incompetence and avoid getting involved in their accident. It has worked well for me for the past thirty years and apart from that brief time as a DR, I have never worn Hi-Vi on a bike and don’t intend to.
FEMA fears that victims and offenders tend to be confused. Imposing the wearing of warning vests can be compared to the banning of mini-skirts in order to prevent sexual harassment
This is a valid concern – the defence lawyers will always be on the lookout for an excuse to claim contributory negligence – and anything that boosts the “didn’t see you guv” excuse will be welcome. That the idiot wasn’t looking is besides the point.
But, get this…
To solve the conspicuity issue some authorities and lobby groups call for the mandatory wearing of fluorescent clothing for vulnerable road users, which includes pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. Their logic is simple the more visible a vulnerable road user the less of a conspicuity problem will remain.
My emphasis.
I don’t know who these lobby groups are, the article doesn’t specify, but insisting that pedestrians wear a high-vis vest really is a shark jumping moment. And this “logic” is based upon an assertion, not fact.
Anyway, the BMF position is in accordance with mine:
Motorcyclists have to be free to decide whether to wear a fluorescent vest or not. Compulsion inevitably leads to the problems as described by FIM: uncomfortable or even dangerous clothing, and confusion among member states. And finally, vulnerable road users could be held liable for an accident they were not responsible for, just because they did not wear a fluorescent jacket.
While I will wear one out on the railway line as it is mandated by the rule book (and as it is Network Rail’s gaff, they can set whatever requirements they like even if they are a bit OTT), on my own bike, I won’t, preferring to rely on defensive riding. And the last word from FEMA:
Aline Delhaye, General Secretary of FEMA concludes: “Even though it might be safer, in Western societies neither pedestrians not car drivers are forced to wear helmets. Motorcyclists should not be forced to wear fluorescent clothing. And women should never be barred from wearing mini-skirts.” As ever, it should remain a decision made with personal responsibility and left to the individual’s choice.
Precisely – personal responsibility and individual choice. Even if we actively increase our exposure to risk when making that choice, that is our concern and not that of governments and lobby groups.
I would appear the manafacturers of flourescent vests are feeling the pinch, perhaps they have saturated the Warehouse/Factory market.
We have to fight this every inch of the way. There are many reasons (aesthetics, for one), but the main one is the miniskirt argument. We should not be putting responsibility on the victim for preventing the crime.
“I couldn’t help burgling the house, Your Honour. After all, the door was unlocked.”
I have never been a biker, but was interested in it when younger, not least because I knew quite a few and my sister had a motorbike for a while, and used to get motorcycling magazines and so on. I well remember how everyone scoffed at the “thin end of the wedge” argument about the helment law. As indeed, with the seatbelt law for cars.
Ho hum.
That wedge is getting pretty thick these days 😐
I wear a flourescent vest when biking by night: if I hit a badger (or whatever) and I’m lying in the road I would prefer to be seen by an oncoming vehicle. However the daytime usage of flourescents will desensitise drivers to less conspicuous hazards in my opinion. My bike has the option of daytime lights, which I don’t use unless it’s dull or overcast etc. Plus, at the end of the day, floursecent vests are gay.
My riding suit has reflective strips, so the badger problem isn’t an issue – well, apart from being unfortunate enough to hit it in the first place, of course.
“…but insisting that pedestrians wear a high-vis vest really is a shark jumping moment.”
And when this inevitably gets picked up by the MSM (I caught a reference to it in a local newspaper report of a protest ride on Friday) who will read this far? And how many will nod and agree, never thinking they too will be inconvenienced by it?
‘Just those motorcyclists, that’s a sensible idea, really…’
I wonder if, in the near future, an ordinary English street scene will have everyone clad head to toe in sort of fluroescent, padded burkas, with built in helmets. I really can’t see any other logical outcome.
That sounds silly, but we keep sort of thinking, “they wouldn’t go that far, they’d never get away with it” about things, then those things happen. Nobody in, say, 1985, would have believed the smoking ban woudl be possible. “Every pub? Don’t be ridiculous!”
So I dunno, I don’t know what the future is going to be like, but it seems to me that it is going to be considerably more extreme than even we can imagine.
L R
Oh it doesn’t stop there, the wedge is getting much thicker.
In this weeks MCN an article about how the EU wish/ will impose more Draconian rules regarding Service/ Repair of your bike.
Go read it will amaze, the sheer arrogance.
Round our way it’s common to see cyclists, schoolkids, dog walkers and of course all council employees in hi-vis. The effect is lost when they become commonplace.
If everyone is wearing hi viz clothing then HTF is anyone going to stand out? More likely that the plethora of luminous clothing will act on the eyes like snow blindness. Effing idiots!
Sorry, Longrider, I must disagree with you. It’s imperative that motorcycle riders can be seen by other road users. And who better to educate you than some bureaucrat with sweat dripping into this buttock cleft and mixed feelings towards big hairy guys in leathers?
The Hi-Vis jacket does not go far enough. Surely, a flashing light mounted on the bike is needed. The police have taken blue, ambulances amber, and the firemen red. It will have to be bright green.
But what of the sight-deprived? It would be discriminatory of us to assume that other road users are blessed with the gift of sight. It is therefore reasonable, and in the interests of safety, that motorcycles be obliged to use a siren whenever in use.
Only then can we be satisfied that we have done our utmost to preserve another precious job sorry life.
I wish these bastard politicians would do us all a favour and hang themselves before angry mobs have to do it for them. There seems no end to the freedoms they want to strip from us. All politicians should be dragged out in public and burned.
Twenty_Rothmans
I think you’ll find that a doctor on house call uses a green flashing light.
So that pretty much leaves pink as the only option. A pink flashing light accompanied by a siren that goes “Whoo-hoo, whoo-hoo”. A pink fluorescent tabard completes the ensemble.
Sequins are of course optional.
On the subject of daytime lights; I remember a letter to one of the bike magazines many years ago, by a biker describing his experiences of car drivers pulling out in front of him at T junctions.
Sadly nothing unusual about that, except he was writing about his experiences whilst at the wheel of a fire engine on emergency call outs.
As he observed, “If they’re not going to see a bright red twenty ton truck bearing down on them with lights flashing and sirens on, what difference will the adoption of daytime running lights make?”
@Twenty_Rothmans
Since green is already taken by doctors, and sirens are already taken by police, the only solution would be to limit the maximum speed to 4mph and have a person walking two paces in front of the bike waving a red flag.
@Ripper
Buttnuggets. Aircraft landing lights, then?
I agree that having a person in front will mitigate the danger. A frangible 20′ staff mounted on the centreline of the motorcycle and inserted into the fundament of anyone who’s in agreement with the hi-viz concept will provide ample protection.
The 4 mph limit should be made discretionary as it might be necessary to maintain pace with the traffic flow in the interests of safety.
😈
I am a motorcycle courier. Since the insurance company began insisting on high viz vests for us two years ago, I have been involved in three not at fault collisions. during the four years prior to that, I was involved in no collisions at all. To be perfectly honest, my feeling is that the high viz vest is a safety hazard. I’d like to see some research into the matter to determine what (if any) is the actual effect of wearing a high viz vest while riding a motorcycle.
My belief is that when people are driving, they have insufficient time to properly observe everything about them when they travel at speed so their mind filters out irrelevant items, such as those things which pose no threat to their safety. Big ass truck? threat. Another car? threat. Bad ass motorcyclist? threat. Gumby in a high viz vest? not a threat, ignore.
There’s ALREADY so much Hi_Vis on the roads, that it is being semi-diregarded.
Haven’t these idiots realised the desensitisation that occurs?
( As per MrDamage @ 17 )
Greg Tingey has said what i was going to say,i rode bikes many years ago (for those who care Triumph T120,NSU Supermax ,etc) and of course at that time even helmets were not compulsory,the use of day lights is also self defeating if used continually,i was always aware of a bike overtaking when he PUT his lights on to do so and i move over butif there on all the time the message is lost and meaningless,the built in strips in Longriders leathers are the way to go before everyone looks as though they are ready for a messy breakfast.
On maintenance checks if we still had Police patrols this wouldnt be the issue it is ,a year or so ago whilst at lights in the Finchley Rd a biker edged up on the outside of me as he drew ahead i couldn’t help but notice his rear tyre that was completely bald had a protruding blister so i hooted him to let him know as it was so dangerous sadly he was one of the other sort of bikers and turned listened to what i shouted out of the window and told me to FO so maybe maintenance checks of some sort have a place, usual disclaimers .
Xen347, the siren should go “Yoo-hoo, Yoo-hoo” when accompanied by a pink light…
The desensitisation issue was raised during the debate about daytime headlights. EU homogenisation has effectively sidestepped that debate. If you buy a new bike, you can’t switch them off, so rider choice be damned. All this despite not one shred of evidence that they are effective.
Forcing us all to wear high-vis is a mite more tricky, though. Although the same tired evidence free assertions and clichéd arguments are being trotted out.
Just a thought, but have those proposing these ‘Hi-viz on everything’ schemes ever heard of ‘Dazzle’ camouflage? Likewise Hi Viz stripes break up the silhouette of an object and interfere with the viewers ability to estimate distance properly. 🙄
M.A.G. ( motorcycle action group ) have organised a U.K. wide bike demonstration for saturday next and have been lobbying politians hard, I believe 4 are to be attending the various rides, having also been a bike couries and I have passed my I.A.M. M/C test I agree it is my attitude and my expertise in anticipation which results in a safe journey; in fact I was a L.G.V. 1 driver for 20 years and was assesed as excellent in anticipating hazards by my I.A.M observer who was a serving traffic division officer at the time. Having driven 40 ton artics and heavier I cannot begin to tell you the idiocy I witnessed every day, believe me riding a bike was a lot less stressful! Ultimately should the law come in there will be loopholes and I will be taking full advantage of them.
The only time that I have been involved in any incident on my bike I was wearing a hi-viz. I was stationary at the time waiting for lights to change and the bitch behind me rolled into the back of my 5 day old bonnie. My wearing florescent had no effect on her remembering to use her brakes when stationary, nor would I expect it to really. Hopefully having to pay for a new rear panel will have made her more observant in future.
Good call JL.
There has never been a better time to join MAG, who are taking a firmer line than the FIM and will no doubt soon whip FEMA into shape, being their biggest financial backer.
I only ever where hi-vis in bad weather conditions (reduced visibility) and then it’s MY choice.
This is part of the essence of MAG’s arguement – no government should have the right to legislate what clothing a private individual wears when going about their normal business.
Mr Damage @ 17
Agree.
A friend who rides a BIG Triumph (and who drives a Fire Engine at work) refuses to wear a hi-vis any more.
He claims too many drivers USE them to deliberately cut up M’cyclists.
There’s another problem:
WHAT hi-vis?
Different European countries have different designs proposed, so if you drove across Europe – you’d need a different hi-vis for each country (!!)
Furthermore theres another equally loopy proposal coming along regarding RESTRICTION OF MAINTENANCE.
See HERE:
http://raedwald.blogspot.com/2011/09/eu-and-art-of-motorcycle-maintenance.html
Really scary stuff, and totally potty.
Actually, you can easily switch the lights off.
You just insert an extra switch ……