Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

No doubt insurance provider RSA wants to do the right thing but is equipping cyclists with free hi-vis kit the best thing to do, or should the company concentrate on lobbying for motorists to have compulsory eye tests every few years? Or, forget the belts, gift eye tests to motorists instead...

On the surface this may seem like a kind and generous offer from RSA: cyclists, be seen. But the onus shouldn’t have to be on cyclists, the key thing is for motorists to have perfect vision. If motorists don’t have perfect vision what the heck are they doing on public highways operating potentially lethal machinery?

This isn’t an issue for cyclists alone. Pedestrians and, of course, other motorists should also be worried there are folks out there who can’t adequately see through their windscreens. If cyclists are given free hi-vis belts shouldn’t pedestrians get the same? And how about big hi-vis wraparound belts for cars?

Interesting campign by the insurance company. More details at Quickrelease.tv

Andrew

I do agree with the sentiments in the article.

My position of promoting the normalisation of cycling generally advocates no fluro, no lycra and no helmets. However until changes do happen, I must admit that I think fluro belts for cyclists are quite useful. In fact a far more useful safety benefit than helmets. But of course choice is great.

I can hear it now.

"if only the cyclist had been wearing a hi viz belt this accident would never have happened"

And seeing as how they could have received a free hi viz belt there is really no excuse for not wearing one.

best practice in managing/improving safety is through a "no blame" approach. this means that the most effective measure for addressing a problem may not always be best adopted by the person who is most responsible for it. sometimes the best outcome is reached through the victim changing their behaviour. most commonly, it is achieved through all parties making improvements. arguing that the victim shouldn't have to do anything as fault lies with another party is counterproductive. having said that, if you can't see properly, you shouldn't be driving.

How on earth do all those motorists spot black/dark blue cars etc on the road?
Mandatory hi-vis paint on all cars I say!

queequeg wrote:How on earth do all those motorists spot black/dark blue cars etc on the road?
Mandatory hi-vis paint on all cars I say!

Because those dark coloured vehicles are big enough to hurt them.

queequeg wrote:How on earth do all those motorists spot black/dark blue cars etc on the road?
Mandatory hi-vis paint on all cars I say!

the answer is: they don't, always. there is considerable research and science to show that hazard perception time increases as the visual contrast of a target against it background decreases. in other words, dark on dark is harder to see. cyclists (and anyone else) who ride around in all-black, reasoning that "if they see me, they see me" are kidding themselves. they're at higher risk, no doubt about it. of course it's arguably not a problem, as they can still blame the motorist for not seeing them.. hmm..

Even though my car is silver i ALWAYS have my lights on after realising a few years ago just how well dark cars blend into a wet road. Those with lights on i could see no problems, those who didn't were near enough to invisible, it was scary to suddenly appreciate that. I think mandatory daytime running lights would be a great benefit.

Motorists are also responsible for not hitting pedestrians who aren't likely to be wearing either helmets or hivis, and won't have blinkies attached to them.

ldrcycles wrote: I think mandatory daytime running lights would be a great benefit.

Shall I start a new thread on this...

Nah that's ok i haven't mentioned the h word .

I mean brakes and indicators are mandatory on cars and that doesn't seem to bother anyone...(though there are plenty of people who don't seem to understand the purpose of either of those things).