If you’re a local authority melon mayor who cycles then you’ll never know if someone did in fact see you and gave you a nudge simply because the opportunity is far too good to pass up…..

Ok.. you’ve got two conflicting statistics. ‘High visibility clothing reduces the rate of bicycle vs heavy metal’. But you’ve also got the unbending statistic of ‘bicycle vs heavy metal resulting in injury or death’. So…. if 100% of cyclists wore high visibility clothing, what change if any would occur in the latter statistic? Most intelligent people would guess…. ‘hey, not a lot really. Fuck all’.

Like ‘concerned’ the day they repeal the compulsion on wearing helmets I’ll be on my bike.”

Kea… I see so many feral lowlives that don’t bother with anything… helmets, lights… nothing. They ride on the footpath etc… do whatever they want. What are the under-resourced NZ Police going to do about it? Yep

The jury is out on the effectiveness of high visibility clothing. There’s a lot of other foibles of human driving psychology behaviour to take into account as to why crashes result. You could argue the ‘if it saves just one life, then it’s all worth it’ point… sure. But then… if it puts people off cycling… that’s not good. Feral cyclists will ignore the law anyway.

The mayor of Wellington was wearing a hi-viz and going about her lawful business following the rules. And gets hit.

Leave it up to people to make up their own mind. Leave it as a ‘useful’ suggestion to inform people of and that’s it. There’s not the same weight of evidence that there is for say… seatbelts in vehicles.

Like ‘concerned’ the day they repeal the compulsion on wearing helmets I’ll be on my bike.”

Same here !

It is also disgusting that the victim (the truck driver) was prosecuted for hitting a cyclist who swerved in front of him.

These road lice need to learn their place and if they hit a vehicle, as in this case, they need to be prosecuted the same as any other road user.

Instead we see the victim (the person the offending cyclist hit) being punished.

Like ‘concerned’ the day they repeal the compulsion on wearing helmets I’ll be on my bike.

http://www.visitlondon.com/traveller-information/getting-around-london/london-transport/london-cycle-hire-scheme

Sis reckons that the success of this program would be hampered by the compulsory wearing of Helmets, and there is evidence to support that, I imagine the legal requirement to wear high vis would further diminish those wanting to cycle.

I firmly believe in self-responsibility, hense, Let those who ride, decide.

Offset? Helmet laws actually promote the idea that cycling is a dangerous activity.

That way, we can recognise them immediately, point at them and have a good laugh.

@RusselNorman

Mayor on bike wearing high vis hit by car. Coroner calls for mandatory flashing lights and airhorns on bike helmets?

Referring to: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8309914/Driver-admits-hitting-cycling-mayor

Implementing mandatory high-vis gear for cyclists as suggested by Wellington coroner Ian Smith will have a chilling impact on international cycle tourists visiting NZ, the Green Party said today.

The suggestion to make high-vis compulsory was yesterday rubbished by cycle tourism blogger Russell Roca on twitter yesterday. ‘Dear NZ, a sure way to end all bike TOURISM is with mandatory hi-vis for cyclists.’

“International cycle tourists will not come to New Zealand to use our cycle trails if they are forced to wear high-vis,” said Green Party transport spokesperson Julie Anne Genter.

“Cycling is a healthy activity. Forcing people to wear fluorescent high-vis clothing sends the wrong message and will scare away valuable cycle tourism dollars.

“High-vis doesn’t prevent fatalities, in the incident cited the person was wearing reflective strips and was using bike lights.

“Cities around the world which have high rates of cycling and safe cycling environments don’t force people to wear high-vis.

“The best way to achieve a safe environment for people to cycle in is to normalise cycling as a mode of transport.

“We need to invest more in cycling infrastructure and better education for all road users about how to share the road.

“The National Government is spending over 100 times more on state highways than they are on walking and cycling. A small increase in investment in safer cycling infrastructure would result in a better outcome for all road users.

“Making it compulsory to use unsafe cycle lanes, like the one in Dunedin in which a cyclist was killed last year, is a recipe for disaster.

http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/high-vis-threat-cycle-trail

And I agree about Dunedin – it’s nuts having cycle lanes on the main highway one way system through the city. There have been two cyclists taken out by trucks in the last year or so.

As a regular cyclist and occasional racer I thoroughly support helmets, and my children don’t ride without them. They won’t save you from everything, but having seen the results of one lad in my younger days who fell badly without a helmet, helmets can prevent some things. In that case that boy survived eventually with little apparent lasting impact, but for some time he was thought to have potentially crippling brain trauma as well as damaged lungs and did spend 6 months in hospital. He ran into a car door that was opened suddenly, he wasn’t going all that fast but fell badly and hit his head hard, then aspirated vomit to cap it off; and a helmet would probably have left him with a sore head and nothing else.

My kids ride to school every day except when they have to take things too big to be managed on a bike (read Guitar Lessons day); one of them recently hit a car (not the other way round!) and spent the afternoon in A&E with concussion and chipped teeth, but he still rides every day. It sometimes appears to be the only bloody exercise gets. Where we are has quite good bike lanes and the traffic is generally pretty aware of bikes, but there are risks which I don’t like, but life itself is a risk is it not ?

One school, true story.
Before helmets – 500 bike stands and more needed.
After helmets
Only about 6 bike stands used and the rest ripped out.
Much more space needed for parents’ cars dropping off and picking up kids and an explosion in student parking round the suburb.

So, heads protected but the kids off their bikes and into cars. Lack of exercise, fresh air etc etc.

“….Totally foolish to put 44 tonne truck and trailers right next to 85kg cyclists who have almost no control of their cycle…….The wind alone is sufficient sometimes to cause the cyclist to have partial control without obstacles getting in the way….”

When I was a kid in NZ, a girl who lived next door to me died that way, she was ‘sucked’ under a passing truck while on her bike.

Hat never saved her – she was on a step-through!

I have pretty much the same setup (except with the addition some nifty little lights Torpedo7 used to sell that fit into the bar-ends).

I would still have cars not see me when I used to live in Hamilton and commute in the dark.

I can only think of one cycle lane in Auckland that I would use. The rest are a waste of money and space because they haven’t been designed properly.

It is as sensible as the recent coronal call of a health warning on on coca-cola.

Perhaps surprisingly, but welcome from the man who normally wants to regulate everything, Gareth Hughes has tweeted that we should be more focused on safer roads and driving/cycling behaviours than high-viz vests.

Perhaps the first time I have agreed with him.