Re: [CCC] Re: Enforcement of 20mph in April

Tony Raven

Yes I do have lights at night because its the law (and I think Ross was talking about daytime too also when my lights would make no difference as I don't switch them on then).    But hi-viz is not a legal requirement and I would ask you also what is your evidence, other than proof by assertion, that it makes any difference?   As I've said the French made hi-viz mandatory at night and in poor visibility but the impact on their accident statistics was imperceptable.

Why am I labouring this point?   Because the more we make cycling seem like a high risk activity requiring personal armour and special clothing to protect you from clear and present threats to life rather than as the Dutch do, something that is a safe part of everyday activity in normal clothes, the more we encourage the view that it must be dangerous and "not for me".


On 26/11/2013 09:55, david.scollan@... wrote:


You may not wear hi viz but I presume you have lights at night and cycle carefully. I think that’s why you haven’t been hit, not the lack of hi viz.

I think most people would agree that winter nights, dark clothes and no lights is a bad combination.




From: CamdenCyclingCampaign@... [mailto:CamdenCyclingCampaign@...] On Behalf Of Tony Raven IMAP
Sent: 25 November 2013 19:57
To: CamdenCyclingCampaign@...
Subject: Re: [CCC] Re: Enforcement of 20mph in April



But in all the years I've not been wearing hi-viz you haven't run into me once anyway. 


And what's Stephen Fry's programme got to do with it?  ;-)




Apologies for any typos - sent from my iPhone


On 25 Nov 2013, at 18:45, "Ross Corben" <rc015g2947@...> wrote:


if you wear hi-viz I promise not to run into you myself



From: Tony Raven

Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 6:39 PM

Subject: Re: [CCC] Re: Enforcement of 20mph in April



So what evidence do you have Ross that dressing like that increases cyclist safety.  It seems to be an article of faith that it does but I've not found any evidence for it and some, such as the non-response of French cyclist accident figures to mandatory hi-viz laws, that it doesn't.  I would hope we would want safety advice to be evidence based.




Apologies for any typos; sent from my iPad

On 25 Nov 2013, at 17:50, "Ross Corben" <rc015g2947@...> wrote:


stuff all that

if you wear the same colours as your background you are invisible

do as much as you can to stand out


though hi-viz is creeping into mainstream fashion too – think of yourself that you are a la mode rather than dying for a principle


what next – refusing to have lights when it’s dark and dressing like a ninja? taking all the reflectors off your bike?


Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 5:27 PM

Subject: [CCC] Re: Enforcement of 20mph in April



/begin knee-jerk rant/

Yes. Feeling pretty grumpy about today's initiative. It's a very retrogressive step to be advocating hi-viz and helmets. Cycling is not rock-climbing or working on a building site. It's just pro-social London transport. And I know we've all got our pet peeves but Haverstock Hill's 20mph is a complete disgrace. And a quick mobile phone driving swoop on Fitzjohns in either rush hour would be dramatic. Offering safety advice. Sigh.

/end knee-jerk rant/

Join to automatically receive all group messages.