Hi Viz clothing compulsory in France?

In principle more or less any kind of ban or enforcement is something I am fundamentally opposed to, simply on the grounds that it is more unnecessary interference in people's lives, from politicians. I don't smoke but I am very much opposed to the smoking ban for example. We are all big people and can make a choice, if a pub wants to offer smoking space and another does not then people can make their own choice. The same goes for high viz clothing.

On the flip side of that, I don't think that high viz clothing is a bad thing and if it does help to avoid an accident then using it is fair enough. Compelling people to wear it, though I am strictly against.

Lets face it with the myriad of muppets that we have in domestic parliament institutions and the plethora of even more useless individuals, at the white elephant, in Brussels who are looking for a way of justifying their existence then if this is all that comes our way, then it could be worse. Here in Czech Rep we are now compelled to carry a first aid kit at all times on the bike and it has to be approved. I bought one the other day and it has one of those silicon type masks that goes over your mouth and nose to hook up to an oxygen line but not a piece of tape or pin for securing a bandage. I am more worried about what else is going to come our way and this in a country that is a lot less nanny state than the UK.

As a resident of France, I've been giving high vis some thought of late and whilst out riding the other evening found myself thinking "what's that just up the road" and then paying extra special attention as a result. A split second or two later I realised it was a group of cyclists, one of whom was wearing a high viz gilet and it was the high viz I had spotted before all the other cyclsists, even though there were all in bright colours.

As much as I don't want to wear it becuase it's uncool and as much as I think we should have a choice, I am starting to think it might make sense.

What lid did you go for BitScribbler?

Rather than high viz, I reckon that the lawmakers could reduce injuries significantly by insisting that riders wear full (CE approved) gear from head-to-toe, and ban open face helmets.

I can't see that being popular though. :)

Being entirely facetious, and abusing statistics, they should also ban all motorbikes with an engine capacity of less than 1000 cc. The aforementioned MAIDS report stated that these were under-represented in accidents, and therefore are arguably safer.

BitScribbler, I'm seriously looking at the System 6 myself as it's one of the few lids that fits my weird shaped skull. I'd be interested to hear how you've got on with it.

I'm not convinced that banning the elderly would result in a massive improvement in traffic safety. Sure, we've all seen them dawdling along the road at a speed that impedes everyone else, but I'm not sure how many of them actually cause crashes, and they're not exactly a large group.

Around two thirds of motorbike accidents fall into the SMIDSY category. (The other major group is falling off the road at speed, and they tend to be the fatal ones.) Looking at accident reports on the ADVRider Faceplant forum doesn't suggest that drivers in these are anything other than average, though that's anecdotal rather than scientific.

My guess is that the causes are a mixture of the quirks of the human visual system combined with sloppy drivers not looking in the right place. Logically, wearing retina-scorching colours should help, but beyond that it would require a massive driver education programme which wouldn't be popular.

hi bit scribbler whilst I agree with much of your post I have to disagree with your comment on public transport. the railway in the South east of England is already running at full capacity and is over crowded in the peak times so no room for improvement. I know this because I have worked for them since 1966 in several different roles

Big protests planned tomorrow in France against this measure along others (bigger license plate for motorcycles, ban on speed cameras locators, suppression of signs announcing fixed speed cameras...)

Captain, an interesting set of points but you are missing one huge point and I am serious in this, not just my usual cynical self. The politicians are no more interested in protecting motorcyclists than they are in giving up the huge parts of their income that are listed as expenses and thus tax beneficial. They are interested only in political posturing and this kind of thing is easy to get through under the guise of safety. It appears to the public in general as reasonable and thus, easy brownie points. These people are not interested in common sense or consultation. This kind of thing is an easy public display of justification of their existence. The bikers who are about to protest will be cannon fodder for the regulators as it is hard to justify to Joe public that these actions are not sensible.

So like that dozy bint in Germany, who has committed the biggest act of political, nonsensical political posturing of many years by announcing the shutting down of the countries nuclear power infrastructure, these politicians are doing nothing more than self serving actions to keep themselves in power.

Captain, when I was in LA two years ago there were a lot of people texting and driving. Using a phone whilst driving had been banned in California, but the law had been drafted sufficiently badly to only cover speaking.

I do agree that requiring riders to wear protective clothing would be helpful. I can't see that being popular though.

The trouble is that hi-vis as a solution is cheap (the motorcyclist carries the cost), which is attractive in an age of austerity, and it makes the government look like it's doing something.

(BitScribbler, thanks for the comment.)

Having just joined the Ash brigade I am finding lots of interesting stuff to read. I passed my riding test last year at 69 and am loving it.
I, too, live in France. I seem to remember reading recently that when interviewed a French govt minister had backtracked on making high viz clothing compulsary. But we shall see.
As for it being an aid to safety, you would have to be a muppett not to admit that it can only be a good thing. It is no good saying that there are no statistics to support it because there wont be any until enough riders are wearing yellow vests or reflective bands. I wear a white helmet ( I am also a cyclist and wear a yellow top) because plenty of motorbike magazines, english and french, advocate it. So why are some of you saying that hi viz clothing will not add to our safety?
I remember some years ago the tragic accident on the A7 when three pompiers were killed by a driver while attending to an accident. They were wearing orange vests at the time.. After an investigation into the circumstances one of the outcomes was that pompiers (the police and others) now wear yellow vests. A trial period to test their effectiveness was not necessary.

Shuggiemac quote 'So like that dozy bint in Germany, who has committed the biggest act of political, nonsensical political posturing of many years by announcing the shutting down of the countries nuclear power infrastructure'

Shuggiemac....were you a fan of the Likely Lads? You know her body posturing and iridescent eyes give the game away

Hi Fred, welcome to the site and I'm sure there are plenty of people who will read your post and love the fact that you passed your test at 69. But what we don't do on this forum is call people names like muppet for holding a different view to our own, or it will just degenerate and end up no different to other bike forums (or fora...). In fact there are lots of perfectly valid and intelligent reasons why the enforcement of high visibility clothing is not good.

One is that many bike accidents happen because the driver is not looking in your direction at all when he pulls out in front of you, in which case it makes no difference what you're wearing.

Another is that in the vast majority of instances when the driver is looking, the bike is approaching more or less head on, and then reflective clothing is often obscured by the bike's bodywork, screen, mirrors etc, and the headlight is on anyway and much more visible than your clothing. It's worth noting too that motorcycles are hit from behind much less often than cycles because they move at the same speed as the traffic.

There are some much more subtle factors, which are well known to experts in camouflage, funnily enough. What a driver recognises and responds to is not a bright colour but particular shapes, especially the shape of a human - we're naturally programmed to recognise that (and probably mammoths and sabre toothed tigers too... now there's a thought). But reflective clothing other than a full length sleeve reflective jacket tends to look at quick glance like random shapes (and even a reflective full sleeve jacket often does too) and this confuses a viewer's mind by disguising a shape rather than grabbing attention, and actually slows down the response time or recognition of danger.

But the lack of evidence shouldn't be dismissed so easily: no government should be introducing legislation without any evidence to support it - just because something seems like a good idea to the uninformed is hardly a reason to put it on the statute books, especially if it forces many people to do something they don't want to. Law must be supported by hard evidence that it is going to be effective, and right now there is no evidence. What the French should be doing is initiating studies to determine if high viz clothing really does reduce accidents, and only if they can show it does should they then consider making it law.

Even then it's not clear cut: forcing riders to have high viz clothing places the responsibility on them where still the root cause of an accident might be the car driver pulling out when he shouldn't be. In other words, we would be compensating for other people's poor road behaviour - surely targetting the root cause would be more effective?

People also have a habit of compensating for risk - if they feel safer because they're wearing high viz clothing, they will tend to take more risks in the way they ride, and the overall risk level is unchanged or could even be worse.

This is why research is very important, as it will take all of these factors into account.

Surely too it should be down to the individual to decide, even if high viz is shown to improve rider safety, whether or not he wants to compromise what he looks like to such a large extent, as well as his comfort (full length high viz jackets are hopeless in hot weather for example) in order to reduce the risk he is exposed to. This should be the rider's decision, not a nanny government's.

I feel an MCN column coming on...

Agreed Kevin enforcement without a compelling evidence is wrong... However, some personal experience tells me that hi vis may not be such a bad idea. Last spring i bought one of BMW's hi vis Air Shell jackets; it was on sale and quite cheep most likely because they on the ugly side. I made the purchase because I was rear ended several years ago and now I am partial to things that help me stand out in traffic.

Throughout the summer I have noticed that people in cars are generally more aware that i am there and give me a little more room particularly on the larger highways in heavy traffic. It also seems that in cars stopped at intersections have been less likely to pull out in front of me when I'm wearing the hi vis jacket. Could be some placebo effect but I haven't had many near misses this summer though I've traveled many miles on the bike.

And how do we get compelling evidence? But of common sense there is plenty and I rest convinced of the effectiveness of hi-viz. Other drivers will always pull out in front of you whether they have seen you or not - the nightmares I had while riding my bicycle to work in London in the rain. I am hoping that a compromise can be reached in France and that designers of motorbike clothing will be "encouraged" to make products that increase a rider's visibility. In the meantime I look forward to joining the organised protests to enjoy a day out!