- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Hi-Viz cyclist © Simon MacMichael.jpgNewcastle residents tell police cyclists not wearing hi-viz make them feel unsafe
Police in Newcastle-upon-Tyne are reviving a campaign targeting ‘dangerous’ cycling following complaints by local residents in one of the city’s most affluent areas – with some saying that cyclists not dressed in hi-vis clothing made them unsafe.
That complaint was aired at a recent North Jesmond ward meeting, and other criticism of cyclists includes people riding on the footway or not displaying lights on their bike at night.
According to Jesmond Local, neighbourhood inspector Anita Morgan of Northumbria Police has said that the force will revive Operation Delta, first launched in 2016, to “prevent cyclists from causing a serious accident.”
Inspector Morgan said: “We have received a number of calls from residents in Jesmond about cyclists who have been riding on footpaths in the evenings and not using any lights.”
The operation will see officers take to streets in the area to stop law-breaking cyclists.
“We will be looking to engage with cyclists who are not using lights and offer them appropriate advice to prevent them from causing a serious accident,” the inspector added.
Police recently met with the Jesmond Residents’ Association (JRA) whose chair, Kathy Cunningham, expressed thanks to officers for “working in partnership with the JRA and supporting our committee to tackle anti-social behaviour.
“They will be a valued voice and presence at our meetings,” she added.
While the Highway Code says cyclists should wear “light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light” and “reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark, that rule is compulsory rather than advisory.
Riding a bike at night without front and rear lights that do not conform to the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989, and although less likely to be enforced, bicycles should also have a red rear reflector and, if manufactured before 1985, amber reflectors on the pedals.
Cycling on the footway, except on marked shared use paths, is illegal and punishable by a fixed penalty notice of £50.
However, in 2014, then transport minister Robert Goodwill repeated previous Home Office guidance that police should use their discretion in enforcing the law.
The original 1999 guidance from Paul Boateng, who was Home Office minister at the time the legislation was introduced, said: “The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so.
“Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”
Goodwill’s reiteration of that guidance in 2004 was endorsed at the time by the Association of Chief Police Officers, now known as the National Police Chiefs Council.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- VIPcyclist 3 sec ago
The statement that the police can't do anything about the car being bumped, since it wasn't reported, is probably true. It reminds me of an...
- AS52 16 min 21 sec ago
It wasn't an official consultation meeting - see my comment above.
- Paul J 31 min 27 sec ago
Whichever way you look at it, this is a scam.
- the little onion 47 min 40 sec ago
Do floating bus stops work?...
- GMBasix 49 min 36 sec ago
Right, well that could be handy: I'm going round with my baseball bat to have a quiet chat about ownership. You can use their names to see if they...
- hawkinspeter 49 min 41 sec ago
Yeah, at this point, I can't see much hope for the U.S. people. Trump loves stupid people and it seems like stupid people love him.
- Steve K 52 min 11 sec ago
Years ago, friends and I drove in two cars to a church for a wedding rehearsal. As we drove down the drive, we passed a "CHILDREN - DRIVE SLOWLY"...
- Nagai74 1 hour 19 sec ago
I can only speak about my frame.
- OldRidgeback 1 hour 7 min ago
That's a terrible outcome. RIP for the victim. The length of driving ban plus the need for a retest at least is something.
- Bungle_52 2 hours 1 min ago
I was wondering why the prosecutor used the word ordinary rather than competent. The two seem completely different to me.
Add new comment
28 comments
Drunken Geordies all over York make me feel unsafe. The women all appear to be wearing hi-viz make up though.
Surely if they are scared of not seeing a cyclist who's not wearing hi-viz they should all be given roadside sight tests and a close pass initiative be put into immediate action.
A big dark car is easy to spot because it occupies a LARGE SPACE and therefore blocks out the road ahead.
A cyclist or motorcyclist is narrow and if they don't stand out in some way, you often blend into the background and the eye doesn't detect them.
Next time you drive you car, how many times have you been surprised by a motorcyclist coming past who you haven't seen.
If it doesn't work why do police motorcyclists always wear hiviz? it works, it's to late when you are injured i always make myself visible with bright clothing and lights
Well the research says it doesn't work, but perhaps you have some contrary data you could post?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517313528
The largest and highest quality study ever done on the topic showed a clear benefit of wearing a hi vis jacket.
That study also summarises a lot of the other research that showed a benefit.
Please stop trying to mislead people on this site.
Completely contradicted by this population-wide study:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140518300045
Phew!
Just as well that bigger cars are so rarely involved in road traffic collisions, then!
Oh, wait …………
You are trying to compare motorcyclists overtaking moving traffic with a cyclist being in front of a vehicle and being overtaken by it, the two are NOT the same.
That does happen to me very occasionally. When it does I generally pull over for a few minutes and give myself a stiff talking to about proper observation and being aware of other road users. No excuse in a car with no fewer than 3 rear view mirrors.
It is rare I see an illuminated and retroreflective bollard that has not been damaged by being driven into.
And then there is this-
And then there is this excellent resource that shows how some drivers cannot avoid even very large buildings-
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/12/26/audis-in-houses/
Well done !
I somehow think dark cars should be made to have hi Viz given the numbers of collisions.
They wear that cos it says so in the risk assessment, they don't get a choice. That is not to say that it makes the blindest bit of difference.
Anyone writing an RA where vehicles are involved will use hi Viz as a knee jerk mitigation. For example, I know that if I don't include viz when writing an RA, it won't get past the H&S dept. And it won't get past H&S because should anyone get run over the driver is bound to say "the reason I didn't see them is cos they weren't wearing as Viz". And if it was traced back and found that the victim hadn't been supplied with one, or had but not compelled to wear it, my company would be directly liable, as opposed to being able to contest, or settle via insurance.
Of course, it is nonsense to suggest that not wearing a viz renders people invisible. The real reason you didn't see them, is cos you (personally) were negligent.
However society now has a quasi-religious belief in the efficacy of PPE, in spite of the fact that according to H&S best practice it is the very last control in the heirarchy to be applied to mitigate risk (because it is the least effective). As a result, the lack of its use by a victim often results in the avoidance of liability by the guilty party. I say this as someone who is a great believer in H&S - it's one of the best pieces of British legislation ever written, and has been copied around the world. However, lack of public understanding, exacerbated by the lies of the right-wing media, and subsequent misapplication of some principles leads to all kinds of perverse outcomes - misplaced veneration of viz and lids (and other PPE) as effective protection just one.
*edited for clarity
To identify them as police motorcyclists. Unfortunately, it's no longer very effective, due to so many other people wearing similar clothing.
Oh yeah, police hi vis works so well, doesn't it:
More to the point, this study found that a law in Italy making hi vis compulsory for cyclists made ZERO difference to the number of crashes:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140518300045
The problem is motorists failing to look, and failing to slow down when they can't see.
Presumably, dark-coloured cars scare them, too.
No?
Fancy that.
Oh, god, yes - those grey cars which drive around almost exactly the same colour as the road surface or the tipping-down rain, with no lights on too. Terrifying.
"Newcastle residents tell police cyclists not wearing hi-viz make them feel 'unsafe'"
There goes the myth of hard as nails Geordies
Frightened by a cyclist in normal clothes.
Do they mean that they are scared of the person riding a bike in normal clothes, or do they mean that seeing a cyclist wearing normal clothes makes them (the observer) feel worried/scared for the cyclist?
The responses to a consultation for a segregated cycle lane in Barnet, North London were published recently. Amongst the many objections was the observation that a segregated cycle lane was a danger to motorists if they needed to park and get out of their motor vehicle.
I commute through Jesmond every day, what a shower of shit that article is. Nearly every road is single lane because there's parking down both rides of the road. Zero visibility at every junction because parking goes right up to it and 9 out of 10 cars are Chelsea tractors with scant regard for anyone else, just dropping their child off at one of the schools. The roads are knackered round Halstone Terrace from all the panzerwagons turning at the pinch points
I deliberatley rode along some pavements not in high vis in Jesmod this morning.
I thought the current accepted term of abuse for these chronically insecure drivers' ego-boosters was "wankpanzer".
"While the Highway Code says (link is external) cyclists should wear “light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light” and “reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark, that rule is compulsory rather than advisory."
Is the end of that sentence maybe the wrong way around
"I think the large number of people driving around Jesmond while looking at their phones is a more urgent issue.
Also, driving on the pavement, parking on the pavement, parking in the cycle lane outside Waitrose, parking on the double yellows next to crossings…"
LOL
Riding on pavements after dark without lights seems to be the best way to make sure that everybody sees you
Have you lot been commenting on the JESMONDLOCAL?
The comments section is remarkably cycle friendly and the comments are eerily similar to the ones above