It makes sense for cyclists to be in some form of hi vis outfit. I used to motorcycle with dipped beam on, on a bright red bik, wearing a hi vis jacket and yellow helmet, and people still said they didn't see me. My mantra is from the old Highway Code of the 60's & 70's - SEE & BE SEEN.
Most motorcycle accidents happen because riders put themselves in a position of higher risk. Just a couple of hours with an IAM observer will give you so much more insight.
While it does make sense, especially with a motorbike, and as I say I personally prefer to make myself as visible as possible, it is worth examining the anatomy of an accident for a minute.
An accident happens when two or more unexpected (at least, from the perspective of the participant) events line up like the proverbial swiss cheese. At its simplest, that is one inattentive party and one party in the wrong place at the wrong time, potentially blameless. Additional parties can be involved and influence the outcome, all participants can contribute, but looking at the simple construct is quite useful.
First let's look at the innocent party, how much responsibility do you put on them? It is their choices and their ability to second guess a dumb driver that might affect the outcome. Take a car starting away from a green traffic light. Most people don't look both ways (I do) - would it be their fault if a red light jumper hit them? You'd probably say, not at all (even though they could have avoided it. How about if they accelerated quicker than normal? Does it start to be their fault that they weren't as careful as they could be? Clearly not, although equally clearly better practice on their part wouldn't have put them in the line of harm. This is the area that hi-viz on bikes comes into, and this is why tutting and expecting it falls into victim blaming.
Now let's look at the inattentive party. There is a basic responsibility on every driver to be able to control their vehicle, their potentially lethal lump of metal moving at speed. This includes being able to stop if an incident happens without hitting anything, at its most basic looking where they are going, and if they can't see slowing or stopping. That's why cars have headlights, to drive at night. That's what makes a mockery of people saying "Did you see that cyclist riding without lights? I almost didn't see them." But you did, as you should and as you can. That unlit cyclist might have been an unlit skip, you wouldn't want to run into either, and in both cases the unlit object could be regarded as contributory, but if you ran into that skip, it is fair to say that YOUR driving fell below the expected standard. Why would that be different with a bike (that is easier to see because it is moving).
Personally my mantra both cycling and driving is, don't be where the accident is going to happen. As a cyclist or motorist I'm using as much skill as I can to keep myself unharmed,
.
.
www.gov.uk
