MP Katrina Shanks asked for feedback on whether high-viz should be compulsory. We have sent a response to Katrina from BNB, copied below.

We need to keep watching this space - one of the issues that the same coroner spends some time on (and is proposing to Govt) is making the use of cycle facilities mandatory if they're present. Cyclists would, for instance, be legally required to use the overpass at the Annesbrook roundabout and not be permitted to ride through it. This is a position which apparently used to apply in NZ and which he is pushing for a return to.

A copy of the full coroner’s report is available from a link on this page: http://publicaddress.net/hardnews/when-common-sense-isnt

The Honourable Katrina Shanks

Hi Katrina

We understand that you are running a survey with some cycling organisations about the proposal to make the wearing of high-viz clothing by cyclists mandatory in NZ. Bicycle Nelson Bays is an cycle advocacy group working for cyclists in the Nelson and Tasman area, and we would like to make the following comments on this issue.

We find the focus on this issue, raised by a NZ coroner as a ‘no-brainer’ in addressing vehicle vs cycle accidents, to be quite revealing. Bicycle Nelson Bays accepts that - by definition - objects are difficult to see during the hours of darkness. As a result, the night-time use of lights as an aid to visibility for bikes is mandatory. The assumption that cyclists are also difficult to see in daylight hours is evidently the basis of the mandatory high-viz clothing proposal.

The optional use of bright or high-viz clothing by cyclists - depending on the circumstances - is sensible, but both the assumptions and the implications of the current proposal go well beyond that practice. By defining cyclists as ‘hard to see’, the proposal supports the position taken by many vehicle drivers involved in vehicle-cycle accidents; these drivers claim they ‘did not see’ the cyclist, and this 'invisibility' of the cyclist was the cause of the accident. In the high-viz clothing proposal, cyclist safety is similarly defined in terms of cyclist 'invisibility', which can be 'solved', at least in part, by mandating all cyclists to be 'high-vis'.

A challenge for this ‘difficult to see’ assumption is the capacity of millions of European motorists to (safety) see the very large numbers of on-road cyclists who ride each day in countries like France, Germany, Holland, and Denmark. Compounding this anomaly is the tendency of many of these cyclists to cloak themselves in the urban camouflage of ordinary clothing - often the darker colours of formal workwear. We think it is unlikely that these European motorists enjoy a retinal mutation which allows them to see their fellow human beings when they ride a bike. Also awkward is the recent NZ research showing that over half of the cyclists killed in the period examined were actually wearing bright or high-viz clothing, and that this clothing made no evident impact on cyclist ‘invisibility’ to the drivers involved.

We are also concerned by the way that this mandatory high-viz proposal transfers the burden of responsibility for cyclists being hit by vehicles onto the cyclist. As such, a cyclist who does not take responsibility for their ‘invisibility’ by wearing high-viz clothing would be responsible for their consequent invisibility to other road users, and thus for their own injury or death.

The shift in attitudes towards rape in our society shows that we can out-grow blame-the-victim thinking which shifts the responsibility from a more powerful group onto a more vulnerable one; we have also shown that we can do better than 'solutions' which advise victims to 'dress differently'. We do have a problem with cyclist safety in New Zealand, and the problem is not that people on bicycles are by definition ‘invisible’; the problem is those drivers who either don’t see cyclists because they fail to look for them, or who know cyclists are there but drive as though they aren't. As was noted in the coroner's report, this problem is compounded by road designs that are often at best inadequate and at worst dangerous for a group of road users.

We believe that ill-considered proposals aiming to force cyclists to compensate for the inadequacies of a subgroup of motorists are a wasteful distraction. The coroner who recommended mandatory high-viz clothing also made a number useful recommendations that deserve attention, such as incorporating a ‘high degree’ of education regarding cyclists into driver licensing, and mandating a minimum one metre gap between cyclists and passing traffic.

Our hope is that the debate generated by this proposal, and the responses to your survey, will assist New Zealand authorities take some meaningful action on the issue of cyclist safety. We are grateful that you are concerned with improving the safety of New Zealand’s growing numbers of cyclists, and we would welcome your involvement in addressing the failure of some drivers to look for - and drive safety around - cyclists.

Chris Allison
For
Bicycle Nelson Bays