West Torrens Council Gains Maximum Visibility

high-vis

West Torrens Council is seeking mandatory high visibility clothing worn by ALL cyclists. 

At a recent West Torrens Council meeting, members voted in favour, seven votes to six (with acting Mayor Kym McKay making the casting vote) requiring mandatory high visibility clothing and helmet stickers be worn by ALL cyclists. They have requested the motion be placed on the agenda of the Local Government Association’s AGM in October.

As Councillor Mangos explained, he had twice been reversing out of his driveway and almost collided with children riding their bikes.

Bike SA does not support the mandatory wearing of hi-vis clothing or apparel. Such a proposition acts as a barrier to getting more South Australians riding their bicycles. Bike SA does however encourage riders to wear light and bright clothing and have their lights on – day and night. 

At a time when local governments are responsible for improving the public health of their community, regular cycling is proven to significantly improve an individuals’ health and drive down whole of community mortality rates.

children-cycling

This motion is even more disappointing in the context of current physical activity levels of children – as one of the worlds highest ranked countries for overweight and obese children, the City of West Torrens is seeking to enable a policy that would actively dissuade parents and children from getting physically active. 

Such a mandatory requirement would effectively be a additional tax burden to those in our community who are doing it tough – very often those on low incomes rely on their bicycle to get to and from work, school or to purchase everyday groceries.

And as the home of the Tour Down Under, Adelaide would become a laughing stock across the world by requiring all cycle tourists arriving at the airport and into the state to purchase a high visibility vest and helmet cover.  

In the interests of community safety, we humbly encourage Councillor Mangos to try reversing into his driveway and not out of it.

What do you think of the proposal? Let us know in the comments below. 

126 Comments. Leave new

I think it is a great idea, if it saves just one life is it not worth implementing?

Reply

It probably won’t though Doug. Studies show that hi viz during the day doesn’t improve safety. Worse, mandatory anything discourages cycling, and studies show that one of the biggest factors in safety is cycling numbers. So it might seem counter-intuitive, but mandating hi viz might make cycling less safe.

Reply

if no one drove cars there would be no car accidents – hence no one should drive cars

(or planes, or play sport, or go outside…)

Reply

For those that think mandatory hi viz will improve safety for cyclists:
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/bike-safety-the-great-fluoro-fallacy-20160802-gqiwce.html

Reply

Brilliant clarification; “visibility” vs “noticeability”.

Reply
Rosemary Purcell
September 16, 2016 6:26 am

I did the gorilla experiment once, and didn’t see the gorilla. It was then that I knew I had to think I was invisible to motorists to be safe on my bike (along with ensuring visibility and having good knowledge about likely motorist behaviour). Hi vis is NOT the answer.

Reply

What a load of complete tosh this article is! I agree that mandatory is never ideal. Wear your trendy black if you think that’s sensible. I’ll continue to make myself more noticeable in my fluro, thanks very much!

Reply

A variety of research shows that it doesn’t have a large improvement on safety:

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2014/07/02/is-it-true-high-visibility-clothing-doesnt-help-cyclists/
– Dangerous passes still occur

http://cyclingtips.com/2016/06/does-reflective-and-fluorescent-clothing-make-us-safer/
– Not effective at night

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-visibility_clothing#Cyclists
– Various studies not really finding a strong benefit

Of course, every little thing helps; but this *particular* recommendation was spurred on by this:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-14/adelaide-council-calls-for-bike-riders-to-wear-hi-vis/7840982
“Reversing out of my own driveway, I nearly bowled over a small child, and if I had seen the hi-vis helmet, and bright orange or bright green, I would have been more aware,” he said.

Councillor Mangos said he had another near-miss with a cyclist travelling “at 30 kilometres an hour” down the footpath past his parents’ house.

“The cyclist was on Henley Beach Road, at night, pitch black, and I could not see the cyclist,” he said.

“I think it should be compulsory, and not only for South Australia, but all of Australia, have it as an Australian national safety rule.”

The problem is Cr Mangos is likely a poor driver, but is unwilling to admit that and is thus trying to fix the wrong problem through legislation.

Reply

i always wear bright colours when riding my bike.

Reply

Drivers don’t see because they don’t look. What a ridiculous motion.

Reply
Petros Katsiokalis
September 16, 2016 5:01 am

The west Torrens council needs to concentrate on repairing roads and improving their depleted services. Leave road safety to the Motor Accident Commission. It’s starting to become a nanny state. As a resident of WTCC I would not be coin ting for these idiots.

Reply

So if the children were wearing hi vis he would of seen them?? As a person who wears hi vis daily due to work I can say that traffic does not see you any better, people need to slow down and be more vigilant only then will we be seen.

Reply

“Bike SA does however encourage riders to wear light and bright clothing and have their lights on – day and night.”

I can understand lights on at night, but on what evidence are you basing your advice to wear bright clothing and have lights on during the day? The studies I’ve seen find it makes no difference. I mean you can if you want, but the message detracts from things that do make a difference to safe cycling. If we’re going to mock Councillors for thought-bubble evidence-free policies, then we have to have an evidence base ourselves surely.

Reply

I support the Council’s motion as I put cyclists SAFETY ahead of whether they look good or the minimal cost for a hi-vis vest. I purchased one for $5 at KMart a year or so ago, so I don’t think this is a huge disincentive for additional safety.
I agree wholeheartedly that front and back lights should be on at all times.
I would love to do a study one day when I retire (soon) that tests the theory that the more visible a cyclist, the less likely they are to be involved in a collision. This was emphasized in your BIKESA lecture to our staff at UniSA a couple of years ago.

Cheers, Mike Royans
0408999338

Reply

Mike I understand your theory but I was hit in the middle of a summers day, wearing a light colour top while riding in a clear bike lane by a driver who was looking the wrong way. This isn’t a minor cost, my cycling jerseys cost a fortune and a $5 one just won’t cut it. For those that ride seriously we need quality kit from good manufacturers, not some cheepo $5 polyester one size fits all rubbish. I might be passing through on a 200+ km ride, I don’t want some council dictating my clothing choice because the local rep can’t see kids as he reversed out his driveway. That’s just pathetic really

Reply

Well said Steve, high viz is not the answer. Maybe glasses for the councillor would be more effective

Reply

Children have always been allowed to ride their bikes on footpaths. I would suggest that the good Councillor has a eye test. If because of traffic or a medical condition he cannot reverse his vehicle into his driveway then he must be more aware of his driving when reversing out. You’ve already had 2 near misses? doesn’t that tell you something about your driving habits? If your vehicle has a warning deice use it. Don’t take the easy option Councillor just use your common sense.

Reply

True. I came within less than a foot of being knocked off my bike this weekend and I was directly in front of the driver at a round-about and they still didn’t see me! I was side on to the approaching vehicle so a vest wouldn’t have helped there either. I feel the problem is that driving has now become an activity that is taken for granted. People don’t care about driving safely. They just care about picking the kids up, or getting to the shops, or dong whatever… They don’t switch on and concentrate on what they’re doing when they’re driving. Hi vis vests won’t protect cyclists from that either.

Reply

Stupid, we already had the Campbelltown council trying to force rules on cyclists, now it’s someone who can’t watch were he is going and wants to blame everyone but himself.
When will councils stop trying to make stupid rules and just concentrate on making a better community.

Reply

“As Councillor Mangos explained, he had twice been reversing out of his driveway and almost collided with children riding their bikes.”
Then take more care when reversing!!! I’m not throwing out and replacing $1000 of cycling kit just because you can’t open your eyes. If you can’t see clearly at such low speed then you should question if the clothes people wear is really the problem. Can you actually see what’s coming when you reverse? Or are there trees or fences in the way? Would a yellow sticker on a helmet and a yellow jersey actually solve your problem of being an inadequate driver? Get real.

Reply

Mangos obviously doesn’t want to take responsibility for his driving actions . What’s next, pedestrians with hi vis as well. What about banning black cars.
Lost my vote at the next election for even proposing such a nanny state proposition.

Reply

Ha good point, black cars are known to be in more accidents but we don’t ban them or legislate that they always drive with lights. This whole thing is utterly pathetic

Reply

reversing out of driveways – to be honest, if you’re riding on the footpath, it’s up to you to watch out for cars as much as it is up to a car to watch for you…. pretty simple self-preservation

i bet even the most hardcore safety cyclist on this forum would have reversed out of their driveway before without checking properly.

Reply

I wouldn’t dream of riding without Hi vis on, myself. Given the cost of a vest (a few dollars), v. cost of life, I don’t see the argument and how this would discourage anyone from riding. You could have said the same for helmets, and I wouldn’t be without that, either. Apparently this, too, is a discouraging factor…not sure how.
Visitors that avail themselves of free or hire bikes would be provided with a Hi Viz vest etc. along with the mandatory helmet.
As to reversing into parking spaces/driveways, absolutely; Stats show that this causes fewer accidents.

I would have no chance of persuading my teen step-daughter of wearing a vest unless it was law. My view is that you shouldn’t give any driver the opportunity of saying: “Sorry, mate, didn’t see you”. Hi Viz and flashing lights are the minimum, even in daylight.
Does this have something to do with unwillingness of the fashion conscious in team racing kit that refuse to have a bell on their bikes because it’s uncool? (and mandatory)

I am a bit mystified as to why Bike SA wouldn’t support this. I am a long time member and supporter of Bike SA.

Reply

All well and good that cyclists (like both of us) choose to dress to be seen, but making it mandatory legitimises drivers’ claims of not seeing cyclists. the real problem here is a lack of awareness on behalf of the councillor, not the cyclist.

Reply

In addition, people who would wear hi-vis, will wear hi-vis. People who don’t want to/can’t afford to won’t wear hi vis. Therefore, you risk either them being fined, or simply not cycling.

My issue with this sort of proposition is that it puts the responsibility for being seen on the cyclist, rather than making it the responsibility of the driver to take due care.

Reply

This says more about the observation ability of the councilor. If he can’t see the children on cycles what hope is there for pedestrians?
Hi-viz is fine, but so long as the “us and them” mentality exists ther will always be conflict regardless of what is s being worn. By the sides of the argument need to be proactive in getting along and sharing the road or pathways.

Reply

Why not simply make it mandatory to reverse into your driveway …. solves the problem of not seeing adequately when reversing out of a driveway.

Reply

I believe it is not legal to reverse onto a roadway at least in some states.
Regulations in Tasmania make it mandatory for villa developments to have turning bays so that all traffic enters the roadway in a forward direction.
What is the law in SA in this regard??
Maybe the councillor was acting illegally in reversing out??
Peter

Reply

I think the councellor is a total idiot and should shroud his car in a hi vis jacket instead so we can see his obviously bad driving. Can we please ban all dark cars and only allow brighlty coloured ones. Please get a real job and do work that actually benefits the community in an active way. They must have too much time on their hands debating things like this. I am a calm person, but this total waste of taxpayers money even talking about this is just ridiculous. It is totally uninforceable. Regarding the comment about saving on life – if nobody ever cycled or drove a car that would save lots of lives – that is such an arcaine argument it is not funny. Do we want a dictatorship and a nanny state as well? Too many cars on the road is the problem, not what the cyclists wear……. i will join whatever protest and petition needed to opose this pointless ruling. Besides, no cyclists would obey it anyway and you would have mass protests on the streets..

Reply

What a joke – this is victim blaming at its worst. Perhaps Councillor Mangos should take the time to look where he’s going, buy himself a reversing camera, trim his front garden, drive slower… you know, take more responsibility for his actions behind the wheel of his car before accusing people of not being visible enough. Instead of throwing money at enforcing a pointless by-law (which is a total overreach for Councils) they could direct it toward making streets less car dominated environments.

Reply
Vincent Lammerse
September 16, 2016 5:17 am

reversing camera? $50 on ebay

Reply

“As Councillor Mangos explained, he had twice been reversing out of his driveway and almost collided with children riding their bikes.”
What if these children were walking on the footpath? Would the councillor have seen them then? Or should we make pedestrians start wearing hi vis, waving large flags and announcing their arrival via signal flares? Get real Councillor, as a driver, it is your responsibility to look for and avoid these other road and footpath users when you are exiting a property.
As a commuter cyclist I choose to dress to be seen, but bright clothing won’t help if drivers aren’t looking!

Reply

Maybe ok for small children but ridiculous for adults. Children/scooters maybe should all have flags (have seen them on scooters) to warn drivers backing out because they are low. Adults riding bikes should be able to judge for themselves. Bad enough having to wear helmets – should be a choice for adults (look at Netherlands – no problem). Nanny state ideas gone mad.

Reply

Perhaps Councillor Mangos should install flashing lights and sirens to operate while he is reversing out of his driveway. Then at least we cyclists can do all within our power to avoid a collision with someone who has trouble seeing other legally entitled road users.

Reply

Of course being more visible is a great idea, but I can’t believe it could be considered mandatory. I live in the West Torrens council and have almost been T-boned by a driver who was too engrossed in eating her breakfast at the wheel to notice my extremely bright flashing lights (not to mention it was daytime), so the plan is not a perfect solution anyway.

I absolutely agree that we should not dissuade current and future cyclists in any shape or form. How’s about the council takes the initiative and offer free hi-vis stickers etc to the public who would probably be happy to take them up on a voluntary basis! More bike lanes would help safety too.

Reply

As a member of Bikesa and a long-time regular cyclist, I fully support this measure and am somewhat surprised by your stance. Whilst I understand Bikesa are seeking to maximise the number of cyclists, I understand that another important role you have is to promote cyclist safety.

For a cycling-motorist safety policy to be successful there must be give-and-take by both sides. Motorists have to become more aware of cyclists but cyclists should also be subject to rules and regulations designed to make them safer. So far, most of the lobbying support you have embarked upon involves a whole lot of ‘taking’ from motorists (e.g. the 1.5m rule) but very little ‘giving’ i.e. requiring cyclists to take responsibility for their own safety through, for example, mandatory high-vis vests. The fact you have mainly embarked on a one-sided route smacks of hypocrisy and until you take a balanced view you will hardly be taken seriously as an organisation.

I also question your argument about high-vis vests being a barrier that will prevent more people taking up cycling because of the extra cost and it acting as a ‘tax’. What complete rubbish. You know very well hi-vis vests need to be expensive and in fact, can be dirt cheap if you go for the plastic ones. When one already has a bike (likely to cost >$300) do you really think that people would not be able to afford an extra $20 for dirt cheap high-vis presence. Seriously?

And if you are so concerned about enhancing cyclist numbers (at the expense of safety) in addition to the cost impact that such safety measure will bring, what is your stance on helmets? By your own rationale you should be arguing for their abolishment because wearing one is compulsory (apparently a barrier) and they are much more expensive than a high-vis vest (apparently a tax).

Instead of being obstructive, how about working constructively with the Councils, the State Government etc? For example, why not come to an agreement that meets both parties half-way. i.e. a high-vis vest is compulsory ONLY on main arterial roads?

Reply

Suggest you read some research actually completed on cycle safety. What you feel is good does not equate to real world safety improvements. Perhaps politicians need to do some research before they are allowed to openly air their opinions.
Working with politicians that suggest laws and rules to suite their individual needs, will not be open to discussion much… they have already decided they know the truth. Many supporters of these measures seems to be on that page too.

Reply

Lou

You sound exactly like someone who has done a lot of reading about bike safety but does very little actual riding on the road to see what actually does happen and what actually works. I’ve no doubt you are probably very book smart but unfortunately your comments show a lack of street smarts. Don’t be a goose. Of course wearing a high-vis vests reduces the instances of being hit. You would know that if you were a regular cyclist.

Reply

I have ridden on the road and been hit by cars (who didn’t look at all, or the P plater who saw me and thought he could beat me across…) and I can tell you, high-vis made no difference. I would rather trust the peer-reviewed evidence than your anecdotes, thanks.

Reply

You inadvertently hit the nail on the head there Mark, when you said “requiring cyclists to take responsibility for their own safety” – I agree cyclists should take responsibility for their own safety – it shouldn’t be mandatory. If it is going to be mandatory, lets base it on base on quantitative evidence, not lazy thought bubbles from people not taking responsibility for their own driving limitations. A couple of other points – if I set out from Torrensville to my place of work, 30km away, on a summers morning, I’m certainly not going to be wearing a cheap plastic vest ….and “high-vis vest is compulsory ONLY on main arterial roads?”… have you really thought that one through? Any-way the issue seems to be less about the visibility of cyclists and more about CR Mangos’ driving abilities, or lack there-of.

Reply
Peter Macdonald
September 16, 2016 5:29 am

Perhaps it should be mandatory for reversing vehicles to have a beeping alarm just as commercial vehicles do – please put that to Counsellor Mangos.

Reply

It wouldn’t matter what additional things cyclists did to try to keep themselves safe, it would not solve the problem of motorists not paying enough attention to what’s on the road or at the end of their driveway or being on their mobiles, etc. I have been riding for many many years competitively and otherwise and consider myself to have very good bike handling and road skills – despite that I have recently been badly abused verbally by motorists, some of who seem to have caught on to a culture that cyclists are lunatics and are in the way. As an ordinary law abiding active person I find this behaviour extremely offensive. I think the focus should be more on driver education re cyclists – how to look out for them and their rights – rather than continually pointing the finger at cyclists. The RAA has taken this on board already and I’ve recently seen an article about it in their magazine. Who better to look to than our State’s own automobile association.

Reply

Hi viz vests are a band aid fix. Go back to the root of the problem, drivers not aware of cyclists!. All drivers should do a minimum time on a bike commuting before getting a license. Then they are a cyclist and then they are aware of cyclists.

Reply

Maybe someone should remind Councillor Mangos of the law which currently does apply: ‘The driver of a vehicle must not reverse the vehicle unless the driver can do so safely’. It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure the way is clear, although I agree that we should encourage high vis, mandating it is a deterrent and unfairly targets those people doing it tough. Also how well camouflaged are children’s clothes generally? Be more careful and obey the law councillor Mangos.

Reply

Great idea. And while we’re at it, let’s put bells, helmets, front and rear lights on the list as well. Yes I know some are lawful but how many cyclists actually comply? A ride on the linear park alone will show not many. And these are the people bike SA is attempting to entice. Good luck!! Take your head out of the sand!!

Reply

As a cyclist, motorcyclist, and driver, I get to see the safety perspective from different angles. I don’t buy the argument that hi-vis will deter cyclists. I do question whether a hi-vis vest will be at a height easily visible to a driver, especially with the terrible design of vehicles these days, as far as rearward visibility goes. Then, factor in items like backpacks obscuring the vest (as in the article’s picture). I believe a new cyclist-oriented design approach would have to be undertaken, as far as hi-vis safety clothing/equipment, instead of slapping the current Australian Standards (AS4602) onto cyclists, backed by good quality research validating it’s efficacy. I’m not against being more visible, and get frustrated as hell when I see other cyclists wearing all black clothing at night, and dark days. I ‘get’ the vulnerable road user concept, but my hackles really go up when I consider how little is invested in improving the broader driving behaviour on South Australian roads. Sure, we’ve had the “Metre matters” campaign, the rather patronising ‘zip lane’ ad, and motorcycle-aware campaigns, but that’s about it. As a driver, I feel I have so many bloody things to look out for on the road these days, I often think we are getting to the limit of the amount of ‘data’ the average competent human is able to comfortably process whilst driving a car, with room for processing emergency/unexpected events.
If I worked in a factory operating a 2 tonne piece of machinery at high speeds, my safety training program would be relentless. And yet, how often does a car driver undergo safety assessments, and training?
Slapping a hi-vis vest on might mitigate some of the risk, some of the time, for cyclists, but I would argue it must be done in conjunction with broader improvements in road use behaviour. Not fine-by-fine – which only impacts one individual at a time (‘after’ the event), but in a broader educational sense.
Rant over!

Reply

Councillor mangos (&all members of west torrens council)&all car drivers should be paying far more attention when coming into or out of a driveway. Maybe a reminder that any driver is culpable if he/she hits a cyclist or pedesrian on a footpath.
As we always see from adelaide’s car centric viewpoint cyclists are always the problem&must be regulated.

Reply

This is stupid. MAC do not even impose high visibility clothing for motorcycle riders which are running in the middle of the road side by side with all vehicles. How dumb are you to impose it to bicycles running on just the side of the road. Clothing is not the issue. It is the drivers that need to be educated and be more resilient about bike riders. It is a mind set and not blaming on the clothing used by somebody else. Otherwise, lets all ban all dark colored vehicles in the street first. After which, then impose this high visibility clothing shit to bike riders. Word of advice, open your eyes while reversing and do not rush. You might be caught up reverse speeding. Then that solved your problem. Again, slowly and eyes wide open.

Reply

We all like to be seen. Many of us already wear highly visible stuff. It depends on their definition of high visibility clothing and helmet stickers. There may not be a problem. However if there is a problem then I would like to see clarification for the three important bike tracks that at times form boundaries for West Torrens.

Reply

Great Idea – Hi-viz vests are very cheap. In any case, if it saves just one life – this cost is justified.

Reply

Hmmm

A highly visible vest wouldn’t have made any difference to the Councillor just missing the cyclist when reversing out of his driveway. Careful driving would. Maybe a curved mirror in his driveway would help.

A typical knee jerk reaction by the Council.

Reply

My goodness there is so much wrong with this proposal, it is difficult to know where to start. What interests me though, is how a Local Government Authority would police this. They are not set up for this at all. How would it work – mobile patrols?

Reply

Arthur Mangos could be the lone mobile patrol officer. At least that way he will be out in the open where we can all see him – rather than hiding in his driveway waiting to scare to bejesus of of poor unsuspecting by-passers. This has the added benefit of keeping him away from Council chambers so he can’t table any more ridiculous proposals….

Reply

Fully support Bike SA on this. Reversing into his driveway would be the sensible option. If this plan of hi-vis is to be equitable, then all motorcyclists, and all pedestrians should also be forced to wear hi-vis (which also means all motorists, as when they step out of their car onto the road, they are also at risk !).
Now wouldn’t that make SA look great !
Hopefully, this goes no further than other similar ridiculous moves by local councils with nothing better to think about

Reply

BikeSA’s stance is somewhat surprising. I’m a cyclist who rides 150kms each week and I always wear hi-vis tops and have front and helmet lights. Anything that will help to prevent me coming off a poor second in a collision with a motor vehicle is ok with me. Riders who are out in top to toe black and no lights are dicing with danger, particularly at early morning and dusk; this includes the boy racers for whom even having a warning device on their bike is too uncool. Unfortunately, common sense is not that common.

Reply

Barry, Bike SA aren’t saying “don’t wear high viz”. They are saying don’t make it mandatory. There is a big difference. There are so many things wrong with mandatory wearing of hi- viz that it is impossible to know where to start. I ride in excess of 150k per week as well, and I have to disagree with your statement that “common sense is not that common” – I think it is rare to see a cyclist who doesn’t have good quality lights and reflective cloths or clothes with reflective piping – I believe we would be making mandatory laws for a very small percentage of cyclists. There are better ways to spend our council dollars.

Reply

What does “high-vis” mean in different weather and lighting conditions?
Was the councillor’s problem with seeing kids on bikes really only that they were cycling in camouflage school uniforms, or would he have not seen them whatever they wore as he didn’t look?
As a driver, I don’t find much difference in how far in front I can see a blue-collar worker riding home from work in their tradies’ hi-vis top or a road cyclist in “team kit” – I see them when I look for them, and if I never looked in their direction, I would never see them.
That said, I wish it was easier to buy an ordinary backpack with a retroreflective stripe on it, so I knew I had something bright at the back while riding home from work at night.

Reply

There is enough data out there to suggest that hi-vis won’t solve the problem. The problem will be solved when our culture changes and more people get on bikes. Enforcing mandatory cycling laws, as Mangos suggested, won’t get more people on bikes … From Keith Baldry link above ….”as bicycle numbers dwindle motorists are less likely to expect them, less likely to notice them, and more likely to collide with them. That seems to hold even for riders in dazzling fluoro”… When automated cars are the norm and inattentive drivers like Councillor Mangos are taken away from control of the vehicle, we will all be a lot safer.

Reply

I disagree with having to wear hi-vis while riding. A bigger problem is pedestrians wearing dark clothing walking on the street at night. (no footpaths here). Also, why was the good councillor driving, and not walking to Council. As West Torrens is such a small council area, that it can easily be walked or cycled within 20 minutes.

Reply

Quietly confident if he has twice missed seeing children pulling out of his driveway it is inattentiveness rather than lack of hi vis. If they can show data to support, maybe fair enough but so far this has not been presented.

Reply

The guy obviously doesn’t ride. It’s like, find the person without high vis.. LOL. Look out for cyclists is the key. Most (Ok, a lot) people are incompetent drivers and must have got their licence from a cereal packet. Adelaide is becoming one big joke… and once more I’ll say it. WAKE UP MATE AND LOOK. LOOK!

Reply

This is rather heavy handed resolution by West Torrens Council that beggars belief! It is a reflection of ‘car culture’ that is so prevalent in Australian society by vilifying cyclists as the cause of accidents, not the inattentive behaviour of drivers.
“As Councillor Mangos explained, he had twice been reversing out of his driveway and almost collided with children riding their bikes.”
Did he look first I wonder? Was he exiting his driveway too fast? Was he paying attention?
This we don’t know, I doubt Hi Vis clothing would’ve made any difference in this situation. Obviously the Share The Road and other campaigns have been ineffective, people only hear and see what they want to see!!
Awareness of cyclists must be taught during the licensing training of new drivers and to those involved in accidents with cyclists where the driver is at fault.

Reply

It’s a joke right ? What other city in the world has such a ridiculous rule. …we’d be the laughing stock. ..why not make motorbike riders wear hi vis…or how about pedestrians because they are vulnerable when they cross the road …or all school children because they are at risk …..where does it end …the day New York City or London implements the rule I’d consider it …but I don’t see that happening …ever.

Reply

Research shows hiviz does NOT work. To some extent, it attracts the eye – and what you look at, you head towards!
Vests are hot, and hiviz cycle-specific clothing is expensive. This would only limit cycling for many.
Front and rear lights are a better idea – as long as they’re bright enough to be seen during the day.

Reply

I agree that cyclist should wear hi viz. However the councillor stated that whilst reversing out of his driveway, on more than one occasion, he nearly hit a cyclist. This means for the safety of all, pedestrians, joggers and anyone else in the street, should also wear hi viz and a helmet. After all we cannot only keep cyclists safe, initiatives like this should be for the safety of all people. Anything short of this could be seen as discrimitory towards one group.

Reply

I cant believe fellow cyclists like Keith Baldry here belive that nonsense that making yourself harder to see (wearing black, no lights) on a shared road space is somehow safer… Really? Wear your trendy black if you think that’s sensible. I’ll continue to make myself more noticeable but definitely not trendy in my fluro, thanks very much!

Reply

I don’t think Kieth was saying that, “making yourself harder to see on a shared road space is somehow safer.” What he was saying was that mandatory laws such as the one suggested don’t work – in some cases they actually detract from the issue. By all means, wear flouro, use lights – I do and Kieth probably does, but if we are going to implement new laws, base them on quantitative evidence, not some thought bubble from a local member who has problems with his vision.

Reply
Paul weatherall
September 16, 2016 6:50 am

What a load of crap. The mayor should be reversing more carefully out of his drive. Now if they bring this in for cyclist l for 1 wont be abiding by it. I will wear what l want to wear whilst on my bike. Secondly he mighg want to bring in compulsory hi vis for all pedestrians using this council pathways, road crossings and the likes. He also might want to make all dark coloured vehicles have hi vis stripes mandatory also so they can be sedn in all conditions. All l can say are those 6 councelors and the 1 mayor are dickheads

Reply

As a driver I can definitely see cyclists wearing Hi-Viz sooner than those wearing dark clothing, however as a cyclist I’ve had two very near misses, 1 a police car, 2nd an ambulance, like them I was wearing Hi-Viz on both occasions. When riding alone I always chose Hi-Viz because I know as a driver, I can see it earlier…….. but I look for cyclists!!!!!
Legislation isn’t going to make drivers any more attentive, and like most other cycling legislation, who’s going to enforce it anyway?????

Reply

“I have twice been reversing out of my driveway and almost collided with cars. It’s was a dark coloured car- I just didn’t see it”

Reply

Here we are the clever species on this planet, yet one only has to look at the predominant colored cars on the road- grey, to note that is as sensible as wearing sunglasses at night. Yes visibility is important, but so is separating fast moving cars from cyclists altogether, a move that the LGA should be tabling if real road safety is to be achieved.When the LGA can put forward that no grey cars can ply their grey streets, and that headlights on cars are permanently on when the ignition is activated,( as has been the case for decades in many advanced global communities) will we then see real road safety initiatives.Councillor Mangos should stop before entering the footpath, sound his horn and LOOK and I am sure he will alert pedestrians and cyclists to his presence and avoid intimidating young cyclists who dare to ride past his house.

Reply

Pedestrians walking behind cars can be difficult to see. Does everyone who uses a footpath need to wear hi-vis now?

Reply

Now this would be an interesting story for the paper- “Local Council Mobile Patrol pull overs Orica Green Edge Team during Training Ride for The Tour Down Under and fines them all for not wearing Hi Vis Clothing” … Good Luck with that One……!

Reply

So Councillor Mangos had twice been reversing out of his driveway and almost collided with children riding their bikes. Well, last time I looked at the road rules the person reversing was completely responsible for ensuring safety. So I suspect Councillor Mangos ought to look at educating himself before he suggests impositions on innocent parties.

Reply

Pedestrians should wear high visibility also! I suspect more pedestrians are hit by reversing cars than cyclists. People too quick to blame others failings rather than address their own. Bottom line is the councillor should have looked properly.

Reply

Typical Nanny State over-reaction. Damn ridiculous. Like many of those who ride, I would refuse to wear such clothing. The next thing will be helmets for all motorists and high vis for all pedestrians. – MAMIL’s revolt! – Perhaps we should bring back flag wavers walking in front of each motor vehicle.

Reply

I also agree with the high Visibility vests.
I also think that flasjing front and rear lights should be used!

Reply

Yep David Great Idea I fully support the idea of Hiz Vests I always wear one and has saved me from accidents with cars a couple of times

Reply

I choose to wear a hi viz vest and have my lights on when I’m commuting on my bike, I have found that even on bright sunny days there are situations, under overhanging trees for example when you are just not very visible. I do not agree with mandatory anything however and am sick of these councils getting way above their purpose in life. Mandatory reversing beepers, flashing lights and fluorescent bumper stickers for all councilors and their cars before I am dictated to by these busy body jobsworths.

Reply

If all car drivers had to wear a full face helmet then the road toll would drop, why not also make all pedestrians wear hi vis clothing, it seems to me that people who don’t cycle love to come up with laws and regulations that only apply to cyclists but ignore everybody else.

Reply

I agree that this is ridiculous. It is ridiculous in so many ways; not least that if a *council* does this, I just won’t cycle in their area. So they are realistically doing more damage to their own retail precincts.

Reply

Maybe they could think about riding with lights on during daylight hours. I would suggest getting a decent set that may cost a little more, but from personal experience it does make a difference. I use a set of lights that are 350 lumens flashing and i dont have the excuse coming my way of i didnt see you.

Reply

Well Done West Torrens Council! Taking the lead in suggesting all cyclists wear Hiz Viz clothing (or at least a HViz Vest) I fully support the Council on that I always wear High Viz clothing when I am riding on the road – I WANT TO BE SEEN – one day might just save my life!

Reply

Derek, they are not “suggesting”, they want to make in mandatory eg a law. There is a very, very big difference.

Reply

Certainly – and we should have at least 10 multicoloured flashing lights and a siren permanently on to help improve visibility. I am sure it will save one life somewhere – that has to be important.

Reply

What nonsense. Do we make all pedestrians wear high visibility to cross the road, or make all cars high vidibility colours. Perhaps haves better look before you reverse your car out of the driveway, or if that seems too difficult, then surrender your drivers licence.

Reply

Is this a joke? Alternately remove the requirement to wear a helmet.

Reply
Christopher Sims
September 16, 2016 11:32 am

I was we eating a high viz jacket, and was burning 2 headlights and 2 trail lights whilst traveling in the bike lane, when a driver failed to see me and turned into me sending me to hospital yet again with broken scaphoid, cuts and abrasions. My bike was damaged and my clothing torn. The driver said that she just didn’t see me……… I couldn’t think of another thing I could do to make m myself more visual. Perhaps they should just ban cycling, walking, skateboarding, roller skating, gophers, and ask other forms of transport that careless, l lazy, and selfish car drivers feel they may cause harm to

Reply

Counter intuitively perhaps, but there is no quantitative evidence in support of high vis wear being inherently safe.
Nevertheless I do fully support the Bicycle SA position in favour of encouraging riders to wear light bright clothing, something that many experienced riders do already.
As a community, we (and our community leaders) need to continually encourage rather than dissuade young, new and potential cyclists.

Reply

Evidence suggests children under ?10 are much more at risk cycling from poor awareness /tunnel vision.
So why aren’t our outrageous power-mad councils going to discriminate against kids as well ,and ban them from cycling .
Councils that promote non-evidence based regulations,which are also are discriminatory- (? Are all grey and dull coloured cars now going to be required to be “re sprayed ” iridescent colours).
deserve to be disbanded to stop them being such a public nuisance !

Reply

The real issue is that Councillor is not taking responsibility for his own actions. These actions were a clear failure to look out for path users, demonstrated by failing to manoeuvre his vehicle in a cautious and safe manner to prevent potential collisions. By being embarrassed by the near misses, the councillor has then projected the blame on the path users which has led to this pathetic and ridiculous motion.

Reply

Interesting that he didn’t see his fault of reversing OUT of his driveway.Many businesses now require their employees to reverse into driveways.

Reply

I think it is a bad idea. Children have been cycling on footpaths for decades, and are now allowed to do so. Nothing has changed other than we are now permitted to do so. If it were a pedestrian that he nearly hit, would Arthur Mangos have complained? If cyclists have to wear hi-viz, then Arthur Mangos should also ask for all pedestrians to wear hi-viz, dog walkers (including the dogs), parents with prams or pushers (including the pram/pusher), skateboarders, inline skaters, couriers with trolleys (for the trolley), and the list goes on. All drivers, including cyclists who drive which is most of us, need to be aware of anything on the footpath when reversing out of a drive.

Reply

I vote for compulsory bubble wrap for a cyclists!

Reply

The evidence suggests that high vis does NOT improve rider safety & a more effective strategy is driver awareness of cyclists. I agree with Bike SA any strategy that puts more barriers in place to riding (I see the high vis idea as a barrier) there will be less people likely to ride.

Reply

I wonder what colour Councilor Mangos’ car is? I respectfully suggest that a better solution would be for the council to mandate that no motor vehicle can be painted primarily black, silver or grey. Then people, -including children and other motorist alike,- might actually be able to see them. Better still, perhaps all motor vehicles should have to wear high-visibility jackets. It’s is curious that historically, cars that are these colours have the highest accident rates. And yet they are still allowed on our roads. It is also historically evident that drivers of motor cars tend to blame everyone but themselves for their short comings. Including everyone from pedestrians, through motor cyclists, truck drivers and operators of railway crossings.

Reply

Speaking of history. Back in the olden days there was a law that someone had to walk 60 metres in front of a car carrying a lantern, or waving a red flag. Let’s bring that good old law back. 😉

Reply

This is not enforceable at a local government level. Cyclists who are unwittingly riding through west Torrens council zone may be breaking the bylaw in transit. If cycling became a no go zone in WTorrens secondary to this, would their rate paying cafes and other businesses frequented by the cycling public approve? I think not.

Reply

How does a council even have any jurisdiction to create road rules for the whole state let alone just their council.

I thought the state decided road rules and traffic act.

Reply

Whilst I’m all for highly visible clothes when riding, making it mandatory only distracts from the real issue. The councils are unwilling to create sufficient infra structure to accommodate all participants in traffic. Generally, in Australia, even catering for pedestrians is a relatively easy (affordable) task. The councilor’s comment re almost driving into children on bikes when reversing out of his driveway only backfires on drivers who are used having free ways without due care, no helmet gadget it high visibility will protect those children if he can’t change his habits. We know that those vests/ jackets do not help drivers to improve their attitudes and driving manners. The one meter distance rule is a joke and not practical for drivers nor can it be policed. I understand the comment that it is better than nothing if it only saves one life; I’m not sorry but statistics in Europe beg to differ and no, it isn’t good enough. To councils and government: quit distracting from your real responsibilities and finally provide the infrastructure necessary for ALL!

Reply

Cars reversing out of driveways aren’t just collecting cyclists – they are hitting pedestrians too. I think the problem is that motorists tend to think their driveway ends at the curb of the road and don’t take the footpath and pedestrian traffic into account at all when they reverse out at speed. An additional problem for footpath traffic is not being able to hear cars, as they are so quiet these days. When walking our children in prams, and to school, we were often nearly hit by motorists shooting out of driveways without looking. At the time I thought it would be good if reversing beeps where mandatory for all motor vehicles, not just trucks. I still do. How about the council take that idea to the LGA? Or do they want to see everyone wearing flouro the moment they leave the front gate?

Reply

In Central Europe, cars must have their lights on, at all times. Here, even at 5pm, winter, rain, grey cars- no lights. I’m a driver and a rider and there’s not one day, I don’t shake my head in disbelief
about negligent drivers’ behaviour. So many are complacent and it’s all about convenience. When there are public discussions about this topic, drivers tend to be much more vocal, aggressive, defensive in their opinions than riders. We forget that riders in this city are a tiny minority and councilor’s should perhaps read those comments, analyse and recognise the urgent need for drivers and riders to be and feel and safe. There’s a reason why drivers see riders as obstacles rather than traffic participants. Attitudes can be altered by education and delivering what is needed.

Reply

More attention by motorists – not more fluoro!

Reply

I think it’s a good idea in principle but shouldn’t be compulsory as such. Any cyclist with a bit of common sense should consider their own and others’ safety and at least wear lighter colour clothes when out on the road. As a cyclist myself, I find it really bizarre to see other fellow riders wearing all black, with black bike, black helmet, bag, and no lights, especially at dusk. If motorists don’t see us, we will end up worse off than them, ultimately.

Reply

A Hi Visibility Vest is not the answer. Most cyclists wear colourful jerseys to be seen on the road anyway + a flashing light front and/or rear. Perhaps those cyclists wearing black should have a rethink and go back to wearing the multicoloured jerseys tucked away in the cupboard. The Councillor in question should reverse more SLOWLY and look out for all cyclists whether on the footpath or the road.

Reply

As a person who cycles nearly daily, I agree with mandatory requirement.
I try to wear hi Vis, and ride with flashing headlight even during the day – including because I’ve had several people driving clearly not see me.

Reply

So because this councillor is a poor driver rubbish like this happens. Perhaps there should be a driving test after 10 years to get rid if poor drivers that don’t know they should be careful and give way when leaving their property.

Reply

High Viz will not improve councillor Mangos eyesight.

Reply

Does this mean also that vehicles should be governed by the same ruling ? How many vehicles collide because they didn’t see other car or truck or motorcycle ?? Maybe reflective strips wrapped around a sports car ? Hi vis dog jackets as we see pedestrians but its hard to see animal on a leash or free running ! Also with kids walking with parents as they have run spurts away from parents ?!

Reply

I think the councillor should take more care when reversing and install a reversing camera to his vehicle

Reply

Like mandatory helmets, Hi Vis might save lives but will also cost through people choosing not to cycle if they have to wear what they see as ridiculous garments.
Perhaps we should also be mandating that all cars should be luminous, too – there are a lot of dark cars that often can’t easily be seen in daylight.

Reply

I’ll keep a high viz jacket in my pocket just in case I happen to ride through WTCC, oh wait but I don’t actually know where the boundaries of the council are. Will they have signs up, or employ high viz police to advise and enforce??

So apart from being “thought bubble, evidence-free policy” I’m curious BikeSA if someone could explain what next for this local council policy? What happens at the local council AGM? Is there a concern that if a majority of councils agree to adopt it that it will become law, for which I thought an act of parliament was required? If not then I assume it would be a local bylaw? What rights would local councils have to enforce it? etc etc. Thanks.

Reply

Please. Enough. Would you stop interfering with every aspect of our lives and just let us to be adults! More rules, more regulations, more “These people are to stupid to look after them selves so we have to do it for them…”

Reply

I am all for the message- be safe be seen, but I can’t understand how this can possibly be enforced in one council district in a city of many districts. Are they going to erect signs on the council perimeter? Are those commuting through the council area expected to comply? Or go around? If this was identified as a legitimate tool to improve safety, it would need to be adopted state wide to make any sense….

Reply

But here is the interesting thing, “What did he immediately do”. Did he get out of the car and tell the cyclists the correct thing to do, could he have reversed park to make it easier to see them????? Now here we have an abuse of privilege and position, someone proposes an action at a council meeting because of their own inadequacies! And where would you draw the line at implementing such a woeful decision. It is a learning curve, a young cyclists to be prepared for vehicles reversing out of driveways because an adult has become complacent with the way they interpret their driving skills.

Reply

Typical council knee jerk reaction and ineffective solution. Perhaps the driver is not being diligent ? Looking for a scapegoat? or perhaps the council may feel compelled to have all cars to be painted in bright yellow stripes? Seeing the pattern of flawed logic?

Reply

Instead of improving awareness and and making efforts to develop common sense and good behaviour in our society, the typical Australian response to almost any perceived problem is to bring in another law.
First, Councillor, think about what you could have done yourself. Just reverse slowly and cautiously? You’ve been going too fast twice? Remember that you have no right of way when reversing from your driveway. Then, if you think it would help, advocate hi-vis or maybe red flags on all cars reversing from driveways – that would be a safety measure but perhaps drivers would object if were MADE LAW. Secondly, put some personal effort into making a difference. Passing yet another law for already busy police to try to enforce is the lazy, dumb option.
This “law in lieu of common sense” rubbish is why Australia is regarded internationally as a land of bureaucrats.

Reply

As a society surely the majority of us are trying to coexist happily, minimising danger and inconvenience to those around us while enjoying the relative freedom to live out our short existence as happily as possible.
Why do we have so many laws? It is unbelievable to me that we have created a society structure where so much is decreed by laws to cover all of us. Do we review what these laws actually do, and what effect they have in the long term? It seems like we just continue to add more and more laws to the point where it detrimentally impinges on our existence and personal freedom. At this stage there is so much you can be fined for just while riding your bike. We have; helmet laws, light laws, handle bar length laws, bell laws, number of passengers on a bike, riding on the footpath, riding an acceptable distance from a car, riding an acceptable number abreast…. Is it just that we are unable to air our grievances about road rage etc with those who irritate us on the road so feel the need to create laws about everything to vindicate ourselves or to alleviate our own responsibility in any given situation?

Obviously Bicycle SA are not saying you should not wear hi-vis, they are just pointing out that adding more laws to anything does not help solve a problem but instead multiplies the detrimental results for those impacted.

Reply

I almost ran over someone on a brown bike wearing a brown shirt, brown pants and a grey helmet, against a background of brown brick. Apart from that and all black at night, you don’t need to be more high vis. I was hit when wearing red with a bright red bike on a sunny day, She gave way to me at a T intersection then rammed me turning left.

Reply

Absolutely agree that spending less than $10 for a high visibility vest is the best investment you can make to be seen in the environment you ride in. Helmets and vests go together for safety.How do you compare the cost of being seen to losing a life or acquiring a life long disability.
Someone needs to sponsor a proposal to government (they won’t necessarily think of it themselves) so the fact that the idea comes from a council means that it is a bad one is ridiculous.
Be seen and live long!

Reply

Perhaps in response to the Torrens Council’s proposal for cyclists, that it be mandatory that cars be fitted with reversing cameras and or all vehicles to be mandatory required to reverse into their driveways.
However having made the above comment, as a cyclist I have found during my own cycling experience by wearing cycling wear that is hi vis has been very worth the while numerous times. And also as vehicle drive it is easier to spot cyclist that do wear Hi Vis gear compared to those who wearing colourful cycling gear.
In my view it does make a difference and as motorcyclist wearing Hi Vis gear has saved my hide numerous times.
Wouldn’t consider having Hi Vis on helmets as helpful.
As for Councillor Mangos….I would consider him as a selfserving hypocrite that only sees things from his own selfish prospective.
Interestingly all driveway child related accidents are caused by “reversing” vehicles….thus if ONLY the drivers would have reserved into their driveways, done of these accidents wouldn’t have happened…and for that reason I have always reverse into my drive for the last 30 years.
Be safe, Think of others first.

Reply

From my experience of people reversing out of their drives as per Councilor Mangos, it is normally the driver either not paying attention or reversing too quickly that is the issue. A better solution would be to make it mandatory that all vehicles should have to enter the road moving forwards (not reversing) ensuring the driver has a better view of the road, all road users and pedestrians using any footpath they may cross to access the road.

Reply

Perhaps making all silver (and dark coloured) cars might also help reduce accidents. How many more laws do you have to put in place to reduce the number of people cycling? Legislating against cycling may assist in the short term but it hinders the long term safety of cyclists. Look at the graph posted by BISA on school kids cycling, has helmet law and Trump like fear mongering helped increase Australian kids lead a healther life? Ask youself, where does the problem lie not how to put a band aid on a scratch..

Reply

An inattentive driver will not notice you whether you are wearing high viz on not. I have a fluoro green top that I wear and still have to dodge cars, even when I actually eyeball the driver.

Reply
Bicycle SA Blog – Its Been A Mixed Year For Our Bicycle Basket – Looking Forward
December 21, 2016 11:09 pm

[…] West Torrens Council also in its wisdom tried to “lobby the state government to enact mandatory Hi-Vis clothing and helmet stickers“. […]

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.