Day glo jackets in our Skodas

[silvafelicia]

If you have been on holiday or business in France or Belguim you will have spotted yelo day glo jackets inside a lot of cars as it is now mandatory to carry the jacket

inside the car or risk a fine same would apply if U.K residents travel to these countries.

Now personally speaking I am in favour of this law and wrote to my local M.P Mr Rosindell (con Romford) asking what his thoughts were, he said he was in favour

and would contact the Under secretary of State Mike Penning for his thoughts about a mandatory law his reply was this :-

About creating a legislation to make it mandatory for drivers to carry reflective tabards and conspicuity clothing in a vehicle so that they can be used by the occupants

following a breakdown or accident. I am replying as Minister responsible for road saftey.

The official Highway Code advises all vunerable road users to make themselves as visible as possibile, especially in poor weather and at night and to wear fluorescent clothes in the daytime and reflective clothes in the dark.

However, the Government belives that the use of reflective tabards and conspicuity clothing should remain a matter for individual choice rather than become a legislative requirement.

So there we have it, I was not too surprised at the reply that came back as the Conservative party are not keen on regulations even this one which would cost the car owner the princley sum of £4 or £5 at the local pound shop !, and as for personal individual choice to have the reflective tabards I am not sure that children in

the back of a car have that choice !.

Silvafelicia.

[Wardy]

It's a good point. I have them in the car but that came about after travelling on the Continent, so stocked up on required items like these, plus warning triangles.

I'd fully support the idea, but seeing how the general public use vehicles and their approach to vehicles and personal safety while using them, I don't really think an additional law about hi-viz apparel will have much impact!

Steve

[ap0gee1978]

Yup. Horse and stable door, for sure.

I was sent a vacuum-packed bright yellow plastic poncho by Renault, which is in the back of my car as one of the more useful bits of junk-mail I got over the years. Between that, the vest I got with my toolkit, and the hi-vis jacket and vest that are in the boot for work, I reckon I'm covered!

[grr666]

I always carry a waterproof hi viz jacket and a couple of Vests on board.

But having worked for the last several years in a building site and or warehouse

environment where hi viz is mandatory it's just part of my normal on board kit.

I agree with the OP it should be law really.

[skodanorman]

I disagree. I do agree that it is a good consideration concerning safety and myself carry one in the car, however I do not want it to become mandatory. That is simply another law that we must abide by and something else for the Government to tell us how to live our lives and hand out fines when we opt to use free will. The majority of people are clever enough to use their own initiative to go and buy a hi-vis vest and then keep it in their car should they ever need it. Should they fail to do this then they take the risk of dying, but I am sure that it is a calculated risk to them and one they're happy to take.

Life is full of risk, we don't need bureaucrats telling us how to minimise it.

[silvafelicia]

Thanks for the replies, I can understand the Government interference angle but sometimes we have to bite the bullet and recognize the greater good for road users.

I would put having hi vis vests on board car as an equal to wearing seat belts and not using mobile phones, as an aside I noticed on the web this week that as of next

year all mobile phone chargers( sold with phone?)in the E.U will have to be mini plug USB, strange that regulations like this can be imposed E.U wide, yet we in the U.K set our own regulations in respect of road safety laws.

Silvafelicia or just call me Vic Meldrew !.

[VWD]

I always carry a waterproof hi viz jacket and a couple of Vests on board.

But having worked for the last several years in a building site and or warehouse

environment where hi viz is mandatory it's just part of my normal on board kit.

I agree with the OP it should be law really.

Likewise - most times it's orange hi viz waterproof jackets or fleeces - comes from over ten years on railway - only one time I had to use them ,wife commented that although she felt like a clocwork orange0she was warm ,and passing Trafpol stopped to congratulate us on being safety conscious .

[richardsfavorit]

I have one in the boot - havent used as yet. Its a valid point although I would tend to agree with neskud. If people want to carry it they should. I find it quite funny the amount of people who don't prepare for the winter weather by stocking their cars with provisions. E.g. for snow, a shovel, decent boots, extra clothes, chocolate / food, spare water, additional screen wash etc etc.

Mods - should this be in the General car chat area?

[sydoggkdy]

As well as hi viz vests, I always thought they should make it compulsory to carry a spare bulb kit in your car so there is no excuse for having a light out.

but that'll never happen now though, as apparently spain have changed their law because it is now so difficult to change a bulb it doesn't even matter if you have them.

si

[skodanorman]

That is a fair point. To change a rear light bulb in my Punto you have unscrew the whole unit from inside the car and then un-do 3 screws to disassemble the whole unit, change the bulb and refit. I'd argue that doing that at the side of the M1 was more dangerous than having a light out.

Whereas on my Rapid, changing a bulb takes all of 30 seconds.

Progress for ya...

[FellyMagic]

That is a fair point. To change a rear light bulb in my Punto you have unscrew the whole unit from inside the car and then un-do 3 screws to disassemble the whole unit, change the bulb and refit. I'd argue that doing that at the side of the M1 was more dangerous than having a light out.

Whereas on my Rapid, changing a bulb takes all of 30 seconds.

Progress for ya...

I used to have a Mk4 Fiesta, and to change a headlamp bulb on that, you had to unclip the front grille, then unscrew 3 torx bolts, then completely remove the headlamp! Argh.

[djaychela]

What is the case for compulsory use of such items? How many people are injured or killed who would have been OK with them?

[RainbowFire]

That is a fair point. To change a rear light bulb in my Punto you have unscrew the whole unit from inside the car and then un-do 3 screws to disassemble the whole unit, change the bulb and refit. I'd argue that doing that at the side of the M1 was more dangerous than having a light out.

Whereas on my Rapid, changing a bulb takes all of 30 seconds.

Progress for ya...

Given that on a Renault Clio you have to take the front bumper off to remove the headlight to change the bulb, I would argue the safety thing too. Oh and remember that in France, home of the Clio, you're supposed to be able to change the bulb at the roadside too (usually under The Watchful Eye of the local rozzers).

Alex

[RainbowFire]

If you breakdown, you should have your hazard lights on. If someone missed seeing your hazard lights, a hi-viz jacket wouldn't have helped much either. I am aware of a couple of accidents where people have driven into the back of Highways Agency vehicles, whilst attending, complete with the flashing roof-rack. Can't really be more hi-viz than that ;-)

It's sensible to have hi-viz gear, but you are still at the mercy of everyone else on the roads.

[RobinSLXi]

What is the case for compulsory use of such items? How many people are injured or killed who would have been OK with them?

Indeed. I've done a fair amount of to-and-fro-ing on motorways and major roads the last few years and of all the stopped/broken-down vehicles I've seen, the occupants have either been in the car or sensibly well off the carriageway behind crash barriers - the only people I've noticed doing roadside repairs are the AA/RAC/etc. chaps with their full hi-vis suits and orange-beaconed vans. I think people who are prepared to attempt (or indeed capable of) their own roadside repairs are in a very small minority these days. Consider that on most recent cars there's very little worthwhile one can do without diagnostic equipment and/or a large amount of disassembly, and an increasing number of new cars don't even have spare wheels, and I'd say that realistically, the only people likely to benefit from the safety of hi-vis clothing are those already wearing it.

If there is any significant data on such incidents I would strongly expect it to show a decreasing trend, which is highly unlikely to support any legislation. The only thing that vaguely comes to mind is a fairly recent story of a breakdown mechanic who was killed by somebody driving up the hard shoulder, who almost certainly was wearing hi-vis anyway.

I'd recommend everybody tries being a motorcyclist to understand the issue - it doesn't matter how visible you are when drivers don't look or pay attention, and sadly that is all too frequently the case.

[djaychela]

Exactly. I've been a motorcyclist since I was 17, and most drivers are paying next to no attention to anything any anyone anyway, but more to the point I think you've put it better than I could - I'm not sure I see a case for making it compulsory for everyone because of that.

However, I've also driven in Senegal, where it is compulsory to have a fire extinguisher, despite the fact that most of the cars on the road are utter piles of crap and incredibly dangerous, but they're concerned if you have a fire extinguisher, and will fine you if you don't (we passed one around our 'convoy' as we were being inspected). One of our party got pulled over by a policeman (who stood in the road to stop him), and then fined him for not putting his indicator on as he pulled in to stop!

[silvafelicia]

Indeed. I've done a fair amount of to-and-fro-ing on motorways and major roads the last few years and of all the stopped/broken-down vehicles I've seen, the occupants have either been in the car or sensibly well off the carriageway behind crash barriers - the only people I've noticed doing roadside repairs are the AA/RAC/etc. chaps with their full hi-vis suits and orange-beaconed vans. I think people who are prepared to attempt (or indeed capable of) their own roadside repairs are in a very small minority these days. Consider that on most recent cars there's very little worthwhile one can do without diagnostic equipment and/or a large amount of disassembly, and an increasing number of new cars don't even have spare wheels, and I'd say that realistically, the only people likely to benefit from the safety of hi-vis clothing are those already wearing it.

If there is any significant data on such incidents I would strongly expect it to show a decreasing trend, which is highly unlikely to support any legislation. The only thing that vaguely comes to mind is a fairly recent story of a breakdown mechanic who was killed by somebody driving up the hard shoulder, who almost certainly was wearing hi-vis anyway.

I'd recommend everybody tries being a motorcyclist to understand the issue - it doesn't matter how visible you are when drivers don't look or pay attention, and sadly that is all too frequently the case.

[silvafelicia]

Interesting comments about people not taking any notice of people wearing hi viz jackets, you are might be right but why would several EU countries choose to

make carrying them onboard mandatorary , do we in the U.K know better than them, I wonder if the Dept of Transport is monitoring road accident / fatalities in those

E.U countries that have recently made hi vis jackets mandatorary (matching statistics before and after hi vis law introduced).

If compulsion is not the answer at least the U.K government might nudge motor manufacturers to include a hi vis vest in with the tool kit.

P.S sorry if the original thread for this was posted in the wrong place.

[felicia16v]

but what differance would an extra rule make. when half the dimwits driving around in their people carriers etc aren't even bright enough to put their lights on in bad visability or fog even

no we do not need to make it compulsary all that will do is give police/vosa another chance to fine people for not having it.

And do you stop at 1 hi vis or one for each person the vehicle can seat.

yes its sensible (and carry one in all my cars) but compulsary NO.

just my 2p's worth no offence meant like

[djaychela]

Interesting comments about people not taking any notice of people wearing hi viz jackets, you are might be right but why would several EU countries choose to

make carrying them onboard mandatorary , do we in the U.K know better than them, I wonder if the Dept of Transport is monitoring road accident / fatalities in those

E.U countries that have recently made hi vis jackets mandatorary (matching statistics before and after hi vis law introduced).

I'm sure with a bit of digging there would be a lot of legislation that would be meaningless that other countries have introduced - carrying a warning triangle is all very well, but unless it's placed a few hundred metres behind the car, it's largely pointless, for instance.

If compulsion is not the answer at least the U.K government might nudge motor manufacturers to include a hi vis vest in with the tool kit.

As many cars don't bother with a spare (which would be worthwhile), how many have a tool kit?

We live in enough of a nanny state as it is, IMO.

[felicia16v]

the skodas that come without a spare do not have a toolkit either Darren, mind most folk dont know how to change a flat tyre anyway anymore

[RainbowFire]

the skodas that come without a spare do not have a toolkit either Darren, mind most folk dont know how to change a flat tyre anyway anymore

According to my brother's girlfriend: that's what the AA are for.

[Scathel]

We live in enough of a nanny state as it is, IMO.

+1

[RobinSLXi]

If there is any significant data on such incidents I would strongly expect it to show a decreasing trend, which is highly unlikely to support any legislation.

I don't mean to reignite the debate, but I felt this was worth a quick follow-up since I've just stumbled across the recently-published ONS mortality figures for England and Wales. To put this into perspective, the total number of pedestrians killed by motor vehicles were 387 in 2007, 367 in 2008 and 242 in 2009. Now consider what a tiny minority of that total number are likely to be occupants outside a stopped vehicle, rather than e.g. kids crossing the road or drunks falling in front of buses, and you start to see there's virtually zero precedent for legislation.

[FellyMagic]

I don't mean to reignite the debate, but I felt this was worth a quick follow-up since I've just stumbled across the recently-published ONS mortality figures for England and Wales. To put this into perspective, the total number of pedestrians killed by motor vehicles were 387 in 2007, 367 in 2008 and 242 in 2009. Now consider what a tiny minority of that total number are likely to be occupants outside a stopped vehicle, rather than e.g. kids crossing the road or drunks falling in front of buses, and you start to see there's virtually zero precedent for legislation.

If they could, the H&S nannies would have is all going round in bright yellow reflective rolls of bubble wrap, with a supply of oxygen...I carry HI-Vi's all the time due to work requiring em, but I have still heard of people wearing them getting flattened..