A few days ago this article was published:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/5324738/High-visibility-gear-for-cyclists-unwanted

The Coroner Gordon Matenga is currently traveling around New Zealand hearing evidence on the deaths of eight cyclists. On the first day of the inquest last week, Cycling Advocates Network Spokesman Patrick Morgan told Mr Matenga that making high-visibility gear mandatory could put people off cycling because of the perception that the gear looked dorky. To give him the benefit of the doubt I guess what Patrick Morgan was trying to highlight was that the onus of responsibility should not soley be on the cyclist which making high visibility gear mandatory would suggest.

I agree that making it mandatory, as in requiring legislation, is a step to far. That's not how you effectively bring about behaviour change. However, the supporting argument by Morgan that it would make cyclists look dorky is, in my view, disappointing for someone representing the Cycling Advocates Network.

Having read quite a few Coroner's reports as part of my job when I worked on the Adventure Tourism Review most deaths caused in the adventure and recreation sector are preventable and the risks can be mitigated. So in relation to cycling, there are three things I would focus on:
1) Cycling deaths are preventable
2) The risk of accidents and death can be mitigated
3) There is an onus of responsibility on road drivers and cyclists.

As I previously posted, I spent a lot of time before buying my yellow jacket and subsequently after observing what people were wearing re high-visibility gear. eg. When I worked in Pipitea, the construction workers on the Archives site seem to wear their visibility gear with pride, the Transmetro guards and "clippies" wear high visibility gear, and heaps of people in the 'rapa where visibility gear. I've noticed a few walkers wearing vests.

I noticed a marked difference once I started wearing the yellow jacket in drivers slowing down behind me. And that makes me feel safer. Sure it doesn't guarantee my safety, but in my view it does reduce unnecessary risk.

The roads I ride are quite different to inner city conditions. But the same principles should apply. It should be about educating cyclists and car drivers. It just seems irresponsible to introduce a "fashion statement argument. The cyclists that want to get into the fashion side can still do that, and once they reach the cafe or work, can reveal their fashion colours and gear, so I just don't get it.

As an aside, I do quite like the word "dork". Just not in the context it was used. Maybe becasue I used to use it quite a lot as a kid, and had almost eliminated it from my vocab. I think it's a word worth reclaiming, just not in the high-visibility argument.

No exercise today. I put my gear on, and then subsequently went to sleep. No current worries about getting 8 hours a sleep a day any more. Well, I didn't go to sleep straight away. It seemed at the time a better alternative than facing the wind. That of course is not on the prescription for Bootcamp stage two. I'm a bit over the Carterton staycation. Still, this is a critical time in trusting God will provide and has a plan, and will sort out the relevant project management required for my next placement. Just seems to be taking a little longer than I envisaged.

Not sure if I will get out on the bike tomorrow as my sister is coming over. Definitely will schedule some solid time on Friday and Saturday though. I have to get over to Martinborough, as the Mr Strawhouse needs a talking to - not that he will listen to me, re how you don't just go and randomly chop Olive trees down when they are a symbol of peace, love, and harmony.