[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9854441/Girl-hit-by-car-should-have-been-wearing-high-visibility-jacket-Churchill-claims-in-multi-million-pound-compensation-battle.htmlYou might need one if this legal appeal succeeds.[/url

It's simply common sense to wear something reflective or a light colour, and carry a torch when walking in the dark down an unlit country road. 2nd nature to most folk brought up in the countryside.

And yes, I do have a hi vis vest somewhere.......

It doesn't say she wasn't wearing a light-coloured top/jacket.

No more rooming the countryside in camouflage during the day.

At work we have to wear them if we venture out of the office

Don't forget, though, you can absolutely trust motor insurance companies to do the right thing and pay out claims fairly. Why, you don't even need a lawyer. Trust them, they have nodding dogs and are obviously nice people. Unlike these nasty teenagers who fail to wear hi-vis jackets, and are clearly therefore at fault if hit by traffic.

I don't know why she wants to even involve the courts. She should just let Churchill represent her best interests and accept what they decide. It's not as if their first and only duty is to shareholders to minimise payouts, and maximise profits, is it?

Anyway, that nice Mr. Grayling will tell you, these people that have the audacity to seek compensation, they are why you pay so much insurance. If people like her were told to sod off, then your premiums would come down, maybe fifty quid. Wouldn't we all prefer to live in a society like that?

I'd love to be on the girls side in court on this one, there's a huge pile of evidence that hiviz doesn't make you any more conspicuous - the French government has just accepted this and removed a proposal to make motorcyclists wear it at all times - and at the end of the day, the law says that drivers have to drive with 'due consideration for others at all times'.

Churchill just trying it on.

That's interesting.



Totally agree. Which, with it having made the news, doesn't make them look good.

I used to have a neighbour who had a go at me FOR wearing hi-vis when I was out running.
He said it scared him (in his car) as he didn't know what that bright skeleton thing ahead of him was, and the bobbing up and down of the hi-vis on my jogging leggings and sleeves looked weird.

Mind he was a tw@ anyway.

Churchill being UK Insurance. Uk insurance being part of RBS Insurance. RBS Insurance being a division of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, and the second largest general insurance provider and the largest personal insurer by gross written premiums in the UK. RBS was ordered to sell the insurance business, under terms set out by the EU when the bank was bailed out by taxpayers in 2008. More than 50% must be sold by the end of 2013 and the entire group sold by the end of 2014.

The insurance business includes Direct Line Group, which includes such brands as Churchill, Privilege and NIG.

I was driving down a very dark A road in rural Oxfordshire a few years ago at night, it was the way I usually drove home from work and unlike many on that road I don't drive like total ***t.
It was very dark, no moon and cloudy and no lights for a couple of miles. I stared into the gloom and then 5 feet infront of me there appeared in the headlights (when I say "appeared" he obviously was already there I just hadn't been able to see him) the most dangerous man in Britain. He was wearing (and I remember in great detail as I practically sh@t myself because I thought I was going to kill him) a long black coat (1930's style), black trousers and a black wooly hat. He was ridning a black bicycle straight from a Hovis advert, with no lights and no reflector. He must have been 70.
How the f*** he had made it to 70 I will never know.

Back when I was a kid they ran adverts with the slogan "be seen, be safe", and driving at night I see many people who are virtually invisible acting as though it's broad daylight and they are covered in fluorescent paint . I do it myslef when I am a pedestrian, I assume because I can see the car then anyone in the car can see me, it's often not true.
I bought my son a winter coat once in Sweden (he was 4 at the time) - it was dark blue and bit like a firemans jacket - he loved it. I remember the first time I shone a light on him outside at night - the coat lit up like the Olympic opening ceremony. It had reflector strips all over it that you couldn't see in daylight but at night under torchlight were almost blinding. I've never seen reflectors like them. He was visible for miles. Anything that helps kids, anything that helps motorists see kids has to be worth it.

As for the incident here, really, the insureance company should be ashamed. Pay the money, stop squirming. It's not like they won't recover it by jacking all their customers premiums up.

We have Hi Vis jacckets, 4 in one car, 7 in the other, we don't tend to walk anywhere unlit at night, we have them in case we break down and need to stand by the side of the road/motorway, in honesty we bought them because it is a legal requirement in France/Austria/Switzerland. We also have snow chains, first aid kit, breathalysers, warning triangle, a shovel, a spare set of bulbs and a tool kit for the self same reason.

Now, do I believe it should be a requirement for all vehicles in the UK to do the same, absolutely (to an extent, not chains and a shovel). Would a high vis jacket have helped this poor girl, I don't know, is it the responsibility of everyone to "see and be seen", absolutely.

Is there a case against the driver, I don't know, the "journalist" hasn't really given us much information other than "he pulled over and didn't see her", was he negligent, was it, maybe, just maybe, an accident for which the insured was liable but only in part, as Churchill say?

I would imagine it wasn't a case of the legal team for Churchill saying "she should have been wearing a hi vis jacket", I would imagine it was more like "had the injured party been more visible in an area of poor visibility, by virtue of a hi vis jacket or some other such reflective material, my clients insured party may have had a better chance of seeing her and thus avoid the unfortunate, tragic, events, on this basis we do not accept that the insured party was entirely to blame."

But, you were driving in a manner that you could avoid an obstruction within the distance you could see to be clear. Self-evidently, as you didn't mow him down. On the facts I'd say you were probably exceeding the standard required, of the average motorist. If you had hit him, the case against you would have been that you could not stop within the distance you could see to be clear. That would have been an interesting case. It would certainly be a case where a high degree of contributory negligence would be aimed at the cyclist.

The Highway Code states that (59) you should wear
"light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light"
"reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark."
Those are not legal requirements but can be cited in support of alegations of negligence.
It also states (60)
"At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85)." Failure is an offence, as the quotes are from actual Regulations.


Indeed.

Although not a legal requirement in the UK yet, we have just had everything except the chains and shovel added to the conditions of our group car insurance policy at work. Luckily I'm already equipped (with the hi-vis kit [iinside[/i the car so I can put it on before exiting the vehicle) for the same reason as you - driving in other EU countries.

Shortly after reading this this afternoon I was stood at our front window and up the street came an AA Driving School car - and the instructor was wearing a Hi-Vis vest INSIDE the car.

Its the same with all of the bus drivers around here, they all wear them whilst driving buses.

Of course I understand that sometimes they (the driving instructors) have to get out of the car and stand around on pavements drinking tea while their charges go off to take their tests, but why would they need a Hi-Viz vest for that ?

As for the bus drivers, I've never seen a bus driver that wasn't driving a bus so god knows under what circumstances he'd need a Hi-Viz vest ?

Got several in the boot of the car. Latest ferry scam to extract casjh from you - apparently its a requirement in lots of EU countries when you drive there - just like fire extnguishers, traingles (2 in some places), etc. Mrs D spent a fortune last time we took the car over The Channel. They're all still in their wrappers.

Driving instructors need to get in & out regularly to move from the passenger seat to the driver's seat and vice versa. I'd imagine some regulation involving working on a public highway comes into effect?

Just guessing, like.

When I did my driving test the examiner wore a hi-viz. Maybe the person was on their test?

When I took my driving test he wore a trilby and a tweed suit.

Walking about in dimly lit parking areas, in fact any sort of environment where pedestrians and vehicles come into contact or have to cross paths, say like a bus depot for instance

My mate followed the advice of the old 1960s advert and wore "something white at night"

He got run over by a snow plough

You probably wouldn't want to wear a Hi-Viz vest when operating harvesting machinery in a rapeseed field though.

au contraire

I used to work in a factory where all the fork lift drivers had to wear a viz. None of the pedestrian traffic, just those sitting on five ton, bright orange machines with a rotating flashing light on the top.
No one could work it out.

I can't believe you lot pack all that safety equipment in the car but not a shovel, surely it is standard kit for the winter?