I am a driving instructor and there is no regulation that we have to wear any thing.

As someone else has pointed out driving examiners have to wear them. But only if they do not have a car park at the test centre. If they set of on a public road they are supposed to wear one.

That's disgusting.
Not even when the learner is of the opposite sex?

I did wonder how long it would take

You set 'em up ....

I don't know what bus drivers and conductors did in the days before Hi-Viz was invented, it must have been like a scene from a slaughterhouse in Headingley bus depot every day.

Then you're obviously an ignoramous (sorry, we knew that), it's been a requirement on the continent for quite some time, and if Mrs D spent a "fortune" than more fool her, there's no reason to. My full European driving kit was about £30, but I researched the rules well in advance and bought online. Yes, both the Ferry and Eurotunnel terminals sell the stuff, at some considerable mark up, anyone that hasn't looked into the rules and laws (and conditions of their own insurance when abroad) and arrives without the right equipment deserves what they get.

...and the car was powered by steam.

If you're going to use words of more than 4 letters please ensure that you know how to spell them, else you may show yourself to be an ignoramus.

How many letters are there in each of the words casjh, extnguishers and traingles? ....

I didn't both changing those before posting as I (clearly mis) judged that only an imbecile would not realise they were errors of the fingers on the keyboard, rather than the spelling errors of the pompous.

More future claims on the way www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21403154

More future claims on the way www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21403154

And there was a man with a flag walking in front of it......

Quote ="HullFC50"More future claims on the way www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21403154'" [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4690160.stmSPLINK[/url

Quote ="HullFC50"More future claims on the way www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21403154'" [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4690160.stmSPLINK[/url

As an avid cyclist I won't wear it, not because I'm stubborn but because by wearing it (as many seem to do) it panders to the idea that vulnerable road users have to be all glowing with an assortment of colours so that the poor motorist who bombs along in a ton plus of metal (proven to kill and maim in the tens of thousands every year) can get to where they are going a few seconds/minutes quicker.
Even the government themselves (actually under labour) are adept at victim blaming when it comes to these things rolling out scare tactic 'safety' programmes in schools to make kids wear hi-vis and blame them if they get hit rather than the errant motorist, the whole thing is sickening.
I put decently bright lights on for urban riding at night and poor visibility conditions, have a few reflective strips on my cycling gear (you can't avoid it totally) I've being hit (from behind at a roundabout) once in the late evening yet hit 3 times during the day, people look but don't see, ask the police force how many officers get killed or injured whilst wearing it due to being struck by a motor vehicle!
Hi vis needs a light source for one thing so during the day is worse than useless.

It's funny how we in the UK even allow black cars to be sold (the most popular by far at almost a 1/4 of new cars sold) or grey or dark green etc, motor vehicles driven by the public are not hewn in day glo colours either so why should the vulnerable who have a right to be on the road (remember motor vehicle drivers are privileged by license)?
it's the motors that do pretty much all the damage to life so they should be taking the greatest portion of care by far, in most Western European countries they have 'Strict Liability' laws, that assumes that the fault is with that at the top the tree (the motor vehcle) unless proven otherwise (in its simplest terms). This pushes the onus for road safety massively on the metal box drivers as it rightly should be
Imagine your son/daughter, mother father being killed because of some bulldust excuse of 'the sun was in my eyes', 'I didn't see them until the last second' (as they sped around a blind bend), another good one of late is the 'temporary blackout', all common ready made excuse for car drivers who run over and main & kill people.
Blame the victims, that's what I say

Reminds me of an epitaph ...

[iThis is the grave of Mike O'Day
Who died maintaining his right of way.
His right was clear, his will was strong.
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong[/i

Ah, I get it, you are allowed to leave your errors uncorrected but others are not because [uthey[/u are pompous.

The number of cyclists I've known do that when excusing their own law-breaking decision to cycle on the pavement is quite extraordinary too.

'It's your fault for wearing headphones!' is one such example.

'I rang my bell – you had the chance to get out of the way' is another.

Don't get me started on them, riding 3 side by side "because it's Sunday and this is a quiet road", and why the hell they are allowed to use by-passes for time trials is quite beyond me, maybe I should try riding a horse down a by-pass and see what plod has to say about that.

Those cyclists - they're no better than the nazis.

some of them are fine, similarly motorcyclists, but some are complete morons.

I'd pay attention to Mike O'Day's epitaph if I were you.

You don't live in Chester by any chance do you? I was setting off somewhere the other day in very dull conditions and an obviously servious cyclist in equally dull clothing was coming along the street. I had to do a double take to register him coming along. Making it hard for yourself to be seen in bad conditions is crazy.



That is really going to work here with our ambulance chasing legal culture. If you think people falsely claiming for whiplash after the merest tap of a contact between two cars has got out of hand imagine where we would be with the unscrupulous "cyclists" bouncing themselves off cars at every junction!

The car is king in this country and the attitude of many motorists reflects that; the spluttering outrage of some people when they're forced to alter their driving for a few seconds to avoid killing me is a sight to behold - it would be funny if it wan't scary.

I take the same approach as you to hi-viz by the way, coupled with an assertive road position - I refuse to ride in the gutter and very rarely use what are laughably described as 'cycle lanes,' both of which encourage drivers to overtake when it's not safe and promote the idea that I'm an inconvenience.

I'm sure your next of kin will mount a moving tribute to your principled stand at your funeral.

You misunderstand.

This has nothing to do with principles and everything to do with common sense; riding in the gutter or in a litter-strewn cycle lane is more dangerous than taking up a proper road position with all the other traffic.

Same with motorists.