Why 'hi-viz" will make the police less visible What is the purpose of a uniform? Worn by soldiers, it helps to identify the people on your own side so you don't kill them on the battlefield by mistake. It also encourages an esprit de corps, a shared purpose emphasised by a common dress. Many groups down the centuries, from the Greek hoplite to schoolchildren around the world, have enjoyed the pride and fellowship engendered by their uniforms - and none more so than the British bobby. The "thin blue line" and "the boys in blue" are terms for the police that reflect our familiarity with their serge outfits, worn for 200 years. So, the idea that the police in London might in future be issued with high-visibility yellow jackets as standard dress is not only a dispiriting break with tradition, it does not make sense either. One report yesterday said that senior officers want to make it easier for the public to spot the police on the streets. But how will that be achieved when so many other people also wear "hi-viz" jackets? They are less a uniform than a sartorial statement of self-importance. Once, they could only be seen from the carriage of a train, worn by the railway workers for whom they were designed in 1964. But while a hazardous occupation is an eminently sensible reason for making sure people can be seen, fluorescent jackets are now everywhere, worn by road sweepers, joggers, postmen, schoolchildren on outings and even litter wardens. Doubtless, workers on a building site or refuse collectors hanging on to the back of a dustcart are required to wear them for health and safety purposes. But it never used to be the case. While you can see the argument for a builder wearing a hard hat, how does a hi-viz jacket make him safer? Our litigious world is partly to blame, of course. EU regulations that came into force 20 years ago require that staff be issued with the right protective kit; and although the rules do not stipulate that yellow jackets must be worn, employers fear being sued if they aren't. For safety reasons, police officers already wear hi-viz jackets over their uniforms if they are attending a road accident or riding bikes or motorcycles. But if they start wearing them as their normal everyday apparel, how will we know who is a copper and who isn't? It is already difficult to distinguish between community support officers and fully warranted bobbies, a deliberate move to make it appear that there are more officers on the streets than is the case. This happens on the roads, too: how many of us have crawled along behind what we thought was a police car sporting the familiar markings only to find that it is a Highways Agency vehicle masquerading as one? Surely the point about the traditional police uniform or the marked police car is to differentiate them from everyone else. With the hi-viz yellow tabard now de rigueur in so many walks of life, there is no way of knowing who is who. This matters because another function of uniform is to demonstrate authority. By dispensing with the traditional blue and opting for ubiquitous yellow, the police are saying that no one will take them seriously unless they are in hi-viz jackets. And yet when everyone is wearing them, they just become part of the crowd. As Glen Smyth, a former chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said: "Police officers are supposed to stand out by looking smart. That won't be the case if they are all wearing yellow. This fluorescent fetishism is not about making things easier for the public but bestows a form of bogus authority, a way of estranging the wearers from the rest of us. The police have already taken a step in this direction by equipping themselves with stab vests, sprays and other paraphernalia that make the modern bobby look more like Robocop than George Dixon. This is justified as "moving with the times," because uniforms are now regarded as old-fashioned and authoritarian, and as a response to the greater dangers faced by the modern police officer. But sometimes, how you look does matter. Too many of our institutions have been undermined and degraded to the point where those who once held them in awe now treat them with derision. The bobby on the beat is likely to be more at risk, not less, if his uniform is no longer respected and he looks the same as the parcel delivery man. Go to the High Court and you won't see a judge presiding over a civil case wearing a wig or the scarlet robe that once gave them the sobriquet of "red judge." Where is the majesty of the law? This trend towards "ordinary" dress has been evident for years. Just look at the Commons Speaker John Bercow, who dispensed with most of the traditional garb of his office which was designed to mark out him and his office from the rest of the House, including the clerks whom he now resembles. He will be wearing a hi-viz jacket next.