Hi-Viz - I do not think that word means what you think it means (Princess Bride ref)

[swbarnett]

if ACC is paying for the "fixing" then they may be in a strong position to expect legislation to make wearing gloves compulsory.

That old chestnut. NOONE has the right to tell any individual what level of personal risk they are allowed to engage in. No matter who picks up the pieces if they come to grief. Down that path lies the complete and utter control of all homo sapiens to an extremely narrowly defined set of activities that are deemed "safe" by an ever smaller group of zealots.

Besides, ACC is not paying for squat. We are. ACC is only the conduit for our money. At no time can they rightly claim that the money they control belongs to ACC. Ipso facto, they have no right to tell us that spending money on a given injury is a waste because it could've been prevented.

[AllanB]

Here's a thought.

Christchurch post earthquakes is Hi-viz city. Anyone and everyone who is remotely building trade, road repair, inspector of some sort wears a hi-viz jacket or vest. I shit you not there is a old bloke who walks his little dog every day around my home and they both wear hi-viz.

Problem is we are so saturated with bright orange/green/yellow that it absolutely lessens the intended impact of it - blurs in with all the other hi-viz.

The risk for motorcycledom is it is made compulsory and hi-viz becomes the new black and we get lost to the rest of the road users again.

[TheDemonLord]

This is really what I have issue with. If you think this and want to wear it then I have absolutely no objection (and have no right to object anyway). The trouble is that this thinking all too often leads to an erosion of personal choice through legislation. Even when the benefits are not proven.

I 100% agree - if ever the law makers were to try and mandate Hi-Viz Wearing, I would be up in arms against it, not only for the personal freedom part, but also because IF I were to forgo the personal freedom part in favour of the greater good, there are other things to be made mandatory first (like Gloves) and perhaps most importantly - can you imagine where a Motorist hits a Motorcyclist (because the Motorist didn't look) - it would only be a matter of time before a Lawyer made the argument that his client couldn't see the Motorcyclist because they weren't wearing a Hi-Viz....

Legal Murder for want of a Hi-Viz.

[RDJ]

I 100% agree - if ever the law makers were to try and mandate Hi-Viz Wearing, I would be up in arms against it, not only for the personal freedom part, but also because IF I were to forgo the personal freedom part in favour of the greater good, there are other things to be made mandatory first (like Gloves) and perhaps most importantly - can you imagine where a Motorist hits a Motorcyclist (because the Motorist didn't look) - it would only be a matter of time before a Lawyer made the argument that his client couldn't see the Motorcyclist because they weren't wearing a Hi-Viz....

Legal Murder for want of a Hi-Viz.

This is already taking place in other jurisdictions.

And not entirely related to high viz, but definitely related to safety; in Arizona where helmets are not compulsory, a little-publicized piece of judicial activism has resulted in riders who when hit by a motorist, even when the car driver is at fault, losing 80 or 90% of their payout because they were not wearing a helmet... even though it is not legally required. The judicial argument is that "their injuries should have been less". go down that route, metaphorically speaking, and next thing you lose the right to ride. And I think the same thing will happen with high viz wear if it is compulsory. Interestingly, read a study which purports to show that the single most visible item on the motorcyclist is a 'bright' helmet... and yet, the same study could not find any difference between SMIDSY collisions for daytime riders wearing black versus daytime riders wearing hi-vis.

[SuperMac]

+ 1

My reasons for wearing hi-viz, it just might make a difference...

And what if the difference is a reduction in your conspicuity (since, partly, it relies on contrast against the background - which you can't control situation by situation)?

[Ocean1]

And what if the difference is a reduction in your conspicuity (since, partly, it relies on contrast against the background - which you can't control situation by situation)?

Weave. I'd heard of he practice of weaving when approaching an intersection containing potential smidsy culprits, but never actively employed the technique. Until someone did it to me. Initially I thought "Racerboi warming up his tyres ". But it then occurred to me that I hadn't, in fact seen him until he did it. So I'm a convert, just for those intersections that have that "feel bad" thing going on up ahead, there.

Oh, and fuck hi-vis, probably the least useful safety measure ever foisted on us by an ill qualified and over indulged safety industry.

[george formby]

Weave. I'd heard of he practice of weaving when approaching an intersection containing potential smidsy culprits, but never actively employed the technique. Until someone did it to me. Initially I thought "Racerboi warming up his tyres ". But it then occurred to me that I hadn't, in fact seen him until he did it. So I'm a convert, just for those intersections that have that "feel bad" thing going on up ahead, there.

Oh, and fuck hi-vis, probably the least useful safety measure ever foisted on us by an ill qualified and over indulged safety industry.

Yeah. I move within my lane. Not an exaggerated weave but enough to catch someones eye. Certainly seems to get attention and causes truckies to wave.

[swbarnett]

Interestingly, read a study which purports to show that the single most visible item on the motorcyclist is a 'bright' helmet... and yet, the same study could not find any difference between SMIDSY collisions for daytime riders wearing black versus daytime riders wearing hi-vis.

Do you have a link?

[RDJ]

Apparently the most recent burglary tactic from criminal ferals (but I repeat myself) is to burgle houses in broad daylight with Hi-Viz vest and construction helmet and walkie talkie. Neighbors never call cops, because Hi-Viz apparently signals legitimacy.

(And yep I'm looking for the link for that study...)

[Moi]

Do you have a link?

This is from research undertaken in NZ some years ago: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC387473/

and another which points to further research: http://smarter-usa.org/all-gear/high-viz/index.html

and this one: http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~john/vfr/hurt.html

[Moi]

I would not support the mandating of hi-vis as I don't believe there is sound evidence for it, there is certainly anecdotal evidence to support hi-vis but no sound evidence that I have seen yet - if there is some, would like to see it.

Making it mandatory to wear gloves, as an example, would have my support as I believe there is sound evidence that appropriate gloves reduce the incidence of damage to hands - http://www.georgeinstitute.org/sites...gear-study.pdf

As for blending in when wearing hi-vis, can see the issues with the amount of hi-vis being worn in Christchurch and around road construction sites - the north-western motorway in Auckland is one such site - however, in other areas if you are wearing hi-vis you may well be the only person doing so. The "weaving about" that has already been mentioned is a method to counter the possibility that you have become "camouflaged" against the background - there are a number of videos on youtube about it.

[eldog]

Apparently the most recent burglary tactic from criminal ferals (but I repeat myself) is to burgle houses in broad daylight with Hi-Viz vest and construction helmet and walkie talkie. Neighbors never call cops, because Hi-Viz apparently signals legitimacy.

(And yep I'm looking for the link for that study...)

3 strikes and your dead

[swbarnett]

Making it mandatory to wear gloves, as an example, would have my support as I believe there is sound evidence that appropriate gloves reduce the incidence of damage to hands

There is also sound evidence that crashing a car is less injurious to your health then crashing a motorcycle. I know you have said that your support for mandated "safety" is not absolute. The problem is with people who support ANY safety device being mandated to the point that they would mandate car use over motorcycles.

While I firmly support the assertion that gloves save your hands^*, I still think it is morally wrong to legislate their use. In the same way that I believe mandatory helmet use is amoral. Simply put, my body, my risk.


^*My wife had a truck run over her hand last year. Not one area of normal skin was visible (all scrapes and bruises). Within a week it was almost entirely back to normal. I shudder to think what would've happened had she not been wearing gloves.

[RDJ]

This is from research undertaken in NZ some years ago: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC387473/

and another which points to further research: http://smarter-usa.org/all-gear/high-viz/index.html

and this one: http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~john/vfr/hurt.html

Thank you for those links. Unfortunately, and absolutely no disrespect intended to the author, the Hurt report is now 34 years old (not hat there is anything wrong with that, I'm heading close to being double its age) but having ridden bikes on the road since I was 15, I really don't think we can keep assuming it applies without more recent research to validate it. In particular, when I started riding in New Zealand, far more car drivers had ridden motorbikes in their past because of lack of overseas funds to purchase cars until they got a lot older, so there was a lot more awareness of the vulnerability of motorcyclists and a lot more fellow feeling amongst road users.

The study I wanted to link to is one cited relatively recently on Visordown the UK forum.

If I was able to design and fund an updated study, I'd want to do the type of one most commonly associated with lack of evidential bias... i.e. a study where you recruit riders with similar demographics, age, machinery and safety records, on a similar commute or route on a regular basis, assign one group to wear high viz, one group to wear all black, but the same level of protection being offered by either set of gear; wire in a recorder which updates a central server with their riding pattern, and follow them up directly if the trip recorder senses an impact (either single or multiple vehicle) for objective result analysis; and interview them say once a quarter to see what their subjective impression is of how surrounding traffic behaves. Even then it would be flawed...

Pity we can't get the manufacturers of Hi-Viz DayGlo and Harley Black respectively to fund it an up-to-date useful study here in New Zealand. (Bearing in mind that ACC funding just means our registration levy is going to fund it, ACC has no money that it doesn't expropriate).

As a purely anecdotal comment, I have a black Sportster and a black Dyna with close to the same front profile and exactly the same front lighting, with the exception that the Dyna has a shark mouth and eyes on the fairing (and, yeah, screen decals :-) ). Riding them - wearing the same gear - around the city, it's my individual impression that people in cars see the Dyna in their general background easier and sooner than the Sporty.

[Moi]

There is also sound evidence that crashing a car is less injurious to your health then crashing a motorcycle. I know you have said that your support for mandated "safety" is not absolute. The problem is with people who support ANY safety device being mandated to the point that they would mandate car use over motorcycles.

While I firmly support the assertion that gloves save your hands^*, I still think it is morally wrong to legislate their use. In the same way that I believe mandatory helmet use is amoral. Simply put, my body, my risk.


^*My wife had a truck run over her hand last year. Not one area of normal skin was visible (all scrapes and bruises). Within a week it was almost entirely back to normal. I shudder to think what would've happened had she not been wearing gloves.

This whole issue of "mandated safety" is not black and white but a continuum and there are 'zealots' at both ends of that continuum - those who would ban all motorbikes to those who say my choice what and how and when I ride. I stand somewhere in the middle of that continuum - I suspect that you stand almost at one end of it - which is why I expect to see sound evidence to be presented in support of any legislation, but would rather see education than legislation.