Mandatory high visibility vests/clothing?

[pzkpfw]

In a discussion related to the new ACC fees, a guy brought up the issue of high visibility vests. So I did some looking. Found this quote, for example, from a New Zealand study (cited in wikipedia):


The study found that wearing reflective or fluorescent clothing reduced the risk of a crash injury by 37%, a white helmet by 24%, and riding with headlights on by 27%

Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_safety
Cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_safety#cite_note-9

This got me wondering.

They've just passed a law making headlights compulsory for motorcycles. Yet this New Zealand study claims the clothing thing to have an even greater benefit than headlights. (I find it a bit odd, like helmets being compulsory but gloves etc not).

On the other hand, this quote was in a section of the page titled
"Conflicting findings on conspicuity" - because the big Hurt report had different results.


There were very few cases found in which the bright clothing of the PTW rider enhanced the PTW’s overall conspicuity...

So a question:

Would you agree to compulsory high visibility vests/clothing?

(Based on looks? proven/unproven significant/insignificant benefits? "freedom"? convienience?)

[Dropped]

no i already ride a white bike! and with my head light on shouldn't that be enough?

[Nibblet]

Absolutely not. I brought a bike for the freedom of riding. As soon as you start dictating on the colour/choices of clothing for the public its game over for a nation. If I was keen for dictatorship to those extremes I would move to north korea. Cagers would have to look in the direction of the motorcycle first to make 'high vis' useful anyway.

[Swoop]

Tell that to a rider wearing all that, who is laying in the road because of a SMIDSY crash.

Fluro vests are attempting to deal with the lowest common denominator on our roads... the poor driving skills and attention-span-deficient motorist.

They actually assist in breaking up the form or shape of a bike/rider combination and lower the "threat value" posed to the observer.

[pzkpfw]

I should point out - I'm hoping for solid stats to use in the discussion with the car driver whose position is that it's riders' own fault they get in accidents and that's why they should pay higher ACC fees. His argument was High visibility vests = less accidents = lower fees.

(
Of course I get the irony that high visibility is an attempt to fix the issue that car drivers don't see us, and that that's a reason why the ACC should not be lumping us with this "pay for your own accidents" thing.

i.e. forcing high visibility vests on us is another way of blaming the victim.
)

[Nibblet]

So a question:

Would you agree to compulsory high visibility vests/clothing?




I should point out - I'm hoping for solid stats to use in the discussion with the car driver whose position is that it's riders' own fault they get in accidents and that's why they should pay higher ACC fees. His argument was High visibility vests = less accidents = lower fees.

Hmmmm..... Yes, yes you should have.

[ratfink]

Absolutely not. I hate being told I have to wear a helmet. Took ages to get used to one. I would wear one now by choice, but still resent being told what to do. The guy I saw yesterday driving a courier van through glenfield with a newspaper on his steeering wheel wouldn`t see me anyway.

[Nibblet]

I find they only tend to make riders more visible from behined anyway as if you look in the mirror all you see is a head light,screen and a helmet if the riders right down. And how many bikes get rear ended?

Hows a high vis going to stop these people on 250's falling off well going round corners anyway?

[Azi Dahaka]

you know there are thigns that note that cagers dont see us even when they look straight at us due to the fact they are not looking for somethign as small as a fat person on a motorbike there are looking for a fat person in a cage.

though on that note i have to admit when i have been whearing my fluro vest for advertising bikoi i have noticed cagers pay more attention to me at intercection and round abouts.

[Hawkeye]

They could of course just ban cagers from using cell phones. No! hold on a moment, they have already done that. Shame the bitch that almost took me out a couple of day's ago is unaware of the law. Or is it she just chooses to ignore it. Just like changing lanes without looking to see there is a bike on her right hand side.

Floro vests only work if the cagers take the time to look. Most don't bother. They start the manouver and then decide it might be pertinent to look and flick on the indicator half way through (if your lucky. Most don't even bother to indicate).

If the cops spent as much time actively policing the new law instead of policing the roads for people doing 5k over whilst performing a passing manouver, maybe cage drivers may actually start looking at their surroundings and notice bikes more (Tui moment).

[vtec]

I think the stats will also be skewed by the fact that the demographic who wear hi-vis already, are generally much more timid, placid and well behaved riders.

It's bollocks and I will NEVER wear hi-vis. I already use my headlight all the time, the legislation is pointless and possibly a tax grab, except the people who created the law probably didn't realise that we already ride with the headlight on anyway.

If you can't see a headlight you're not going to see a hi-vis jacket.

[James Deuce]

I find they only tend to make riders more visible from behined anyway as if you look in the mirror all you see is a head light,screen and a helmet if the riders right down.

Which I tried to point out to Mr German Tank with results from another study that used a significantly bigger number of participants than the NZ "study".

The issue I have with reflective vests is I struggle with avoiding dehydration in Summer without adding another layer of plastic to my riding apparel. If they bring in compulsory vests, I'm ditching the jacket and wearing a T-Shirt. Plus I'd like a jacket that fits properly and doesn't flap. I hate stuff that I'm wearing flapping about on the bike.


Hows a high vis going to stop these people on 250's falling off well going round corners anyway?

It's not people on 250s doing that.

[centaurus]

What the hell!!!

I've gone into biking for the freedom of riding and I will end up soon being told even how many times I'm allowed to breathe in and out per minute while riding.

Who's so worried about a crash that would submit to anything just to be safe, go drive a cage or just walk.

I know some people wear hi-vis vests while riding. I have nothing against it - it's their personal decision and I respect it. But forcing all of us to wear hi-vis vests just because cage drivers are useless and the NZ driver licensing system is not good enough to weed out the idiots is beyond stupid.

This borders into fascism mate: soon they will be telling us we can't ride bikes anymore because they have decided it's too dangerous for us. (oops, my bad - they're already doing that by increasing the ACC levies to the proposed levels :angry2:)

What the fuck is this trend nowadays of trying to eliminate the risk out of everything at any cost. Soon we will all be sitting in front of the TV all day 'cause it's the only safe place to be and will be as big as the americans.

I understand and agree with understanding and being aware of the risks, and finding ways of mitigating them when possible, but it should a personal (and informed) decision of how much you are willing to risk, not the society's decision as to how much are they willing to let you risk.

We're bringing up the new generation of children in the concept of "risk free environment" and then we're surprised why they prefer playing playstation instead of doing any physical activity.

We are crippling ourselves in the process of "eliminating all risks no matter what the cost". At the end of the day nothing worth doing is completely free of risk.

[CastorPollux]

Absolutely not. I brought a bike for the freedom of riding. As soon as you start dictating on the colour/choices of clothing for the public its game over for a nation.

I agree.....

[Conquiztador]

Can't find it now, but there was research done in Finland years ago on a forest road where no cars could drive only bikes (too narrow for cars), and the result was that this road had no car v bike crashes!

This makes me conclude that instead of fluro vests, flashing lights on helmets and dayglow paintwork on bikes, the most efficient restrictor of bike v car accidents is to ban cars from our roads!

Re your question: NO!

[pzkpfw]

Which I tried to point out to Sir German Tank with results from another study that used a significantly bigger number of participants than the NZ "study".

This was that study:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7444/857

Trouble is I couldn't really use it in the disucssion because it also said things like:


Crash related injuries occurred mainly in urban zones with 50 km/h speed limit (66%), during the day (63%), and in fine weather (72%). After adjustment for potential confounders, drivers wearing any reflective or fluorescent clothing had a 37% lower risk (multivariate odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.94) than other drivers.

While it did say:


No association occurred between risk and the frontal colour of drivers' clothing or motorcycle.

It went on to say:


If these odds ratios are unconfounded, the population attributable risks are 33% for wearing no reflective or fluorescent clothing, 18% for a non-white helmet, 11% for a dark coloured helmet, and 7% for no daytime headlight operation.

And concluded:


Conclusions Low conspicuity may increase the risk of motorcycle crash related injury. Increasing the use of reflective or fluorescent clothing, white or light coloured helmets, and daytime headlights are simple, cheap interventions that could considerably reduce motorcycle crash related injury and death.


For the record, I don't want to wear a high visibility vest, either.

But when explaining that to a car driver who thinks bikes should have higher fees, I need a defendable reason.

[Ixion]

I usually (not always) wear hi-viz. But I am strongly opposed to compulsion in such matters.

There are studies which show that wearing hi-viz makes riders more visible.

I am not sure if this is true nowadays when world plus dog is wearing it . that is, I don't know how much of the effect in the studies was actually due to the fact that it is more visible, and how much was due to the fact that, back then, hi-viz was unusual on the roads - making people do a double take - "what's THAT").

End of the day, it can do no harm, and costs very little . And MAY be of some benefit.

[StoneY]

I read a study about 5 years ago done in the States that showed a rider fully decked out in deep black was MORE visible than a rider in dayglos, fuck knows how that works....:eek5:
It was a study done by none less than Harvard School of Physics, it even had a segment on Discovery channel way back that said the same thing, black is MORE visible due to its lack of reflectiveness.....

Point is, dont trust "published studies' as they are targeted results that the researchers opion has directly sought data to substantiate (ACC specialize in such studies obviously!)

For every study that said smacking kids made axe murderers there are 2 that say NOT disciplining ya kids sufficiently led to....axe murderers

Damed if ya do, damned if ya dont
Only Flurescant shit your ever gonna see me wearing is my BIKEOI protest vest

Osu!

[James Deuce]

This was that study:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7444/857

Trouble is I couldn't really use it in the disucssion because it also said things like:



While it did say:



It went on to say:



And concluded:




For the record, I don't want to wear a high visibility vest, either.

But when explaining that to a car driver who thinks bikes should have higher fees, I need a defendable reason.

That answer is easy.

Survey results are inconsistent and the only evidence they make any difference is anecdotal.

I'm still looking for the British Survey that claimed that accident rates for bikers wearing hi-vis in urban situations went up due to their speed being inconsistent with a car driver's expectation of how the wearer was travelling. Most people expect a hi-vis vest wearer to be on foot - policeman, road worker, ambo, etc, and so fail to anticipate the vest wearer traversing or entering an intersection at speed, if they see them at all.

[NighthawkNZ]

I read a study about 5 years ago done in the States that showed a rider fully decked out in deep black was MORE visible than a rider in dayglos, fuck knows how that works....:eek5:
Osu!

The dark stands out against the multitudes of light coloured backgrounds. Think of a newspapper and all the coloured adverts your eyes just glaze over it... now take one and make it a black block, it would stick out like a sore thumb :gob:

However there are also studies that show wearing them makes you more visible (usually done by those that make the vests) There is no no real proof it would make any difference to lower bike accidents... especially if you throw in motion incuded blindness

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_mib/

[vifferman]

I wonder whether the fact that until recently the only bikers with white helmets and fluoro vests were bike cops has anything to do with the increased visibility thing? It's all about perceived threat, innit?

I nearly collided with a scroter a few years back, when I didn't see him approaching an intersection when I was about to take off on my bike. Luckily I took a second look. I'm glad it happened, as it made me aware of how easy it is to look and yet not see. FWIW, he was riding a black Vespa, and wearing dark clothing. I can't recall if he had his light on, but I don't think any of this has anything to do with not seeing him. However, who knows? It may have.

As for the threat thing, I unwittingly performed an experiment testing this a few years ago, when I had a black bike and had just bought a new red Teknic jacket. One day I wore the new jacket, the next I wore all black (gloves, pants, jacket, helmet, pants, boots) and commuted during "rush" hour taking the same route at the same time of day. The second time, more cars tended to move out of my way as I was filtering trhough the traffic.

[vifferman]

I read a study about 5 years ago done in the States that showed a rider fully decked out in deep black was MORE visible than a rider in dayglos
I suspect it relates more to threat than how much things stand out.
The problem today is that SO many people wear fluoro gear that it's lost its effectiveness. Imagine if everything was fluoro coloured (the ultimate in safety?): nothing would stand out.
It's like the overuse of cones - the orange bastids have bred like rabbits, and the coners put them up by the hundreds, even when there's no apparent need, so a lot of the motoring public ignore them.

[NighthawkNZ]

I suspect it relates more to threat than how much things stand out.
The problem today is that SO many people wear fluoro gear that it's lost its effectiveness. Imagine if everything was fluoro coloured (the ultimate in safety?): nothing would stand out.

You would if you were wearing black :yes: but you are correct... hense my newspaper advert comment. You eyes and brain will start to filter things and bang you still get hit by the car...

[KiwiGs]

The few times I have worn a high viz jacket* during the day have made no difference at all to the number of people cutting me off. Personally I think the issue, in a lot of cases, is that people driving cars just can’t judge the speed of a bike.
That said I always have some Hi Viz reflective gear when I ride at night, 'cause I know for a fact how hard it is to see a bike at night and I know how much someone wearing one sticks out...


*when it rains and I have to wear my work rain coat over my leathers :angry:

[vifferman]

That said I always have some Hi Viz reflective gear when I ride at night, 'cause I know for a fact how hard it is to see a bike at night and I know how much someone wearing one sticks out...
My black gear all has some discrete reflective bits on it. Jacket has reflective stretch panels and piping, as do my pants; the boots have reflectors on the back (unfortunately at the top, so my pants often cover them up); gloves have reflective piping. Just need to get some of those stickers for my helmet (the ones that look like coloured or clear decals but are reflective.)

I saw a guy at night a while back: not only was his dayglo suit fairly reflective, but he had white reflective strips on it. With the headlights on him he was practically blinding.:eek5:

[KiwiGs]

I saw a guy at night a while back: not only was his dayglo suit fairly reflective, but he had white reflective strips on it. With the headlights on him he was practically blinding.:eek5:


I have seen that as well, any one say target fixation...

[vifferman]

I have seen that as well, any one say target fixation...
I could imagine someone running him over:"AAAAaaarrrRRRghhh!!! My eyes! MY EYES!!! Make it stop! MAKE IT STOP!!!"

[mashman]

You would if you were wearing black :yes: but you are correct... hense my newspaper advert comment. You eyes and brain will start to filter things and bang you still get hit by the car...

They shouldn't be reading the paper whilst driving, let alone looking for bikers in it!

Whilst i'm all for bikes having lights on during the day, it seems like a futile gesture to put on a hi-vis vest too... If i see a bike with it's lights on, i can't tell what the guy is wearing... why would i want to know, i'm most likely checking my mirrors for hazards as i'm about to perform some form of manoeuvre... the lights should give me away... Unfortunately that doesn't help with the misjudgement of speed...

Perhaps todays technology could be used (shit a cage can parallel park itself these days). Why do we not have head up displays to highlight the likelyhood of an accident should you perform your manoeuvre... to me that's about the only way we're going to solve cage v bike crashes... certainly the eye plus brain thing isn't working well enough for some people...

[Big Dave]

No. I strongly oppose any compulsory anything.

What drivers say is 'I didn't see him' and that is what is reported in similar statistics.

When in fact the truth is 'I didn't look', but that doesn't go over well with Police or insurance.

Apart from that I have no desire to look like Ixion.

[Swoop]

Hi-Viz is everywhere. It was a novelty that "The OSH Monster" took great pleasure in inflicting upon the unsuspecting populace.


I'm really surprised that porno movies do not have the actors and actresses wearing some form of fluro safety wear AND have orange safety cones around the bed... after all, it is a workplace!:wari:

[Pixie]

I'm perfectly willing to become a Dayglo Derek
- When they make helmets compulsory for car drivers

The two reasons drivers fail to see motorcyclists are:

1. Mind Set

2. Motion Camouflage

Google them

[Big Dave]

The few times I have worn a high viz jacket* during the day have made no difference at all to the number of people cutting me off

You go out the dressed in full black leather, open face helmet and a 'scary' big cruiser and it happens less. I do both acts - and it is noticeable.

[Big Dave]

I'm perfectly willing to become a Dayglo Derek
- When they make helmets compulsory for car drivers


I'm happy to pay my ACC way too - when everyone else does.

[Azi Dahaka]

I'm perfectly willing to become a Dayglo Derek
- When they make helmets compulsory for car drivers

the thing is seatbelts are compulsory but that dosn't mean the idiots wear them and end up flying through the window screen.

[KiwiGs]

You go out the dressed in full black leather, open face helmet and a 'scary' big cruiser and it happens less. I do both acts - and it is noticeable.
That is true in my experiance as well, not sure about the "scary" big cruiser part 'cause I commute on a VT250
I have also found that pointing at car drivers on the other side of intersections seems to make them take notice as well....

[Swoop]

I'm perfectly willing to become a Dayglo Derek
- When they make helmets compulsory for car drivers
They really should have someone walking in front of their car, waving a red flag that warns of the danger approaching...

the thing is seatbelts are compulsory but that dosn't mean the idiots wear them and end up flying through the window screen.
Strange how some do not like to be belted up. If I strap an aircraft to my back, harnessing up is an important step. You see the same thing in a commercial aircraft when the seatbelt light goes off and the monkeys undo everything. If you are just sitting there, keep the belt done up but loosened off a bit.

[vifferman]

Strange how some do not like to be belted up.
My parents got their first car back in 1964, and even though seatbelts weren't compulsory they made sure everyone in the car had one. I feel really weird not wearing one, as I've had to wear one when in the car almost my whole life.
Same with a crash helmet. The few times I've not worn one (like when I worked on the farm, or taking a wee ride off road somewhere) it feels (and sounds!) really weird. I don't begrudge wearing one in the slightest.

[avgas]

I would.
But it would HAVE TO BE COMPULSORY before I even consider it.
Headlights on at all times is a no brainer - while you can see reflective clothing for a few hundred meters - a headlight shines km's.
In fact I saw a K7 today from about 2km away thanks to its headlight.

[avgas]

2. Motion Camouflage
Today young men on acid realized that alll matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one conciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather.

[Insanity_rules]

I was thinking of hiring someone to walk infront of me with flags and a bell to make me more visible but that law was repealed in 1905.


I'm perfectly willing to become a Dayglo Derek
- When they make helmets compulsory for car drivers

The two reasons drivers fail to see motorcyclists are:

1. Mind Set

2. Motion Camouflage

Google them

Two more reasons

3) rectal cephalitis (Driving with their heads up their asses)

4) Inflated sense of self importance.

[swbarnett]

I have only one thing to say on this matter - studies on hiviz vests and the like are unreliable for the simple fact that:

Correlation Does Not Mean Causation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation)!

With hiviz vest studies it is highly probable that those wearing the vests are more careful in the first place.

[NighthawkNZ]

They shouldn't be reading the paper whilst driving, let alone looking for bikers in it!

Not reading it silly :bash: stuck down me front as a wind break :woohoo: :innocent:

[James Deuce]

With hiviz vest studies it is highly probable that those wearing the vests are more careful in the first place.
Indubitably my dear boy.

[Subike]

Im in a cage at an intersection, I observe a large black bike comming towards me from the right, the person riding it is wearing black, with a black helmet.
Do I want to mess with this guy?
I better let him pass before I pull out, might be a bikie

Im in a cage at an intersection, I observe a large red bike coming towards me from the left, the person riding it is wearing a white helmet and a fluro vest,
LOL, some yuppie out for a ride on his plastic toy.
Wounder if I can put the shits up him by creaping forward.
Probably a banker with a mid life crisis.

The colour really has little to do with it.

Its the preception of the cage driver which counts.

A person will be cautious if the object in his vision could pose a threat to his person.
He will take risks if there is little threat of injury


I think you will find this has been the subject of numerous studies.

[retro asian]

Agree with Subike & Big Dave.
I ride a big scary cruiser (in the eyes of the general public), so I don't feel that I need a high-vis vest.

<img src="http://hellforleathermagazine.com/galleries/assets_c/2009/11/Southpark_Fags_3-thumb-415x233-6494.jpg">

Also my chrome be blinging, so I reckon I am quite visible against a black road...

[RavenR44]

... and realised that it was just a mirage. Much like bikers are to drivers of cars and even riders of bigger bikes. It's an illusion, as Roger Whittaker once crooned.

I wish I could point to empirical evidence that backs up my belief, but I can't so it remains so - belief. And since I regularly raise my nose at those who choose belief over evidence, I appear to be quite the hypocrite.

Nonetheless, it's my fervent belief that the human brain paints in whatever our wandering thoughts need, in order to patch up the missing bits. And by missing, I mean the stuff we really should see when we 'look' but don't.

A relatively small anecdote (small, by my standards anyway) to illustrate what I'm getting at.

When I was training to fly, I was with my instructor who happened to be an ex-RNZAF squadron leader, a foxy fellow with a bag of cunning tricks as long as your tail-boom.

On one particular occasion, we were returning from a dual navex and getting quite close to the airfield's circuit at which point one does one's 'checks' which include such esoterica as instruments and controls and so forth.

I duly performed the checks while alternating glances about the sky for other aircraft approaching or in the circuit. On completion of the checks, I began my circuit entry at which point the instructor spoke a curt "I have control" whilst dismissively flicking my hands from the controls.

He took the aircraft back out of the circuit and asked me to run through the checks again, which I did for a moment before stopping mid sentence. The instrument panel had virtually all the gauges and dials zeroed. The instructor had pulled the electrical circuit breakers for the panel gauges prior to my performing my original checks.

The moral? We see what we want to see, or don't see what is there because our mindset at a particular moment prefers that. So visibility isn't so much about being conspicuous, in my opinion, but more to do with the observer's mindset at that moment.

If a cager's brain doesn't feel the need to see you, he/she won't.

Hi-vis can't do you any harm, but then neither will 500 watt strobes, sirens and a phalanx of Hell's Angels riding shotgun. But I'm probably not keen on their being compulsory either.

End of musing.

Andy.

[varminter]

Oh bugger, I'm thinking of getting a cruiser and I'm worried that I have a coloured helmet, now we have to wear high-vis too. Anyone told the biker gangs:eek5:

[Mom]

You see the same thing in a commercial aircraft when the seatbelt light goes off and the monkeys undo everything. If you are just sitting there, keep the belt done up but loosened off a bit.

I had an aunt and uncle on a flight between San Francisco and Sydney years ago, where there were passengers with broken bones during a massive, unexpected bout of turbulence. Hostesses on the cabin roof at speed, kind of drop in the sky. Never take your seat belt off.

As for the fluro thing, not for this gal. I dont wear it, I have once, no twice now, and will be wearing it on every ACC protest I attend. Great graphics on them :yes:

Reflectors are the way to go. I saw the benefit of this last year on the big Westpac ride we did through Tauranga/Rotorua etc. It was dark, oh and wet ( but that was all day long) when we left the Helicopter base at Mechanics Bay. The other riders with us were up ahead and they stuck out like the perverbial due to their reflective stripes on the fluro vests. I thought then that was a good time to be wearing it. No compulsion though thank you very much. The colours clash with my eyes :yes:

[cagnitto]

in terms of compulsory hi res stuff, i vote no.

my last bike got written off as the lady who was driving didn't see a big brown guy on a bright red bike. add to that, it was a picture perfect day.
i dont think hi-res would have made a difference in this case.

that said, i do use a hi res vest, only when i ride at peak times. i've found that the number of times i need to hit the brakes because of a car making a stupid move has reduced heaps.

[Shadows]

Would you agree to compulsory high visibility vests/clothing?

Fuck. Off.

And I don't have to provide a reason.

[Stormer]

Hi vis vests???!!!!!!
Piss off...and don`t say anymore about it anywhere else otherwise some suit wearing retard is going to bloody well suggest it...and then that`ll be the NEXT new "law".

[munster]

There is no no real proof it would make any difference to lower bike accidents... especially if you throw in motion incuded blindness

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_mib/

That is freaky!

I wear hi-vis when I want to. Usually when I have one of the kids on the back. By myself I don't.

[pete376403]

you know there are thigns that note that cagers dont see us even when they look straight at us due to the fact they are not looking for somethign as small as a fat person on a motorbike there are looking for a fat person in a cage.

though on that note i have to admit when i have been whearing my fluro vest for advertising bikoi i have noticed cagers pay more attention to me at intercection and round abouts.

That cos they think you're a cop

[marigami]

I would not recommand the fluo vest mandatory for all but here is my experience in France.
6 months ago government made fluo vest mandatory for all car drivers to wear it when they have to go on the road after an accident or when changing tyres....
So all car drivres have to have this fluo inside their car and easily reachable in case of control.
Bikers do not have to.
But I should say that as years passed I bought a fluo vest and stardted to wear it (along with my friends) during the night or in misty days (or night) especially on high speed roads (with no light at all) or small roads.
It is not useful in town though.
Sometimes I had my vest on sometimes not and I can't say it was safer to have it or not but I felt safer (well in a way) especially as none of my bikes has special lights for misty weather (as cars do).
Sorry for my lack of english vocabulary BTW.
But it is also very true that car drivers are mostly not really aware to focus on the road and to be very careful of what's happening in front, rear, sides.
Most of them (I mean at least in france) does not really use their inside mirror or just a sight checking with their own eyes (are bikers should do anyway).
Very often I nearly had accidents because the car drivers did not see me : of course I have dark helmet ( I'm not ever wearing a pink or "girly" helmet yerk) and mostly black gear (with reflectives bands everywhere) and I'm very petite but that's not the point.
During day time we should all be seen not point for the car driver (as most said to me afterwards) : "sorry I have not seen you"!
Hey what about magnifying glasses or lenses you stupid.
It just because you only look straight forward and forgot the rest.
Pffff
So i Do not think having to wear a fluo vest as mandatory would lower the rate of accidents.
It all have cause on common sense and during the training for driving licence.
Sorry guys for this long post and my language.

[cs363]

Proof positive that fluoro vests, looking like a cop or whatever will not help when dealing with retards:

<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/855_1251875721"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/855_1251875721" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>

[mowgli]

Proof positive that fluoro vests, looking like a cop or whatever will not help when dealing with retards:
That's gotta be the quickest ambo response in history............ p/t

[ready4whatever]

I didnt believe it but i saw a tribesman gangster wearing a hi viz vest over his patch the other day, probably the smartest one I've seen. Pity his helmet consists of a thin metal layer, no padding :bye:

[Mystic13]

Yep but once we're all wearing flouro vests will it be followed with flouro pants and boots. Heck why not just make it compulsory to fit a large flashing light on top of the helmet.

Or you could run education campaigns on TV and take a tougher stance with motorists that are at fault 40% of the time.

The fluoro vests are a bit naff. If i have to wear fluoro then i want cars to have a flouro stripe painted down the middle in both directions so they look like they're tied with a fluoro ribbon and gift wrapped.

I have LED's on my bike that light the thing up at night although I understand those have just been made illegal. So that would be something supr Hi Viz is banned.