High-Viz: Have you been hit by a car?

[p.dath]

I'm curious about what difference wearing high viz gear makes. Yep, I've heard (I think) all the arguments either way. Now I just want to know if it has actually makes a difference.

For those people who have been hit by a car while riding a motorcycle (and if you have been hit more than once, use the "worst" hit) please vote so we can see what difference it makes. I'm only interested in impacts from cars.

If it makes a difference, you would expect a lot more people to have been hit who weren't wearing a high-viz vest. It it makes no difference you would expect the numbers to be about the same.

[DEVVIL]

Unless riders that wear Hi Vis are more careful riders?
Put to me by MSTRS made me think.

[Usarka]

If it makes a difference, you would expect a lot more people to have been hit who weren't wearing a high-viz vest. It it makes no difference you would expect the numbers to be about the same.

If the numbers are lower then the actual vest itself is not necessarily the cause. Check out this wikipedia..../Correlation_does_not_imply_causation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation)

The actual cause may be that vest wearers are naturally more cautious (as per devil above).

So your poll won't actually answer the question about whether wearing a vest makes a difference or not.

[slofox]

I was hit by a car and I wasn't wearing a hi-viz vest...they weren't invented in the olden days...

[cold comfort]

Absolutely, as the man says, not a randomized controlled trial. Too many confounding variables. i.e worthless.

[Dave Lobster]

I was wearing a high vis COAT when I was hit, while standing still at a set of traffic lights. I think I'd have struggled to be any more visible!!

[gw555]

well I have been hit by a car twice while wearing hi vis

once at a roundabout 50km/h zone and once on the motorway at 100km/h.

stopped wearing a hi vis and now wear a black and yellow jacket haven't been hit!!!

[Highlander]

Have never hit or been hit by a car.
Have noticed less close calls when wearing a hi Viz vest.
Possible that that has as much to do with my riding experience as the increased visibility.

$10 to buy a Glow vest, costs nothing to wear it.
If it means only one other road user sees me when they otherwise would not have, there by avoiding a collision, it has paid for istself in un measurable multiples.

[Rhys]

if people can not see your lights, do you think that hi viz is gooding to help?

[Highlander]

There is nothing that will make them see if they don't look. That is a large part of the problem.

[Smifffy]

Sorry, I can't participate.

I have not been hit by a car.

Edit: If i do get hit by a car I will most likely not be wearing a hi-vis vest, unless it has been made compulsory between now and then.

[Hitcher]

Mr Dath, I generally accept fatally flawed polls as par for the course on Kiwi Biker (Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes? No?) but I expected you to set the bar somewhat higher.

There are way too many variables in car vs motorcycle collisions for some post coital glow that is endeavouring to surmise whether or not fluoro vests may have been a contributor.

In most cases I have observed with motorcycle riders wearing fluoro vests, other apparel and things like back packs, top boxes and pillions can successfully occlude any visibility benefit that may be attributable to a fluoro device.

Fluoro devices, whether for construction workers, cyclists, people crossing the road at night, or whomever, have generally been initially encouraged because people think that they do no harm and may make a positive difference. Then regulators gain heads of steam and, without any quantitative evidence or indeed consultation, make the fucking things compulsory.

The same thing will happen with motorcycles. I can feel it coming.

[Voltaire]

Yep,it will be a lot easier to enforce the wearing of a $15.00 bit of orange waistcoat than anything else. I wear one these days....doesn't stop the idiots doing U turns in front of me.
Still think the steering mounted glass spike at chest level would be the best.:innocent:

[hayd3n]

my bike hit a car but i wasnt on it.
me and my pillion managed to jump off up a hill, i wasnt even liable for the cars damages .

location
devils staircase
i arrived at a accident scene mid blind corner travelliong at approx 70-100kms
high vis wouldent of mattered at all
but still i havnt claimed acc on a motorcycle
\its funny how they have now made that same corner a 65 km corner

[slofox]

Half of the problem with glo vests is that every man and his dog are wearing them - thereby making then less noticeable. "When everyone is somebody, then no one's anybody" (to borrow from G&S). IYKWIM.

Same with having bike headlights on. As cars start using daytime headlights as well, bikes become less noticeable in the ocean of lights.

Self defeating.

[p.dath]

Half of the problem with glo vests is that every man and his dog are wearing them - thereby making then less noticeable.

Funny you should say that. I had to do a job down at the Ports of Auckland a couple of years ago. One of the requirements is that anything that moves (such as a car) has to have a flashing light.

The thing is, there were so many flashing lights that I simply started to ignore the flashing lights - as that was the new "normal". It didn't signify anything more dangerous than anything else.

[Neon]

One view that is rarely discussed is the effect wearing a hi-viz has on the rider's perception of visibility to other road users. That is, I am wearing a hi-viz therefore I am more visible. A critical error in thinking for a motorcycle rider if ever there was one.

My personal experience is more 'events' while wearing one. That said, I can also testify to a generally positive correlation between wearing a hi-viz and the observed stupidity of other road users around me. The 'L plate' effect perhaps.

[Neon]

Yep,it will be a lot easier to enforce the wearing of a $15.00 bit of orange waistcoat than anything else.

$15? ACC are giving them away to anyone who wants one. Shit, it's like they just found all this extra money from somewhere and don't know what to do with it all!

They are softening us up for mandatory hi-viz. Low cost, easily enforced and ticks all the boxes of the feel-good look-everyone-we're-making-motorcycling-SAFER crowd.

[sunhuntin]

i only wear one when i know im going to be out in low light. chances are the top box defeats the purpose, but it makes me feel a little bit safer. doesnt mean i ride with more or less caution than normal.
ive learned to keep my riding the same no matter what im wearing after i tried wearing one day to day, in all weather. i found it turned me into a wuss and had me jumping at everything that moved. that even transferred to when i was a passenger in a car.
soon as i ditched the vest, and forced myself to readjust, my confidence returned. this was after id been riding for a while, including 1 trip to bluff and back, so i wasnt exactly a newbie.

if im going to be loaded down and slower than normal, i often throw the fluoro over the top box and dangle the reflective strip down. im not sure why i do that, but, again, it makes me feel better.

[Drew]

Mr Dath, I generally accept fatally flawed polls as par for the course on Kiwi Biker (Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes? No?) but I expected you to set the bar somewhat higher.

There are way too many variables in car vs motorcycle collisions for some post coital glow that is endeavouring to surmise whether or not fluoro vests may have been a contributor.

In most cases I have observed with motorcycle riders wearing fluoro vests, other apparel and things like back packs, top boxes and pillions can successfully occlude any visibility benefit that may be attributable to a fluoro device.

Fluoro devices, whether for construction workers, cyclists, people crossing the road at night, or whomever, have generally been initially encouraged because people think that they do no harm and may make a positive difference. Then regulators gain heads of steam and, without any quantitative evidence or indeed consultation, make the fucking things compulsory.

The same thing will happen with motorcycles. I can feel it coming.

The hi viz vest is a waste of time on the road and building site, once it's normal, the guy not wearing them stands out more than them who are.

Interesting result from the twelve poll voters though, a third of them have been hit while wearing a vest. Yet, no where near that percentage of all riders wear them. Ergo, you are more likely to be hit by a car while wearing a high vis vest than without.


THE NUMBERS DON'T LIE YA KNOW! Bwahahahahahahahahaha

[Highlander]

$15? ACC are giving them away to anyone who wants one. Shit, it's like they just found all this extra money from somewhere and don't know what to do with it all!

They are softening us up for mandatory hi-viz. Low cost, easily enforced and ticks all the boxes of the feel-good look-everyone-we're-making-motorcycling-SAFER crowd.

I got an ACC one. The zip broke the first time I put it on and after that it wouldn't do up.
Don't now why I expected better from ACC.

[phill-k]

To make the poll more relevant you also need to poll who wears one and who doesn't. I would put money on it that the results will mirror each other, i.e. the vests don't make a crock of difference.

[Voltaire]

Interesting result from the twelve poll voters though, a third of them have been hit while wearing a vest. Yet, no where near that percentage of all riders wear them. Ergo, you are more likely to be hit by a car while wearing a high vis vest than without.


They do say that you 'steer' with you eyes....if you look at a pothole you will hit it...you have to look away....If eyes focus on the HiVis.....hmmmm:innocent:

[pritch]

The same thing will happen with motorcycles. I can feel it coming.

Your pessimism is noted, but sadly you may be right.

Normally nobody I ride with wears the stuff. I have just returned from a group tour of the South though, and most of the riders were wearing fetching shades of yellow or orange.

I found it useful when arriving in a strange town (and some of those southern towns are a bit strange :devil2: ) The dayglo stuff outside made it easy to spot the local Cafe...

[rastuscat]

One view that is rarely discussed is the effect wearing a hi-viz has on the rider's perception of visibility to other road users. That is, I am wearing a hi-viz therefore I am more visible. A critical error in thinking for a motorcycle rider if ever there was one.


Right, you've found a remarkably simple way to improve our safety.

Paint your bike and self in invisibility paint, then ride like nobody can see you.

Hold on, why not just ride like nobody can see you, it'll save a fortune in paint.

Donuts.:woohoo:

[Neon]

I wrote another post about this subject (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/131986-Thursday-s-Dominion-Rd-crash-killing-a-biker?p=1129929428#post1129929428) a while back. Common sense tells us that increasing your visibility should result in drivers of other vehicles having a better chance of seeing you. Sadly, what scientifically valid evidence exists does not support this argument. :blink:

It is simply not possible for the human brain to process every piece of information it receives into the visual cortex. The brain economises by ignoring most of it and focusing mainly on threats (this is the primitive low-level stuff that we are hard-wired to do). The rest of the picture is 'filled in' by the brain, based on what it expects to be there. Other road users not expecting to see motorcycles is the real issue. Solution = more motorcycles on the road, everywhere you look. :woohoo:

edit: I am specifically referring to daytime use of hi-viz, not low-light or night time use. This is entirely different. Motorcycles can almost literally become invisible in these conditions (particularly from the back), and even more so when weather is unfavourable.

[ops.normal]

The polling would be more valid with a couple of extra options (noted those who said too many already - sorry :D)

To try and correlate data like this options should be:

Wears a vest and hasn't been hit
Wears a vest and has been hit
Doesn't wear a vest and hasn't been hit
Doesn't wear a vest and has been hit.

From my short time riding, I've had a cage pull out in front of me in the early evening wearing no vest - I think they only saw me when my front forks took a dive like Thierry Henry. I haven't had any major scares (touch wood) while sporting the vomit orange.


Another small thing to add to the mix...a mate of mine with a green ute had people pull out in front of him all the time on the open road till he started using his head lights. His gut feeling was colour blindness was at least partially to blame.

The idea of having a dark colour bike like black or deep blue, or a colour blindness colour like the VFR800 deep red might be offset by having a hi vis on. Contrast and movement are the things most likely to be spotted by the human eye.

/drivel ;)

[Smifffy]

The polling would be more valid with a couple of extra options (noted those who said too many already - sorry :D)

To try and correlate data like this options should be:

Wears a vest and hasn't been hit
Wears a vest and has been hit
Doesn't wear a vest and hasn't been hit
Doesn't wear a vest and has been hit.

From my short time riding, I've had a cage pull out in front of me in the early evening wearing no vest - I think they only saw me when my front forks took a dive like Thierry Henry. I haven't had any major scares (touch wood) while sporting the vomit orange.


Another small thing to add to the mix...a mate of mine with a green ute had people pull out in front of him all the time on the open road till he started using his head lights. His gut feeling was colour blindness was at least partially to blame.

The idea of having a dark colour bike like black or deep blue, or a colour blindness colour like the VFR800 deep red might be offset by having a hi vis on. Contrast and movement are the things most likely to be spotted by the human eye.

/drivel ;)

Additional options:
Cage driving hit rider in a vest
Cage driving hit rider sans vest
Cage driving never hit a rider

[baptist]

Your pessimism is noted, but sadly you may be right.

Normally nobody I ride with wears the stuff. I have just returned from a group tour of the South though, and most of the riders were wearing fetching shades of yellow or orange.

I found it useful when arriving in a strange town (and some of those southern towns are a bit strange :devil2: ) The dayglo stuff outside made it easy to spot the local Cafe...

You found a use for them!:woohoo:

I have had a car pull out of a parking space and nearly take me out, I was stationary at a set of lights and wearing hi vis, also had a bus crossing two lanes (almost aimed the thing at me) cutting me up big time while wearing one:eek:

The jacket I normally wear has different colours on the shoulders, top torso and sleeves, the broken colours make it stand out so not sure how much better a hi vis is. I do always wear hi vis in turn of light and dark / rain conditions just to be safe. When I have my Ventura bag on the bike I do put a hi vis patch on that as standard...

[Theflash]

FYI: Looks like someone has finally gotten it into their heads that visability for motorcycles and protection is a problem . my daughter got stopped today on Dominion Rd, there was a traffic cop and an ACC worker checking her riding apparel.
They gave her this form (attached I hope) to fill out and send back to them, they said they would send her a High Viz and the chance to win $250 in riding apparel.


http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/album.php?albumid=3967&attachmentid=233211

If you cant access it, tell me, I'll upload elsewhere.

[Berries]

Top questionnaire. Two questions missing though -

How many wheels has a motorbike got ?
A. One B. Two C. Three

Does a motorbike have a steering wheel or handlebars ?

I would fill it in myself just for the free hi-viz, but I imagine we will all be getting them in the post next time we register a bike.

[oneofsix]

I may not have been wearing a hi-vis vest when I was hit by a car but I was wearing a highly visible red bike jacket with black contrast and reflective piping.
Interestingly enough black is highly noticeable. Part of our survival instinct to look out for dark things (shadows). I'm sure when tested we go for the pretty bright colours even though e notice the dark one first.

[sinned]

As the number of riders wearing hi vis stuff increase drivers may look with less care than they do now. They will not be looking for a bike but a quick glance for a bit of hi vis. The result; more accidents from 'sorry I didn't see you' rather than less.

[avgas]

I'm curious about what difference wearing high viz gear makes. Yep, I've heard (I think) all the arguments either way. Now I just want to know if it has actually makes a difference.

For those people who have been hit by a car while riding a motorcycle (and if you have been hit more than once, use the "worst" hit) please vote so we can see what difference it makes. I'm only interested in impacts from cars.

If it makes a difference, you would expect a lot more people to have been hit who weren't wearing a high-viz vest. It it makes no difference you would expect the numbers to be about the same.
Errrmmm I hate to bring up but its the age old "stats don't count for shit" scenario.

- How many people road with hi-viz in the pre-2000 years?
- How many people had motorbikes pre-2000 in comparison to post-2000?

I honestly can not remember a single soul on a motorbike pre-2000 whom wore a hi-viz. Yet I can tell you that I know lots of people whom crashed pre-2000.

So in this situation Correlation does not imply Causation. In either scenario.

I can't wait to see the next poll.
"Whom has crashed a 100hp bike?" vs "Whom hasn't crashed a 100hp bike?"
Seeing as back in the days people rode 80hp superbikes and crashed.......

[p.dath]

I honestly can not remember a single soul on a motorbike pre-2000 whom wore a hi-viz. Yet I can tell you that I know lots of people whom crashed pre-2000.

I didn't ask about people who crashed. I asked about people who were hit by a car, and I'm sure if you've been around a while you will know people pre-2000 who were hit by cars.

It seems that sightly more people get hit not wearing a vest than do. Not greatly so.

I've been reading the invisible gorilla psychology book. It says their experiments show that 50% of the time if a person is not expecting to see something, even if they are looking directly at it, then their brain wont see it.
If this is the case, then there should be almost no difference weather you wear a high viz vest or not.

The difference is little so far, so it seems this might be true. I didn't ask about the time of the accident either. It's possible that high-viz makes more of a difference at night time - when those that are are expecting to see a bike can't because of the environment.

[John_H]

I can't be bothered to read all the posts but do you realise that this poll will not give any sort or representation as to the effectiveness of fluro as there are far more people who don't wear vests, so the numbers will be misleading as more of them will be voting.

[Drew]

I can't be bothered to read all the posts but do you realise that this poll will not give any sort or representation as to the effectiveness of fluro as there are far more people who don't wear vests, so the numbers will be misleading as more of them will be voting.
You'd think so. But over a third of the voters have been hit while wearing a vest, and far fewer riders than that wear them.

Don't wear a vest, cars start aiming for you rather than just not seeing you!

[p.dath]

I can't be bothered to read all the posts but do you realise that this poll will not give any sort or representation as to the effectiveness of fluro as there are far more people who don't wear vests, so the numbers will be misleading as more of them will be voting.

When consider the ratio of high-viz to non high-viz riders, then this would suggest even more that wearing high-viz during the day makes no difference.

[John_H]

When consider the ratio of high-viz to non high-viz riders, then this would suggest even more that wearing high-viz during the day makes no difference.

More likely that they have seen the thread title and it sparked their interest to participate more so than the non wearers as it is something close to their hearts. Their are far too many variables to take this grossly oversimplified poll seriously.

[avgas]

I didn't ask about people who crashed. I asked about people who were hit by a car, and I'm sure if you've been around a while you will know people pre-2000 who were hit by cars.

It seems that sightly more people get hit not wearing a vest than do. Not greatly so.

I've been reading the invisible gorilla psychology book. It says their experiments show that 50% of the time if a person is not expecting to see something, even if they are looking directly at it, then their brain wont see it.
If this is the case, then there should be almost no difference weather you wear a high viz vest or not.

The difference is little so far, so it seems this might be true. I didn't ask about the time of the accident either. It's possible that high-viz makes more of a difference at night time - when those that are are expecting to see a bike can't because of the environment.
bwaahahahahahaha so you don't know what your actually asking.
I was going to comment - but I think you need to figure out the facts on your own this time.
hahahahahahahahahahahaha

[p.dath]

bwaahahahahahaha so you don't know what your actually asking.
I was going to comment - but I think you need to figure out the facts on your own this time.
hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Read it again. It says exactly what I meant.

[Toaster]

After the crash they interviewed the sheep and asked if it saw the high visibility vest. The sheep declined to comment.

[bogan]

More likely that they have seen the thread title and it sparked their interest to participate more so than the non wearers as it is something close to their hearts. Their are far too many variables to take this grossly oversimplified poll seriously.

excellent point, there must be another poll option so those who ignored this thread due to lack of interest in high vis can be counted :facepalm:

Seriously though p.dath, there have been correlative studies done on this already, and in NZ (auckland) too, but all they are is correlative studies. There are no studies examining the causal link between high vis and accident rate, simply because it is nearly impossible (fucking expensive) to separate it from all the other variables.

[p.dath]

Seriously though p.dath, there have been correlative studies done on this already, and in NZ (auckland) too, but all they are is correlative studies. There are no studies examining the causal link between high vis and accident rate, simply because it is nearly impossible (fucking expensive) to separate it from all the other variables.

I don't think it would be expensive. You need a group of riders, and then to randomly assign them the task of either wearing a vest or not. Then a year or two later come back to the group, and see how many have been hit by cars.

[scumdog]

But seriously, how do you measure if a hi-vis vest has worked?

Do you have drivers calling an 0800 number to say "Yeah mate, if he hadn't been wearing that vest I'd have hit him for sure'?:blink:

[oneofsix]

I don't think it would be expensive. You need a group of riders, and then to randomly assign them the task of either wearing a vest or not. Then a year or two later come back to the group, and see how many have been hit by cars.

that would be a sound way to do it. It would have to be a large group of riders though. You would have to be careful to ensure the mix of rider types in both groups were the same, a large enough selection of riders could overcome this.
Then it would be the number of hi-vis rider crashes compared to non hi-vis.
Sub studies from this could look at distribution of collisions, scooter vs learner vs big bike and town vs highway.
Personally I think people report seeing the hi-vis cause it pretty, but what they first notice is the dark shadow. I have been noting that I see the bike and rider, then the hi-vis but tend to remember the hi-vis. So a study like you propose removes the memory/attractive element and looks at the actual effectiveness.

[The Stranger]

I'm curious about what difference wearing high viz gear makes. Yep, I've heard (I think) all the arguments either way. Now I just want to know if it has actually makes a difference.

For those people who have been hit by a car while riding a motorcycle (and if you have been hit more than once, use the "worst" hit) please vote so we can see what difference it makes. I'm only interested in impacts from cars.

If it makes a difference, you would expect a lot more people to have been hit who weren't wearing a high-viz vest. It it makes no difference you would expect the numbers to be about the same.

Ah wouldn't the number not hit by a car be more significant?
I wear black leather most of the time and use a black helmet and haven't been hit by a car yet so we can safely conclude hi-vis is a crock.

[bogan]

I don't think it would be expensive. You need a group of riders, and then to randomly assign them the task of either wearing a vest or not. Then a year or two later come back to the group, and see how many have been hit by cars.

It would have to be a large group to ensure significant number were hit, likely well over 1000. and each rider would have to alternate between normal and high vis clothing, then figure out who got hit wearing what.

[p.dath]

It would have to be a large group to ensure significant number were hit, likely well over 1000. and each rider would have to alternate between normal and high vis clothing, then figure out who got hit wearing what.


Negative. You don't alternate clothing or you invalidate the experiment. Other factors, like increased riding time could impact the result.

Whatever they were assigned to do, they would have to keep on doing.

[R-Soul]

$15? ACC are giving them away to anyone who wants one. Shit, it's like they just found all this extra money from somewhere and don't know what to do with it all!

They are softening us up for mandatory hi-viz. Low cost, easily enforced and ticks all the boxes of the feel-good look-everyone-we're-making-motorcycling-SAFER crowd.

Where are ACc handing them out?

[R-Soul]

But seriously, how do you measure if a hi-vis vest has worked?

Do you have drivers calling an 0800 number to say "Yeah mate, if he hadn't been wearing that vest I'd have hit him for sure'?:blink:

Thats why you have teh control group without teh hi-viz. To comapre teh number of accidents.
Of course, the hi-viz riders are probably more safety conscious and ride more carefully. :shutup:

[oneofsix]

Thats why you have teh control group without teh hi-viz. To comapre teh number of accidents.
Of course, the hi-viz riders are probably more safety conscious and ride more carefully. :shutup:

thats why you have to start with a random selection. so some of those who would have chosen to wear hi-vis will end up in the non-wearers group, and some hi risk takers in the hi-vis group.

[CookMySock]

I had a car move into my, er, lane when I filtering. Bar got caught under door handle, hubcap was munting against my boot... not amusing.. and he KNEW I was there - he just wanted to race me through the roundabout.. or was it me wanting to race him through the roundabout.. :blink: Anyway, I forget which. No matter. :corn:

[bogan]

Negative. You don't alternate clothing or you invalidate the experiment. Other factors, like increased riding time could impact the result.

Whatever they were assigned to do, they would have to keep on doing.

Alternating clothing is the only way to stop the other effects impacting the result, think about it, same rider, same bike, same route (if done with commuters), the only difference is the high vis or not.

[Neon]

Where are ACc handing them out?

At the ACC training day, at NASS a month ago, and as I understand it - if you happen to be selected to receive a special "no booking required" road-side education session.

[yachtie10]

Where are ACc handing them out?

they are suposed to be available at motorcyle shops (for free) at least in Auckland anyway. my guess is they would rather sell you one than give you a free ACC one.

[p.dath]

they are suposed to be available at motorcyle shops (for free) at least in Auckland anyway. my guess is they would rather sell you one than give you a free ACC one.

To be fair, the ACC freebies are of pretty low quality. I've been few a couple of them already. The zip tends to fall apart.

[Phreak]

Does it count if my bike is painted bright orange? Repsol colors...! But nah, I don't wear a high-vis, although I'd consider getting a good armoured jacket if it had high-vis orange on it (not keen on having another layer on over top of my jacket, especially one that flaps around in the wind like crazy...)

[scracha]

The hi viz vest is a waste of time on the road and building site, once it's normal, the guy not wearing them stands out more than them who are.


I dunno...I used to wear one commuting in and out of Edinburgh for a few years. During the day, I'm not sure the florescent parts made much difference*. Night time was a different story; the reflectors in the vest made a HUGE difference. On nights where I was just in leathers, going by the number of cars cutting me up**, I'd swear to gawd I was invisible.

Side and rear visibility of most motorcycles at night is piss poor, so if you can't stomach the thought of wearing a high vis vest, then reflective strips on the side of the bike or helmet are not a bad idea. Bonus is that they're pretty much invisible during the day.

Night time aside, I'm CONVINCED ACC and the police are on the wrong track with this lights on/ high vis vest thing. At the risk of agreeing with Katman, proper rider training is the answer. When they're sat at a junction, c@r drivers are programmed to look for a large shiny metal object in the middle of the road....not an ickle motorcycle who's "keeping left". Even if they see us, they may just glance and their brain often makes a (wrong) distance/speed judgment based on the size of the approaching vehicle. Proper rider training in NZ would result in riders, seeking eye contact with drivers, (always) seeking an escape route, adjusting their speed, rotating their head/torso*** and better positioning their motorcycles on approaching junctions or passing side-roads with vehicles ready to pull out. Positioning your motorcycle in the spot where a car should be is vital in these situations. Having 4x100W headlamps on full beam, a bright coloured motorcycle and a high vis vest is no use if the driver simply hasn't clocked your bike.

Obviously proper DRIVER training in NZ would stop a lot of the cunts pulling out in front of us in the first place.

*apart from filtering as cars moved out of the way quicker as they thought it might be a copper
**and ped lemmings walking out in front of me
** eyes detect movement and this has successfully prevented one dipshit who hadn't made eye contact with me pulling out.

[Smifffy]

Perhaps if every cager who say "I didn't see them" is charged
with careless, reckless or dangerous driving, then maybe the SMIDSY incidents would decrease and hi-vis wouldn't be necessary.


What is careless driving?


If you drive without reasonable consideration for other people or you fail to drive with the care and attention that a reasonable and sensible driver would exercise in the circumstance you will be driving carelessly. This may relate to excess speed, failing to make the proper signals and observe other road rules. It may also relate to not driving in a way that suits the driving conditions (e.g. weather, road surface, traffic flow, light conditions). Remember this now includes skateboarders, roller skaters and roller bladers.


What is the penalty for careless driving?


The maximum fine is $3,000. You can also be disqualified from driving if the Court thinks it's necessary.

Generally the fine tends to be around $150 - $200 plus Court costs of $130.

If you cause injury or death the penalty is much worse - a maximum of 3 months imprisonment and/or a fine up to $4,500 and disqualification for at least 6 months.

The penalty is more serious if you cause injury or death and you were speeding, overtaking or driving on the wrong side of the road at the time – a maximum of 3 years imprisonment and/or a fine up to $10,000 and disqualification for at least 1 year.


What happens if I'm suspected of careless driving?


If you're caught at the scene, the officer will give you a ticket and you will later receive a Summons, which is given to you in person. If someone else reports your driving, you will be interviewed and if you are found at fault issued a notice and in time a summons.

[sportsbikesrock]

I was intentionally reversed upon - kinda beside the point cos I was seen. Yeah tell me about it wtf!? I was okay scoot was okay main thing I suppose, kinda making me want a bike more now after that. Never worn a high viz vest, but my jacket is white with red.

[apes]

personally i've never been hit by a tin can and i've never worn a high vis vest, but i do presume everyone out there is determined to knock me off, yet i still ride like a loony from time to time.
with regards to the low side on visibility of a bike at night, the same is true of a car and remember when passing a car the greater the space you leave between you and the car, the longer you spend in their blind spot

[grbaker]

Half of the problem with glo vests is that every man and his dog are wearing them - thereby making then less noticeable. "When everyone is somebody, then no one's anybody" (to borrow from G&S). IYKWIM.

Same with having bike headlights on. As cars start using daytime headlights as well, bikes become less noticeable in the ocean of lights.

Self defeating.

Bang on. yesterday everyone was slowing down on the motorway as the approached are particular late model car that was driver by a chap wearing a very HiViz jacket.
Seemed people thought 'Cop, better slow down.'.. & he wasn't (Why people slow down from 90 to 75 when they see a cop in a 100km zone??)

I have seen construction workers (who wear high-viz bibs) driving home... same effect... so once wear are all decked out in neon yellow, orange & lime then the only visible bike rider standing out is the guy wearing black.

[p.dath]

I'm writing a research proposal to try and establish the causative effect of high-viz vests on the motorcycle accident rate.

One of the trickiest problems I'm trying to solve is how to get a random sample of road riders. Every method I can think of has a bias, the trick is to choose the one with the least bias.

I'm thinking the best approach might be to get all the "change of ownership" records for motorcycles for the last 10 years, take the most recent change, and then randomly select amongst those people. Some people own more than one bike, and those responses would obviously have to have the duplicates removed.

Pros that I can think of:

Includes those people with no licence.
Includes those people who do not have a registered bike.


Can you guys think of any good ways to get a random sample of motorcycle road riders?

[bogan]

I'm guessing you want a sample of active riders on NZ roads, including all license types? (including unlicensed) What about scoots?

I agree, hard to get a random sample of them, currently registered owners would be best I think. Change of ownership would bias it towards those who go through bikes quicker, and cut out the classics somewhat.

Another option is to do the sub-types, specify you want x amount from different groups and select them that way, then you could conclude that high vis is more/less helpful for the different groups.

Is the proposal to give some people vests and some not, or have people alternate between vest and not vest? I'm betting there would be benefits to doing it one way over the other, not a stats guru though so not sure which or why.

[Dave Lobster]

Some people own more than one bike, and those responses would obviously have to have the duplicates removed.



If it's going to be read by anyone from the government, you'll need to leave those duplicates in. Government counts each bike, rather than each rider. Hence the ACC levy per bike, rather than per rider.

[p.dath]

I agree, hard to get a random sample of them, currently registered owners would be best I think.

I did consider that, but it concerns me about the growing number of motorcyclists that I hear about not registering their bike because of the cost (aka ACC levy).

I guess I could consider all the bikes registered in a single year, such as 2009, to exclude the ACC effect.

That's why I started thinking about change of ownership forms. I'm pretty sure most people would want to file the change of ownership forms, and taking a sample of 10 years would hopefully catch a lot of riders. Personally, I don't know a single road rider who both rides a bike on the road, and has not bought a bike in the last 10 years.

[bogan]

I did consider that, but it concerns me about the growing number of motorcyclists that I hear about not registering their bike because of the cost (aka ACC levy).

I guess I could consider all the bikes registered in a single year, such as 2009, to exclude the ACC effect.

That's why I started thinking about change of ownership forms. I'm pretty sure most people would want to file the change of ownership forms, and taking a sample of 10 years would hopefully catch a lot of riders. Personally, I don't know a single road rider who both rides a bike on the road, and has not bought a bike in the last 10 years.

I mean the registered owner, as in who they have recorded as owning the bike (which is similar to what you would get form change of ownership forms), not the owner of a licensed bike (rego is technically vehicle licensing, which is what we skip paying acc on) bike. That way it'll cover all bikes in the system that are either currently licensed, or are on hold.

[Smifffy]

I did consider that, but it concerns me about the growing number of motorcyclists that I hear about not registering their bike because of the cost (aka ACC levy).



The govt doesn't care about those people because they are filthy criminals who have no right to be on the road anyway....

:innocent:

I look forward to more red bling from them that don't understand sarcasm so well.

[Lau]

Like others, I too have been struck by a car while at a standstill at an intersection, while dressed up like a dayglo disco fairy... I now refuse to wear hi-vis while riding and even if it becomes compulsary, I'll still flaut the law. I have come to the conclusion that most car drivers are too retarded to spot a fire engine or an ambulance. So regardless what you are wearing, chances are that you havn't been seen.

[pappito]

just another approach:

ACC says:
While one of the top two causes of those crashes is the motorcyclist losing control, the other cause is a motorist simply not seeing the rider.
(http://www.acc.co.nz/preventing-injuries/on-the-road/PI00052)

Clear and probaly true. But may I ask why the bikers has to pay higher levys for other motorists careless driving? Does HiViz make a difference?

I am not against the vests (even I don't want to see them compulsory) as I wore HiViz vest back in Europe when I rode my scooter in the city. If the cager won't see - you could wear anything, you gonna be hit. Now I have an orange/white/gray textile jacket with reflective stripes and stiches and the only advantage is it isn't as hot as the black ones in summer. That is all.

Night riding is different, but the only useful part of the HiViz jacket/vest is the reflective stripe on the back. It helps.

The bikers try everything, from Scotchlite to strobo breaklights, fluoro-lime helmets to loud pipes. There is no point to punish them with higher ACC levies and forget to educate the cagers also.

Have you seen the big, blueish,kerbside billboards about the distance you should give to a bicycle? (1.5 meters by the way) Have you seen another mentioning check your bloody mirrors continously to learn what is happening around you while you're cruising w/ your car? Have you seen one about the motorbikers? No? Surprise.

Actually, a very good example, the orange cones roadside. How many got hit by the passing cars - and all of them has a high visibility orange color and reflective stripes, they are sitting much closer to the drivers than us, and they aren't even moving :) What we could expect?

We are not enemies on the road, most of the bikers are cagers as well, aren't they?

Fortunatley, at least the motorway is getting better, most of the time, if the traffic is gridlocked, most of the drivers pull over a bit and let us go. (I spend a lovely 50km a day w/ them :) In the last six months there was only one case where the cager closed my way and did not let me go. It is not too bad, but I fear on normal roads the danger is more present.

[awa355]

No, I've never been hit by a vehicle while wearing my Hi Viz. But then, I have never been hit in the 43 years of riding before taking up wearing a Hi Viz jacket.

Am currently looking at what is avalible to reflect off my bike from the side. I ride a lot at night, and think that my side on presence is less noticable than my tail light,jacket strips and my headlight. Just dont want to turn my unit into a xmas tree.

[oneofsix]

No, I've never been hit by a vehicle while wearing my Hi Viz. But then, I have never been hit in the 43 years of riding before taking up wearing a Hi Viz jacket.

Am currently looking at what is avalible to reflect off my bike from the side. I ride a lot at night, and think that my side on presence is less noticable than my tail light,jacket strips and my headlight. Just dont want to turn my unit into a xmas tree.

Tron is coming to a bike in NZ :yes: Know of some that have fitted neon lights under the fairings