Help needed: Why a high-viz vest might not work

[p.dath]

I'm writing a proposal to try and get some research done. In part of my proposal I need to list reasons why a high-viz vest might not work. Note that I am not interested in weather the vests work or not.

Below is what I have so far. Anyone have any other ideas that I should consider?


• Inattentional blindess. Made famous by the “invisible gorilla” experiment, it basically found that you can’t see things you are not expecting to see. So if this principle applied then if a car driver isn’t expecting to see a motorcyclist they simply won’t. No matter what they are wearing.
• Threat detection. This hypothesis is based around the concept that car drivers brains are less likely to process the presence of a motorcyclist because their brain does not perceive a motorcyclist as a threat as it is a smaller object.
• Fixed cognitive ability. The human brain has a fixed cognitive capability. If the car drivers cognitive ability is being consumed on other activities such as stress, children, work, road works, road signage, sun strike, a child on the side of the road, etc, then they simply have less cognitive function left to be able to process other objects on the road like motorcylists.

[bogan]

motion camouflage, motorcyclist appears to be in a fixed position relative to the background, so is not recognised as a moving object.

[Usarka]

• Inattentional blindess. Made famous by the “invisible gorilla” experiment, it basically found that you can’t see things you are not expecting to see. So if this principle applied then if a car driver isn’t expecting to see a motorcyclist they simply won’t. No matter what they are wearing.
• Threat detection. This hypothesis is based around the concept that car drivers brains are less likely to process the presence of a motorcyclist because their brain does not perceive a motorcyclist as a threat as it is a smaller object.
• Fixed cognitive ability. The human brain has a fixed cognitive capability. If the car drivers cognitive ability is being consumed on other activities such as stress, children, work, road works, road signage, sun strike, a child on the side of the road, etc, then they simply have less cognitive function left to be able to process other objects on the road like motorcylists.

Seriously dude, none of those are reasons why high vis wouldn't work. In all your examples one could easily argue that high vis would be better than no high vis, and very hard to argue the opposite.

Maybe your question should be why don't car drivers see motorcycles, and then focus on the most significant causes.

[Smifffy]

I'm writing a proposal to try and get some research done. In part of my proposal I need to list reasons why a high-viz vest might not work. Note that I am not interested in weather the vests work or not.

Below is what I have so far. Anyone have any other ideas that I should consider?

Further to your second point, a hi-vis wearing rider is perceived as less of a threat than a couple of dudes all in black.

[Nasty]

The question is really what is it they are saying that "hi vis" works.

it gives little opportunity to do anything let alone work.

if you know what they are saying that makes it work that gives a starting point to refute their arguments.

[p.dath]

Seriously dude, none of those are reasons why high vis wouldn't work. In all your examples one could easily argue that high vis would be better than no high vis, and very hard to argue the opposite.

I already have reasons why it might work. I am only looking for reasons why it might not work.


Maybe your question should be why don't car drivers see motorcycles, and then focus on the most significant causes.

Way ahead of you. As I said, I only need help with this one little bit.

[Neon]

one could easily argue that high vis would be better than no high vis, and very hard to argue the opposite.

This is why we will eventually get compulsory hi-viz. It does not matter whether hi-viz actually improves visibility or helps prevent accidents, or does nothing at all. One would need to prove that it is in fact detrimental to the safety of the motorcyclist to counter this common perception.

As much as I don't like hi-viz, and as much as I'll argue that it does nothing to improve safety, I'm not sure it's possible to construct a valid argument that hi-viz makes matters worse. There might not even be one.

Unfortunately because they are basically costless, easily enforced and are visible 'runs on the board' for those whose performance is measured on such things, hi-viz are probably an inevitability. :(

And in three years time we'll be laughing at the posts titled 'cop gave me ticket cos my hi-viz isn't hi-viz enough', and shaking our heads at the folly of implementing a safety garment that fades after six months with normal use. :clap:

[Neon]

One argument could be that implementing a hi-viz policy could be detrimental to motorcycle safety if it compromises funding for other initiatives, presents issues with enforcement such as those mentioned regarding fading of the fluorescent dye (or accumulation of dirt), or there was some compelling research that concluded that bright colours induce motion camouflage more readily.

Vests prevent jacket ventilation from working efficiently, introduce distracting vibration at highway speeds (flapping), and could (this is pushing it a bit) affect the performance of jacket abrasion panels in an accident... :rolleyes:

You could take the approach of arguing that by the same logic black and grey coloured cars should be banned, and cyclists should also be required to wear hi-viz.

[cromagnon]

A distraction to the rider, the high vis is usually much larger in size as it is over the top of normal gear and flaps around in the wind.

[ajturbo]

implementing a safety garment that fades after six months with normal use. :clap:

lucky you put "normal use".... i have to wear one for work.. i have work in this new job for near 3 months... washing it once a week (cause it smells by then:baby:)
it is fucked

[Neon]

A distraction to the rider, the high vis is usually much larger in size as it is over the top of normal gear and flaps around in the wind.

Even when they fit properly they still vibrate/flap, and it is very distracting.

[Jantar]

I was quite suprised at the number of riders on the Southern Cross who were wearing Hi Vis. The interesting thing was that when following behind them the Hi vis really stood out, but when in front of them, it was the headlight that was noticeable, and the Hi Vis couldn't really be seen.

Remember also that as motorcyclists we were all looking for other motorcyclists. What this showed was that Hi Vis stands out when you are expecting to see something, but dosen't stand out if you aren't expecting to see it.

I don't think anyone can claim that Hi Vis reduces safety, but also I don't believe that it increases safety for motorcyclists either.

[BMWST?]

there are to many hi viz wearers now.....it will get to the point soon that you blend into the hi viz background.....then it will be tha e same argument about why cars should not have their headlights on in the day time....motorcyclists will become invisible

[KiWiP]

Because some people are dicks and pull in front of things the shouldn't e.g. bikes, cars, trucks, trains.

Don't suppose this helps but it makes me feel better

I don't wear hiviz because I don't believe it works to attract attention to you. When I was knocked off I was wearing hiviz and it didn't help.

In your research you might look at road workers getting struck and police motorcycles with high viz bikes they still get people pulling out in front of them

p.s. good thing to study:niceone:

[Berries]

Anyone have any other ideas that I should consider?
The three you have listed all relate to the other road user. What about the rider? Does their behaviour/attitude change when they are wearing hi-viz because they unconsciously believe that they are highly visible? Are they likely to be involved in more car vs bike crashes? Not the kind of thing you can use a simulator for, but an interesting study all the same.

Still, if they decide we are having them we are having them, although I would be surprised if cyclists weren't targeted first.

EDIT. Although it could be seen as clutching at straws (which I think you are anyway on this topic), you could use colour blindness as well. I could see bright yellow jackets when people on the road used them. Now they are fluoro orange they blend in with the trees and everything else. Extremely low-viz in fact.

[Oblivion]

Maybe ( Just thinking from a weird perspective here) but, Hi viz could sometimes make a cage driver more aware of you ,trying to keep himself out of the way as much as possible. Because he is concentrating on you, he loses his ability to make sense of the things around him, making said person make rash decisions/ lose all concentration of things in front of him.

I think this post is complete bullshit, But hey, you never know what these turkeys are gonna do sometimes.

[steve_t]

The three you have listed all relate to the other road user. What about the rider? Does their behaviour/attitude change when they are wearing hi-viz because they unconsciously believe that they are highly visible? Are they likely to be involved in more car vs bike crashes?

I think any statistics collected would favour hi vis but this would probably be due to the fact that a rider who chooses to wear hi vis is already a very careful/wary rider. Corrected for this, I'd imagine hi vis has no statistically significant effect at all.

I wonder if anyone in hi vis has been hit due to driver 'target fixation'

[Usarka]

Way ahead of you. As I said, I only need help with this one little bit.

Fair enough, but my point is that your examples are not valid or logical.

Only two reasons then.

1. Using your threat analogy, car drivers may see high vis as low threat (as opposed to a gang member in black on a harley with a german helmet). I don't think the govt will want us patching up so this is a red herring.

2. Hi Vis may have a negative effect where there is little background contrast, ie glare around dawn/dusk.

[Bounce001]

What about the basic fact that when you are wearing hi-viz you just 'blend' in to all the other colours around you and are less likely to be seen. Whereas a rider wearing black is seen as a threat and more likely to be noticed because of this.

[Pascal]

Below is what I have so far. Anyone have any other ideas that I should consider?

What about familiarity? This may be a long shot; but people may be used to seeing hi-viz vests on roadworkers, etc. Combine that with motion camouflage and it can very well become easy to ignore the motorcyclist as just another roadworker.

[rickstv]

I don't know about you guys, but when I'm in my car and see a hi vis jacket, I'm expecting it to be on the side of the road leaning on a shovel not hurtling towards me at the speed limit. This may change in the future though. Just a thought.
Rick

[george formby]

I was quite suprised at the number of riders on the Southern Cross who were wearing Hi Vis. The interesting thing was that when following behind them the Hi vis really stood out, but when in front of them, it was the headlight that was noticeable, and the Hi Vis couldn't really be seen.

Remember also that as motorcyclists we were all looking for other motorcyclists. What this showed was that Hi Vis stands out when you are expecting to see something, but dosen't stand out if you aren't expecting to see it.

I don't think anyone can claim that Hi Vis reduces safety, but also I don't believe that it increases safety for motorcyclists either.

I had the exact same experience recently. No indication of hi viz until long after I had seen the headlight.

From another motorists perspective, the only other Hi Viz they are accustomed too belong to road workers, surveyors etc. I believe some drivers will assume stationary person before they think bike, particularly in urban traffic where a headlight may be obscured.

[MSTRS]

The hi-viz question amounts to nothing more than theory.

There is only one way to be sure of anything...real world case studies.
And there is only one way for one of those to be carried out...
A random selection of bikers (say 1000 minimum) who are given hi-viz to wear, and are instructed to ride however they normally do.
A second (control) group chosen and instructed exactly the same, but without hi-viz.
After a year (more?) compare the accident stats of each group to current stats.

One thing I will guarantee - there will be no discernable difference, so the argument that hi-viz doesn't work will be proved. The theories as to why will remain unanswered.

[steve_t]

The hi-viz question amounts to nothing more than theory.

There is only one way to be sure of anything...real world case studies.
And there is only one way for one of those to be carried out...
A random selection of bikers (say 1000 minimum) who are given hi-viz to wear, and are instructed to ride however they normally do.
A second (control) group chosen and instructed exactly the same, but without hi-viz.
After a year (more?) compare the accident stats of each group to current stats.

One thing I will guarantee - there will be no discernable difference, so the argument that hi-viz doesn't work will be proved. The theories as to why will remain unanswered.

How can you guarantee the result of an experiment that tests 'nothing more than a theory'? :Pokey:

I reckon if we look at the statistics that show the number of accidents per 1000 people who currently wear hi vis vs the number of accidents per 1000 bikers who don't wear hi vis, we could find that wearing hi vis is statistically more dangerous :first:

[wysper]

What about familiarity? This may be a long shot; but people may be used to seeing hi-viz vests on roadworkers, etc. Combine that with motion camouflage and it can very well become easy to ignore the motorcyclist as just another roadworker.

+1 on this one.

Hi vis is associated with road workers and people on the SIDE OF THE ROAD.
So seeing a hi vis in the distance the car driver might automatically assume said hi vis wearer is on the side of the road and not moving. Now not a threat.

[bogan]

I reckon if we look at the statistics that show the number of accidents per 1000 people who currently wear hi vis vs the number of accidents per 1000 bikers who don't wear hi vis, we could find that wearing hi vis is statistically more dangerous :first:

No it is the opposite, about 30% less risk I think they found. Gotta ask why though. why do bikers wear high vis? because the are concerned for their safety. Why do bikers not wear high vis? two reasons which are lumped into the same group; because they are not as concerned for their safety, and/or because they believe it is ineffective.

So what can we learn? Bikers who are more concerned for their safety, crash less.

Not exactly rocket surgery is it?

[Ocean1]

What about familiarity? This may be a long shot; but people may be used to seeing hi-viz vests on roadworkers, etc. Combine that with motion camouflage and it can very well become easy to ignore the motorcyclist as just another roadworker.

Good point, road workers aren't generally expected to be traveling at speed.



At least that's what I've been told.

[oneofsix]

No it is the opposite, about 30% less risk I think they found. Gotta ask why though. why do bikers wear high vis? because the are concerned for their safety. Why do bikers not wear high vis? two reasons which are lumped into the same group; because they are not as concerned for their safety, and/or because they believe it is ineffective.

So what can we learn? Bikers who are more concerned for their safety, crash less.

Not exactly rocket surgery is it?

:gob: you would dare to suggest the quoted stats were more down to rider attitude than whether or not they wore hi-vis? But that would mean the stats were irrelevant to the affect of the hi-vis on the other vehicle.

My daughter asked why those biker were wearing construction vests, what does that suggest? I asked if the vests were the first thing she noticed, they weren't, she saw the bikes first and only noticed the vests whilst trying to figure out if the lead bike was a Goldwing, but it was a BMW.

Why hi-vis vest may not work - confusion and or distraction.

[steve_t]

No it is the opposite, about 30% less risk I think they found. Gotta ask why though. why do bikers wear high vis? because the are concerned for their safety. Why do bikers not wear high vis? two reasons which are lumped into the same group; because they are not as concerned for their safety, and/or because they believe it is ineffective.

So what can we learn? Bikers who are more concerned for their safety, crash less.

Not exactly rocket surgery is it?

Really?! I thought the sheer numbers of non hi vis would bring the crash % down. Damn it.

Not rocket surgery but it may be brain science that goes over the heads of ACC

[MSTRS]

How can you guarantee the result of an experiment that tests 'nothing more than a theory'? :Pokey:



Touche.

My point is that theories abound as to whether hi-viz works, or not, and why.
In the case of hi-viz, I don't believe proving any of the theories is possible.

But I also believe we know enough about the subject to state with conviction that WEARING HI-VIZ WILL NOT MAKE US SAFER.

[Jantar]

No it is the opposite, about 30% less risk I think they found. ....
Interesting. Can you provide a link to the study that had this finding?

[bogan]

Interesting. Can you provide a link to the study that had this finding?

Certainly, http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7444/857.full and my memory was a bit out, they reckon 37% lower risk.

[oneofsix]

Certainly, http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7444/857.full and my memory was a bit out, they reckon 37% lower risk.

Thanks for that, its interesting where they say "drivers wearing any reflective or fluorescent clothing had a 37% lower risk", so they aren't just talking hi-vis vests. My black jacket has reflective piping and so would fit their criteria. Food for thought.
Also interesting that they presume that light colours and reflective clothing = conspicuity for a rider without testing this premise.

[lone_slayer]

Just 3 very serious Hi Vis Questions....:rolleyes:
Do you think the gangs would be able to put patches on their hi vis?
When they do will different gangs wear different color hi vis?
Would they be able to wear them in wHanganui?

[NighthawkNZ]

With my headlight on, sitting position on bike (sit forward) and behind fairing they not going to notice till it is to late that I was wearing a hi viz jacket thingy

When I have a full load of luggage on my pack rack they are not really going to see much of the hi vis vest...

the only time the may see it is side on, and I hope like hell they have already stopped and seen me because it be to late then.



If you can not see me on the road within at least 500 metres and many cases more no matter what I am wearing then you should not be on the road...

Most of the tests done that show they work were done by the manufacturer... so of course they will work.

In certain situations they will stand out more and other situations they blend in more. Adding to this depends on the colour lime, orange or yellow...? Certain situations each colour stands out more and certain situations it blends more... just as in certain situations black stands out more... and in others it blends in the same.

These situations are surroundings time of day (twilight) and even type of day sunny over cast and or pouring down with rain, snow... (black stands out better agains the snow as it is an opposite colour shade)

If you fell safer riding with one great, and I have nothing against it what so ever... I am not going say you are a ponse or anything :rolleyes: but gooberments need to stop trying tell us what we can and cant do with our own life.

People simply need to slow down and not be in such a rush every where... take that second and third double check...

[scumdog]

Spotted a hi-vis vest (BRIGHT day-glow orange) wearing dude on a push-bike when he was about 700-800 metres ahead of me, day was o'cast.

When I got to about 200 metres or less from him I suddenly realised there was a second cyclist beside the hi-vis vest wearing one, second one was in drab brown/black clothing with a browny Driz-a-Bone type vest.

And dumb-arse in drab was alongside his mate - on the traffic-side!:doh:

[NighthawkNZ]

When I got to about 200 metres or less from him I suddenly realised there was a second cyclist beside the hi-vis vest wearing one, second one was in drab brown/black clothing with a browny Driz-a-Bone type vest.


If his mate wasn't there would you have seen the drab eariler? (most likey)

Was his mate simply being hidden by the other cyclist? or was the brightness of the HiViz meaning your eye couldn't focus properly and there for realy is defeating the purpose of why the hiviz vest should be used...????


Just a thought there is no right or wrong....:baby:

[Neon]

Giving this a bit more thought, I can't see how hi-viz could actually be legislated successfully without it being unworkable, too costly or unenforceable.

1. Aside from helmets, there is no currently enforced law that stipulates an item of clothing for any similar activity (that I am aware of). This would create a precedent for more interference in all kinds of other activities (e.g. you could reasonably argue that cyclists should be included parties as well - the lycra brigade will love that).

2. The issue of 'what is hi-viz' and who decides what products comply with the law would be a major headache. For this they would need a NZ Standard. Good luck with that (standards take eons to develop).

3. A law change would ultimately need a mandate from the public. The general public doesn't have much of an appetite for nanny-state policies. I don't see it being palatable for the current govt. when push comes to shove.

4. Our transport authority are not at the forefront of progressive policy. They like to cut and paste from other countries, and to my knowledge there are no countries with compulsory hi-viz for motorcyclists despite the 'evidence' that has been presented (most of which can be dismissed as unscientific anyway).

I think ACC and the Police are stuck with trying to scare / encourage / bully us into using hi-viz. You can't blame them - they are employed (in part) to help reduce road accidents and injury in our communities. I'd be happy if people just wore appropriate gear full stop.

[bogan]

Giving this a bit more thought, I can't see how hi-viz could actually be legislated successfully without it being unworkable, too costly or unenforceable.

1. Aside from helmets, there is no currently enforced law that stipulates an item of clothing for any similar activity (that I am aware of). This would create a precedent for more interference in all kinds of other activities (e.g. you could reasonably argue that cyclists should be included parties as well - the lycra brigade will love that).

2. The issue of 'what is hi-viz' and who decides what products comply with the law would be a major headache. For this they would need a NZ Standard. Good luck with that (standards take eons to develop).

3. A law change would ultimately need a mandate from the public. The general public doesn't have much of an appetite for nanny-state policies. I don't see it being palatable for the current govt. when push comes to shove.

4. Our transport authority are not at the forefront of progressive policy. They like to cut and paste from other countries, and to my knowledge there are no countries with compulsory hi-viz for motorcyclists despite the 'evidence' that has been presented (most of which can be dismissed as unscientific anyway).

I think ACC and the Police are stuck with trying to scare / encourage / bully us into using hi-viz. You can't blame them - they are employed (in part) to help reduce road accidents and injury in our communities. I'd be happy if people just wore appropriate gear full stop.

your memory not so good?

1) they put in risk based bike acc levies, which sets a similar precedent.
2) they supply the vests, just like with number plates
3) just like the headlight always on law
4) Good point! :yes:

[Jantar]

Certainly, http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7444/857.full and my memory was a bit out, they reckon 37% lower risk.
Thank you for that link. It made interesting reading, but their conclusions are invalid, both statistically and factually.

At the 95% confidence limit the RR would need to be at least 1.5, ie. a 50% improvement before there is any statistical significance. See http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/RR.htm for a mathmatical explanation.

The study asked all accident victims about their clothing, but didn't break the accidents down into involving other vehicle, or motorcycle alone. Without this breakdown, there is no evidence at all that wearing reflective or fluorescent clothing had any effect. It may be that all those wearing wearing reflective or fluorescent clothing had an accident with another vehicle, while those with dark clothing were involved in single vehicle accidents only. That is not likely, but without that data we just don't know.

[bogan]

Thank you for that link. It made interesting reading, but their conclusions are invalid, both statistically and factually.

At the 95% confidence limit the RR would need to be at least 1.5, ie. a 50% improvement before there is any statistical significance. See http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/RR.htm for a mathmatical explanation.

The study asked all accident victims about their clothing, but didn't break the accidents down into involving other vehicle, or motorcycle alone. Without this breakdown, there is no evidence at all that wearing reflective or fluorescent clothing had any effect. It may be that all those wearing wearing reflective or fluorescent clothing had an accident with another vehicle, while those with dark clothing were involved in single vehicle accidents only. That is not likely, but without that data we just don't know.

Those were my thoughts as well, holds together for a brief look, but falls apart on closer inspection.

Your later point is a very good one, doing the same stats for MVAs as SVAs would show some of the effect of rider behavior. If the vest and other vis factors do nothing, you would expect the same 'risk reduction' for high vis in both cases. I wonder if MAIDS or similar would be able to process their data for this...

[Neon]

your memory not so good?

1) they put in risk based bike acc levies, which sets a similar precedent.
2) they supply the vests, just like with number plates
3) just like the headlight always on law
4) Good point! :yes:

1) True, but extracting money using a system and levy that already exist, that is implemented relatively easily and is impossible to avoid (legally) is a lot different to making people do something of their own free will (even if it is a legal requirement). Once you have made safety clothing fair game where does it stop? I was not around when helmets were made compulsory, it would be interesting to know how difficult and contentious that was at the time...

2) Sure, they could do that. Taxpayer funded hand-outs never raise objection in our fine country. :rolleyes: Seriously though, can you imagine the rorting by suppliers?

3) Not really, because the majority of bikes already had lights hard-wired on anyway so for many it was a non-event. What? Now the government is telling me what colour clothes to wear? NANNY STATE NANNY STATE NANNY STATE!!!!1111 Dude, this is the Nats we're talking about here.

[MSTRS]

1) True, but extracting money using a system and levy that already exist, that is implemented relatively easily and is impossible to avoid (legally) is a lot different to making people do something of their own free will (even if it is a legal requirement). Once you have made safety clothing fair game where does it stop? I was not around when helmets were made compulsory, it would be interesting to know how difficult and contentious that was at the time...

2) Sure, they could do that. Taxpayer funded hand-outs never raise objection in our fine country. :rolleyes: Seriously though, can you imagine the rorting by suppliers?

3) Not really, because the majority of bikes already had lights hard-wired on anyway so for many it was a non-event. What? Now the government is telling me what colour clothes to wear? NANNY STATE NANNY STATE NANNY STATE!!!!1111 Dude, this is the Nats we're talking about here.

Really? Even now, only a select few have this 'feature'.

[Jantar]

1) .... I was not around when helmets were made compulsory, it would be interesting to know how difficult and contentious that was at the time........
It wasn't terribly contentious as most riders did use helmets anyway. It became compulsory on 5th December 1973, and up till then you could ride at up to 30 mph (50 kmh) without a helmet, but they were already compulsory at speeds over 30 mph.

I remember the date well, because on the same date, without any warning, the speed limit was dropped from 55 mph to 50 mph. Accident rates increased with the lower speed limit.

[Okey Dokey]

If you are carrying ventura type luggage your hi-vis back may not be visible from the rear.

[Neon]

Really? Even now, only a select few have this 'feature'.

Alright, alright. You got me. I kind of assumed that was the case. Interesting, although I would still argue that 'compulsory daytime lights' and 'compulsory hi-viz' do not really compare on intrusiveness or enforceability.

I suppose what I am trying to establish is the actual likelihood of these things being made compulsory. Could it be done, and would it be done?

[Neon]

If you are carrying ventura type luggage your hi-vis back may not be visible from the rear.

So as another example, would wearing a backpack concealing your hi-viz put you in breach of the law (if there was one)? How big a backpack is ok? What percentage of visible hi-viz surface must be retained? This is what I'm talking about - legislation would be impractical.

[Neon]

I remember the date well, because on the same date, without any warning, the speed limit was dropped from 55 mph to 50 mph. Accident rates increased with the lower speed limit.

What was the effect when the speed limit was eventually increased?

[NighthawkNZ]

If you are carrying ventura type luggage your hi-vis back may not be visible from the rear.

Yup like I said in my post... :-) Or on a gold wing or bike with top box and or other luggage or a back pack as I do to work some times.

The Hi Viz is good from the air and makes a good target and target affixation


Which brings in another point we have all had heard about target affixation, and it don't matter what you wear wearing... car drivers have the same issue

hmmm making a brighter target may make the roads un-safer us bikers..... GULP

[Jantar]

What was the effect when the speed limit was eventually increased?
The speed limit was increased at the same time as a few other road rule changes (eg the give way rule). The accident rate increased for a few months, then started to decrease and has been in general decline ever since.

[MSTRS]

Alright, alright. You got me. I kind of assumed that was the case. Interesting, although I would still argue that 'compulsory daytime lights' and 'compulsory hi-viz' do not really compare on intrusiveness or enforceability.

I suppose what I am trying to establish is the actual likelihood of these things being made compulsory. Could it be done, and would it be done?

I never believed that lights-on made much difference for us, but I suppose it might have done something towards visibility, and did no harm to egos etc. Most of us were well used to the recommendations lights be on, and had voluntarily done so for years. With the ever-increasing number of cars with driving lights (always on) and/or drivers using headlights anyway, any possible advantage/point of difference is rapidly disappearing.
Perhaps the safety nazis are aware of this and that's why all the talk of hi-viz. They want to make us stand out (again).
Trouble is - they are misguided fools...

[scumdog]

If his mate wasn't there would you have seen the drab eariler? (most likey)

Was his mate simply being hidden by the other cyclist? or was the brightness of the HiViz meaning your eye couldn't focus properly and there for realy is defeating the purpose of why the hiviz vest should be used...????


Just a thought there is no right or wrong....:baby:

I would possibly have seen his mate before I did if he had been by himself - but the hi-vis guy I saw as soon as I came around a bend onto a straight, right away I saw this clear orange blob in the distance.

Which in a few seconds made it easier for me to decide if I needed to brake for the on-coming car (cos there wasn't room to pass the cyclist) or boot it and get past before the oncoming car got close.

Without the hi-vis there would have been less time to assess things.

[sunhuntin]

If you are carrying ventura type luggage your hi-vis back may not be visible from the rear.

just what i was gonna say. i think anything on the pillion seat can make the hi viz harder to see, whether its a tail bag, pack rack or a passenger. i have a top box on the back of my bike 24/7. if im extra loaded down, i drape the vest over the back and put a couple of cargo nets on to keep it in place. seems to work better than when its on my back.

[firefighter]

What makes it not work?

People may see you wearing it, think you're a chutney ferret and instinctively swerve at you......:laugh:

[Smifffy]

So as another example, would wearing a backpack concealing your hi-viz put you in breach of the law (if there was one)? How big a backpack is ok? What percentage of visible hi-viz surface must be retained? This is what I'm talking about - legislation would be impractical.

When was the last time 'practical' was ever a consideration in passing a law?

[Smifffy]

I would possibly have seen his mate before I did if he had been by himself - but the hi-vis guy I saw as soon as I came around a bend onto a straight, right away I saw this clear orange blob in the distance.

Which in a few seconds made it easier for me to decide if I needed to brake for the on-coming car (cos there wasn't room to pass the cyclist) or boot it and get past before the oncoming car got close.

Without the hi-vis there would have been less time to assess things.

So you booted it then?

[scumdog]

So you booted it then?

Oh yeah baby...

[Smifffy]

Oh yeah baby...

Be rude not to, really.

[awayatc]

when people see hi-viz they think cyclist...

or maybe roadworks....

so how would you stand out on a bike with hi viz?...

be dangerous....

they expect you to pedal sedately...

another lunatic with a bee(hive) under their bonnet :Pokey:

[FJRider]

What was the effect when the speed limit was eventually increased?

You mean ??? ... What was the effect on the statistics when the speed limit was raised ... ???

Regardless of the posted speed limits in any area ... there will always be some fucktard that believes they can go faster. Some of those get lucky (often) and have no problems/dont get caught ...

Some don't pass GO ... DONT go to jail ... don't collect $200 ... theyjust die ... and/or a few of their mates ...

It is MY personal belief ... before you quote statistics in the belief they back up your theorys ... take note who issued them ...

The number of deaths on the road after the speed limit is raised or lowered only proves people have died.

Not the speed (above OR below the limit) they were doing WHEN they died.

In the right hands ... The same set of statistics, can prove opposite points of view ...

[Jantar]

...

In the right hands ... The same set of statistics, can prove opposite points of view ...
A popular misconception. Statistics cannot prove anything; they can only indicate a probability.

[steve_t]

"Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forfty percent of all people know that"

[FJRider]

A popular misconception. Statistics cannot prove anything; they can only indicate a probability.

If SOMEBODY believes it ... case proved in some quarters ...

Too many times people get into strife for lack of indication ... probability of possible direction is as often as not ... just guesswork ...

Hence my lack of support/belief ... of statistics being worthwhile ...

[MSTRS]

Hence my lack of support/belief ... of statistics being worthwhile ...

Can't accept that.
Statistics can be very worthwhile.
The problem comes when the data is incomplete, or particular facts are ignored or manipulated to achieve a pre-determined result.

[Bald Eagle]

Can't accept that.
Statistics can be very worthwhile.
The problem comes when the data is incomplete, or particular facts are ignored or manipulated to achieve a pre-determined result.


Well ACC and the Minister would certainly agree with that.

[Swoop]

Aha!
Solution found. If the gummint (bound to happen under labour as they like to fuck with personal choice) make fluoro vests' mandatory.:cool:

[Hellzie]

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

Haven't read the whole thing but seems to have some interesting points and references to other useful data at the end.

[bogan]

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

Haven't read the whole thing but seems to have some interesting points and references to other useful data at the end.

Don't make too much of a habit of it! :rolleyes::shifty:

already posted in this thread you see

[Hellzie]

Don't make too much of a habit of it! :rolleyes::shifty:

already posted in this thread you see

Ooooops, I did actually read that post, but it's all too hard to click on links when on my iphone. That'll learn me for using an iphone. :doh::weep:

[Smifffy]

How can you guarantee the result of an experiment that tests 'nothing more than a theory'? :Pokey:

I reckon if we look at the statistics that show the number of accidents per 1000 people who currently wear hi vis vs the number of accidents per 1000 bikers who don't wear hi vis, we could find that wearing hi vis is statistically more dangerous :first:

The number of accidents as a percentage of riders is already so small and random that any difference between two randomly selected samples of 1000 would not be statistically significant.

The biggest problem with statistics is that they are quoted by bureaucrats, politicians and salesmen without any understanding and a barrow to push.

[steve_t]

The number of accidents as a percentage of riders is already so small and random that any difference between two randomly selected samples of 1000 would not be statistically significant.


Exactly :niceone:

Also, per 1000 doesn't necessarily mean go out and find 1000 of each and poll them :Pokey::banana: Poll everyone! :apint: LOL

[FJRider]

Can't accept that.
Statistics can be very worthwhile.
The problem comes when the data is incomplete, or particular facts are ignored or manipulated to achieve a pre-determined result.

I think you better learn to accept it ...

The "problem" is ... those reading those statistic's ... in a position of Authority to make decisions on those statistic's ... do not know (or wont say they dont know) if the data is incomplete ... facts are ignored ... or manipulated ...

[Smifffy]

I think you better learn to accept it ...

The "problem" is ... those reading those statistic's ... in a position of Authority to make decisions on those statistic's ... do not know (or wont say they dont know) if the data is incomplete ... facts are ignored ... or manipulated ...

The more I think on it, the more I think it's the media that does it. Some twonk does a 6 month polytech course looks good in a cheap suit/dress andgoes out to tell the world that "studies show that...." by extrapolating a year 9 classroom survey to an entire population. Then they get their agency to arrange an interview/grilling with the relevant minister, or a bashing session with the opposition spokesperson.

Then the sheeple that vote along party lines are polarised according to which gloryhound accepted the interview, and start flooding the talkback lines.

[FJRider]

The more I think on it, the more I think it's the media that does it. Some twonk does a 6 month polytech course looks good in a cheap suit/dress andgoes out to tell the world that "studies show that...." by extrapolating a year 9 classroom survey to an entire population. Then they get their agency to arrange an interview/grilling with the relevant minister, or a bashing session with the opposition spokesperson.

Then the sheeple that vote along party lines are polarised according to which gloryhound accepted the interview, and start flooding the talkback lines.

WHO CARES WHO (or how many) "DOES IT" ... Belief and faith in statistics could be an embarrassment to you ... YOUR choice to believe ...

[Jantar]

If SOMEBODY believes it ... case proved in some quarters ...

No. Belief is not proof. Any student who has taken even a basic level of statical studies knows that statistics merely allows a way to present data to predict a possible and/or likely scenario. Statistics cannot be used as a proof. As Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment"


Too many times people get into strife for lack of indication ... probability of possible direction is as often as not ... just guesswork ...

Hence my lack of support/belief ... of statistics being worthwhile ...

Yes, making predictions from statistical data is just guesswork, but it can be calculated guesswork, rather than random guesswork. The trick is in understanding just what the statistics tell you.

[MSTRS]

I think you better learn to accept it ...

The "problem" is ... those reading those statistic's ... in a position of Authority to make decisions on those statistic's ... do not know (or wont say they dont know) if the data is incomplete ... facts are ignored ... or manipulated ...

I think you misunderstand my meaning. Data collected and compiled on a spread sheet gives an honest overview of the situation under study. As long as that data includes everything relevant.

[Katman]

The most effective items of safety gear for motorcyclists are all located in their head.

[skinman]

whatcha need is a bright flashing Halo. Have no idea how to get one or maintain it though. :rolleyes:
Hivis keeps the wifey happy=less whining noises

[Hellzie]

I was thinking it would be a good idea to bandy together with 'cyclists' on this issue - they might be an ally in this case. So I started looking at some of the cycling websites, and found this:

http://can.org.nz/article/mythbuster-utility-cycling-requires-special-gear

"The current emphasis on hi-viz and other special cycling safety gear being promoted as de rigueur for even a trip to the shops may be counterproductive, and off-putting to many potential bike users.

The subconscious message that cycling is a dangerous activity is being unwittingly promoted by the plethora of safety gear now being deemed essential equipment for a bike ride. In fact cycling is statistically a very safe activity and can be done in normal clothing.

More people cycling (no matter what they choose to wear when riding a bike) means safer cycling for everyone. Getting more people to regard cycling as an easy and sensible option they can choose to get from A to B, is one of the most important things that can be done to improve road safety.

If more people are to start to cycle for short journeys, it must be regarded as a normal everyday activity suitable for undertaking in normal everyday attire. Nearly 25% of car journeys in the UK are for 2 miles or less, yet this is an ideal cycling trip distance for anyone to undertake. However, fear and the erroneous perception that cycling is a dangerous activity are the main reasons for people persisting with those short car journeys. 40% own a cycle and would like use it to replace short car trips, but 47% strongly agreed with the statement that “the idea of cycling on busy roads frightens me” with a further 27% tending to agree.

It is interesting to note that in countries with high utility cycling where no special safety equipment is thought necessary, there is better cycle safety.

Each person should be free to choose the type of attire that they feel comfortable in to cycle. Safety gear should be regarded as a matter of personal choice rather than a necessity for utility cycling."

[Usarka]

If you are carrying ventura type luggage your hi-vis back may not be visible from the rear.

Ban it!


____

[Autech]

The most effective items of safety gear for motorcyclists are all located in their head.

I totally agree.

I personally don't wear hi vis while riding (I have a thousand of the things from work) because I ride on the principle that no one has seen me, so were I to wear a hi vis and it gets in my head space that maybe, just maybe, they have seen me, because of the vest... Not a good thing.

[FJRider]

I think you misunderstand my meaning. Data collected and compiled on a spread sheet gives an honest overview of the situation under study. As long as that data includes everything relevant.

It's only as "honest" as those compiling the statistical information ...

Basic numbers entered ... Basic information entered ... gets basic results ...

[joan of arc]

I pulled in behind a driver who had come to a halt at a stop sign. She paused, obviously looking both ways and drove out in front of a LAV (light armoured vehicle for those who don't know). She was looking for cars, she didn't expect to see a tank. Yep, no matter how big and bright your HiViz gear is, if you are not looked for, you won't be seen

[Hellzie]

Which is why the more bikes there are on the road the more people will expect them to be on the road and be more likely to look out for them