Hi-viz, does it make a difference in rider visibility?

[Matariki]

I've noticed that there are mixed opinions out there on this matter. Personally I have Hi-Viz gear, and I am more likely to notice motorcyclists who are wearing it when I'm going around town in the car.
Apparently there was a test study done on the matter back in 2004, it states in its conculsion that "Drivers wearing reflective or fluorescent clothing had a 37% lower risk of crash related injury than those who were not wearing such materials." http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/351235/field_highwire_article_pdf/0

Do you think Hi-Viz makes much of a difference in rider visibility?
How many of you guys here wear Hi-Viz?

[mulletman]

If i were commuting to work i would wear Hi Viz,

[duckonin]

I've noticed that there are mixed opinions out there on this matter. Personally I have Hi-Viz gear, and I am more likely to notice motorcyclists who are wearing it when I'm going around town in the car.
Apparently there was a test study done on the matter back in 2004, it states in its conculsion that "Drivers wearing reflective or fluorescent clothing had a 37% lower risk of crash related injury than those who were not wearing such materials." http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/351235/field_highwire_article_pdf/0

Do you think Hi-Viz makes much of a difference in rider visibility?
How many of you guys here wear Hi-Viz?

What makes a big difference around safely riding bike's is 'keeping your shit together in the top paddock':rolleyes:. Will help keep you safer than any clothing. Clothing may help keep your skin on in the event of 'not keeping your shit together' in the top paddock.

And yes, i do wear a jacket with Hi-vis in the panels. Yes also to seeing others faster when they are wearing same. And yes again to other road users most of them see you too.

[\m/]

My bike has fairings and lean forward riding position and a pack rack and bag on the back. They would struggle to see hi-vis even if they were looking.

[Subike]

Not going to join the New Zealand governments , "lets get everyone into orange and yellow uniforms"

""lets use the guise of personal safety, fine them for not wearing them at work, and train their children you cant survive without one""

Oh look the govt has the perfect departments for doing this too. ACC & OSH.

Whats next? they are already trying to control social structures in Christchurch by red zoning livable housing, closing working schools.

And they are trying to convince the last lot of free people in the public area to conform too? Motorcyclists?

Yup, lets join the orange and yellow brigade, become slaves to new age safety requirements , so we can exercise our freedom of choice,
(do we really have that anymore?)

[Matariki]

Not going to join the New Zealand governments , "lets get everyone into orange and yellow uniforms"

""lets use the guise of personal safety, fine them for not wearing them at work, and train their children you cant survive without one""

Oh look the govt has the perfect departments for doing this too. ACC & OSH.

Whats next? they are already trying to control social structures in Christchurch by red zoning livable housing, closing working schools.

And they are trying to convince the last lot of free people in the public area to conform too? Motorcyclists?

Yup, lets join the orange and yellow brigade, become slaves to new age safety requirements , so we can exercise our freedom of choice,
(do we really have that anymore?)

I don't see wearing Hi-Viz a violation of freedom of choice, for me its a preservation of my future freedom of choice. Frankly if me wearing Hi-Viz prevents at least one accident in my life time and doesn't force the rest of New Zealand's citizens to pick up the tab, then I'm fine with wearing it. If the studies are correct then there are good reasons to wear Hi-Viz. But no, like with motorcycle helmets (or any safety gear for that matter), people shouldn't be forced to wear them. But on the flip side, those that are stupid enough to not wear safety gear while riding and end up (due to their own error) smashed up, they should ideally be paying for their own medical bills instead of using our tax dollars.

[Ocean1]

I don't see wearing Hi-Viz a violation of freedom of choice, for me its a preservation of my future freedom of choice. Frankly if me wearing Hi-Viz prevents at least one accident in my life time and doesn't force the rest of New Zealand's citizens to pick up the tab, then I'm fine with wearing it. If the studies are correct then there are good reasons to wear Hi-Viz. But no, like with motorcycle helmets (or any safety gear for that matter), people shouldn't be forced to wear them. But on the flip side, those that are stupid enough to not wear safety gear while riding and end up (due to their own error) smashed up, they should ideally be paying for their own medical bills instead of using our tax dollars.

And if those studies are largely made up to fit an existing prejudice in favour of dayglo skivies then who's responsible for the injuries and deaths that might have been avoided if a better safety scheme were persued?

Like, if, for example we're forced to wear pink in spite of the fact that in urban environments the most likely colour to be seen is... Black.

[davereid]

...those that are stupid enough to not wear safety gear while riding and end up (due to their own error) smashed up, they should ideally be paying for their own medical bills instead of using our tax dollars....

You are arguing that only those that follow "best practice" should be covered by ACC.

Maybe you should consider that you are applying your best practice rule to motorcycling, as a subset of motoring.

A simple removal of the protection your subset gives you, would make a nice new rule.

those that are stupid enough to drive a vehicle without crumple zones and airbags and end up (due to their own error) smashed up, they should ideally be paying for their own medical bills instead of using our tax dollars.... ?


Because it seems to me, motorcycling is inherently unsafe. No amount of Hi-Viz, helmets, ATGATT or rider traning will make my Harley as safe as the wifes Toyota.

[Matariki]

And if those studies are largely made up to fit an existing prejudice in favour of dayglo skivies then who's responsible for the injuries and deaths that might have been avoided if a better safety scheme were persued?

Like, if, for example we're forced to wear pink in spite of the fact that in urban environments the most likely colour to be seen is... Black.

I meant as in; if the rider was the primary cause of the accident. If the driver is at the fault (who hit the rider) then I have no problem with pick up the tab through tax. I'm not in favor in forcing people through legal matters to wear safety gear, that should be entirely individual choice and preference. However I'm not shy to say that it does make my skin crawl when I see riders out there wearing nothing but their casual clothing. Sometimes when I do spot them, the color choice of clothing that they're wearing, I find blends in with the color of the road and environment. I can't speak for everyone, but I know I am far more likely to spot someone in Hi-Viz (or colors that contrast with their environment) than I am with spotting someone wearing flat colors.

[Maha]

There is nothing new to add this 'done to death' thread topic...never the twain shall meet on the subject, as per fucking usual. :rolleyes:

[Marius Elvenwood]

Not going to join the New Zealand governments , "lets get everyone into orange and yellow uniforms"

""lets use the guise of personal safety, fine them for not wearing them at work, and train their children you cant survive without one""

Oh look the govt has the perfect departments for doing this too. ACC & OSH.

Whats next? they are already trying to control social structures in Christchurch by red zoning livable housing, closing working schools.

And they are trying to convince the last lot of free people in the public area to conform too? Motorcyclists?

Yup, lets join the orange and yellow brigade, become slaves to new age safety requirements , so we can exercise our freedom of choice,
(do we really have that anymore?)

Brigade is a bit far fetched. Slaves definitely so.
I look at hi-vis gear in the same way as I see seatbelts. Sure it's a pain, and yes if you wear it then you are simply following the latest safety fashion. But so what?
There are people who believe that seatbelts kill more people than they save, and anyone who's driven a car can tell you just how uncomfortable they are, but statistically they are GOING TO SAVE YOUR LIFE.
One bright yellow, $10 vest isn't so much to ask. In any situation, dangerous or not, it's going to light you up like a furby on a bad hair day. You don't need statistics or percentages, government laws or your friends opinions to notice that wearing hi-vis gear is all gain, no loss.
So if the government wants to make high visibility gear compulsory, you won't see me complaining. Better to spend that ten bucks now than two thousand later on brain surgery.

[Marius Elvenwood]

There is nothing new to add this 'done to death' thread topic...never the twain shall meet on the subject, as per fucking usual. :rolleyes:

Sorry Maha, i'm too young with opinions bursting out of every orifice, can't help myself.

[Matariki]

You are arguing that only those that follow "best practice" should be covered by ACC.

Maybe you should consider that you are applying your best practice rule to motorcycling, as a subset of motoring.

A simple removal of the protection your subset gives you, would make a nice new rule.

those that are stupid enough to drive a vehicle without crumple zones and airbags and end up (due to their own error) smashed up, they should ideally be paying for their own medical bills instead of using our tax dollars.... ?


Because it seems to me, motorcycling is inherently unsafe. No amount of Hi-Viz, helmets, ATGATT or rider traning will make my Harley as safe as the wifes Toyota.

I'm arguing that it would cost less money in the long run if people geared up. Motorcycling is unsafe, but there are precautions that people can take to reduce injuries, deaths and costs. If a safety measure is proven to work, then it should be encouraged. As with ACC, the concerns is I have with it is that its an easy system to become dependent on, which could diminish the importance of individual responsibility when it comes to safety. I know it might sound stupid, but when someone has to pay a high price for something, it tends to make that individual think twice about their actions. I'm sure the intentions of ACC are good, but I fear that its set itself up to be cheated by those who don't really need it (such as those who turn up at the emergency room for a check up rather than paying to see a GP). In other situations regarding road safety, Its cheaper to wear a helmet or a seat belt than it is to go to the emergency room and if necessary, undergo surgery. If Hi-Viz can increase rider safety by avoiding a potential accident, then its worth my $20 to buy and wear a Hi-Viz vest that I can wear time and time again than it is to spend thousands on surgery and dealing with potential life long aliments that could require further treatment.

As for motorcycles as a vehicle being safe, in a motor accident its not the motorcycle that's covered by ACC or is 'hurt', but the person who is riding it.

[James Deuce]

Two points.

I'll bet that study was paid for by 3M.

The type of riders who choose to wear high visibility clothing (note the lack of infantile abbreviation) are 37% less likely to have accidents is a more correct assessment of the results.

You can argue all you like about reducing injury through gear. As far as I know, sheep are both colour blind and stupid, and old people can be both but also have the enormous burden of being human and running a restricted version of a human brain. Both have proved far more dangerous to me than any other "demographic".

I've thought about the price I've paid intently over the course of 30 years and have come to the conclusion that motorcycle gear is largely pointless and doesn't do what it says it does on the box. It simply plays to the fears of the purchaser and his/her associates and the prevailing peer pressure in regard to acceptable motorcycling attire. In other words, it's just fashion. As much as you want to think that people will see your fluorescent abombination, they won't. The average driver spends no more than a 1/10th of second checking in either direction when exiting an intersection, and the brain looks at the evidence and says, "go dummy", and then paints in details and colours once you've made your decision to move.

Any form of compulsion is bad. Any form of peer pressure to conform to "commonly accepted practice" should be fought with every breath including your dying one.

[bogan]

I meant as in; if the rider was the primary cause of the accident. If the driver is at the fault (who hit the rider) then I have no problem with pick up the tab through tax. I'm not in favor in forcing people through legal matters to wear safety gear, that should be entirely individual choice and preference. However I'm not shy to say that it does make my skin crawl when I see riders out there wearing nothing but their casual clothing. Sometimes when I do spot them, the color choice of clothing that they're wearing, I find blends in with the color of the road and environment. I can't speak for everyone, but I know I am far more likely to spot someone in Hi-Viz (or colors that contrast with their environment) than I am with spotting someone wearing flat colors.

Clothing is easy to spot and judge a person by, but lets be honest, it isn't the main factor. Try watching peoples riding style instead, that what gets you into an accident. And watching other peoples style is a good way to improve your own. However if you just want to make empty 'feel good' judgments putting down other riders, then high vis is for you!

The study is skewed as it does not normalise for rider type, bike type, or route. All it establishes is those who voluntarily (and without reading studies) wear high vis have less accidents; do you see the difference? The study makes no attempt to establish that the wearing of high vis is the cause for less accidents. Personally I believe those who choose to wear high-vis are safety conscious, and have less accidents because they ride in a safe manner.

We must remember high vis is not a substitute for checking other road users have seen you, otherwise high vis will be associated with an increased accident risk due to rider style.

[bogan]

As for motorcycles as a vehicle being safe, in a motor accident its not the motorcycle that's covered by ACC or is 'hurt', but the person who is riding it.

As for high-vis as a clothing being safe, in a motor accident its not the clothing that's covered by ACC or is 'hurt', but the person who is wearing it.

Double standards much?

[Marius Elvenwood]

Personally I believe those who choose to wear high-vis are safety conscious, and have less accidents because they ride in a safe manner.

We must remember high vis is not a substitute for checking other road users have seen you, otherwise high vis will be associated with an increased accident risk due to rider style.

A good point and well said. But for beginner riders who haven't yet learnt how to ride in a safe manner perhaps it's a different story?
Either way, it would be best if nobody has a false sense of security. You're on a motorbike therefore you're invisible etc.

[paturoa]

The poll is not well constructed. Of course hi-vis makes a difference, which is why I voted yes.

The question should have read, "does hi-vis make a big difference". If that was the question, then I'd have voted no.

And I wear hi-vis because every % point counts, even if it is bugger all.

[Matariki]

Clothing is easy to spot and judge a person by, but lets be honest, it isn't the main factor. Try watching peoples riding style instead, that what gets you into an accident. And watching other peoples style is a good way to improve your own. However if you just want to make empty 'feel good' judgments putting down other riders, then high vis is for you!

The study is skewed as it does not normalise for rider type, bike type, or route. All it establishes is those who voluntarily (and without reading studies) wear high vis have less accidents; do you see the difference? The study makes no attempt to establish that the wearing of high vis is the cause for less accidents. Personally I believe those who choose to wear high-vis are safety conscious, and have less accidents because they ride in a safe manner.

We must remember high vis is not a substitute for checking other road users have seen you, otherwise high vis will be associated with an increased accident risk due to rider style.

Point taken. Though I don't wear Hi-Viz to make feel good judgement's, I wear it because I think it could even the odds out a little bit better when I'm on the road. But I wonder why those who wearing Hi-Viz had less accidents in the test? Could that be because those that are more experienced (and maybe less reckless) are wearing them? I'll have to re read through the test papers again.

[Matariki]

The poll is not well constructed. Of course hi-vis makes a difference, which is why I voted yes.

The question should have read, "does hi-vis make a big difference". If that was the question, then I'd have voted no.

And I wear hi-vis because every % point counts, even if it is bugger all.

I asking whether or not it made any notable difference in reducing the number of accidents due to motorists being more visible. I guess that could interpreted as being a 'big difference'. But I guess the heart of question I'm really asking is; "Are motorcyclists more visible when wearing Hi-Viz?" If the answer is yes, then I think right there is a justified reason to wear Hi-Viz, because I'm sure as hell I'm not wearing Hi-Viz for its fashion looks.

[Matariki]

As for high-vis as a clothing being safe, in a motor accident its not the clothing that's covered by ACC or is 'hurt', but the person who is wearing it.

Double standards much?

Only if you think Hi-Viz will give you superior protection (though I'm under the impression that the best protection is not to be hit or ride recklessly in the first place). Hi-Viz is for visibility (which is what the discussion was originally about - I should of stated this from the beginning to avoid confusion), not for bodily protection on impact.

[paturoa]

I asking whether or not it made any notable difference in reducing the number of accidents due to motorists being more visible.

I read a European report somewhere that hi-vis wearer smidsy accident rates are lower than non-wearers and the pollies wanted to make them compulsory. What was not asked was, do the peeps who wear hi-vis ride differently to non-wearers? The answer is an easy yes. But that is kind of off topic.

I still say yes a small difference, but not "noteable" (Whatever that means?)

Edit: BDOTGNZA-philes, should that have read "...an European.."? It doesn't sound right.

[wasiler]

I would think the high viz reflective material would help at night because when the oncoming light hits it, it produces a larger glowing object to see. During the day, it is not going to mean jack. Where I am from, the bikes and popo bikes are allowed to have a small blue led light on the back of their bike. These are great for a couple reasons. One, it makes a contrasting color from all the reds and whites and lets you stand out more. Two, a drunk driver behind you might think you are a popo and keep way off your tail. I read here it is illegal to put colors other than red in the back and white in the front. I am going to give the blues dots in the back a try and hope the cop understands if they pull me over. I don't want to get hit by a drunk from behind and it is absolutely crazy how easy you guys are on drunk driving...from at least what I have heard. The only way to improve viz during the day I think is a headlight modulator. Then you have got to worry about a driver coming at you from the sides......


I got it, attach a flashing blue police light on top of your helmet, add an air-raid siren to each side of your bike, install bumpers around the entire bike with air-bags that inflate around the rider, finally an ejection seat with a parachute when the impact g's get too high.

[Matariki]

We must remember high vis is not a substitute for checking other road users have seen you, otherwise high vis will be associated with an increased accident risk due to rider style.

Yes I agree, nor is it a justified reason to ride recklessly. But if it can increase the likely hood of being spotted while riding (in conjunction with riding safely), then I think the investment is worth it.

[Matariki]

I would think the high viz reflective material would help at night because when the oncoming light hits it, it produces a larger glowing object to see. During the day, it is not going to mean jack. Where I am from, the bikes and popo bikes are allowed to have a small blue led light on the back of their bike. These are great for a couple reasons. One, it makes a contrasting color from all the reds and whites and lets you stand out more. Two, a drunk driver behind you might think you are a popo and keep way off your tail. I read here it is illegal to put colors other than red in the back and white in the front. I am going to give the blues dots in the back a try and hope the cop understands if they pull me over. I don't want to get hit by a drunk from behind and it is absolutely crazy how easy you guys are on drunk driving...from at least what I have heard. The only way to improve viz during the day I think is a headlight modulator. Then you have got to worry about a driver coming at you from the sides......


I got it, attach a flashing blue police light on top of your helmet, add an air-raid siren to each side of your bike, install bumpers around the entire bike with air-bags that inflate around the rider, finally an ejection seat with a parachute when the impact g's get too high.

Lol, yes I know what you mean. I agree, I don't think Hi-Viz makes too much of a difference on a fine, sunny day. But on a day with less than desirable weather (rainy or overcast) I've found from driving around town, I am more likely to notice the motorcyclists who are wearing Hi-Viz, same with driving around at dusk, dawn and at night.

[Bassmatt]

The other part to this eternal question is "Is high visibility clothing the BEST way to improve your visibility to other road users"
I have tried hi-vis for a time and had to say I didn't really notice much of a difference in the behaviour towards me of other road users.
About a year ago I changed my dull yellow running lights (not sure if thats technically the correct term for them) with a small bright white led.
Within 5 minutes of leaving home I knew that I was onto something. Cars on my side would pull over to allow me past before I got anywhere near them, cars at intersections seemed to be prepared to wait longer for me to approach and go past rather than just going whenever. Yes I still get the odd vehicle pull out in front of me when they shouldn't but instead of the drivers looking surprised when they see me I get them looking straight into my eyes as if to say"yeah I saw you mate... ".
I have been told by others that I can be seen literally miles away.
I've passed two warrants with them and had a couple of "roadside chats" with the popo while having them installed and they havent been mentioned once, so I'm not talking about huge bliinding lights or anything obviously not allowed.

All this is anecdotal of course, but Im convinced. :wacko:

[James Deuce]

I would think the high viz reflective material would help at night because when the oncoming light hits it, it produces a larger glowing object to see.

Err, no. The light from you headlight completely masks you and what you're wearing.

[James Deuce]

The other part to this eternal question is "Is high visibility clothing the BEST way to improve your visibility to other road users"
I have tried hi-vis for a time and had to say I didn't really notice much of a difference in the behaviour towards me of other road users.
About a year ago I changed my dull yellow running lights (not sure if thats technically the correct term for them) with a small bright white led.
Within 5 minutes of leaving home I knew that I was onto something. Cars on my side would pull over to allow me passed before I got anywhere near them, cars at intersections seemed to be prepared to wait longer for me to approach and go past rather than just going whenever. Yes I still get the odd vehicle pull out in front of me when they shouldn't but instead of the drivers looking surprised when they see me I get them looking straight into my eyes as if to say"yeah I saw you mate... ".
I have been told by others that I can be seen literally miles away.
I've passed two warrants with them and had a couple of "roadside chats" with the popo while having them installed and they havent been mentioned once, so I'm not talking about huge bliinding lights or anything obviously not allowed.

All this is anecdotal of course, but Im convinced. :wacko:

If it's good enough for Audi....

[tnarg]

A little bit of reading to add to the debate.

http://www.magireland.org/2011/campaigns/hiviz/drivers-eye-view/
http://www.lampkins.co.uk/blog/why-sorry-mate-didnt-see-you-accidents-happen/

[Matariki]

I was talking to my Dad about this who's an Optometrist by profession and has over 25 years of experience in his field. He said that yes, Hi-Viz does make a difference, especially the fluorescent yellow (he said that orange is ok, red is the least likely out of three to be visible) in terms of visibility. He also stated that this is why riding with your motorcycle lights on also makes you more visible (especially if the lights are LED). I suspect that any color that reflects off (in terms of light) and contrasts with the environment that you're riding in will be the most visible.

From my understanding, Hi-Viz it is most effective from the side and rear (unless the rider is wearing a backpack) views. As for the front view, I'm not sure, I would imagine at night time it wouldn't be very visible due the headlamp. But during the day it might be different (I didn't ask my Dad about that). Here are some video's of Hi-Viz;

This is a video from the front and 45 degree angle views (I suspect this was taken late in the afternoon or at dusk)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ODGEN-vG-g

This is a video from the behind and side angle views (It looks like that it was filmed around dusk)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTrvCSlCEeY

[Berries]

"Are motorcyclists more visible when wearing Hi-Viz?" If the answer is yes, then I think right there is a justified reason to wear Hi-Viz, because I'm sure as hell I'm not wearing Hi-Viz for its fashion looks.
You're convinced. You wear it. Good on you.

I'm not so I don't. What is the poll going to prove?

[sinfull]

They'll hear me before they see me !

But on topic, here's an experiment for ya Hot one !

Go for a ride around masterton (thinkin you're from there) and count how many hiviz vests you see in say an hours cruise through town, up and down every street !
Not just Motorcyclists but the garbage man, the dude cleaning the drains, the engineers plotting the landscape, the pothole man, the dude on his way to subway for lunch that works on one of the building sites etc etc etc
Every trade has to wear a hiviz vest now !!!!!

So you're trying to tell me that nanna up the road, who drives into town once a week to go play bingo and who has been aclimatised to seeing maybe a dozen hiviz vests every time she travels from one side of masterton to the other will see a hi viz vest on a motorcyclist before she see's my bike ?

So she looks left (sees the pothole man in his hiviz) looks right (sees the dude on his way to subway crossing the road)

Ya see where i'm going with this yet ?

Looks left again and goes cause it's just some dude in a hiviz vest !

[Ocean1]

If it's good enough for Audi....

I'm in the process of commiting an innovation on T'Buell.

These are now on: 270176

And next week I'll fit the LED strips.

[Matariki]

You're convinced. You wear it. Good on you.

I'm not so I don't. What is the poll going to prove?

Its going to show what people here think. This thread isn't about the moral implications of those who wear Hi-Viz vs those that don't. Its about whether it works in terms of increased visibility or not. You don't wear Hi-Viz, good for you, and I'm sure you have some good reasons not to if you don't mind sharing.

[Matariki]

They'll hear me before they see me !

But on topic, here's an experiment for ya Hot one !

Go for a ride around masterton (thinkin you're from there) and count how many hiviz vests you see in say an hours cruise through town, up and down every street !
Not just Motorcyclists but the garbage man, the dude cleaning the drains, the engineers plotting the landscape, the pothole man, the dude on his way to subway for lunch that works on one of the building sites etc etc etc
Every trade has to wear a hiviz vest now !!!!!

So you're trying to tell me that nanna up the road, who drives into town once a week to go play bingo and who has been aclimatised to seeing maybe a dozen hiviz vests every time she travels from one side of masterton to the other will see a hi viz vest on a motorcyclist before she see's my bike ?

So she looks left (sees the pothole man in his hiviz) looks right (sees the dude on his way to subway crossing the road)

Ya see where i'm going with this yet ?

Looks left again and goes cause it's just some dude in a hiviz vest !

Yes, I see where you are going with this. But this is about visibility, and if Nanna is able to identify people as people better because they are more visible, then the hi-viz is doing its job.

[sinfull]

Yes, I see where you are going with this. But this is about visibility, and if Nanna is able to identify people as people better because they are more visible, then the hi-viz is doing its job.
You're serious aye lol

The only thing that will register in nanas mind is the grille of a 4x4 and sometimes not even then !

But i can see there is no point even trying to get across any other point of view to your mind set so enjoy your vest, i hope it keeps you safe !

[Matariki]

So, I've noticed that a few people have voted against Hi-Viz as a means of increasing riding visibility. I would like to know why.

Now just to clarify where I stand;

I am under the impression that Hi-Viz does have an impact on rider visibility based on the test results http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/351235/field_highwire_article_pdf/0.
Wearing Hi-Viz in conjunction with good motorcycle armour and defensive riding might reduce the number of accidents, injuries and deaths.
Wearing Hi-Viz doesn't guarantee you that other motorists has seen you, but it does increase the chances of you being seen while riding.
Wearing Hi-Viz does not give the rider a justified reason to ride recklessly.
Riders shouldn't be under a legal obligation to wear Hi-Viz if they don't want to.

Now to clarify what this post isn't about (I should of stated this in my first post);

Politics .
ACC.
Whether or not Hi-Viz can protect a rider from bodily impact (that's what armour is for).
Fashion.

This thread is about whether Hi-Viz makes a rider more visible or not, what your thoughts are on the effectiveness of Hi-Viz and whether or not you wear it.

[James Deuce]

Ok, new question; "Why the hostility over the subject of Hi-Viz?"
Because it will inevitably become compulsory with no concrete evidence that it works. Compulsion is fascism.

[bogan]

Ok, new question; "Why the hostility over the subject of Hi-Viz?"

Cos we don't like being told what to do when the justification behind it is complete bullshit.

[Matariki]

Because it will inevitably become compulsory with no concrete evidence that it works. Compulsion is fascism.


Cos we don't like being told what to do when the justification behind it is complete bullshit.

But guys, this isn't what the question is about or addressing, nor do I support the movement of compulsory Hi-Viz (yet alone of any safety gear). Perhaps I should picked a better time to bring this thread up, I didn't know there was a storm in the works regarding Hi-Viz. :(

[Tigadee]

I wonder: How about in workplaces where hi-vis is worn? Has it helped reduce the number of accidents at the workplace? If the answer is a definitive 'yes', then surely that can be applied to motorcycling, right?

We're not asked to paint our bikes yellow or orange, just wear one or two items of clothing [vest or jacket] that are completely or totally in those colours. Of course hi-vis cannot prevent stupidity and recklessness, but for those of us who are cautious, the odds will be at least slightly stacked in our favor as a result, won't they?

[wasiler]

Err, no. The light from you headlight completely masks you and what you're wearing.

Err, sorry, I meant from a car approaching from the side. Unless you have headlights on the side of your bike, then pay no mind.

[Kickaha]

but for those of us who are cautious, the odds will be at least slightly stacked in our favor as a result, won't they?

For those of you that are cautious it's probably the least needed

[duckonin]

They'll hear me before they see me !

But on topic, here's an experiment for ya Hot one !

Go for a ride around masterton (thinkin you're from there) and count how many hiviz vests you see in say an hours cruise through town, up and down every street !
Not just Motorcyclists but the garbage man, the dude cleaning the drains, the engineers plotting the landscape, the pothole man, the dude on his way to subway for lunch that works on one of the building sites etc etc etc
Every trade has to wear a hiviz vest now !!!!!

So you're trying to tell me that nanna up the road, who drives into town once a week to go play bingo and who has been aclimatised to seeing maybe a dozen hiviz vests every time she travels from one side of masterton to the other will see a hi viz vest on a motorcyclist before she see's my bike ?

So she looks left (sees the pothole man in his hiviz) looks right (sees the dude on his way to subway crossing the road)

Ya see where i'm going with this yet ?

Looks left again and goes cause it's just some dude in a hiviz vest !

:rolleyes: So shall we carry on with your cryptic thoughts.. You say "she looks left see's the pothole man in his hi-viz" see's the dude on his way to subway wearing his hi-vis. Did she hit them no she did not.

So why would she not see your hi-vis vest she has eyes we hope. Forget your words 'she didn't see my motorbike/ . Yep she did she looked at the over all picture. You know I bet she even seen your large headlight glaring at her.

I do not advocate the wearing of anything compulsory at all, be it hi-vis anything/ white boots/ pink pants /yellow helmet, who cares as long as you stay safe and can be seen.

[sinfull]

:rolleyes: So shall we carry on with your cryptic thoughts.. You say "she looks left see's the pothole man in his hi-viz" see's the dude on his way to subway crossing the road. So why would she not see your hi-vis vest she has eyes we hope. Forget your words 'she didn't see my motorbike/ . Yep she did she looked at the over all picture. You know I bet she even seen your large headlight glaring at her.

Back to your tent with ya !

When you re read my post and see i in fact said, "all she sees is another dude in a hiviz vest" come back and talk !

You in fact only saw what your mind wanted to see , just like little old ladies ducky, she will see yet another hi viz (that she's seen a doz of that day) but not the fact that it's moving as glancing will not show depth perseption and the fact it's changing ! And not the grille of a car or truck which her mind is looking for !

Take that and oil ya plumage with !

[duckonin]

Cos we don't like being told what to do when the justification behind it is complete bullshit.


:rolleyes:Have 'you' been told to wear Hi-vis anything whilst on your motorbike ? What makes you say "the justification behind it is complete bullshit".

The justification behind what ? In places Hi-vis can be justified.

[FJRider]

Considering ... the usual cry of bikers is "They're all out to get us" ... so not being seen is to our advantage ... surely ... :beer:

Or have I got it wrong ... again ... :crazy:

[duckonin]

Back to your tent with ya !

When you re read my post and see i in fact said, "all she sees is another dude in a hiviz vest" come back and talk !

You in fact only saw what your mind wanted to see , just like little old ladies ducky, she will see yet another hi viz (that she's seen a doz of that day) but not the fact that it's moving as glancing will not show depth perseption and the fact it's changing ! And not the grille of a car or truck which her mind is looking for !

Take that and oil ya plumage with !

Will order two of what you are having :rolleyes: must be good shit.:killingme Geezz you are very basic.

[swbarnett]

Apparently there was a test study done on the matter back in 2004, it states in its conculsion that "Drivers wearing reflective or fluorescent clothing had a 37% lower risk of crash related injury than those who were not wearing such materials." http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/351235/field_highwire_article_pdf/0

"Correlation does not mean causation"

[sinfull]

Will order two of what you are having :rolleyes: must be good shit.:killingme Geezz you are very basic.


Oh well done, now i see your argument lol

[bogan]

:rolleyes:Have 'you' been told to wear Hi-vis anything whilst on your motorbike ? What makes you say "the justification behind it is complete bullshit".

The justification behind what ? In places Hi-vis can be justified.

Trouble is, once we've been told we have to, is its too late to argue. I've read the studies those calling for mandatory high vis use as justification, and their interpretations of the findings are bullshit.

I'm sure in places high vis can be justified, and if I see justification that doesn't sound like bullshit, then I won't call it bullshit.

Personally I'm not sure if it does more harm than good or not. Effects like motion camouflage, and driver expectation of high -vis means stationary road worker or cops must be taken into account. Rider attitude effects like I'm wearing high vis so that guy must have seen me must be taken into account. Its not as simple as wow, I'm wearing bright colors so people won't cut me off. I mean FFS, we still get cut off with a light source putting out much more than a high vis vest does.

[wasiler]

I think reflective hi-viz at night would help but, don't think it is the best. I think lighting is the best way to stand out day or night. Do police cars turn on their high viz when they have an emergency? That is why they have lights and a siren.

I don't see how the hi-viz would work during the day. The reason being is because you have so many colors during the day, signs, grass, painted cars and buildings....For a car coming from the side, I think they will see you anyway because you are moving perpendicular to their vision with or without high viz. Maybe even better if you are a black dot against a colorful background. Maybe you will stand out a tiny bit more with high viz against a black background...who knows. I think it will be about the same.

The main problem is when coming head on during the day. Also probably when most accidents happen. It is a little harder to stand out because you are just a stationary dot. A colorful dot in a sea of color. That orange dot would be lost in the mix. That is not a fact, just food for thought. During the day time, you have to provide some type of erratic movement when coming toward traffic to catch the eye of the car driver. I saw a video where one guy says to weave side to side. :nya: That to me does not seem practical and will you be doing that all day long? :lol: The only way I see to stand out is by using one of those headlight modulators that pulse. Thus, the erratic movement of your light is what you need to help stand out. Not saying it is fool proof. I don't wear orange because I don't think it will make that much of a difference. My jacket is black but, it does have those reflective strips built in for night time. If you want to wear bright orange during the day, go for it. It can't hurt.

At night, the reflective material is needed because you don't much light on your sides and a small red lamp in the rear. This is where you stand out because you are a glowing blob against a black background. Head on at night you have got that really bright head light. The rear...ehh, can't say I am too crazy about one tiny red lamp. Thus, the reflective material and the blue LED. The blue led in the back stands out from all the other red break lights.

A LED on the side would also probably be a good choice too but, I don't have one. When I see a cars headlights approaching from the side and if I can, I will slow down or speed up to avoid meeting the intersection at the same time. Doesn't always work but, I guess just call me a rebel.

[James Deuce]

Err, sorry, I meant from a car approaching from the side. Unless you have headlights on the side of your bike, then pay no mind.

Humans need daylight to see in colour properly. The side view of a motorcycle flashes by very quickly and if someone has already pulled out on you and they see the colour of the vest you're wearing, they're about to hit you.

The reflective strips make you more visible, as well as that black pimply stuff that reflects bright white at night. Fluorescent green or yellow is pointless at night time.

[Subike]

, "does it make a difference in rider viability?".
Tell you what, come down here to Christchurch,Take a walk around the city for a couple of days and ask the guys doing the road repairs this same question. These guys are just as exposed to drivers as a motorcyclist. Also drive one main road with a camera, and count the number of HiVis wearing people you see. Upload the camera and recount. Have done this as an experiment, I missed 25% of the hi vis wearers on that road. If I missed 25% and I was looking for them, how many would I miss if I was not looking.The reason I suggest Christchurch? More hiv vis wearers per capita than any other place. Thus it would give you a view of the future if usage increased everywhere.

[Berries]

You don't wear Hi-Viz, good for you, and I'm sure you have some good reasons not to if you don't mind sharing.
I believe that if I have to rely on another motorist to do the right thing for my own survival then I am fucked. Whether hi-viz would make me more visible is irrelevant to me. I ride like they can't see me so I am never surprised when they don't.

[wasiler]

Humans need daylight to see in colour properly. The side view of a motorcycle flashes by very quickly and if someone has already pulled out on you and they see the colour of the vest you're wearing, they're about to hit you.

The reflective strips make you more visible, as well as that black pimply stuff that reflects bright white at night. Fluorescent green or yellow is pointless at night time.

Man what is wrong with you. You must be subhuman. I bet everyone else on here can see colors at night. :nya: I think we are saying the same thing. Thanks, I never knew what that black pimply stuff was called. Now I know.

I hate that fluorescent crap. That is useless and should go on a harley. The blue LEDs are really bright. When I first put them on was when they first adopted the law allowing it. The cops were giving me a verbal warnings then I had to inform them that the law had changed. Anyway, they really stand out. Trust me.

I also read where you can't have lights that "dazzle or confuse" other drivers. Some of the new break lights are awesome at night and make all kinds of erratic movements. I am wondering if the popo would bust you for something like that? Seems like that is counter productive.

[scumdog]

I believe that if I have to rely on another motorist to do the right thing for my own survival then I am fucked. Whether hi-viz would make me more visible is irrelevant to me. I ride like they can't see me so I am never surprised when they don't.

C'mon, you rely on the other motorists to stay on their side of the road...most of the time....;)

[Berries]

I really meant in those places where being seen is an issue. If someone cannot see me approaching with my head light on then I have no confidence that wearing hi-viz will improve things.

[James Deuce]

Man what is wrong with you. You must be subhuman.


http://www.aoa.org/x5352.xml

[wasiler]

http://www.aoa.org/x5352.xml

No duh, I guess my attempt at sarcasm failed over the internet. :facepalm: Next you will be telling me humans need air to breath. Here, let me help you out. http://www.che.iitb.ac.in/faculty/gks/studproj/cfa_2002/rahul_harkisanka/cfa1.html You missed the point, I was using hi-viz interchangeably with colors and reflective material. I never said you can see colors at night. You stated the obvious. You can have high visibility by supposedly wearing bright colors during the day or you can have high visibility by wearing reflective material at night. Thus, hi-viz day or night. Are you trying to say that you are invisible at night when you wear reflective materials?

[James Deuce]

No duh, I guess my attempt at sarcasm failed over the internet. :facepalm: Next you will be telling me humans need air to breath. Here, let me help you out. http://www.che.iitb.ac.in/faculty/gks/studproj/cfa_2002/rahul_harkisanka/cfa1.html You missed the point, I was using hi-viz interchangeably with colors and reflective material. I never said you can see colors at night. You stated the obvious. You can have high visibility by supposedly wearing bright colors during the day or you can have high visibility by wearing reflective material at night. Thus, hi-viz day or night. Are you trying to say that you are invisible at night when you wear reflective materials?
I don't know, you're the one that's failing to communicate. Sarcasm works best in person and generally in the company of people with a reasonably profound understanding of your personality traits. Assuming one has a personality of course.

[FJRider]

Are you trying to say that you are invisible at night when you wear reflective materials?

I've generally found people see my head/tail lights before they see any reflective panels I may be wearing ...

[wasiler]

I've generally found people see my head/tail lights before they see any reflective panels I may be wearing ...

True, from the front I don't think the reflective material will be visible. From the rear it will be a little better. From the side will be the best because you don't have any lights. I stated in an earlier post that I think lighting is the best way to be seen. Either a headlight modulator or LEDs. I also like to use blue LED license plate bolts at the rear. Here are some that are red which I guess are alright and would be legal here because they are red. I have the blue which stands out a little more against the other red tail lights. They are surprisingly bright too.

http://www.sz-wholesaler.com/p/633/655-1/led-bolt-light-248163.html

http://carkart.com/LED-LIGHT-BOLTS-PAIR-RED?filter_name=led

http://www.speedwaymotors.com/led-license-plate-bolt-light,4677.html

[Matariki]

I think reflective hi-viz at night would help but, don't think it is the best. I think lighting is the best way to stand out day or night. Do police cars turn on their high viz when they have an emergency? That is why they have lights and a siren.

I don't see how the hi-viz would work during the day. The reason being is because you have so many colors during the day, signs, grass, painted cars and buildings....For a car coming from the side, I think they will see you anyway because you are moving perpendicular to their vision with or without high viz. Maybe even better if you are a black dot against a colorful background. Maybe you will stand out a tiny bit more with high viz against a black background...who knows. I think it will be about the same.

The main problem is when coming head on during the day. Also probably when most accidents happen. It is a little harder to stand out because you are just a stationary dot. A colorful dot in a sea of color. That orange dot would be lost in the mix. That is not a fact, just food for thought. During the day time, you have to provide some type of erratic movement when coming toward traffic to catch the eye of the car driver. I saw a video where one guy says to weave side to side. :nya: That to me does not seem practical and will you be doing that all day long? :lol: The only way I see to stand out is by using one of those headlight modulators that pulse. Thus, the erratic movement of your light is what you need to help stand out. Not saying it is fool proof. I don't wear orange because I don't think it will make that much of a difference. My jacket is black but, it does have those reflective strips built in for night time. If you want to wear bright orange during the day, go for it. It can't hurt.

At night, the reflective material is needed because you don't much light on your sides and a small red lamp in the rear. This is where you stand out because you are a glowing blob against a black background. Head on at night you have got that really bright head light. The rear...ehh, can't say I am too crazy about one tiny red lamp. Thus, the reflective material and the blue LED. The blue led in the back stands out from all the other red break lights.

A LED on the side would also probably be a good choice too but, I don't have one. When I see a cars headlights approaching from the side and if I can, I will slow down or speed up to avoid meeting the intersection at the same time. Doesn't always work but, I guess just call me a rebel.

True. But I think the general idea behind Hi-Viz is because not only are you sporting a color that generally contrasts against the colors found in most environments but you're also wearings colors that reflects light, so you're more likely to stand out than if you were wearing matt/flat colors. At night time, the reflective material is what is going to stand out, but in the day I think the fluoro is more likely to stand out. I tend to wear a combination of fluorescent colors (Hi-Viz yellow helmet with an orange/yellow vest) just so I don't look like one large singular colored mass. I'm also changing the lighting system on my bike over to LED. I'm not sure if the combination of different fluorescent colors would work in my favor, but my dad (who's optometrist) says that I am more likely to be seen on the road.

I don't fully understand the science behind how the human eye processes colors and lights, but I know this much;

The eye is designed to register light, how that works is that the human eye has six outer layers (like an onion), the first layer of the six outer layers is the cornea, all light needs to go through the cornea before it hits the inner layer where color, light sensitivity and detail is processed; the retina. In the retina there are two types of cells; the rod cells (which are responsible for vision in low light) and the cone cells (which are responsible for processing color and detail). In the back of the eye (which is in the center of the retina) is the mucula and in the mucula there is an area called the fovea centralis which only contains cone cells and is responsible for seeing detail clearly.

270202

With the rod and cone cells when light hits them, it results in a chemical reaction that sends a signal to the brain. When light enters the eye, it comes in contact with a photosensitive chemical (Rhodopsin) which breaks down and forms into metarhodopsin II (activated rhodopsin) when light hits it, this chemical change is what results in the electrical impulses that sends the signal to your brain which is then interpreted as light. The more light there is, the more rhodopsin is broken down and activated, resulting in a stronger signal. This is why sometimes your eyes hurt when you look at something bright (like the sun or snow). With the Hi-Viz, the idea is to produce a nice strong signal that the brain is more likely to register.

Yellow (Chartreuse) is the most visible color to the human eye, since it reflects the most light. 270200

[FJRider]

With the Hi-Viz, the idea is to produce a nice strong signal that the brain is more likely to register.



Some brains don't seem to register Red and Blue flashing lights ... with a siren. What makes a few reflective panels so special ... ???

[Matariki]

I really meant in those places where being seen is an issue. If someone cannot see me approaching with my head light on then I have no confidence that wearing hi-viz will improve things.

What if the driver is behind you or in another lane next to you on the motorway? (unless you have back lights or something)

[Matariki]

Some brains don't seem to register Red and Blue flashing lights ... with a siren. What makes a few reflective panels so special ... ???

Well, there could be other reasons why someone might want to ignore Red and Blue flashing lights and a siren. But not noticing it, I'm not sure how you can't notice it unless you don't check your rear view mirror and have your music up too loud.

[Berries]

Yellow (Chartreuse) is the most visible color to the human eye, since it reflects the most light.
Now see, I am quite badly colour blind. I was going to make an offhand comment about all the cones I smoked in my yoof having affected the cones in my eyes but then you said that. I have to wear hi-viz at work occasionally. It used to be fluoro yellow and I could see it. The orange they now use is invisible to me with pretty much any kind of background. I can't see traffic cones, and road works signs just disappear if they have any kind of vegetation near them. I know I am towards the far end of colour disability (is it cos I am black?) but if 10% of the male population are colour blind it doesn't make sense to try and make things visible and yet not use the most visible colour.


What if the driver is behind you or in another lane next to you on the motorway? (unless you have back lights or something)
Getting hit from behind makes up such a small proportion of bike crashes it is not worth worrying about. The driver will either be distracted trying to find an address, perving at someone, arguing with a passenger or pissed. And going on the fact that infinitely more cars are rear ended than motorbikes I would have to suggest that this crash type is rarely related to visibility.

If you get hit by someone changing lanes then I'm sorry, you were both poorly positioned and unaware of your surroundings. We all know cars have a blind spot and we all know that drivers don't look over their shoulders. If a driver can't see you because you are not even in their field of vision then hi-viz won't make a difference.

This subject will just keep going round in circles. In my opinion, if you ride defensively there should be no reason to need hi-viz. Some people say it helps, but then you still have to ride defensively anyway, so why bother?

[Matariki]

Now see, I am quite badly colour blind. I was going to make an offhand comment about all the cones I smoked in my yoof having affected the cones in my eyes but then you said that. I have to wear hi-viz at work occasionally. It used to be fluoro yellow and I could see it. The orange they now use is invisible to me with pretty much any kind of background. I can't see traffic cones, and road works signs just disappear if they have any kind of vegetation near them. I know I am towards the far end of colour disability (is it cos I am black?) but if 10% of the male population are colour blind it doesn't make sense to try and make things visible and yet not use the most visible colour.


Getting hit from behind makes up such a small proportion of bike crashes it is not worth worrying about. The driver will either be distracted trying to find an address, perving at someone, arguing with a passenger or pissed. And going on the fact that infinitely more cars are rear ended than motorbikes I would have to suggest that this crash type is rarely related to visibility.

If you get hit by someone changing lanes then I'm sorry, you were both poorly positioned and unaware of your surroundings. We all know cars have a blind spot and we all know that drivers don't look over their shoulders. If a driver can't see you because you are not even in their field of vision then hi-viz won't make a difference.

This subject will just keep going round in circles. In my opinion, if you ride defensively there should be no reason to need hi-viz. Some people say it helps, but then you still have to ride defensively anyway, so why bother?

True enough, Hi-Viz anything won't mean jack all if a driver isn't looking where he or she is going or if you have a inexperienced rider on the motorcycle. But If wearing Hi-Viz can increase my chances of being seen, then I can't see any harm in wearing it. But you state some valid points that can't be ignored, but at the same time I can't ignore the results of the 2004 published paper that I posted in my first post.

In my own experience, I tend to notice those wearing Hi-Viz from a distance. When I'm driving on the motorway for an example, I tend to notice a rider who either has LED lights or is wearing Hi-Viz. But I have to honest, I don't notice those wearing the Hi-Viz as well as I do with those using LED lights. Considering that my motorcycle doesn't have LED lights, if I had to choose out of wearing Hi-Viz or not, I would prefer to wear Hi-Viz (even more so in overcast weather or at night).

[oneofsix]

True enough, Hi-Viz anything won't mean jack all if a driver isn't looking where he or she is going or if you have a inexperienced rider on the motorcycle. But If wearing Hi-Viz can increase my chances of being seen, then I can't see any harm in wearing it. But you state some valid points that can't be ignored, but at the same time I can't ignore the results of the 2004 published paper that I posted in my first post.

In my own experience, I tend to notice those wearing Hi-Viz from a distance. When I'm driving on the motorway for an example, I tend to notice a rider who either has LED lights or is wearing Hi-Viz. But I have to honest, I don't notice those wearing the Hi-Viz as well as I do with those using LED lights. Considering that my motorcycle doesn't have LED lights, if I had to choose out of wearing Hi-Viz or not, I would prefer to wear Hi-Viz (even more so in overcast weather or at night).

As long as the hi-viz is built into your gear and not some sort of add on that flaps in the wind, can get uncomfortable, (you know the way you can wear something a 100 times but just hat once it wont sit right), or in any other way distract you from your primary function whilst on the bike. The draw back of built in hi-viz being that it will discolour and loose some of its affect before you are finished with your gear.

I too used to think I was noticing the hi-viz better but then realised I was spotting the bike a split second before but noticing and recording the hi-viz.

But as said above, providing the way you are wearing it is doing no harm, you realise that in some rear conditions it can make you harder to spot and generally it wont help alot and its not forced on you then why not. Truth is wit hte way you are thinking your riding style is probably doing more to protect you than hi-viz ever will and wearing it will just show you are a careful rider.

[MSTRS]

Two points.

I'll bet that study was paid for by 3M.

The type of riders who choose to wear high visibility clothing (note the lack of infantile abbreviation) are 37% less likely to have accidents is a more correct assessment of the results.

You can argue all you like about reducing injury through gear. As far as I know, sheep are both colour blind and stupid, and old people can be both but also have the enormous burden of being human and running a restricted version of a human brain. Both have proved far more dangerous to me than any other "demographic".

Any form of compulsion is bad. Any form of peer pressure to conform to "commonly accepted practice" should be fought with every breath including your dying one.
I'm with you on these points, young fella.

In fact, I will add that I believe the ONLY hi-viz that a rider should utilise and rely on is his/her eyesight.

[p.dath]

...
Do you think Hi-Viz makes much of a difference in rider visibility? ...

During day time riding I think it makes little difference. My opinion during night time wavers, and I think it may help in low light conditions.

Just to balance up the research you have.

The largest motorcycle safety research done in the world was the HURT report, done in the US, in the late 70's. It found the use of daytime head lights or the use of high-viz helped. The consequence of this is that many countries started introducing compulsory headlight laws. Sure it took NZ 30 years to follow suit, but we did the same.
The reason the study said "or" was because there wasn't much of a difference in safety doing both.

The second largest study done in the world was the MAIDS report in Europe. It looks at the general issue on conspicuity. It found that it made little difference, and that some cases, such as riders wearing white helmets, that those riders where involved in more accidents than those riders wearing black helmets.
HOWEVER, the results showing that wearing more highly visible items made your safety worse were within the margin of error, and certainly less than the "5 sigma" test to be confident it was correct.

Then the much smaller Auckland University study that you quoted was done. It showed the opposite of the larger MAIDS report, and that there was an improvement in safety by being more visible. HOWEVER, just like the MAIDS report, the results fell car short of the "5 sigma" test of confidence, so you can't really consider it statistically significant.

FYI, currently 23% of all injury based motor vehicle accidents (that's all classes of vehicles, not just motorcycles) list driver inattention as a contributing cause. That's the old "sorry, I didn't see you". These are predominantly car drivers you didn't see other cars and trucks (the majority of road users). With this category there are reasons listed like "changing radio/music", TXTing, etc.
If you can appreciate that this is a very large group of the accidents, and that cars and trucks are highly visible compared to motorbikes - you can quickly come to the conclusion that being more visible wont help you. If someone is TXTing or changing the radio - or anything where they simply aren't looking where they are driving - then you could be naked and it still isn't going to help.

And then you get excellent psychological research like the "Invisible Gorilla" (You Tube it for a quick example). Basically the research shows that the brain only sees what it is expecting to see. To demonstrate this, they get a person to dress up in a Gorilla suit and walk through the middle of a basketball game. Afterwards they surveyed the people watching, and only 50% saw the gorilla. Once again, if the brain is not expecting to see a gorilla it probably wont see it.

So if you lane splitting for example, and a driver is not expecting to see you, then they probably wont see you. It doesn't matter how visible you make your self.

And then there are other issues like motion camouflage.


I could probably go on and on quoting you more studies and statistics, but at the end of the day it is up to you. Personally, during day time use, I feel that if you already have a head light on, high-viz is going to do almost nothing for you.

[FJRider]

Well, there could be other reasons why someone might want to ignore Red and Blue flashing lights and a siren. But not noticing it, I'm not sure how you can't notice it unless you don't check your rear view mirror and have your music up too loud.

In Auckland not so long ago ... a guy turned in front of a cop car as it was coming towards him. His wife (the passenger) died.

[MSTRS]

In Auckland not so long ago ... a guy turned in front of a cop car as it was coming towards him. His wife (the passenger) died.

Try the plethora of braindead fuckwits on our roads that "don't see or hear" the big white bus under lights and sirens. Talk to an ambo for the real story...

[pete-blen]

I don't know what the big drama is..
I can't see that a Hi viz will course you to get hit..
but don't let having one lure you into a false sence
of secrurity...
So if yer want to use one .. go for it...

[Bradles]

During day time riding I think it makes little difference. My opinion during night time wavers, and I think it may help in low light conditions.

Just to balance up the research you have.

The largest motorcycle safety research done in the world was the HURT report, done in the US, in the late 70's. It found the use of daytime head lights or the use of high-viz helped. The consequence of this is that many countries started introducing compulsory headlight laws. Sure it took NZ 30 years to follow suit, but we did the same.
The reason the study said "or" was because there wasn't much of a difference in safety doing both.

The second largest study done in the world was the MAIDS report in Europe. It looks at the general issue on conspicuity. It found that it made little difference, and that some cases, such as riders wearing white helmets, that those riders where involved in more accidents than those riders wearing black helmets.
HOWEVER, the results showing that wearing more highly visible items made your safety worse were within the margin of error, and certainly less than the "5 sigma" test to be confident it was correct.

Then the much smaller Auckland University study that you quoted was done. It showed the opposite of the larger MAIDS report, and that there was an improvement in safety by being more visible. HOWEVER, just like the MAIDS report, the results fell car short of the "5 sigma" test of confidence, so you can't really consider it statistically significant.

FYI, currently 23% of all injury based motor vehicle accidents (that's all classes of vehicles, not just motorcycles) list driver inattention as a contributing cause. That's the old "sorry, I didn't see you". These are predominantly car drivers you didn't see other cars and trucks (the majority of road users). With this category there are reasons listed like "changing radio/music", TXTing, etc.
If you can appreciate that this is a very large group of the accidents, and that cars and trucks are highly visible compared to motorbikes - you can quickly come to the conclusion that being more visible wont help you. If someone is TXTing or changing the radio - or anything where they simply aren't looking where they are driving - then you could be naked and it still isn't going to help.

And then you get excellent psychological research like the "Invisible Gorilla" (You Tube it for a quick example). Basically the research shows that the brain only sees what it is expecting to see. To demonstrate this, they get a person to dress up in a Gorilla suit and walk through the middle of a basketball game. Afterwards they surveyed the people watching, and only 50% saw the gorilla. Once again, if the brain is not expecting to see a gorilla it probably wont see it.

So if you lane splitting for example, and a driver is not expecting to see you, then they probably wont see you. It doesn't matter how visible you make your self.

And then there are other issues like motion camouflage.


I could probably go on and on quoting you more studies and statistics, but at the end of the day it is up to you. Personally, during day time use, I feel that if you already have a head light on, high-viz is going to do almost nothing for you.

This is much better than what I was going to say but here's my contribution anyway.
While the study the OP points to does attempt for some confounding variables it doesn't take into consideration the rider's attitude to riding/personality.
At a guess people who tend to be more cautious are probably more likely to wear hi-vis vests.
At a guess people who tend to be more cautious are probably less likely to be involved in an accident.
Essentially there is a pretty obvious third variable that they haven't attempted to control for so the take home message could be people who are more cautious are involved in less accidents.
In fact, assuming that the above guesses are correct, if they did some kind of cautiousness measure you would probably find that the relationship between wearing vests and being in accidents would decline and the relationship between being cautious and having accidents would be much larger than the relationship they have reported between vests and accidents.

Essentially what I'm saying is it's hard to know if the study is actually looking at the effect of wearing a vest or something else.

[Matariki]

As long as the hi-viz is built into your gear and not some sort of add on that flaps in the wind, can get uncomfortable, (you know the way you can wear something a 100 times but just hat once it wont sit right), or in any other way distract you from your primary function whilst on the bike. The draw back of built in hi-viz being that it will discolour and loose some of its affect before you are finished with your gear.

I too used to think I was noticing the hi-viz better but then realised I was spotting the bike a split second before but noticing and recording the hi-viz.

But as said above, providing the way you are wearing it is doing no harm, you realise that in some rear conditions it can make you harder to spot and generally it wont help alot and its not forced on you then why not. Truth is wit hte way you are thinking your riding style is probably doing more to protect you than hi-viz ever will and wearing it will just show you are a careful rider.

I agree 100%, for Hi-Viz I have a helmet that's Chartreuse, and I wear Hi-Viz vest over my jacket that I can zip up (rather than the velcro), I wear it when I'm in areas with lots of traffic (motorway's, supermarkets etc., or in area's I'm unfamiliar with) or in overcast weather, or at night. I don't worry about wearing it when I'm in a low traffic area (like the country side) but I like to keep my vest in my back pack just in case. My jacket has reflective material built in it, but it's not Hi-Viz. But even when I am wearing it, I always make sure I ride as If I'm invisible.

[Matariki]

During day time riding I think it makes little difference. My opinion during night time wavers, and I think it may help in low light conditions.

Just to balance up the research you have.

The largest motorcycle safety research done in the world was the HURT report, done in the US, in the late 70's. It found the use of daytime head lights or the use of high-viz helped. The consequence of this is that many countries started introducing compulsory headlight laws. Sure it took NZ 30 years to follow suit, but we did the same.
The reason the study said "or" was because there wasn't much of a difference in safety doing both.

The second largest study done in the world was the MAIDS report in Europe. It looks at the general issue on conspicuity. It found that it made little difference, and that some cases, such as riders wearing white helmets, that those riders where involved in more accidents than those riders wearing black helmets.
HOWEVER, the results showing that wearing more highly visible items made your safety worse were within the margin of error, and certainly less than the "5 sigma" test to be confident it was correct.

Then the much smaller Auckland University study that you quoted was done. It showed the opposite of the larger MAIDS report, and that there was an improvement in safety by being more visible. HOWEVER, just like the MAIDS report, the results fell car short of the "5 sigma" test of confidence, so you can't really consider it statistically significant.

FYI, currently 23% of all injury based motor vehicle accidents (that's all classes of vehicles, not just motorcycles) list driver inattention as a contributing cause. That's the old "sorry, I didn't see you". These are predominantly car drivers you didn't see other cars and trucks (the majority of road users). With this category there are reasons listed like "changing radio/music", TXTing, etc.
If you can appreciate that this is a very large group of the accidents, and that cars and trucks are highly visible compared to motorbikes - you can quickly come to the conclusion that being more visible wont help you. If someone is TXTing or changing the radio - or anything where they simply aren't looking where they are driving - then you could be naked and it still isn't going to help.

And then you get excellent psychological research like the "Invisible Gorilla" (You Tube it for a quick example). Basically the research shows that the brain only sees what it is expecting to see. To demonstrate this, they get a person to dress up in a Gorilla suit and walk through the middle of a basketball game. Afterwards they surveyed the people watching, and only 50% saw the gorilla. Once again, if the brain is not expecting to see a gorilla it probably wont see it.

So if you lane splitting for example, and a driver is not expecting to see you, then they probably wont see you. It doesn't matter how visible you make your self.

And then there are other issues like motion camouflage.


I could probably go on and on quoting you more studies and statistics, but at the end of the day it is up to you. Personally, during day time use, I feel that if you already have a head light on, high-viz is going to do almost nothing for you.

This is what I call a very well informed post. I know of the articles and the tests that you quoted, and I'll say I agree with you. Having your lights on (especially if they're LED) is better than wearing Hi-Viz, but wearing Hi-Viz is better than not having your lights on. My Dad (as I mentioned before is an optometrist) believes that its a good idea to have both. Though thinking about it, a driver is probably more likely to spot a rider wearing a Hi-Viz helmet than a vest (because the vest is obscured by the front of the bike and at times a backpack if the rider is wearing one, or if the rider is carrying a pillion passenger). But like others have said, if a driver doesn't spot your lights, Its unlikely that they're going to spot your Hi-Viz.

[Matariki]

Talking about selective attention tests, I wonder why they aren't included in the drivers test? Here's the famous 'Invisible Gorilla' test;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

[p.dath]

Talking about selective attention tests, I wonder why they aren't included in the drivers test? Here's the famous 'Invisible Gorilla' test;
...

Because if the populace was subjected to a series of 5 tests, only 3.1% of the population would pass (without cheating). It is simply the way our brains have developed over the last 60,000 years thanks to Cerebrum development.

[rastuscat]

It is simply the way our brains have developed over the last 60,000 years thanks to Cerebrum development.

And thus, we are condemned to die by the faults of our humanity.

Folk who wear hi viz are safety conscious, so ride like they are safety conscious.

Folk who object to hi viz go to all sorts of lengths to justify their positions.

I don't GAF. I'll wear it sometimes, sometimes not, depends on how I feel, and how many layers I'm needing.

So there.

[scumdog]

And thus, we are condemned to die by the faults of our humanity.

Folk who wear hi viz are safety conscious, so ride like they are safety conscious.

Folk who object to hi viz go to all sorts of lengths to justify their positions.

I don't GAF. I'll wear it sometimes, sometimes not, depends on how I feel, and how many layers I'm needing.

So there.


Nicely summed up.

How many still think that wearing seat-belts encourages drivers to care less about their safety when driving?

'Cos once upon a time people thought that too...

[Matariki]

Because if the populace was subjected to a series of 5 tests, only 3.1% of the population would pass (without cheating). It is simply the way our brains have developed over the last 60,000 years thanks to Cerebrum development.

Wouldn't that be a good thing (at least for us motorcyclists)? I'll probably start up another thread addressing issue to see what you guys think.

[rastuscat]

Printed off the study that someone posted the link to.

The summary on Page 5 says

"Wearing reflective or flourescent clothing and white or light coloured helmets and using headlights in daytime could reduce serious injuries or death from motorcycle crashes by up to one third."

This is not my opinion, merely what the research based study found.

So there.

[Kickaha]

"Wearing reflective or flourescent clothing and white or light coloured helmets and using headlights in daytime could reduce serious injuries or death from motorcycle crashes by up to one third."

Could isn't the same as will

[oneofsix]

Printed off the study that someone posted the link to.

The summary on Page 5 says

"Wearing reflective or flourescent clothing and white or light coloured helmets and using headlights in daytime could reduce serious injuries or death from motorcycle crashes by up to one third."

This is not my opinion, merely what the research based study found.

So there.

No donuts for that. We already have the headlight law there most, if not all, of that possible 1/3 reduction could already be accounted for. Nice piece of propaganda though.

[p.dath]

Wouldn't that be a good thing (at least for us motorcyclists)? I'll probably start up another thread addressing issue to see what you guys think.

If only 3.1% of the population could pass the test, then you should assume you wouldn't pass - you would loose the "right" to be on the public road in/on a motorised vehicle.

In NZ we have a culture of everyone driving. It's partially because of our geography and how far apart everything is, and partly due to the lack of options getting there, and the control over those options.

Any test that told 96.9% of the population they were no longer allowed to drive is [IMHO] harsh and opressive.

[oneofsix]

Nicely summed up.

How many still think that wearing seat-belts encourages drivers to care less about their safety when driving?

'Cos once upon a time people thought that too...

Nice wind up. Comparing something that restrains you in a safety cage and prevents you impacting hard surfaces with something that is the equivalent of the Gorilla on the basketball court. :2thumbsup

[p.dath]

...The summary on Page 5 says

"Wearing reflective or flourescent clothing and white or light coloured helmets and using headlights in daytime could reduce serious injuries or death from motorcycle crashes by up to one third."

This is not my opinion, merely what the research based study found.
...

That would be the Auckland University study. Try reading the two other larger studies I cited, the HURT report and the MAIDS report.

And as I hinted at previously, did you see the 95% confidence interval in table 3 for high-viz use? 0.37 to 0.82, or somewhere between 37% and 82%? That's almost a 50% difference in the confidence interval range about weather it has an impact. If it was 37% then the odds aren't that high that it does have an impact. It is is 82% then the odds are pretty high. They ended up taking an average and saying it was 55%, and concluded it was having an impact (as more than 50%).

But the error margin is so high you'd have to be brave to call that conclusion.


Let me also add in the two other quotes from the section you mentioned, as it indicates more clearly the lack of certainty that the researchers felt.

Low conspicuity, or the inability of the motorcycle and rider
to be seen by other road users, is thought to be associated
with motorcycle crash related injury and death


Previous studies suggest a benefit from daytime use of
motorcycle headlights, although the evidence is limited

The reason they use words like "thought to" and "suggest" is because the research couldn't come to a confident conclusion. The error margins were just too high.

[MSTRS]

The reason they use words like "thought to" and "suggest" is because the research couldn't come to a confident conclusion. The error margins were just too high.

Correct. And also that little gem 'could'.

There are no absolute answers to the dilemma of not being seen.
Headlights on is no answer. The number of cars with daytime lights means a bike is just one of the crowd. FFS people pull in front of trains and their light is WAY brighter than any bike.
Hi-viz is a step down from that. And the way that it is creeping, nay - racing - into normal everyday wear for kids, walkers, cyclists, old people, road workers, John Key ... the end result again is a sea of dayglo yellow/orange that no-one sees anymore.
Using seatbelts as an analogy, SD, only works when compared to helmets. They are both there as injury mitigation only AFTER it has all turned tits up. Neither prevent crashes. Well, a visor on a helmet might, by keeping bugs 'n shit out of one's eyes...

I still maintain that a rider's best defence is their own awareness.
And that is advice that our fathers/grandfathers told us...watch out for the idiots out there, son, for they are indeed trying to kill you.

[Banditbandit]

I still maintain that a rider's best defence is their own awareness.
And that is advice that our fathers/grandfathers told us...watch out for the idiots out there, son, for they are indeed trying to kill you.

Exactly ... No-one is trying to argue that Hi-VIz will stop cages hitting bikes ... so this has to be the best advice ever ... Look after yourself out here ... don't rely on other people ... or articles of clothing ...

[Jantar]

...
The reason they use words like "thought to" and "suggest" is because the research couldn't come to a confident conclusion. The error margins were just too high.


Correct. And also that little gem 'could'.

....

One thing that was impressed on me when I was learning to write research papers was to NEVER cite any part of a paper wher the conclusions contained the words 'might, may, could' etc. As these all point to inconclusive results and results cannot be relied on.

Having read the paper cited by the OP (BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.37984.574757.EE (published 2 February 2004)) I can find so much wrong with the multivariate analysis that I'm suprised it passed peer review. There are so many confounding factors that affect the results (eg age,riding experience, lack of licence etc), that unless these factors are removed from the analysis then no conclusions can be made.

[oneofsix]

Exactly ... No-one is trying to argue that Hi-VIz will stop cages hitting bikes ... so this has to be the best advice ever ... Look after yourself out here ... don't rely on other people ... or articles of clothing ...

What about hi-viz causing accidents? Target fixation. They see you, they hit you but when asked I'll bet the first phrase will be along the lines of SMIDY because they still don't perceive you.

[Matariki]

If only 3.1% of the population could pass the test, then you should assume you wouldn't pass - you would loose the "right" to be on the public road in/on a motorised vehicle.

In NZ we have a culture of everyone driving. It's partially because of our geography and how far apart everything is, and partly due to the lack of options getting there, and the control over those options.

Any test that told 96.9% of the population they were no longer allowed to drive is [IMHO] harsh and opressive.

With the Gorilla test that you mentioned in a previous post, they said only 50% got it right, I didn't know it was as high as 96.9% (can you show me where got the statistics from?)
To be honest, I'm at a loss of what could be done to make New Zealand roads safer without violating rights. There are some things that I personally think that are written in the road code that are disasters waiting to happen in practice such as the 2 second rule (considering reaction times and sense of timing in general vary from person to person).

[bogan]

To be honest, I'm at a loss of what could be done to make New Zealand roads safer without violating rights.

Don't think about the cost of change, think about the net cost. Sharing the roads with wombles who might kill me or somebody I know through their ineptitude seems like a violation of rights, and a bigger one than a periodic competency test. In saying that, the way TPTB usually do things, it would end up being a piss easy test that cost heaps and achieved little.

[oneofsix]

To be honest, I'm at a loss of what could be done to make New Zealand roads safer without violating rights. There are some things that I personally think that are written in the road code that are disasters waiting to happen in practice such as the 2 second rule (considering reaction times and sense of timing in general vary from person to person).

I can but it costs money instead of making it. Separate traffic force, no speed or red light cameras, cops on the street picking up actual infringements that are indicators of lack of concern about the use of the road, earning their donut quota. A non-indicator is often a self centered person that will run your off the road rather than share the road with you. Can't be bothered writing a book on lost cause.

I don't see your problem with the 2 second advice, it only really covers the reaction time and it takes less than 2 seconds to react. If your reactions aren't fast enough there is no rule preventing you from allowing more. Anyhow the 2 second thing is not the rule it is only a piece of helpful advice.

[p.dath]

One thing that was impressed on me when I was learning to write research papers was to NEVER cite any part of a paper wher the conclusions contained the words 'might, may, could' etc. As these all point to inconclusive results and results cannot be relied on.

Having read the paper cited by the OP (BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.37984.574757.EE (published 2 February 2004)) I can find so much wrong with the multivariate analysis that I'm suprised it passed peer review. There are so many confounding factors that affect the results (eg age,riding experience, lack of licence etc), that unless these factors are removed from the analysis then no conclusions can be made.

One thing that surprised me about that study as well is they let the control group decide weather to wear high-viz or not. It strikes me the control group should be told what to wear. Otherwise you immediately get the results affected by people's personal opinions on the subject. E,g. People who are very risk adverse might be involved in less accidents and choose to use high-viz. Doing it the way they did you can't tell if the results are now because of the persons attitude or their clothing.

[bogan]

One thing that surprised me about that study as well is they let the control group decide weather to wear high-viz or not. It strikes me the control group should be told what to wear. Otherwise you immediately get the results affected by people's personal opinions on the subject. E,g. People who are very risk adverse might be involved in less accidents and choose to use high-viz. Doing it the way they did you can't tell if the results are now because of the persons attitude or their clothing.

Ideally each person would do alternate weeks, or perhaps alternate days to ensure the rider forgets if they have it on or not. That way it is normalised for the rider/bike/route/ pretty much everything.

[Maha]

Why is there a 'not sure' option on the poll? there is no grey area, they either are, or they are not....idiots.

[Matariki]

Why is there a 'not sure' option on the poll? there is no grey area, they either are, or they are not....idiots.

'Not sure' was for people who don't know; don't have experience with Hi-Viz or know much about it, or are still trying to decide based on evidence, or don't understand the general question etc.

[Bassmatt]

One thing that surprised me about that study as well is they let the control group decide weather to wear high-viz or not. It strikes me the control group should be told what to wear. Otherwise you immediately get the results affected by people's personal opinions on the subject. E,g. People who are very risk adverse might be involved in less accidents and choose to use high-viz. Doing it the way they did you can't tell if the results are now because of the persons attitude or their clothing.

Let face it, that particular study has holes big enough to drive a truck through and isn't worth the paper its written on.
In saying that I'm sure msac will be referencing it continuously- if they ever get around to actually doing anything.

[Ocean1]

Why is there a 'not sure' option on the poll? there is no grey area, they either are, or they are not....idiots.

The various studies have pretty much all failed to discern any difference in risk between those wearing Hi-Viz apparel and those not. In the face of such overwhelming evidence you'd be an idiot to stipulate anything but "No, it doesn't make any difference". Unless you have fresh, qualified and peer reviewed evidence to the contrary.

[Maha]

'Not sure' was for people who don't know; don't have experience with Hi-Viz or know much about it, or are still trying to decide based on evidence, or don't understand the general question etc.

That does sound idiotic.


The various studies have pretty much all failed to discern any difference in risk between those wearing Hi-Viz apparel and those not. In the face of such overwhelming evidence you'd be an idiot to stipulate anything but "No, it doesn't make any difference". Unless you have fresh, qualified and peer reviewed evidence to the contrary.

Those voting are offering thier opinion only, nothing study based.

[Bassmatt]

Those voting are offering thier opinion only, nothing study based.

This is KB, no one here offers an opinion without doing the research first!

:lol:

[Matariki]

That does sound idiotic.



Those voting are offering thier opinion only, nothing study based.

Well, Its my poll and I like to see what everyone thinks.

[Ocean1]

Those voting are offering thier opinion only, nothing study based.

For what it's worth my opinion matches the published research.

But then, no opinion based solely on personal experience is worth much compared to results of such comparitive studies, which represent the collective experience of many hundreds of riders.

[Matariki]

This is KB, no one here offers an opinion without doing the research first!

:lol:

:facepalm: You've got that right. I'm still trying to learn my way around the ropes here. Still, I do appreciate hearing *civilized, intelligent and well thought out* opinions.

[FJRider]

.... I do appreciate hearing *civilized, intelligent and well thought out* opinions.

Enjoy them while you can. It doesn't happen often ... ;)

[MSTRS]

...based on evidence...

Of which there is none - only highly subjective speculative supposition. Including that of the site's cops...

[scumdog]

Of which there is none - only highly subjective speculative supposition. Including that of the site's cops...

And nobody has facts to disprove our 'speculative supposition'! (Sound mad mating of some sort of midwifes tool and a proctologist medicine...:crazy:)l

[Berries]

Anyhow the 2 second thing is not the rule it is only a piece of helpful advice.

But with some legislation behind it, albeit less than 2 seconds.


5.9 Stopping and following distances

(4) No driver may drive a motor vehicle on any road following behind another vehicle at a distance behind that vehicle of less than—
(a) 16 m, if his or her speed is 40 km an hour or more but less than 50 km an hour; or
(b) 20 m, if his or her speed is 50 km an hour or more but less than 60 km an hour; or
(c) 24 m, if his or her speed is 60 km an hour or more but less than 70 km an hour; or
(d) 28 m, if his or her speed is 70 km an hour or more but less than 80 km an hour; or
(e) 32 m, if his or her speed is 80 km an hour or more.



Why is there a 'not sure' option on the poll? there is no grey area, they either are, or they are not....idiots.
What it needs is a 'sorry I don't believe in voting' option. I'd vote for that.

Oh hang on.....

[FJRider]

... only highly subjective speculative supposition.

Isn't that what the mrs has ... when you come home pissed, smelling of perfume ... ??? :pinch:

[Maha]

This is KB, no one here offers an opinion without doing the research first!

:lol:


Well, Its my poll and I like to see what everyone thinks.


For what it's worth my opinion matches the published research.

But then, no opinion based solely on personal experience is worth much compared to results of such comparitive studies, which represent the collective experience of many hundreds of riders.

My posts should be in Hi-Viz y'all didn't see them coming...:killingme
For what its worth...when talking Hi-Viz, most immediately think of the road worker varity...which barely makes the grade, and some who ride wearing that kind, do so with them undone and flapping around in the wind. Maybe they do that on purpose, believing the extra movment makes them more visible?....but the answewr is no.
*Personal Study.

[oneofsix]

But with some legislation behind it, albeit less than 2 seconds.





What it needs is a 'sorry I don't believe in voting' option. I'd vote for that.

Oh hang on.....

You forgot (3)



(3)A driver must not drive on a road a vehicle following behind another vehicle so that the driver cannot stop the driver's vehicle short of the vehicle ahead if the vehicle ahead stops suddenly.

whether or not you use the distances or the 2 second 'rule' you still have to be able to satisfy rule 3 so it is up to you to know your abilities and adjust (4) or the 2 second rule to suit but you can't follow closer than the distances in (4), as per your quote and to which the 2 seconds is a guide.

[ontoit]

Considering that cars hit trucks, trucks hit cars and they are a lot bigger and more visible "they wear Hi viz don't they?" than bikes then wearing high viz clothing may make you feel safer. At least the cages can see what they are about to hit as they look up after playing with the Cd or whatever. :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::b anana:

[FJRider]

Considering that cars hit trucks, trucks hit cars and they are a lot bigger and more visible "they wear Hi viz don't they?" than bikes then wearing high viz clothing may make you feel safer. At least the cages can see what they are about to hit as they look up after playing with the Cd or whatever. :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::b anana:

Actually a poor argument ....

The drivers ARE easier to see if they wear high-viz vests ... the mufti cop cars are easier "noticed" if you see the vest being worn ...

All vehicles on the road are out to get you. Even the one's parked ... waiting to open their doors for you to run into it ...

Pedestrians will walk out it front of you. On the basis you wont run them over ... but go round them ... Air horns rule ...

[DMNTD]

Hi-viz, does it make a difference in rider visibility? Yes...but only in certain circumstances.
I commute (in a car) in heavy traffic 5-6 days per week, 90% on the motorway.
When lane splitting the only way that you can be more visible is if you keep your indicator on as your fluro does not stand out in my mirrors unless I happen to be looking. A flashing indicator gets noticed in my peripheral.

They do stand out more when the traffic is lighter plus also in the evening but mainly due to the reflective strips, not the fluro colour itself.

[ProTuned]

When lane splitting the only way that you can be more visible is if you keep your indicator on as your fluro does not stand out in my mirrors unless I happen to be looking. A flashing indicator gets noticed in my peripheral.



Definitely agree with you on that. People usually notice me from ages away with the indicator on and headlight on high beam when lane splitting/filtering. Hi-Viz jackets have not made much of a difference personally.

[YellowDog]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MGQFLD6kIhU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
_________________________________

[Maha]

Couldn't help but notice Mr Dirty Hi Viz wearing biker yesterday, he had a line of four vehicles behind him...clocked him at 70kph at one stage...whoa! easy there chap, that bike may fall over!

So yes, clear evidence that rider visibility, is enhanced by Hi Viz...even during daylight hours... (special conditions apply) :msn-wink:

[Kittyhawk]

YES!

I worked as a motorbike courier (awesome job!) not wearing fluros, in the CBD, on average I'd have several close calls on a daily basis, this is because the gear and colour of the bike blended into the horizon when a driver pulls out from behind a building or intersection and glances in both directions, not taking the time to identify everything in that photo snap,

Invested in a fluro jacket and on average I'd only have one close scare a week (including winter weather) in poor visibility such as rain or fog etc, the fluro was the first seen then the rider.....

So in my experience working 10 hour riding days in town here yes the high vis does work.....

We are just road cones with wheels!!! :headbang:

[Kittyhawk]

After reading the previous page, the only way to gauge accurate data / statistics / conclusion findings etc is to get out there and ride every day....academics may be able to push the pens, but the only answers to questions you need are if you're alive ride with 360 degree vision because that's the only way to survive on two wheels, be prepared to stop................or kick car doors in:devil2:

[FJRider]

..............or kick car doors in:devil2:

So ... High vis vests ... AND .... steel toe-cap boots ... :cool:

[Kittyhawk]

So ... High vis vests ... AND .... steel toe-cap boots ... :cool:

Im not responsible for kicking car doors in that was Auntie......:bleh: Hee told me all about his biker days...........back in the day hahahah!

[brp]

Nah Hi Vis Vests dont do anything so all those guys on building sites and doing road works are wasting there time - not to mention target fixation - loads killed each day.

Wear black like most motorcyclist do - stands out for miles.

[Kittyhawk]

Nah Hi Vis Vests dont do anything so all those guys on building sites and doing road works are wasting there time - not to mention target fixation - loads killed each day.

Wear black like most motorcyclist do - stands out for miles.

That's because buildings rush at them with extreme force........:innocent:

I think it depends on the environment one is riding in....:love:

[caspernz]

Pointless topic really, as it has been done to death! The only opinion that counts on this is my own, and after 25 years on two wheels, I find that in my daily travels there have been fewer close calls since adopting the hiviz vest...so by that logic it works for me.

[stormerUK]

I for one am very glad plod wear Hi vis...........end of argument......:laugh:

[pritch]

Frankly if me wearing Hi-Viz prevents at least one accident in my life time and doesn't force the rest of New Zealand's citizens to pick up the tab, then I'm fine with wearing it.

That's an intellectually threadbare argument that's trotted out in various forms, usually by someone trying to reform something that doesn't involve them personally. Which makes your use of it just slightly unusual.

In the two recent "adventures" I have had, both reported hereabout, it wouldn't have made any difference if I had flashing red and blue lights on my helmet. The drivers in question were just not looking out of the windscreen. One was looking down in her lap, the other was looking back over his shoulder.

My experience suggests that fluoro gear is best used to locate fellow bike tour members at whichever cafe they have chosen at each lunch stop.

[Maha]

That's because buildings rush at them with extreme force........:innocent:

I think it depends on the environment one is riding in....:love:

What about Hi Viz fluffy leg warmers?....now wheres that pic?....:shifty:

[FJRider]

That's an intellectually threadbare argument that's trotted out in various forms, usually by someone trying to reform something that doesn't involve them personally. Which makes your use of it just slightly unusual.

Her argument is valid ... The same argument could even be used in regard to the speed limit. Think of the lives saved (if only our own) if we choose to travel at ten km's below any posted speed limit. It must be safer ... right ... ??? :innocent:


In the two recent "adventures" I have had, both reported hereabout, it wouldn't have made any difference if I had flashing red and blue lights on my helmet. The drivers in question were just not looking out of the windscreen. One was looking down in her lap, the other was looking back over his shoulder.

Those convicted of such offences should be made to wear a high-vis vest. Easier for us to see THEM ... :laugh:


My experience suggests that fluoro gear is best used to locate fellow bike tour members at whichever cafe they have chosen at each lunch stop.

Doesn't work ... the bastards usually take it off so you can't find them ... :shutup:

[Kittyhawk]

What about Hi Viz fluffy leg warmers?....now wheres that pic?....:shifty:

You wait till I get this katana on the road....should I stick to red fluffy leg warmers or a fluffy bikini? :innocent:

[FJRider]

You wait till I get this katana on the road....should I stick to red fluffy leg warmers or a fluffy bikini? :innocent:

People might think you're on a honda ... :facepalm:

[Kittyhawk]

I like them! :love:

That.....and my spiked collar!

[FJRider]

I like them! :love:

That.....and my spiked collar!

Won't catch on .... :confused: maybe ...

[Kittyhawk]

Won't catch on .... :confused: maybe ...






Yeah well it's probably your natural winter closet range....so just the norm for you huh?:shutup:

[FJRider]

Yeah well it's probably your natural winter closet range....so just the norm for you huh?:shutup:

Come and look in my closet ... :innocent: the only thing in there that's fluffy ... is the dust :shutup:

[Kittyhawk]

Come and look in my closet ... :innocent: the only thing in there that's fluffy ... is the dust :shutup:

No! can't have you jumping out naked and fluffy.....scare me a mile off :laugh:

[FJRider]

No! can't have you jumping out naked and fluffy.....scare me a mile off :laugh:

I don't "jump out" anywhere ... more a sedate step ... :yawn:

This is hardly the place to discuss my fluffy bits ... :shifty:

[Jantar]

I don't "jump out" anywhere ... more a sedate step ... :yawn:

This is hardly the place to discuss my fluffy bits ... :shifty:

Certainly not. No one wants to discuss your fluffy bits when we can dicuss Kitty's fluffy bits. :innocent:

[TygerTung]

I don't wear high biz because it's too gay.

I don't wear it on my bicycle because it gives people the impression that cycling is a risky activity when in fact it is safer than driving.
When people think it is dangerous they don't do it.

I do wear it on the pushbike during the winter when viability is poor however, but not during the summer.

[nerrrd]

I do wear it on the pushbike during the winter when viability is poor however, but not during the summer.

So visibility is never poor in the summer? What if it's raining...or dark? (You know, just like in winter.)

Hivis won't make any difference in the dark, reflectivity might. Wear what you like, I just think your logic is slightly flawed.

[Zapf]

If the car drivers are not looking then Hi-vis is no-vis.

People say "I didn't see you" that is because they did not look. PERIOD!

[Zapf]

So visibility is never poor in the summer? What if it's raining...or dark? (You know, just like in winter.)

You have a bike with a 55W headlight and RED tail light. Maybe we can dress up like Christmas trees?




or are you planning on walking.:nya:

[nerrrd]

or are you planning on walking.:nya:

Nope, I'll just gayly ride on year-round in my all-season reflective hivis...

The rest of you carry on as normal.

[TygerTung]

Apparently the main thing to stop you getting hit is road positioning so that people can actually see you.

http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/want-to-cycle-safely-stop-focusing-on-high-vis/

http://www.bikewise.com.au/2012/04/hi-vis-clothing-vs-hi-vis-road-positioning/

There actually is a much higher risk of dying from an illness caused by lack of exercise than there is of dying from a cycle accident.


Once I was riding down Moorehouse ave in Christchurch past the old railway station on my scooter in the evening. There was me and another car on the road. I was in the centre lane and there was a women driving a car in the right hand lane. She came up from behind in her lane and then cut in front of me. I had to jam on the brakes in order not to hit her. I realised then that high viz vests are a waste of time because if she didn't see me then, there is no way she is ever going to see me. I was wearing a high viz vest and it made no difference.

[TygerTung]

So visibility is never poor in the summer? What if it's raining...or dark? (You know, just like in winter.)

Hivis won't make any difference in the dark, reflectivity might. Wear what you like, I just think your logic is slightly flawed.

It's not dark when I commute in the morning in the summer and it rarely rains. When I am riding at night the traffic is very light and I have lights in any case which are much more visable than a high viz vest.

The problem with vests is that it makes people think it is dangerous to cycle, so they don't do it which means more people on the roads and more people getting ill due to non activity, such as diabetes, heart disease, obesity etc. I'm just saying.

[davereid]

It's not dark when I commute in the morning in the summer and it rarely rains. When I am riding at night the traffic is very light and I have lights in any case which are much more visable than a high viz vest.The problem with vests is that it makes people think it is dangerous to cycle, so they don't do it which means more people on the roads and more people getting ill due to non activity, such as diabetes, heart disease, obesity etc. I'm just saying.

Yep, the NZ Medical Association has called the compulsory cycle helmet law the biggest failure in the history of public health initiatives.

It was unable to prove that cycle helmets had had any effect on head injury rates (actually the evidence suggests a small increase). But it credited the law with a massive reduction in the number of cyclists, and as a result 53 premature deaths a year.

[nerrrd]

The problem with vests is that it makes people think it is dangerous to cycle, so they don't do it which means more people on the roads and more people getting ill due to non activity, such as diabetes, heart disease, obesity etc. I'm just saying.

Agreed, cycling is good, and I'm happy to wear a vest doing that too. And if I fall off or get hit, I'd rather be wearing a helmet than not. Doing both makes sense to me, and I don't really care all that much what other people do in this regard - it's up to them.

Statistically it may well be a waste of time. Anecdotally people wearing hivis stand out to my eyes. So I wear it and look gay.

If my wearing hivis somehow forces everyone else into having to wear it, I hereby apologise in advance, 'twas ne'er my intention.

[Zapf]

Look what the French thinks.... http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/155621-French-Hi-Viz-law-kicked-out-the-day-after-coming-into-force!

French Hi-Viz law kicked out, the day after coming into force!
The controversial law requiring motorcyclists in France to wear a fluorescent strip has been scrapped… one day after coming into force!

Following a year of protests, the decree (any rider on a machine of more than 125cc had to have a strip of 15cm3) was rescinded. Protestors comments that adding a 15cm3 strip will not give any further visability to a machine with headlights on appears to have been accepted.



Can you imagen a street full of people in Hi Vis? now the cagers can say "sorry I got dazzled" :clap:

[Erelyes]

A little thread necromancy....

http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/blogs/the-car-club/8334238/Do-fluoro-vests-make-cyclists-a-target

Raises a thought for consideration, viz. that fluro / hi-vis can actually mean drivers subconsciously steer towards you (as that's where their eyes are drawn)

[Subike]

It raises a very good point, as i here we are always talking about that . Look at where you want to go. Target fixation. Always there is a down side to and up side when it comes to most things in life.

[tri boy]

Hi Viz works.
But I would die gasping and screaming in a tangled mess of blood n steel, than be seen in a reject uniform from an 80's mardi gra. MHO

[phill-k]

I've noticed that there are mixed opinions out there on this matter. Personally I have Hi-Viz gear, and I am more likely to notice motorcyclists who are wearing it when I'm going around town in the car.
Apparently there was a test study done on the matter back in 2004, it states in its conculsion that "Drivers wearing reflective or fluorescent clothing had a 37% lower risk of crash related injury than those who were not wearing such materials." http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/351235/field_highwire_article_pdf/0

Do you think Hi-Viz makes much of a difference in rider visibility?
How many of you guys here wear Hi-Viz?

I'm late in here but yes if you wear hi-vis you will notice others also looking like stupid fkn tossers believing the gayware will save their souls

[kevie]

One problem I see with putting every tom dick and harry into Hi-vis ....... is ..... years ago they had a couple signs up at roadworks ..... then people didn't see them .... so they went brighter signs ... people eventually didn't see them .. so they put out 300,000 cones .... and put the road workers into hi-vis ..... and look how many times you hear EMS and road workers hit by cars ..... The same with signage in general, used to have a smallish sign, people didn't see the warning ... so they got bigger ... then they went brighter .... then fleuro ..... people crash on corners and say "I didn't see the sign"
One comment I made to Land Transport was the high number of signs out there on the roads, I recon the only signs on the roadside should be relevant to the piece of road, there's so many signs tho people just dont read any of them ... including the ones warning of a road condition.

My argument in the submissions re the bikers in fluro was that if you put all these people in fluro too ... then in a short time people wont see fluros and again they will start getting run over ... and with so many in fluro the motorists wont see the roadside workers either.

I recon start teaching people from a young age to live responsibly ..... they have over the years taken away common sense and responsibility and replaced it all with silly PC rules and regulations and then used them as a excuse to impose ridiculous fines.

They were talking about fining that security company for the death (murder) of one of their guards .... sheesh if they are consistent they should charge the police every time an officer is harmed.

[nakedsv]

From what I've seen/heard half the time a crash is car vs car the cause is also " I didn't see the other car". I don't think vissibility is the problem so much as shit drivers that don't pay any attention. Will the next step be giant hi viz stripes over all the cars too?

[scumdog]

A little thread necromancy....

http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/blogs/the-car-club/8334238/Do-fluoro-vests-make-cyclists-a-target

Raises a thought for consideration, viz. that fluro / hi-vis can actually mean drivers subconsciously steer towards you (as that's where their eyes are drawn)

So THAT'S why people in cars get hit by trains....:wacko:

[FJRider]

... Will the next step be giant hi viz stripes over all the cars too?

It wont stop trains hitting them though.

Any excuse is better than no excuse ... so ... "I'm sorry mate, I didn't see you" will continue to be used. And the expected response from TPTB will be (has been) to make everybody more visible.

And still people don't see you. Maybe the penalties for "driving without due care and attention" should be higher ... and added to such case charges ...

[Tagger]

All i know is that when i am riding with my mates and one is wearing hiviz and one is not and shit goes down (heavy rain, fog,...) i can see my one friend a lot longer and a lot better then the other one. If this is the case for me, i figure it must hold some truth for cars as well ...

Target fixation is only a problem when you're already in an accident, if the car saw you comming from a mile away there is less chanse you will end up in a situation with target fixation in play.


But each to his own on this one, on a sunny day there may not be a point. For me, i have a hiviz rainsuit so when i take it out i'm usually in a situation where i think it makes sense.

[Tarded]

I cant be arsed with all 11 pages but has anyone mentioned 'passive senses'? ie hearing and peripheral vision?

Peripheral vision being 'passive' in that something catches your eye rather than a conscious decision to actually look where the hell people are driving/riding. They may be too lazy/stupid/arrogant to care but if you are seen its a start.

Thats why I do and will always ride with loud pipes. Ive tried swapping pipes (stock and f'n loud ones I had ) on a bike I had and the difference with the swaps was night and day.

Same thing may well apply to hi vis although I dont ride with it at the mo.

Where does this 'black is the most visible' shit come from too??
Ever tried hiding in dayglo?
FFS.

[FJRider]

Thats why I do and will always ride with loud pipes. Ive tried swapping pipes (stock and f'n loud ones I had ) on a bike I had and the difference with the swaps was night and day.



I'd have had better results from my lucky undies ... and they aren't as hard on MY ears .. (they are if I pull them off in the wrong direction though)

[GDOBSSOR]

In my opinion, it probably doesn't make that much of a difference during the day, as you just blend in with all the other busy sights and sounds drivers subconsciously adapt to. If they don't notice a headlight pointing right at them, they won't notice hi-vis gear. On the other hand... at night, hi-vis gear could make a difference, as black gear is harder to spot. Meaning, if you have a dark-coloured bike/helmet, that makes you almost invisible except for this tiny circle of light that drivers get a sudden shock when it appears out of nowhere, and they think, "What the hell is that?" Wearing hi-vis gear in this instance does make you more likely to be seen imo, as does a brightly coloured bike, brightly coloured pack and helmet.

[BMWST?]

Lol, yes I know what you mean. I agree, I don't think Hi-Viz makes too much of a difference on a fine, sunny day. But on a day with less than desirable weather (rainy or overcast) I've found from driving around town, I am more likely to notice the motorcyclists who are wearing Hi-Viz, same with driving around at dusk, dawn and at night.


the best clothing at night is reflective clothing,high visibility vests are no more conspicuous at night than any other colour

[BMWST?]

In my opinion, it probably doesn't make that much of a difference during the day, as you just blend in with all the other busy sights and sounds drivers subconsciously adapt to. If they don't notice a headlight pointing right at them, they won't notice hi-vis gear. On the other hand... at night, hi-vis gear could make a difference, as black gear is harder to spot. Meaning, if you have a dark-coloured bike/helmet, that makes you almost invisible except for this tiny circle of light that drivers get a sudden shock when it appears out of nowhere, and they think, "What the hell is that?" Wearing hi-vis gear in this instance does make you more likely to be seen imo, as does a brightly coloured bike, brightly coloured pack and helmet.

and the same goes for you...at night there arent colours....its reflective stuff that works at night

[Blackbird]

I don't know whether it works in all circumstances but it definitely works with a combination of factors. I was riding with another rider to an IAM run on Sunday. We were travelling north on the Auckland motorway, both with hi viz on naked bikes and my riding partner had a white helmet. When we dropped our speed to match a couple of 80 km/hr speed restrictions, vehicles following us were definitely reluctant to pass until they could edge up and have a look. Oh, apart from the twat in a sporty looking Audi that passed everything at about 140! Have also noticed a moment's hesitation by car drivers in other circumstances too and sometimes, that's all you need for awareness.

[oneofsix]

I don't know whether it works in all circumstances but it definitely works with a combination of factors. I was riding with another rider to an IAM run on Sunday. We were travelling north on the Auckland motorway, both with hi viz on naked bikes and my riding partner had a white helmet. When we dropped our speed to match a couple of 80 km/hr speed restrictions, vehicles following us were definitely reluctant to pass until they could edge up and have a look. Oh, apart from the twat in a sporty looking Audi that passed everything at about 140! Have also noticed a moment's hesitation by car drivers in other circumstances too and sometimes, that's all you need for awareness.

Seems you be saying that because they were concerned you might be some sort of law enforcement peeps they were cautious around you? Doesn't seem the outfit made you any more visible. Seems more that if the popo wore camouflage (don't give TPTB ideas, they have their muftis) it would have worked as well. Perhaps they were worried you were a couple of Mufti bikes :lol: Being on a IAMS ride highly likely you either looked like a couple of muftis or a popo trainee and instructor :niceone:

Either wya the Hi-viz did not do its job, it acted as a disguise instead.

[Blackbird]

I see where you're coming from but it's probably splitting hairs. The fact that the average cager might think I'm a cop and be a touch more circumspect around me, even momentarily, has at least registered that I'm there. I'm quite happy with that whatever the root cause. Like I said, upright bike, hi viz but probably less likely to have happened on my Blackbird. On that, motorists paid attention because of the blue-white 100w headlight - definitely made a difference.:niceone:

[oneofsix]

I see where you're coming from but it's probably splitting hairs. The fact that the average cager might think I'm a cop and be a touch more circumspect around me, even momentarily, has at least registered that I'm there. I'm quite happy with that whatever the root cause. Like I said, upright bike, hi viz but probably less likely to have happened on my Blackbird. On that, motorists paid attention because of the blue-white 100w headlight - definitely made a difference.:niceone:

I appreciated that and agree however the title (yes I know threads usually stray from their title) is about difference to visibility and it does appear the difference was to reaction after haven been seen. Yes a hair split but one that could see you forced to wear something that is doing no good for a supposed benefit that even in your case would quickly wear off whilst the restrictions remain.
Glad it worked for you, hope you found the car drivers reactions as amusing as I would have.

[Jantar]

......
Where does this 'black is the most visible' shit come from too??
Ever tried hiding in dayglo?
FFS.

I have read the whole thread and haven't noticed anyone claiming that 'black is the most visible' . What I have seen, and mentioned myself, is that black is the least conciously seen colour, and as such the human brain depicts an "undefined" area in the field of vision and interprets this as a threat.

There are a number of european studies from the 1980s that show riders dressed entirely in black have a better satety record than those in coloured gear. The threat perception is just one theory to explain this. Another is that riders dressed entirely in black are generally more experinced and buy better quality gear, while those in coloured gear are less experienced and so bought cheaper gear. The more experienced riders are less likely to be involved in accidents despite the colour or quality of gear. Remember this is from the 1980s whenleather gear was black and what textiles that were available were generally coloured.

In 1990 the Hurt report had among its conclusions


13. Conspicuity of the motorcycle is a critical factor in the multiple vehicle accidents, and accident involvement is significantly reduced by the use of motorcycle headlamps (on in daylight) and/or the wearing of high visibility yellow, orange or bright red jackets.

17. Conspicuity of the motorcycle is most critical for the frontal surfaces of the motorcycle and rider.

31. Any effect of motorcycle color on accident involvement is not determinable from these data, but is expected to be insignificant because the frontal surfaces are most often presented to the other vehicle involved in the collision.

32. Motorcycles equipped with fairings and windshields are underrepresented in accidents, most likely because of the contribution to conspicuity and the association with more experienced and trained riders. .

In other words headlights ON prevented more motorcycle accidents than any other factor involving visibility.

From the MAIDS report (1999): Bright colour upper and lower torso garment enhanced conspicuity in 2.7% of accidents. Now that is small enough to be insignificant.

[scumdog]

From observation I have noticed that broken patterns/mixed colours tend to blend into the background 'clutter' far too easily, regardless of how bright said colours are. (Similar to WW1 'dazzle' paint on ships.)

One solid bright colour seems to show up from further away.

Oh, and lot of Hi-viz benefit is lost when the rider wearing it has it hidden behind a a large screen/fairing and/or tall top-box/luggage.

[oneofsix]

I think the human brain, and most animal ones too, have evolved to avoid shadows (black) as an instinctive reaction and be attracted to colour. With most things a seconds doubt means we continue on until we decide, with black we tend to avoid first. It is not that black is more visible but it does cause the reaction I would prefer. :msn-wink:

[swbarnett]

I think the human brain, and most animal ones too, have evolved to avoid shadows (black) as an instinctive reaction and be attracted to colour. With most things a seconds doubt means we continue on until we decide, with black we tend to avoid first. It is not that black is more visible but it does cause the reaction I would prefer. :msn-wink:
Comes back to the theory that we avoid things we consider a threat. Hi-vis is just not threatening.

[f2dz]

I think it makes a difference at night, like others have said. Less so during a sunny day.

I recently had a cage pull out in front of me and stopped me from 50km/h to 0km/h. If I had been wearing my hi-viz the lights from the cars waiting to turn would have reflected off me and she might have seen me.

I say might because there's obviously no guarantee, but with the decreased risk there, why would you honestly not wear hi-viz in that situation?

[Jantar]

I think it makes a difference at night, like others have said. Less so during a sunny day.

I recently had a cage pull out in front of me and stopped me from 50km/h to 0km/h. If I had been wearing my hi-viz the lights from the cars waiting to turn would have reflected off me and she might have seen me.

I say might because there's obviously no guarantee, but with the decreased risk there, why would you honestly not wear hi-viz in that situation?
Oh dear. Another person who is mistaking "Hi Vis" for "Reflectorised". Hi Vis does not relect and at night is no more visible than anything else.

Then, for a car pulling out in front of you, her lights would not be pointing towards you, so what is source of the reflection?

[Ocean1]

I have read the whole thread and haven't noticed anyone claiming that 'black is the most visible' . What I have seen, and mentioned myself, is that black is the least conciously seen colour, and as such the human brain depicts an "undefined" area in the field of vision and interprets this as a threat.

I wasn't going to spend anywhere near that amount of effort on it. :laugh:

I love scraps of counter-intuitive lore, makes the universe seem reassuringly uncontrolled. And represents a good source of anti-twat ammo.

The black thing. There was also a German study that compared colours worn by accident victims, they arbitrarilly chose black as a form of control, because it was a numerically heavy group and it was obvious that that group was going to produce the highest accident rate. The data didn't make much sense wrt urban results, until someone pulled the black data results into the main data stream. All of a sudden black was the safest colour, in the un-natural and block-range colours of the city. Which also happened to be the highest accident area group.

Which has little to do with the fact that I wear a black composite jacket, more to do with it's wildly effective reflector strips. White helmet, though.

[ac3_snow]

I have only had one person explain the benefit of high vis in a way which has actually made sense to me. I have always been pretty skeptical about whether or not a high vis would prevent some muppet pulling out in front of me or similar.

However I once was told by a cop that I should really be wearing hi vis, to which my first response was yea yea f#@k off. But he said that if I where to get knocked off by some muppet I end up on the road. And if I am wearing a hi vis I am this big yellow thing sliding down the road to which everyones first instinct is going to be to try and avoid. Where with just plain black riding gear you would blend much more easily with the road.

While I still do not wear hi vis, this argument has made me think about it a little bit more.

[f2dz]

Oh dear. Another person who is mistaking "Hi Vis" for "Reflectorised". Hi Vis does not relect and at night is no more visible than anything else.

Then, for a car pulling out in front of you, her lights would not be pointing towards you, so what is source of the reflection?

Splitting hairs a bit there, but I thought it was obvious I was referring to hi-viz type gear which usually has elements of reflective material on it, as per the OP's glancing definition of it.

With that in mind, light from oncoming cars would have provided the light necessary for the reflection in my example.

Otherwise, in other cases, street lamps would be the primary source of light to be reflected. If you're on a road without them and someone pulls across your path without lights being shone in your direction, then yea, hi-viz (reflective or fluoro) doesn't help ya.

[Jantar]

Splitting hairs a bit there, but I thought it was obvious I was referring to hi-viz type gear which usually has elements of reflective material on it, as per the OP's glancing definition of it.....

Nope, not splitting hairs at all. I have three Hi Vis motorcycle vests, none of which have any reflective material at all. For work I have 3 complete sets of protective and Hi Vis gear, 2 of which have reflective stripes. The Op talked of reflective OR hi vis, not reflective AND hi vis. However I will agree that reflective strips do stand out at night for most circumstances other than front on. Hi Vis gear does not.

Oh, I might add that most of my riding at night (over 80%) is on roads without street lights.

[f2dz]

Nope, not splitting hairs at all. I have three Hi Vis motorcycle vests, none of which have any reflective material at all. For work I have 3 complete sets of protective and Hi Vis gear, 2 of which have reflective stripes. The Op talked of reflective OR hi vis, not reflective AND hi vis. However I will agree that reflective strips do stand out at night for most circumstances other than front on. Hi Vis gear does not.

Oh, I might add that most of my riding at night (over 80%) is on roads without street lights.

The definition of hi-viz aside, you certainly can't say hi-viz gear decreases your visibility can you?

[Jantar]

No, Hi Vis does not decrease your visibility, As the Maids report shows it increases visibility by around 2.7%. What it does do is changes a larger single coloured shape to a less defined multi coloured shape that the mind is slower to recognise as a threat.

[Subike]

The definition of hi-viz aside, you certainly can't say hi-viz gear decreases your visibility can you?

Yup, in the right conditions colours will blend in with the background and you will be invisabile.
Black, the absence of colour, in the same place will stand out and be seen.
The other side of this debate often forgotten, is the psychological part of hi-vis verse black.
Hi-Vis is common, used by so many workers, construction, roading, etc, that it is a non threatening picture to the subconscious mind.
Black on the other hand is seen in the subconscious as a threat to personal safety. Your fight or flee instinct is put on guard.

When you see a pack of colorful sports bikes riding the main road, what do you think?
When you see a pack of Black leather clad bikies riding the main road, what do you think?

Which pack would you stop beside for a chat?

You initial thought to that, should tell you how effective Hi-vis is, in a lot of situations.

My opinion , open to dispute and correction, but still my opinion.
Hi Vis is NOT as safe to ride in as the propaganda would like you to think.

[FJRider]

No, Hi Vis does not decrease your visibility, As the Maids report shows it increases visibility by around 2.7%. What it does do is changes a larger single coloured shape to a less defined multi coloured shape that the mind is slower to recognise as a threat.

People will be more likely to ignore (place less importance on) things that are not a threat. What they SEE as a threat gets the reaction that is desired. No threat, NO (less) reaction.

[Tarded]

Obviously the gay biker brigade (black clad bumless pants , ape hangers and a wanker cartoon on their black jacket/vest) look 'scary' ONCE you have SEEN them which in any situation except the dreamt up ones here is later than the guy in hi vis.

This supports my loud pipes argument too, never seen a team fuckwit chopper rider with quiet pipes now have you?? It is one thing I agree with them on.

And I wouldnt talk to them cause grunts and short words gets dull very quickly.

Any other sort of rider is usually worth a chat regardless of what they ride. Talking to people who only ride the brand you do is boring.

[oneofsix]

This supports my loud pipes argument too, never seen a team fuckwit chopper rider with quiet pipes now have you?? It is one thing I agree with them on.

Haven't worked that one out. :confused: You can't hear them unless they are in front of you so are you saying they are afraid of being hit from behind because they are going so slow? In my experience they are usually trying to out run their own noise so that can't be right.



Any other sort of rider is usually worth a chat regardless of what they ride. Talking to people who only ride the brand you do is boring.

Agreed as at least you have a common subject to start with.

[swbarnett]

Haven't worked that one out. :confused: You can't hear them unless they are in front of you
I've been told that my pipe can be heard from about half a mile away in any direction.

[oneofsix]

I've been told that my pipe can be heard from about half a mile away in any direction.

By someone standing still? If you are moving in the same direction I never hear them coming, at best passing, but usually not until they are at least through the blind spot. One caught me out so bad I nearly pull into it when I reacted. :nono:

[swbarnett]

By someone standing still?
By my wife at home as I came down the hill. Probably more to one side than in front.


If you are moving in the same direction I never hear them coming, at best passing, but usually not until they are at least through the blind spot. One caught me out so bad I nearly pull into it when I reacted. :nono:
Interesting. Could explain why some drivers try to drive in the ditch as I pass. More often though drivers move over to give room when I'm several car-lengths behind. Maybe that's the dual headlights and hazards rather than the pipe.

[oneofsix]

By my wife at home as I came down the hill. Probably more to one side than in front..

I need loud pipes, :laugh: daughters can hear me arriving but wife claims she doesn't. Think the Mrs used to rely on the dog to let her know but he's passed on now. Actually sometimes its helpful when she doesn't know when I got home :msn-wink:

[SuperMac]

The definition of hi-viz aside, you certainly can't say hi-viz gear decreases your visibility can you?

Really?

Can I post it instead? :bleh:

Never mind the differences between 'hi-viz', 'fluorescent' and 'retro-reflective', perhaps thee's a need to clarify the differences between 'visibility' and 'conspicuity'.

Simply, something can be:
- Visible but not conspicuous: a white cat in a snowstorm
- Conspicuous but not visible: someone wearing a hi-viz coat but stood inside the wardrobe with the doors shut
With combinations in between :shifty:

[swbarnett]

I had a situation yesterday morning where i was rounding a tight, blind, right-hander in the dark with my high beam on. There was a runner on the right side of the road wearing a reflective vest (initially hidden from view). The instant my light hit them my vision was competely gone. The reflection was so bright that they were all I could see.

[Tarded]

I hear loud bikes coming up behind me. Maybe some dont I spose.
Different bike make different sounds obviously. Twins stand out to me but Im biased that way.

I already have a car with 4 cyl, ones enough :).

[ac3_snow]

I need loud pipes, :laugh: daughters can hear me arriving but wife claims she doesn't. Think the Mrs used to rely on the dog to let her know but he's passed on now. Actually sometimes its helpful when she doesn't know when I got home :msn-wink:

My Misses has it down to a 45 second window, between when she hears me coming and can stop what shes doing and start doing something that looks productive. Think I might put the factory muffler back on just so I can sneak home, the noise is starting to fuck me off anyway.

[caspernz]

My Misses has it down to a 45 second window, between when she hears me coming and can stop what shes doing and start doing something that looks productive. Think I might put the factory muffler back on just so I can sneak home, the noise is starting to fuck me off anyway.

Meh, just text her half an hour out like I do with mine...less of a rush to send the boyfriend home that way :laugh:

[Zookey]

I had a situation yesterday morning where i was rounding a tight, blind, right-hander in the dark with my high beam on. There was a runner on the right side of the road wearing a reflective vest (initially hidden from view). The instant my light hit them my vision was competely gone. The reflection was so bright that they were all I could see.

Yours so right ,damned scary,the fact is they should all run walk whatever facing the traffic they can then leap into the ditch

[russd7]

at the end of the day if they don't look or just glance then ya might as well be riding naked because they aint gonna see you, have had more probs and close calls since the law changed and i have to have my headlight on than before when i rode with it off, putting it simply the idiots need to look not glance

[swbarnett]

ya might as well be riding naked
Eureka! I think you've cracked it. This would almost certainly get noticed (until everybody did it of course).


putting it simply the idiots need to look not glance
Indeed. But I don't see this ever happen on a population wide basis (drivers being human and all). The only real answer is to look out for yourself. I don't really care if anyone sees me as long as I've seen them.

[Tigadee]

Is it legal to put one of those flashing/blinking lights on my motorcycle that cyclists use? :scratch: I don't care people look at me like I'm a dork, at least they look!

[Zookey]

Is it legal to put one of those flashing/blinking lights on my motorcycle that cyclists use? :scratch: I don't care people look at me like I'm a dork, at least they look!

You can buy a small amber revolving flasher from Transport supplies,but then perhaps 4 cycle flashers glued to the helmet could start a craze .Got an old helmet to trail them eh! :innocent:

[Tigadee]

I used one of those once, but got told off by the lady behind me because she thought I saw saying she was the wide load!

[Ocean1]

You can buy a small amber revolving flasher from Transport supplies,but then perhaps 4 cycle flashers glued to the helmet could start a craze .Got an old helmet to trail them eh! :innocent:

Actually, I think all of the rulz is about the vehicle. Not the rider.

You could get as shiny as your battery allowed...

[MIXONE]

I was talking to a guy tonight who was wearing a dayglo yellow helmet and a vest with bright red led bulbs lit up on it (he could set them to flashing if he wanted).He said that not only has he not had a car pull out on him since getting the vest but an added advantage was the traffic gave him plenty of room while splitting.

[swbarnett]

I was talking to a guy tonight who was wearing a dayglo yellow helmet and a vest with bright red led bulbs lit up on it (he could set them to flashing if he wanted).He said that not only has he not had a car pull out on him since getting the vest but an added advantage was the traffic gave him plenty of room while splitting.
As long as he's the only one with this kind of setup it may well work. As soon as it becomes the norm drivers will start to ignore it just as they do standard hi-vis now.

It is also possible that the behaviour of the rider changes depending on what they wear.

I don't wear hi-vis, my bike and ALL my gear is black. I seldom get drivers pulling out on me. I can't remember the last one and I commute 60km each way Tuakau to the Auckland CBD.

[oneofsix]

As long as he's the only one with this kind of setup it may well work. As soon as it becomes the norm drivers will start to ignore it just as they do standard hi-vis now.

It is also possible that the behaviour of the rider changes depending on what they wear.

I don't wear hi-vis, my bike and ALL my gear is black. I seldom get drivers pulling out on me. I can't remember the last one and I commute 60km each way Tuakau to the Auckland CBD.

As long as he is easily confused with a :Police: on a bike it will work.

[rastuscat]

It is also possible that the behaviour of the rider changes depending on what they wear..

Zackery.

The fact that he chose to wear it means that he has a safety mentality. That alone makes him safer.

You could also call it safety paranoia. Like thinking every driver is a homocidal maniac. I've been told THAT by so many bikers.

Reality is that almost every driver is capable of human error, like failing to see an oncoming bike, or misjudging the approach. Doesn't make them homocidal maniacs, just human.

Just my thoughts.

Donuts.

[Subike]

Zackery.

The fact that he chose to wear it means that he has a safety mentality. That alone makes him safer.

You could also call it safety paranoia. Like thinking every driver is a homocidal maniac. I've been told THAT by so many bikers.

Reality is that almost every driver is capable of human error, like failing to see an oncoming bike, or misjudging the approach. Doesn't make them homocidal maniacs, just human.

Just my thoughts.

Donuts.

Have to disagree with this, if you buy a car with all the safety features, does that make you a safer driver?
Adding lights bells whistles etc, and drive like a nutter, are you safer???
Donning a HI Viss vest is not going to make automatically you a safer ride no matter what frame of mind you have when you do it.
Only proper training and learning proper road craft skills will make you a safer rider....

[scumdog]

Have to disagree with this, if you buy a car with all the safety features, does that make you a safer driver?
...

Most don't really think about those items - except for the items that would protect them when they get crashed into by some other 'idiot driver.'

They never think their own poor driving might cause a crash....

[Coolz]

Have to disagree with this, if you buy a car with all the safety features, does that make you a safer driver?
Adding lights bells whistles etc, and drive like a nutter, are you safer???
Donning a HI Viss vest is not going to make automatically you a safer ride no matter what frame of mind you have when you do it.
Only proper training and learning proper road craft skills will make you a safer rider....

I agree that no piece of apparel will make you a safer rider but in some light conditions a hi=viz vest will definatley make you more visable.
There is a vest wearing gn rider I sometimes see on my morning comute and on dull overcast mornings he sticks out like dogs balls.

[swbarnett]

There is a vest wearing gn rider I sometimes see on my morning comute and on dull overcast mornings he sticks out like dogs balls.
But at the same time those that don't look still won't see them.

[swbarnett]

...I don't wear hi-vis, my bike and ALL my gear is black. I seldom get drivers pulling out on me. I can't remember the last one and I commute 60km each way Tuakau to the Auckland CBD.
I remembered today the last time I had someone pull out on me. It was about two weeks ago and I was driving a CAR. All I could see of the driver was the back of their head. I could've been a huge red fire truck with all the lights you can think of, they still wouldn't have seen me.

[JamesTrick]

I'm not sure if any of you have seen this article. It's about hi-viz and cyclists and the fact it only makes a slight difference. The expert talking agrees with swbarnett, in regards of people who don't see, won't look.
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/high-vis-clothing-makes-little-difference-cyclist-safety-expert-5461950

Sorry for bumping a (sort of) dead thread, I thought it was relevant :).

[swbarnett]

In the interests of being fair minded I thought I should say that I have found one very specific situation where reflective gear (not normal hi-vis) absolutely made a difference. A couple of days ago I was riding in thick fog. Visibility of maybe two bike-lengths. Out of the gloom about double that distance in front of me came the shape of a runner's reflective stripes. I could only see the stripes. Without them I would've been lucky to see them at all. And, yes, I definitely was looking.

[oneofsix]

In the interests of being fair minded I thought I should say that I have found one very specific situation where reflective gear (not normal hi-vis) absolutely made a difference. A couple of days ago I was riding in thick fog. Visibility of maybe two bike-lengths. Out of the gloom about double that distance in front of me came the shape of a runner's reflective stripes. I could only see the stripes. Without them I would've been lucky to see them at all. And, yes, I definitely was looking.

Yeah, runners should have to wear tail and head lights. :corn:

[oneofsix]

Why Hi-Viz can't work.



Your eyes may be on the road ahead, but if you're on the phone, punching an address into the GPS or using a voice-activated app to send a text message, there's a disconnect between your eyeballs and your brain.

"Cognitive distraction is something that drivers aren't aware of, so they may go through a red light or a stop sign and be totally unaware they've missed it," said David Strayer, whose research team at the University of Utah conducted a two-year study of the problem.

"They will tell you 'I never saw it' because their brain was focused elsewhere."


Ok, the first line is a stir but I still reckon most of the "didn't see you"s are a case of their eyes saw alright but their brain wasn't there and this backs that up. Therefore it doesn't matter how visible you are they will not "see" you.

[scumdog]

Why Hi-Viz can't work.
Therefore it doesn't matter how visible you are they will not "see" you.

Ya never know, maybe you can't count on it but MAYBE one day it will get you seen and save you from disaster.

[Road kill]

I think it works well when it's one biker wearing it but if it was every biker I believe it would lose most of it's effectivness.

Either way I'm going to take my chances just like I always have.

[oneofsix]

Ya never know, maybe you can't count on it but MAYBE one day it will get you seen and save you from disaster.

Gee I thought the Southern man drank Speights, not Tui. :apint:


I think it works well when it's one biker wearing it but if it was every biker I believe it would lose most of it's effectivness.

Either way I'm going to take my chances just like I always have.

IF their brain aint attached to their eyes it don't matter what you wear. If by take your chances you mean you will keep your eyes open and brain on the job then good for you. :2thumbsup

[Road kill]

I've never trusted other road users reguardless of what their driving or riding.

If believe people drive and ride with a subconcious threat perception thing going on.

If they see something that does not ring their subconcious threat bell then they simply don't respond.

Different things that they don't see everyday get an instant responce,,IE hi vis the first few times.

After that hi vis gets pushed back to no threat status and becomes ineffective.

Bikers in general are "no threat"

We're dealing with people that drive in front of trains so I just treat them all as if they can't see me and it really doesn't bother me.

Truck,car,bike,,I drive them all with that mind set.

[scumdog]

Gee I thought the Southern man drank Speights, not Tui. :apint:


Ya see, down here we don't have 8,000 cars per kilometer jammng up the roads so a hi vis does tend to stand out a bit...

[Rhys]

A new twist

http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/blogs/the-car-club/8334238/Do-fluoro-vests-make-cyclists-a-target

[granstar]

Saw a dog...re-phrase that, ....Saw a blue flashing light going along the footpath in the dark. Was a dog owner leading a dog with a flashing blue collar, bloody good idea I thought ;)

[Citroenjunkie]

Yup, lets join the orange and yellow brigade, become slaves to new age safety requirements , so we can exercise our freedom of choice,
(do we really have that anymore?)

And let's not forget to wrap our children in cotton wool and protect them from everything, and then if we all cower in our bomb proof shelters and recite mantras the whole world will be accident free and safe!

I will not wear a neon jacket, why not expect the lazy bastards in the cages to actually stop sipping on their soy decaf lattes and texting and actually pay some attention to the world as it floats by!

[fireball]

The second bounce after being hit by a SIDSYM driver still hurts if you are in hi-vis or not.
I don't wear one..... One less thing for the paramedic to cut off.

[superjackal]

I don't see wearing Hi-Viz a violation of freedom of choice, for me its a preservation of my future freedom of choice. Frankly if me wearing Hi-Viz prevents at least one accident in my life time and doesn't force the rest of New Zealand's citizens to pick up the tab, then I'm fine with wearing it. If the studies are correct then there are good reasons to wear Hi-Viz. But no, like with motorcycle helmets (or any safety gear for that matter), people shouldn't be forced to wear them. But on the flip side, those that are stupid enough to not wear safety gear while riding and end up (due to their own error) smashed up, they should ideally be paying for their own medical bills instead of using our tax dollars.

And what if someone caused an accident because you were wearing a Hi-Viz vest? Not outside of the realms of possibilty....?

I'm no libertarian but let people make their own decisions and live with the consequences.

[scumdog]

The second bounce after being hit by a SIDSYM driver still hurts if you are in hi-vis or not.
I don't wear one..... One less thing for the paramedic to cut off.

Likewise why I don't wear a full face helmet...

[Erelyes]

Likewise why I don't wear a full face helmet...

Mmmmm. Makes it a lot easier for them to stem the flow of bleeding from having half your face scraped off.

[Road kill]

Mmmmm. Makes it a lot easier for them to stem the flow of bleeding from having half your face scraped off.

Oh yeah,that's happened every single bloody time I've come off on the road over the last 40 years,,,:rolleyes:

[duckonin]

I think it works well when it's one biker wearing it but if it was every biker I believe it would lose most of it's effectivness.

Either way I'm going to take my chances just like I always have.

You take your chances, I shall wear my Hi-vis.

[tamarillo]

I've noticed that there are mixed opinions out there on this matter. Personally I have Hi-Viz gear, and I am more likely to notice motorcyclists who are wearing it when I'm going around town in the car.
Apparently there was a test study done on the matter back in 2004, it states in its conculsion that "Drivers wearing reflective or fluorescent clothing had a 37% lower risk of crash related injury than those who were not wearing such materials." http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/351235/field_highwire_article_pdf/0

Do you think Hi-Viz makes much of a difference in rider visibility?
How many of you guys here wear Hi-Viz?

OF COURSE! Why do we need a survey to pint out the obvious? If we are are seen easier and more then we are safer. Do you pull out in front of trucks because you did not see it?

[swbarnett]

OF COURSE! Why do we need a survey to pint out the obvious? If we are are seen easier and more then we are safer.
Yes, a hi-viz MIGHT make you easier to see IF the eyes and brain of the observer are directed at you. However, the problem with not being seen is with people not looking in the first place. For this region, hi-viz will not reduce your chances of being involved in a SMIDSY.


Do you pull out in front of trucks because you did not see it?
People pull out in front of (and block) fire engines with lights and sirens blazing. They don't see what they don't expect.

[awa355]

Last night in the twilight, I was driving through Hamilton. A white sports bike came towards me with white led lights on the hand guards. It was in a line of oncoming cars, all with their lights on. Those led lights really stood out. They were far more noticible than all the headlights.

Or maybe it was because the set up was new and different?

[scumdog]

Last night in the twilight, I was driving through Hamilton. A white sports bike came towards me with white led lights on the hand guards. It was in a line of oncoming cars, all with their lights on. Those led lights really stood out. They were far more noticible than all the headlights.

Or maybe it was because the set up was new and different?


Hence the spot-lights on my bike - even about 45 degrees off to the side they're visible.

[Maha]

This vest is not to bad...

[Owl]

This vest is not to bad...

If you like ghey!

:sick:

[ruaphu]

I commute via bike most days year round in rain/hail/shine for the last four or so years. Over this time I've changed a few things on my bikes to be seen by the clots in tin tops.
1. Dedicated extra brake light, so it sticks out like a sore thumb when i brake. Has reduced near misses to almost nothing, used to experience one near miss a week.
2. extra spot lights set on an angle so I can be seen by R'ses at intersections, prior to fitting, at lest ten times having to avoid 'pull out's
3. now wear reflective gear, not just fluro but reflective to cover bad light, twilight etc, works well, been using it for two years now.

The biggest change I made was an advanced riding course, it opens your eyes to dangers, teaches ya how to throw your bike around and ride to survive.

Importantly none of this 'stuff' works if you ride like a dick, as so many do. I'm not adverse to anyone having a blast, we all do, it's apart of the fun.

Reflective gear is only part of the solution, the bulk it comes down to you, the rider.

Besides, if that clot Andy Slack-rse-sted from LTSA has his way we will all either get banned or shrink wrapped in bubble wrap "for our own safety" of course.

Cheers all, stay shiney side up an rubber side down

[Erelyes]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9154783/Battered-cyclist-relives-terror

Selected quotes;


A Toyota Estima people mover was seen approaching the intersection of Lake and Dawson roads, near Taupiri, about 4.25pm.

It slowed down and the girls thought the driver had seen them, but he continued past the give way sign and the six riders ploughed into the side door.


"At this stage there's no fault on behalf of the cyclists. They were all riding as a group; they had reflective vests on."

Not a good proof of concept really. Lucky noone was killed. :(

[n3Xro]

Not a good proof of concept really. Lucky noone was killed. :(

Agreed, I've been through the intersection that the crash occurred at many many times through the give ways at rather high speeds(given I have to be prepared to stop) but its also totally clear left and right of the intersecting road for at least 100-200 meters which to me means the cager had a lot of time to look for any movement...

https://www.google.co.nz/maps/preview#!q=Dawson+Rd%2C+Taupiri+3791&data=!1m8!1m3!1d3!2d175.241647!3d-37.652253!2m2!1f132.21!2f80.51!4f75!2m4!1e1!2m2!1s 7BzyBXUjPl-UlJY6syMYgg!2e0!4m10!1m9!4m8!1m3!1d1430015!2d175.6 383594!3d-37.8646793!3m2!1i1366!2i681!4f13.1&fid=5

On the whole hi viz thing, biggest change to me was when I took off the high vis, riding a black bike, wearing a black helmet, black leathers all weather conditions and I've not had any issues, when I first got my bike I was wearing a blinding bright yellow reflective vest I had constant issues with pull outs from side roads, merging onto me etc. etc. still dont know why but wont be going hi viz again soon.

[caseye]

When you took off the hi viz and returned to BLACK, you instantly became a THREAT! Only nasty old motorcycle gang types wear all black, so we'd better make sure we don't piss em off aye?
Same as when you ride an all WHITE motorcycle with a wind deflector/shield, again , you are the po Po and we couldn't possibly annoy them now could we, they see you people , they just don't give a big enough fuck if you are not a gangy or a po po.

[swbarnett]

When you took off the hi viz and returned to BLACK, you instantly became a THREAT! Only nasty old motorcycle gang types wear all black, so we'd better make sure we don't piss em off aye?
Same as when you ride an all WHITE motorcycle with a wind deflector/shield, again , you are the po Po and we couldn't possibly annoy them now could we, they see you people , they just don't give a big enough fuck if you are not a gangy or a po po.
So then the ideal is a black bike with hazard lights. When I'm lane splitting people think I'm a cop and when I'm not I have the all black threat thing in my favour. Oh, and the loud pipe doesn't hurt either.

[RDJ]

On the whole hi viz thing, biggest change to me was when I took off the high vis, riding a black bike, wearing a black helmet, black leathers all weather conditions and I've not had any issues, when I first got my bike I was wearing a blinding bright yellow reflective vest I had constant issues with pull outs from side roads, merging onto me etc. etc. still dont know why but wont be going hi viz again soon.

Same. Wore orange Hi-Vis vest and bumblebee yellow helmet in an urban commute environment for 2 years. Rear-ended once, and almost once more. Many instances of getting-pulled-out-in-front-of. Saw a thread on visordown.uk which suggested better to be a a dark worry than a bright hippie. Changed gear, not riding style. Major change in road users' approach. The plural of anecdote is not data - but the switch worked for me. At night bike, helmet and I all show a lot of reflective strips but daytime, all dark.

[Erelyes]

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/19543574/huge-bull-attacks-traffic-warden/

Fucking hi-viz's...

[nerrrd]

Fucking hi-viz's...

Fucking bulls, I'd say...

[bigboy]

WOW... its hard to believe the results of this poll.

Without any doubt what so ever, Hiviz would make someone more visible.

I agree its not cool, nor do I like to wear it and usualy I don't. But to think it dosnt make you more
visable, well youd have to be colour blind.

[p.dath]

...
Without any doubt what so ever, Hiviz would make someone more visible.
...

That sounds like someone speaking who has never looked into the psychology of why riders are not seen. If you do nothing else, go to You Tube and watch the invisible gorilla experiment. Then maybe you'll gain an impression of how the brain observes things, and why the answer is not as black and white as you think.

[scumdog]

WOW... its hard to believe the results of this poll.

Without any doubt what so ever, Hiviz would make someone more visible.

.

Well, POTENTIALLY more visible...

[Jantar]

WOW... its hard to believe the results of this poll.

Without any doubt what so ever, Hiviz would make someone more visible.

I agree its not cool, nor do I like to wear it and usualy I don't. But to think it dosnt make you more
visable, well youd have to be colour blind.

A few months ago I went for a ride with STJim who was wearing Hi Vis, and for most of the ride I was behind him. His vest was a brilliant Hi Vis Green/yellow that blended in nicely with the rich green vegetation at the side of the road. What did make him stand out was his nice shiney red helmet. But a helmet is such a small dot compared to the size of bike and rider.

As for your last sentance, I suggest you read the whole thread, and folloow the links to the reports. It isn't the brightness, or the colour that gets peoples' attention, its a percieved threat, or an unknown shape, and for that purpose solid black is the best.

[Voltaire]

A few months ago I went for a ride with STJim who was wearing Hi Vis, and for most of the ride I was behind him. His vest was a brilliant Hi Vis Green/yellow that blended in nicely with the rich green vegetation at the side of the road. What did make him stand out was his nice shiney red helmet. But a helmet is such a small dot compared to the size of bike and rider.

As for your last sentance, I suggest you read the whole thread, and folloow the links to the reports. It isn't the brightness, or the colour that gets peoples' attention, its a percieved threat, or an unknown shape, and for that purpose solid black is the best.


Is that from our distant past of flight or fight?
I wear Hi Viz commuting but I get the distinct feeling that cars who barely slow down for side street Give Ways almost look thru me, which I am used to and ride accordingly.
On the motorway Hi Viz is not much good as its hard to see it when texting or on the phone.

[p.dath]

Well, POTENTIALLY more visible...

I can accept your statement - but being seen is the problem - which is not the same as being visible - which many people fail to grasp.

[Ender EnZed]

That sounds like someone speaking who has never looked into the psychology of why riders are not seen. If you do nothing else, go to You Tube and watch the invisible gorilla experiment. Then maybe you'll gain an impression of how the brain observes things, and why the answer is not as black and white as you think.

Though, to be fair, the gorilla wasn't wearing hi-viz.

[p.dath]

Though, to be fair, the gorilla wasn't wearing hi-viz.

Or was he ... that's the problem.

[Erelyes]

Anecdotally it seems are opinions are equally mixed as to whether Hi-vis helps visibility, does nothing, or actually hinders it.

Try watching the SMIDSY weave (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqQBubilSXU) video to get an idea of a situation in which the hi-vis may do nothing for your visibility.