Mandatory high visibility vests/clothing?

[pzkpfw]

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

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

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

This got me wondering.

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

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

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

So a question:

Would you agree to compulsory high visibility vests/clothing?

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

[Dropped]

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

[Nibblet]

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

[Swoop]

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

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

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

[pzkpfw]

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

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

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

[Nibblet]

So a question:

Would you agree to compulsory high visibility vests/clothing?

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

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

[ratfink]

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

[Nibblet]

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

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

[Azi Dahaka]

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

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

[Hawkeye]

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

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

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

[vtec]

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

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

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

[James Deuce]

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

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

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

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

It's not people on 250s doing that.

[centaurus]

What the hell!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[CastorPollux]

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

I agree.....

[Conquiztador]

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

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

Re your question: NO!