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

[Berries]

Top questionnaire. Two questions missing though -

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

Does a motorbike have a steering wheel or handlebars ?

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

[oneofsix]

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

[sinned]

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

[avgas]

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

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

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

Errrmmm I hate to bring up but its the age old "stats don't count for shit" scenario.

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

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

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

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

[p.dath]

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

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

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

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

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

[John_H]

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

[Drew]

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

You'd think so. But over a third of the voters have been hit while wearing a vest, and far fewer riders than that wear them.

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

[p.dath]

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

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

[John_H]

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

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

[avgas]

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

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

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

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

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

[p.dath]

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

Read it again. It says exactly what I meant.

[Toaster]

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

[bogan]

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

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

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

[p.dath]

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

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

[scumdog]

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

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