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

[oneofsix]

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

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

[The Stranger:Me]

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

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

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

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

[bogan]

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

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

[p.dath]

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

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

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

[R-Soul]

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

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

Where are ACc handing them out?

[R-Soul]

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

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

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

[oneofsix]

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

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

[CookMySock]

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

[bogan]

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

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

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

[Neon]

Where are ACc handing them out?

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

[yachtie10]

Where are ACc handing them out?

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

[p.dath]

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

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

[Phreak]

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

[scracha]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Smifffy]

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

What is careless driving?


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


What is the penalty for careless driving?


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

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

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

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


What happens if I'm suspected of careless driving?


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