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

[Jantar]

No it is the opposite, about 30% less risk I think they found. ....

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

[bogan]

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

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

[oneofsix]

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

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

[lone_slayer]

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

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

[scumdog]

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

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

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

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

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

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

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


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

[Neon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bogan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

your memory not so good?

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

[Jantar]

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

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

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

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

[bogan]

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

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

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

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

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

[Neon]

your memory not so good?

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

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

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

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

[MSTRS:Me]

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

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

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

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

[Jantar]

1) .... I was not around when helmets were made compulsory, it would be interesting to know how difficult and contentious that was at the time........

It wasn't terribly contentious as most riders did use helmets anyway. It became compulsory on 5th December 1973, and up till then you could ride at up to 30 mph (50 kmh) without a helmet, but they were already compulsory at speeds over 30 mph.

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

[Okey Dokey]

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