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

[Neon]

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

Alright, alright. You got me. I kind of assumed that was the case. Interesting, although I would still argue that 'compulsory daytime lights' and 'compulsory hi-viz' do not really compare on intrusiveness or enforceability.

I suppose what I am trying to establish is the actual likelihood of these things being made compulsory. Could it be done, and would it be done?

[Neon]

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

So as another example, would wearing a backpack concealing your hi-viz put you in breach of the law (if there was one)? How big a backpack is ok? What percentage of visible hi-viz surface must be retained? This is what I'm talking about - legislation would be impractical.

[Neon]

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.

What was the effect when the speed limit was eventually increased?

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

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

Yup like I said in my post... :-) Or on a gold wing or bike with top box and or other luggage or a back pack as I do to work some times.

The Hi Viz is good from the air and makes a good target and target affixation


Which brings in another point we have all had heard about target affixation, and it don't matter what you wear wearing... car drivers have the same issue

hmmm making a brighter target may make the roads un-safer us bikers..... GULP

[Jantar]

What was the effect when the speed limit was eventually increased?

The speed limit was increased at the same time as a few other road rule changes (eg the give way rule). The accident rate increased for a few months, then started to decrease and has been in general decline ever since.

[MSTRS:Me]

Alright, alright. You got me. I kind of assumed that was the case. Interesting, although I would still argue that 'compulsory daytime lights' and 'compulsory hi-viz' do not really compare on intrusiveness or enforceability.

I suppose what I am trying to establish is the actual likelihood of these things being made compulsory. Could it be done, and would it be done?

I never believed that lights-on made much difference for us, but I suppose it might have done something towards visibility, and did no harm to egos etc. Most of us were well used to the recommendations lights be on, and had voluntarily done so for years. With the ever-increasing number of cars with driving lights (always on) and/or drivers using headlights anyway, any possible advantage/point of difference is rapidly disappearing.
Perhaps the safety nazis are aware of this and that's why all the talk of hi-viz. They want to make us stand out (again).
Trouble is - they are misguided fools...

[scumdog]

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....

I would possibly have seen his mate before I did if he had been by himself - but the hi-vis guy I saw as soon as I came around a bend onto a straight, right away I saw this clear orange blob in the distance.

Which in a few seconds made it easier for me to decide if I needed to brake for the on-coming car (cos there wasn't room to pass the cyclist) or boot it and get past before the oncoming car got close.

Without the hi-vis there would have been less time to assess things.

[sunhuntin]

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

just what i was gonna say. i think anything on the pillion seat can make the hi viz harder to see, whether its a tail bag, pack rack or a passenger. i have a top box on the back of my bike 24/7. if im extra loaded down, i drape the vest over the back and put a couple of cargo nets on to keep it in place. seems to work better than when its on my back.

[firefighter]

What makes it not work?

People may see you wearing it, think you're a chutney ferret and instinctively swerve at you......

[Smifffy]

So as another example, would wearing a backpack concealing your hi-viz put you in breach of the law (if there was one)? How big a backpack is ok? What percentage of visible hi-viz surface must be retained? This is what I'm talking about - legislation would be impractical.

When was the last time 'practical' was ever a consideration in passing a law?

[Smifffy]

I would possibly have seen his mate before I did if he had been by himself - but the hi-vis guy I saw as soon as I came around a bend onto a straight, right away I saw this clear orange blob in the distance.

Which in a few seconds made it easier for me to decide if I needed to brake for the on-coming car (cos there wasn't room to pass the cyclist) or boot it and get past before the oncoming car got close.

Without the hi-vis there would have been less time to assess things.

So you booted it then?

[scumdog]

So you booted it then?

Oh yeah baby...

[Smifffy]

Oh yeah baby...

Be rude not to, really.

[awayatc]

when people see hi-viz they think cyclist...

or maybe roadworks....

so how would you stand out on a bike with hi viz?...

be dangerous....

they expect you to pedal sedately...

another lunatic with a bee(hive) under their bonnet

[FJRider]

What was the effect when the speed limit was eventually increased?

You mean ??? ... What was the effect on the statistics when the speed limit was raised ... ???

Regardless of the posted speed limits in any area ... there will always be some fucktard that believes they can go faster. Some of those get lucky (often) and have no problems/dont get caught ...

Some don't pass GO ... DONT go to jail ... don't collect $200 ... theyjust die ... and/or a few of their mates ...

It is MY personal belief ... before you quote statistics in the belief they back up your theorys ... take note who issued them ...

The number of deaths on the road after the speed limit is raised or lowered only proves people have died.

Not the speed (above OR below the limit) they were doing WHEN they died.

In the right hands ... The same set of statistics, can prove opposite points of view ...