An investigation of motorcycle rider use of and attitudes to high visibility gear

[Usarka]

In response to the enquiries about this study:

We are a group of 4th year medical students undertaking the study as part of our course. We are receiving no funding from outside the University. MOTO NZ are the client and will be receiving a copy of the report. However, the project is being conducted independent of MOTO NZ and they have no influence on our grades for the project.

Note that the entire survey is about why people like/dislike hi-vis, and there is nothing about it's effectiveness. That folks is because the decision has been made, and MOTONZ are planning the change management requried to get us all to comply.

I'll take care of myself on the road, but don't tell me what to wear because other people aren't driving safely themselves.

PS - If this survey passes for a 4th year uni project then our uni's are shit (unless the scope is to help MotoNZ with the change management).

PPS - Can you please post the terms of reference for this project?

[skippa1]

say no to dayglow

[Madness]

I think it's sad that this is the best that MotoNZ can come up with. I expected more from Gareth

[JohnR]

Two ways to make hi vis attractive and effective would be:

1. Reduced ACC levy to those who wear it and

2. Double (at least) the penalty/fine for causing a crash involving a motorcyclist wearing it.
Single vehicle crashes excluded of course

[bogan]

Long rant cut short. But big ups for coming on here and asking. You’ll probably find the comments on the survey and responses in this thread will be of more value than the survey itself because it was loaded.

This pretty much sums it up, while I can't actually do/look at the survey as it seems to be down, from the responses I gather it is the same biased drivel we have seen before.

FFS if the mandatory headlight law didn't do shit (and I'm assuming it didn't because we are being burdened with this crap only a few years later), how is a little bit of colored cloth supposed to do more?

[Swoop]

Two ways to make hi vis attractive and effective would be:

1. Reduced ACC levy to those who wear it and

2. Double (at least) the penalty/fine for causing a crash involving a motorcyclist wearing it.
Single vehicle crashes excluded of course

Perhaps improving the standard of driving/riding in this country should be the first priority?
We appreciate the fact that NZ driving skills are poor and the standards of training and education are so low that we have "part-trained" road users holding a full kicence.

Upskilling / advanced driver/rider training are the utmost priority, NOT some bright pieces of cloth.

[Scuba_Steve]

Nah, no false sense of security - hell, they can't even remember to put the fuckers on - how can they even think enough to have a false sense of secutiy??

And I'd love to see the figures re insured people vs non-insured.

Most crashes I attend it is not always info I obtain.

But most seem to have insurance - but then down here most (except for bottom-feeding slack-jawed drongos) seem to have soem form of insurance.

The ones that don't report their "off road excursions" mostly don't have insurance.

Yea in NZ most people are insured (something like 94%), the insured vs uninsured was overseas (non-compulsery) country can't remember which, but the insurance was "safety net" subconscious sorta goes "well if something happens insurance will cover it" whereas the uninsured goes "fuck if something happens I'm going bankrupt best not crash" of-course there are always the exception to the rule (these "bottom-feeding slack-jawed drongos" you speak of) but for the most part insured people were more likely to & did crash more often then uninsured people.

Same as replacing the airbag with a spike, it's just an extra incentive not to crash. Airbag people subconsciously go "the airbag will save me", spike people would go "I crash I'm dead". Also why bikers (general rule) tend to be better road users, again we crash we're dead or fucked. We don't have those "safety nets"

This can be the problem with Hi-vis. When you might question "did they see me?" people in Hi-vis will start thinking subconsciously "na they saw me, I'm in Hi-vis they had to of". It's unavoidable human nature.

[bogan]

Perhaps improving the standard of driving/riding in this country should be the first priority?
We appreciate the fact that NZ driving skills are poor and the standards of training and education are so low that we have "part-trained" road users holding a full kicence.

Upskilling / advanced driver/rider training are the utmost priority, NOT some bright pieces of cloth.

Fucking eh! And the worst bit about cotton wooling (however high vis it may be) everything, is it just enables road users to get away with more ineptitude 99% of the time. Guess it is hard to change the way of thinking, what they need is an external group in touch with the road users, and willing to abandon preconceived ideas in favour of facts. Kind of like what the patsies at motonz said they would be.

[Tigadee]

To an extent they do, give a false sense of security, people know the "safety net's" there so they'll take that into account.

Really? I don't ride any different when I have my hi-viz on - I ride with caution irregardless of what I am wearing, but of course with even more caution yet style if I were wearing my birthday suit... Seriously, would any of you be slack in your riding and sit awareness if you put hi-viz on?

If we can accept that full-face helmets are better, armoured and leather gear is better, headlights on all the time and louder pipes saves lives, etc., why not putting on hi-viz then?

Heck, short of mounting a disco ball and Christmas lights, and RPGs on my bike, I'd take any advantage in improving my chances on the road 'cos I'd rather not take anything for granted. That said, I normally put hi-viz on when it's dark...

[GrayWolf]

In response to the enquiries about this study:

We are a group of 4th year medical students undertaking the study as part of our course. We are receiving no funding from outside the University. MOTO NZ are the client and will be receiving a copy of the report. However, the project is being conducted independent of MOTO NZ and they have no influence on our grades for the project.

Dear 4th year Students,
I applaud your efforts and I wish you well for your project grades (I know how much effort goes into these from personal experience) However as I know you will be aware, data can be skewed and/or misused by other bodies, this is probably a motorcyclists deepest concerns. We both know the quantative/qualatitive survey arguements. I fear however much your intentions are 'pure' you will see your research used in a way you may not foresee. The questions you ask are 'yes' simply do you wear, what do you wear questions. Can I ask you, what your hypothesis is? Maybe being old I am cynical, but I can foresee your survey being used to 'prove' that a majority of us admit to not wearing hi vis, so therefore we need a law to protect us. After all the emergency services, road side workers etc all wear hi vis. Motorcycling has a many varied range of characters, personalities and I guess if you read these forums, there is a 'healthy dose' of rebellion in attitude. That rebellious attitude often can be, and is; used against motorcyclists in general. There are also many of us who have read the book, worn the T shirt, and now finished our memoirs. Many of your questions ask just dark/light colours for items of clothing. Yes it is keeping it simple. However I have personally several different jackets, and I would say 99% of even all black jackets have reflective piping and/or strips etc on them.

For those who do not believe that there is a benefit to wearing high visibility clothing, please list this under the "other" category on the question regarding what you would consider a barrier to wearing high-vis clothing.

One thing I would criticise (but I understand fully the reason) is the small (one sentance box) where we can put down our reasons for not wearing hi vis. Personally if it becomes law? Then yes I will 'comply' by the simple fact as I buy new jackets etc they will have hi vis areas on them... however I will still be wearing my old jackets until they reach the end of serviceable life. Do I want this law/ NO!!! I and many other my age and older have seen compulsory helmets (a damn good law IMO), compulsory headlights which was to improve the bikes visibility to other road users (just like hi vis) and as you will see this supposed 'life saver' DIDNT/DOESNT!!! We have seen surveys, facts, research, figures placed before Govt's that completely refute their intentions.. but they will go ahead anyway. As medical students you may well sit back and be thinking, "yeh but we will get to see the horrific damage left by an accident in our work". If governments wanted to really put in place a better system they would introduce a similar system to Europe, stepped licences. So you need time, experience and a 'proven' level of expertise to progress to more powerful machinery. You and I may both know the frontal lobes on males are often not fully developed till mid 20's and the executive functions they perform. Again as the fact motorcycling is often the domain of young men, untill more recent years with the return of the baby boomer's with high levels of disposable income.

Also, this is just one component of our study. We are also conducting key informant and public interviews, as well as gathering other quantitative data.

Public interviews are qualitative and your survey is quantitativ.... The general public are not 'informed' apart from media and govt releases on this subject. To many 'motorcyclist' immediately brings up mental images of the 'hell's angel' type = bias. Also as the majority do not ride, they do not have any real understanding of the subject being surveyed... but the public opinion will of course 'matter' if it supports the move towards Hi-vis. This type of group thinking has been seen frequently through history Columbus is a prime example. The powers that be told the public the world is flat, Columbus knew otherwise, who did the public believe, untill PROVED otherwise!!
I would hope that you have and/or can acquire quantitative data from old times... 1980's etc. There was research into daylights (diffused rather than a beam) Vs headlights etc.. The UK Police rode bikes with a 'daylight' fitted, now why would a professional Law Upholding body do that without a valid reason??


Thanks again for your responses.

Thank you for reading this... and if I may put forwards an example of 'skewed date being used to attempt to implement a law? The Leg protector bill introduced by Peter Bottomly in the UK (1980's) almost became law. DESPITE a concern from the Medical/Surgeons councils thet they would in all likelyhood introduce massive damage to the knee joints of riders (thrown forwards, and the lower leg trapped behind said protector, the next joint in line? The knee!) The research carried out by the TRL (transport research laboratory) was using a BMW with the opposing cylinders removed on a frame to prevent the bike actually being forced onto its side, trapping the rider (dummy underneath) and the 'test car' was a morris marina.... ther was NO research done into impacts with the current trend then of low pointed front (aerodynamic) cars, vans, lorries etc etc..... but the figures produced were the ones Bottomly used to 'attempt' this bill.
When underhand or poorly performed research such as this is frequently used to gain support for a bill to be enacted, can you seriously wonder if some of the responses you may get are 'aggressive' or dismissive.....

Again I wish you all a successful completion of this project and a good mark towards your exams... and take this the way it IS intended, I sincerely hope to never meet you in the future!!
Regards
Graywulf.

[JohnR]

Perhaps improving the standard of driving/riding in this country should be the first priority?
We appreciate the fact that NZ driving skills are poor and the standards of training and education are so low that we have "part-trained" road users holding a full kicence.

Upskilling / advanced driver/rider training are the utmost priority, NOT some bright pieces of cloth.

Couldn't agree more.
However "those that know best" seem determined to compel us to wear hi vis, and as the safety benefits are apparently negligible, other benefits should be sought.
In most cases training by compulsion, like every thing else forced on people, is only paid lip service unless there is something to be gained by the compelee. Usually financial reward...
Bearing in mind that there is a cost involved in obtaining the compliant gear and for little or no perceived benefit.

Penalties and fines are a little less draconian than the "steering wheel spike" that has been advocated, but unfortunately this kind of deterrent seems to be more effective.

[Bassmatt]

If hi-vis is made law it will be done on the basis that the "facts" show it will reduce accidents etc etc. If TPTB truly believe this to be the case then the ACC levy should be reduced at the time the hi-vis law becomes current.
Bet it doesn't.

[Usarka]

Making hi-vis compulsory for bikers is to compensate for the actions and behaviours of other road users. I find this anagolous with the idea of making mini-skirts illegal so that women don't get raped.

[jellywrestler]

[B]AN INVESTIGATION OF MOTORCYCLE RIDER USE OF AND ATTITUDES TO HIGH VISIBILITY GEAR INFORMATION

you forgot to add a box asking for cell phones to be only sold in high-viz colours so Motorcyclists can see when wankers are using them on the road so we can give them a wide berth.

[pete376403]

Hi-viz has been compulsory on building sites for years - is there any evidence that this reduces work place accidents?