Hiviz. Am I a dork?

[Crasherfromwayback]

.

There are old riders and bold riders but there are no old bold riders.

I disagree. The old bold riders are just lucky as well.

[Scuba_Steve]

I would suggest that a rider who takes a calculated risk and fucks it up means that he did not understand the risk he was taking. A rider who understands the risks before he puts the keys in the ignition is, by definition better at acessing risk.

There are old riders and bold riders but there are no old bold riders.

I would disagree you still put the key in don't you?
Using the road is a calculated risk, riding a bike more so. Lane splitting another calculated risk, as is "back roads" (they tend to be less maintained yet more fun). we all calculate the risk & decide whether the risk is too great or not (personally), Just cause they wear hi-vis does not make them any better or worse at that. But they are less likely to be the ones taking the back roads or lane splitting etc they tend to be a more cautious breed. Doesn't mean they are better riders, doesn't mean they are better at assessing risk, just means they are more cautious

[caspernz]

I disagree. The old bold riders are just lucky as well.

Lots of truth in that. In general I'd go with the view that stacking the deck in your favour when you're on two wheels is a good start. To me that includes the hiviz stuff, but also maintenance, good tyres, rider training etc. Funny how luck can become a smaller part of the equation this way...

[Flip]

I would disagree you still put the key in don't you?
Using the road is a calculated risk, riding a bike more so. Lane splitting another calculated risk, as is "back roads" (they tend to be less maintained yet more fun). we all calculate the risk & decide whether the risk is too great or not (personally), Just cause they wear hi-vis does not make them any better or worse at that. But they are less likely to be the ones taking the back roads or lane splitting etc they tend to be a more cautious breed. Doesn't mean they are better riders, doesn't mean they are better at assessing risk, just means they are more cautious

I would argue that given the high vis wearers on a mile travelled basis are 34% less likely to have an accident and I am not prepared to attribute this reduction in accident rate to the visibility of the vest in any part other than by a very minor amount. So the Vesties are doing something different that is making them safer. I believe that the Vesties are concerned about their vulnerability and approach the hazards and consequence of motorcycle riding differently and it is this different approach that is making them safer.
Personally If I was ever to wear a high vis on a bike it would not make a blind bit of difference, why because if the SIDNSY's don’t see my tank of a bike with its 3 headlights and the big fat old fucker on it and given my riding habits are almost set in stone being formed over the last 40 years riding.
If the purpose of motorcycling is to ride fast and take risks then being in a group of riders who have a higher accident rate would make you a better rider. This is the argument you seem to be making. But it’s not this way, good riders have few accidents, good riders have few accidents because they are better at accessing risks. Good riders have good situational awareness, have good road skills, have good bikes, and have good motorcycle gear. Given the often fatal consequence of a bike accident good riders have to be cautious on the road.
It’s a survival of the fittest argument and in this case the cautious are the survivors.

[MSTRS:Me]

I would argue that it is not the 'cautious' who have better outcomes, but the 'aware'...

[oneofsix]

I would argue that it is not the 'cautious' who have better outcomes, but the 'aware'...

True. You have to balance cautious with aggressive depending on circumstances. The overly cautious will get run off the road.
When a high risk rider is forced to wear hi-viz what you will see is them transfer some more of their responsibilities on to the other road users, after all they are now wearing the hi-viz and so there is no excuse for not seeing them. I bet there will be no re-evaluation of the idea to force hi-viz, just a whole lot of excuses and more finger pointing.

[Usarka]

People will always have opinions.. yours is all that matters however

& those that make the most noise.. usually have the most to learn.....

Have you also got a similar photo where the sun is low and bright in the sky behind the bikes? If you had I'd suggest it would tell the opposite story.

Motorcyclists Own The Options. Someone should use that phrase.

MOO!

[Berries]

How do you explain why the high viz wearers have a 34% less chance of having an accident?

Out of interest, where does that figure come from?

[slofox]

Trouble with hi-viz is that as every man and his dog wears the things, they will become so ubiquitous that nobody will bother to notice them any more. Bit like the "headlights on" theory. If cars do it too, it removes the advantage to motorbikes.

Things only stand out if they are unusual.

[Flip]

The LTSA's Safer Journeys doc on P44.

It is actually 37%

[Flip]

Trouble with hi-viz is that as every man and his dog wears the things, they will become so ubiquitous that nobody will bother to notice them any more. Bit like the "headlights on" theory. If cars do it too, it removes the advantage to motorbikes.

Things only stand out if they are unusual.

Time to ride naked!

I think my racing suit needs an ironing.

[george formby]

Aha! The problem is not, to hi-viz or not to hi-viz, it's Jeeps. Last close call I had, in broadly similar circumstances to the OP's own I was driving a jeep. I nearly squished a cyclist wearing the most offensive fluoro pink jacket on earth, I think my subconscious was trying to protect me. She only materialised in front me as I started to move away from a stop junction, after a proper look too. Glad I did stop like the sign says or I could have hit her.

Jeeps are the new Volvos but far less reliable, if we paint them all hi-viz our problems will be solved.

In all seriousness, I've worn hi-viz on & off for years, not giving a toss what anybody else thinks. It might save your ass, then again it might not.

[cs363]

The LTSA's Safer Journeys doc on P44.

It is actually 37%

Oh....the same document that states motorcyclists are 18-20% more likely to crash than other road users, which is an inflated version of the 16% previously quoted by ACC and proven to be utter bullshit?

Note that the document actually states: 'Drivers wearing any reflective or fluorescent clothing had a 37% lower risk than other drivers.'

For a start drivers? FFS but I digress, note carefully the wording - this does not mean that wearing a high viz vest makes you 37% less likely to be involved in a crash, it's merely a twisting of statistics to give that appearance. A huge percentage of modern motorcycle gear has some reflective panels, so it would appear that these and other similar garments have been included in this purposely vague statement.

None of this information is definitive and should not be quoted as such. This is how the bullshit starts...


Here is the full section relating to this, (note that it is based on information that is the best part of 8 years old (so no compulsory headlight on and hi-viz was rarer back then and who knows what else affected by time):

5.4.4 Rider safety gear
Wearing protective gear while motorcycling assists in providing safety improvements, specifically enhancing visibility of the motorcyclist to other road users and reducing injuries.
Research completed in New Zealand(17) identified that ‘low conspicuity may increase the risk of motorcycle crash related injury. Increasing the use of reflective or fluorescent clothing, white or light coloured helmets, and daytime headlights are simple, cheap interventions that could considerably reduce motorcycle crash related injury and death. In summary:
• Drivers wearing any reflective or fluorescent clothing had a 37% lower risk than other drivers.
• Compared with wearing a black helmet, use of a white helmet was associated with a 24% lower risk.

(17) BMJ 2004; 328 doi: 10.1136/BMJ.37984.574757.EE (Published 8 April 2004) BMJ 2004;328:857. Motorcycle rider conspicuity and crash related injury: case-control study.
Safer journeys for motorcycling on New Zealand roads: Draft for consultation, December 2011 Page 45
• Self reported light coloured helmet versus dark coloured helmet was associated with a 19% lower risk.
• Three quarters of motorcyclists had their headlight turned on during the day, and this was associated with a 27% lower risk’.

[thecharmed01]

I don't think wearing a hivis makes you a dork if it makes you feel more visible..... as long as you don't let it make you feel invincible.
As long as you have your wits about you and you are riding smart, who cares what you wear?
If your friends do, then they aren't overly good 'friends' IMHO. Friends should be supportive.

[skinman]

I used to wear hi vis but after car stopped at stop sign, looked at me then proceeded to pull out when I was so close that the attempt to stop resulted in a close encounter with the road & a broken thumb & have now got a big black bike with loud pipes, decided that appearing as a threat might work as trying to appear more visible apparently failed. I recon if they cant see you with the headlight on they arnt going to see a vest. I have noticed that being big n loud appears to make them look a bit more closely & rethink what they are about to attempt most (but not all) of the time. Still have to be ready to avoid 'fail to give way' situations.