Hiviz. Am I a dork?

[Berries]

But imaging not wearing hi-viz, it is dusk, you come off your bike on some random corner, lying at the side of the road. You hear a car approaching, you might have time to reflect on how wise was it to wear just black, or you might not. At least with a hi viz, it would get picked up in cars headlights

Not a bad idea. I suppose emergency locator beacons are the next step in case you roll in to a ditch and can't be seen.

[cs363]

All this proves is that 73.21% of all statistics are made up. Seriously.

In the absence of a proper double-blind approach, there can be no proper analysis, only speculation. One of the few safety measures that doesn't require a double-blind technique to defend its efficacy is the parachute.

Hi-vis has made its way into all sorts of areas where really all it does is provide a uniform for construction workers and emergency services staff, in addition to all of the other PPE they are expected to wear. In daylight, hi vis is beyond pointless. It's a different story at night, but not for the front view of a motorcyclist, nor for a rear view if the rider's apparel is obscured by a top box, pillion or back pack.

Yes, agree totally - hence my post which was in reply to another that was quoting that statistic in support of the efficacy of high-vis. Basically meaningless numbers being used to justify its usage.
I think the whole visibility issue is similar to the ACC levy - because car drivers don't always see us, it's being made our problem when the simple truth is that it wouldn't matter if you were dressed head to toe in high-vis with flashing lights on top of your helmet - these same drivers still wouldn't see you. I've seen dozy car drivers pull out in front of big trucks like B-Trains etc., if they can't see them what hope do we have?
The answer in my opinion is to ride defensively and never assume the driver has seen you, high-vis or not.

[riffer]

Keeping it on topic...

My $0.02 (yes, again) about high-viz is this:

High-viz, by itself doesn't make ANY difference to your safety. The reason for the 37% difference in accident rates is more likely to be due to the likelihood that people who wear high-viz gear are more likely to take an active role in their safety on the road.

Take two riders; one your rider in his mid 40s, 20 years on a bike, lots of experience, with a healthy regard for his their mortality. Dress them all in black on a black CB900 Hornet. Take your other rider, mid 20s, five years on a bike, squidly attitude, dress them in fluoro high-viz gear, and throw them on a race-replica coloured (say REPCO Fireblade). Who's your money on?

As usual, it all comes down to attitude, self-discipline and smarts. Visibility comes way down the list.

FFS another person died this weekend when they drove their car onto a level crossing and got hit by a train! A train! How the hell do you not see one of those!

[oneofsix]

Keeping it on topic...

My $0.02 (yes, again) about high-viz is this:

High-viz, by itself doesn't make ANY difference to your safety. The reason for the 37% difference in accident rates is more likely to be due to the likelihood that people who wear high-viz gear are more likely to take an active role in their safety on the road.

Take two riders; one your rider in his mid 40s, 20 years on a bike, lots of experience, with a healthy regard for his their mortality. Dress them all in black on a black CB900 Hornet. Take your other rider, mid 20s, five years on a bike, squidly attitude, dress them in fluoro high-viz gear, and throw them on a race-replica coloured (say REPCO Fireblade). Who's your money on?

As usual, it all comes down to attitude, self-discipline and smarts. Visibility comes way down the list.

FFS another person died this weekend when they drove their car onto a level crossing and got hit by a train! A train! How the hell do you not see one of those!

I agree with you but also have a theory about trains. It is to do with their lighting arrangements. I suspect that because they are this big black trial with only a highset light at the front ...
Oops there I go spouting off on KB without checking the facts again
The train crash happened at 7:05pm and therefore in full daylight. Who would expect a train at a level crossing?
back to topic, the best Hi-viz does is to make you more seeable by those that are looking for you and then only when the conditions are right. At other times it can actual camouflage you The danger of making it required is that the novice hi-viz rider feeling visible and protected

[riffer]

Indeed. One of the biggest problems with policy making in New Zealand is the propensity of those that make rules to look at the wrong indicator when setting policy.

Hence, thinking that high-viz vests are the solution when it's actually the attitude of the people who wear them.

[MSTRS:Me]

Indeed. One of the biggest problems with policy making in New Zealand is the propensity of those that make rules to look at the wrong indicator when setting policy.

Hence, thinking that high-viz vests are the solution when it's actually the attitude of the people who wear them.

Repeated for truth.
Hope this went (or goes) in your submission, S.

[caspernz]

Indeed. One of the biggest problems with policy making in New Zealand is the propensity of those that make rules to look at the wrong indicator when setting policy.

Hence, thinking that high-viz vests are the solution when it's actually the attitude of the people who wear them.

Fair point, it's the safety first attitude of those who chose to wear the hiviz that contributes mostly. Still, it can't hurt to wear the glowvest, so I'll keep wearing it.....easier to wash than the whole jacket too.

[rocketman1]

After reading all these posts, in my judgement, the jury is out, I am not a dork.
Thanks fellow riders, I can officially say that I am not a Dork as judged by Kiwibikers.

Hey joking aside, I will continue to ride my Hi-Viz, to put it bluntly I don't give a stuff what I look like on a bike anymore. I am not out there to impress anyone.
I just love riding my bike, and hope that the one time in 1000 that blind bastard who cant see a train or a black jeep on a rainy day, sees my Hi viz.

[Hitcher]

After reading all these posts, in my judgement, the jury is out, I am not a dork.
Thanks fellow riders, I can officially say that I am not a Dork as judged by Kiwibikers.

Only if you take a selective view of your original proposition, which also included riding everywhere with your light on high beam. The discussion, largely based on emotion rather than science, has concentrated solely on the hi vis element of your original thesis.

How about we have a discussion about the inconsiderate and irritating use of a headlight, before your dorkness is laid to rest?

[cs363]

Only if you take a selective view of your original proposition, which also included riding everywhere with your light on high beam. The discussion, largely based on emotion rather than science, has concentrated solely on the hi vis element of your original thesis.

How about we have a discussion about the inconsiderate and irritating use of a headlight, before your dorkness is laid to rest?

Definitely inconsiderate and annoying, but based on historical research of KB threads I believe you also have to sell soft serve ice cream to be truly considered a dork.

p/t

[Usarka]

Indeed. One of the biggest problems with policy making in New Zealand is the propensity of those that make rules to look at the wrong indicator when setting policy.

Hence, thinking that high-viz vests are the solution when it's actually the attitude of the people who wear them.

I responded to the safer roads thing they did a couple of years ago with a lot of my answers talking about personal and societal attitudes, conditioning etc. The published draft had a comment in it that that sort of thing was outside the scope of the report.

[riffer]

I responded to the safer roads thing they did a couple of years ago with a lot of my answers talking about personal and societal attitudes, conditioning etc. The published draft had a comment in it that that sort of thing was outside the scope of the report.

Yeah it's bloody pathetic innit? When you consider they expend a hell of a lot of money on social conditioning regarding keeping speed down and alcohol consumption before driving minimised.

[BMWST?]

Indeed. One of the biggest problems with policy making in New Zealand is the propensity of those that make rules to look at the wrong indicator when setting policy.

Hence, thinking that high-viz vests are the solution when it's actually the attitude of the people who dont see them.

fixt .

[misterO]

Hi Viz. Am I a dork?

Maybe, maybe not- that's not for me to say, but wearing a High Viz vest has nothing to do with it. It really doesn't matter if you choose to ride wearing a tutu, provided you also wear good gloves, boots, pants and jacket. As the saying goes: dress for the fall, not the ride. A High Viz vest has not yet been scientifically proven to increase your risk of mishap so if it makes you happy then go for it. The only true "dorks" are the ones who get on their bike wearing a wife-beater, shorts and jandals. If your primary goal is to get noticed then ride naked.

[riffer]

Hi Viz. Am I a dork?

Maybe, maybe not- that's not for me to say, but wearing a High Viz vest has nothing to do with it. It really doesn't matter if you choose to ride wearing a tutu, provided you also wear good gloves, boots, pants and jacket. As the saying goes: dress for the fall, not the ride. A High Viz vest has not yet been scientifically proven to increase your risk of mishap so if it makes you happy then go for it. The only true "dorks" are the ones who get on their bike wearing a wife-beater, shorts and jandals. If your primary goal is to get noticed then ride naked.

Maybe. However, that sounds like your primary goal is to be avoided. Which is not necessarily a bad thing on the road either.