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

[scumdog]

You could dip me in that dayglo shit and it isn't going to make a blind bit of difference as to how people don't see me. It's up there with compulsory lights on.

And the ones that DID see you because of hi-vis/lights on? How would you know???

[scumdog]

My biggest concern over making hi-vis compulsory is the false sense of security it is likely to lull many wearers into.

Training motorcyclists to really use their eyes and their brain would be far more benificial.

Ya Luddite, people said tha same thing when seatbelts first came out, the same comment was made when air-bags first appeared etc - oh my, how my eyes are rolling today!!

But I agree with your second comment.

[p.dath]

Just to be clear, who is paying for the research?

All the tax payers of NZ are I would think - it's being done by a NZ school.

[p.dath]

Survey completed. Then I sent the following email to the researchers

I wish I could give you some more credit, but the site won't let me. Good email. You can easily see from the way the survey is written that the author believes high-viz should be worn.

[oneofsix]

The thing is Pete:
If hi-vis stops somebody from pulling out on front of a bike etc it is highly unlikely the potentially offending driver is going to follow you home to say "Wow man, that hi-vis really works, Iwouldn't have noticed you if you hadn't been wearing it"

So measuring its effectiveness is going to be almost impossible.

And people don't notice locomotives approaching them so for some nothing will get their attention, see todays edition of Southland Times and have a squiz at 'Your View' (the letters to the editor bit)

the thing is, and you can check this yourself, as far as pulling out in front of you goes they are not going to see the hi-viz behind your headlight so the hi-vis is pointless.

From behind it only works if the rider isn't wearing a backpack, is wearing a backpack therefore going to be made illegal so the hi-vis can work? But also the tail-light will be on because the headlight has to be on so the hi-viz is again ineffective.

That leaves the side. You don't really see the hi-viz from the side do you? It seems to have a certain lack of presence being less than 200mm across with appendages like arms hanging across it. Plus if it is only when you are dead in front of them, crossing their bow that they see you it seems a little late, they are either going to be too late to hit you or it is too late and the crash is happening.

All up a waste of money but a good money spinner for the makers of the hi-viz tape.
A psychological crutch that doesn't really improve safety (oh fuck am I agreeing with Katman? )

As for

people said tha same thing when seatbelts first came out, the same comment was made when air-bags first appeared etc

They both were of immediate safety benefit to the user the hi-viz is questionable at beat and its benefit is based making the other driver do their job.

The hi-stop would have been a better example and its benefits are still questionable given that the research used was based on USA where the stop light, tail light and indicators are all often the same unit and all red. outlaw red indicators so its easier to tell when they are braking etc

[p.dath]

And the ones that DID see you because of hi-vis/lights on? How would you know???

I've heard that holding your head under water until you drown doubles your life expenctancy - don't believe me - how would you know until you tried it?

The kind of argument you present is futile. People suggesting that high-viz makes a difference are only doing so based on a hunch. I have heard several say 'research says', and then I ask them what research - and no one has ever been able to answer. You know why? Because there is no research that has found a conclusive link between high-viz and safety. There is a small amount of research that has found it might make a difference, and then a whole lot of research that found it didn't make any difference.

[James Deuce]

All the tax payers of NZ are I would think - it's being done by a NZ school.

Errr, no. Research projects are almost all funded commercially by corporates. That sea-change was instituted in the early 2000s. Researchers are required to organise funding for their projects, most of the time.
Universities are not pure research facilities and haven't been for a very long time. This will be funded by 3M or some other producer of reflective fabrics, because instituting a legal compulsion to wear it makes them free money. University-backed research results are supposed to make the uneducated swallow the results without question.
If anyone seriously thinks this is about "safety" I suggest you send me some marshmallows down from your pink fluffy-cloud-land.

[oneofsix]

Errr, no. Research projects are almost all funded commercially by corporates. That sea-change was instituted in the early 2000s. Researchers are required to organise funding for their projects, most of the time.
Universities are not pure research facilities and haven't been for a very long time. This will be funded by 3M or some other producer of reflective fabrics, because instituting a legal compulsion to wear it makes them free money. University-backed research results are supposed to make the uneducated swallow the results without question.
If anyone seriously thinks this is about "safety" I suggest you send me some marshmallows down from your pink fluffy-cloud-land.

Me want marshymallows too I've been saying for ages this is commercially driven rubbish.

All up a waste of money but a good money spinner for the makers of the hi-viz tape.

[Voltaire]

Ya Luddite, people said tha same thing when seatbelts first came out, the same comment was made when air-bags first appeared etc - oh my, how my eyes are rolling today!!

But I agree with your second comment.

but....seat belts and air bags are active components, where as vizy is passive. Its not like hitting a wearer of hi viz is going to injure the driver....just saying....

[oneofsix]

but....seat belts and air bags are active components, where as vizy is passive. Its not like hitting a wearer of hi viz is going to injure the driver....just saying....

Now there is an idea, an active jacket. A jacket that sends out an EM pulse, disabling the offending vehicle before it can impact you.

[Conquiztador]

I still recon we need someone walking in front of every bike with a BIG Day Glow flag to inform cagers that a bike is approaching.

[Hawk]

while there seems to be no studies saying Hivis is effecetive at reducing car v motorcycle accidents and untill that is done in this country, not Australia or any other as driver attitudes, driving conditions are differnet, I think it maybe a bit unfair to say its ineffective. Personally ill use any means made available to me to make my myself more visible to other road users inclusive of motorcyclists. Yes I have had attended motorocycle v motorcycle head on, so its not only car drivers that dont see other motorcyclists, so I suggest you be carefull when pointing the finger.

This survey only tests the motorcyclists attidute to HighVis and is not designed to test anything other than that. Yes maybe it could have better written, maybe with consulation with a reconised motorcycle representive group such as BRONZ.

[oneofsix]

while there seems to be no studies saying Hivis is effecetive at reducing car v motorcycle accidents and untill that is done in this country, not Australia or any other as driver attitudes, driving conditions are differnet, I think it maybe a bit unfair to say its ineffective. Personally ill use any means made available to me to make my myself more visible to other road users inclusive of motorcyclists. Yes I have had attended motorocycle v motorcycle head on, so its not only car drivers that dont see other motorcyclists, so I suggest you be carefull when pointing the finger

But the point is, right now, you are free to chose to wear it, why should the rest be forced to wear it?
Also if we are forced to wear it will it then make your wearing it less affective?

My opinion is that the answers, in order, are no and yes. If that is the case then out of self interest you should also be against making it compulsory.

[Tigadee]

Loud pipes save lives !!!!!!!!!!

And it's bad ass!

Now there is an idea, an active jacket. A jacket that sends out an EM pulse, disabling the offending vehicle before it can impact you.

Wouldn't RPGs mounted on your bike be better? A disabled car hurtling towards you with no brakes will still impact you...

[oneofsix]

Wouldn't RPGs mounted on your bike be better? A disabled car hurtling towards you with no brakes will still impact you...

my age is showing again. Long time since car brakes were mechanical, but it works in the movies

The RPG idea raises a couple of questions;
Does an RPG count as a dangerous fitting?
Would it require the left hand throttle as per the 1941 Indian to allow the rider to operate it?

"It's unusual compared to modern-day motorbikes, because it has the throttle on the left. I'm told this was so the soldiers using it during World War II could shoot with their right hand. But I reckon you'd be too busy hanging on to shoot!"
http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/mo...slowest-Indian

Might require a modern automatic targeting and remote trigger but could be done.