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

[Hawk]

If that is the case then out of self interest you should also be against making it compulsory.

on the nail

[Swoop]

Survey done.

It is exceptionally poorly constructed as there is no quantifying "experience" (km's travelled per year / lifetime, years riding, etc).

Even worse is the lack of accidents involved in historically+recently AND whether the rider was wearing hi-viz or not at that time.

How this got past the ethics committee is surprising. It was submitted to the ethics committee, wasn't it?

GIGO will be the result but that isn't the object, is it.

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

One would have to guess Wellington's Victoria University?

There is serious encouragement for "academics" to do more research as it assists cudos and University standings...
Unfortunately there are vast amounts of money wasted on absolute crap research, this being a good example.

[James Deuce]

\

One would have to guess Wellington's Victoria University?

There is serious encouragement for "academics" to do more research as it assists cudos and University standings...
Unfortunately there are vast amounts of money wasted on absolute crap research, this being a good example.

Let's be clear. Universities seldom pay for research. The academic doing the research has to raise funding to cover some or all of the costs. Quite often professors teaching post-grad students will have a line of commercial research that they use the post-grad students to process.

I'm surprised that people still think "universities" pay for research. Part of your grade is how you manage your research project. Funding it with an eye to commercial application has been the goal of University Vice-Chancellors and the Government for more than a decade. In 2003 I was doing statistical analysis for the Tourism industry as part of of a M.Comms(IT) programme for a professor who was making a lot of dosh consulting to Tourism NZ.

[oneofsix]

Survey done.

It is exceptionally poorly constructed as there is no quantifying "experience" (km's travelled per year / lifetime, years riding, etc).

Even worse is the lack of accidents involved in historically+recently AND whether the rider was wearing hi-viz or not at that time.

How this got past the ethics committee is surprising. It was submitted to the ethics committee, wasn't it?

GIGO will be the result but that isn't the object, is it.


One would have to guess Wellington's Victoria University?

There is serious encouragement for "academics" to do more research as it assists cudos and University standings...
Unfortunately there are vast amounts of money wasted on absolute crap research, this being a good example.

You worry me . Did you not notice that the first post has big letters say Otago Uni? not Vic. Ok, it did say Wellington but there is also a Massey Uni in Wellington.

The bias of the questions the survey is either being sponsored by the likes of 3M or being pushed by some group that will benefit for the likes of 3M. "Awarness of potential benefits" as an option chocolate and red wine can potentially make me live longer too or they can potentially cause the health problems that kill me. At least with chocolate and red wine I will be happier than in the hi-viz

[blue rider]

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.

that would not work either, because the cager would run over he flag man and than the biker.

[Ntoxcated]

I have heard that one of the benefits of the reflective tape on some vests is that it makes for a much better laser reflection to those that may perhaps have some kind of device that is looking for said reflection. That being said, I would have thought the front of the bike gave a good enough reflection anyway.

[Asher]

I have heard that one of the benefits of the reflective tape on some vests is that it makes for a much better laser reflection to those that may perhaps have some kind of device that is looking for said reflection. That being said, I would have thought the front of the bike gave a good enough reflection anyway.

When i worked as a surveyors technician i used robotic theodolites that can track the prism, often they would get confused and lock onto reflective things like road signs, cones and high vis vests. If police radar works this way it might be easier for them to lock on you or perhaps if there was heaps of reflective stuff around they would have trouble locking on or get wrong readings.

[5150]

Done didly do

[Paul in NZ]

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.

Take a wider view. ALL of us are forced to fund the recovery of riders injured in crashes through taxes. Hence the majority has a say in how you conduct yourself on the road in order to minimise this cost. Thats done through traffic laws etc. There is no opt out model because you might (say) opt out of paying ACC but have to fund everything yourself or even opt out of paying tax for roading but not be allowed to use the roads.

So yes - IF there is a consensus or data to prove HiVis or reflective elements are effective then it is reasonable to assume society will require it if you want to ride on societies roads and enjoy all the other things (like ACC, ambulances etc)

However, this IS still a reasonably free society and there is nothing stopping you complaining and or doing something about it like lobbying or forming a political party. (look at what the Tea Party has achieved)

I couldn't give a rats - I'll wear the bloody stupid things if I have to....

[oneofsix]

Take a wider view. ALL of us are forced to fund the recovery of riders injured in crashes through taxes. Hence the majority has a say in how you conduct yourself on the road in order to minimise this cost. Thats done through traffic laws etc. There is no opt out model because you might (say) opt out of paying ACC but have to fund everything yourself or even opt out of paying tax for roading but not be allowed to use the roads.

So yes - IF there is a consensus or data to prove HiVis or reflective elements are effective then it is reasonable to assume society will require it if you want to ride on societies roads and enjoy all the other things (like ACC, ambulances etc)

However, this IS still a reasonably free society and there is nothing stopping you complaining and or doing something about it like lobbying or forming a political party. (look at what the Tea Party has achieved)

I couldn't give a rats - I'll wear the bloody stupid things if I have to....

The problem is that unless you resist you wont get the prove and they will just force it on you. Like the survey itself talks about the awareness of the probability, now if that was the awareness of the proof it would be more palatable. With Hi-stop and seat belts and even air bags they had research that "proved" there effectiveness, with hi-vis they have a hunch at best (more like a spinnable story) and a profit interest.

[Flip]

We use the road at the discression of LTSA and the NZ goverment. LTSA by statute have the legal authority to make what ever regulations they seem fit to make the roads safer.

ie you are fucked.

[oneofsix]

We use the road at the discression of LTSA and the NZ goverment. LTSA by statute have the legal authority to make what ever regulations they seem fit to make the roads safer.

ie you are fucked.

defeatist

[george formby]

I would love to see contribution to this topic / debate from professional riders who wear hi viz, Police, first response etc. Sure, they are highly trained but must also be aware of any effect from wearing hi viz, not just assuming that it is saving their bacon on a day to day basis. Quite possibly they would say better skills are the best solution but every little helps in getting home safely.
I agree with the "it just needs to work once" mentality too.

[Scuba_Steve]

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)

na bullshit, locomotives already have "hi-vis" fronts therefore studies show everyone sees them.

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!!

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. Like insurance, people with insurance are far more likely to be in an accident then those without.
Can't speak for down there but up here if you see a bad biker, chances are they're donning the Hi-Vis glow.

[Zedder]

The problem is that unless you resist you wont get the prove and they will just force it on you. Like the survey itself talks about the awareness of the probability, now if that was the awareness of the proof it would be more palatable. With Hi-stop and seat belts and even air bags they had research that "proved" there effectiveness, with hi-vis they have a hunch at best (more like a spinnable story) and a profit interest.

It's not "a hunch at best" OO6, have you checked out the overseas (Hurt and MAIDS) reports on the subject of hi-viz? Also the 2004 one done in NZ?

Flip is more likely a realist, if the powers that be want to legislate something they will. They really want to stop paying out money while charging for the privilege of driving and riding etc. Although, keeping the public safe would be up there as well.