Hi-viz, does it make a difference in rider visibility?

[Banditbandit]

I still maintain that a rider's best defence is their own awareness.
And that is advice that our fathers/grandfathers told us...watch out for the idiots out there, son, for they are indeed trying to kill you.

Exactly ... No-one is trying to argue that Hi-VIz will stop cages hitting bikes ... so this has to be the best advice ever ... Look after yourself out here ... don't rely on other people ... or articles of clothing ...

[Jantar]

...
The reason they use words like "thought to" and "suggest" is because the research couldn't come to a confident conclusion. The error margins were just too high.

Correct. And also that little gem 'could'.

....

One thing that was impressed on me when I was learning to write research papers was to NEVER cite any part of a paper wher the conclusions contained the words 'might, may, could' etc. As these all point to inconclusive results and results cannot be relied on.

Having read the paper cited by the OP (BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.37984.574757.EE (published 2 February 2004)) I can find so much wrong with the multivariate analysis that I'm suprised it passed peer review. There are so many confounding factors that affect the results (eg age,riding experience, lack of licence etc), that unless these factors are removed from the analysis then no conclusions can be made.

[oneofsix]

Exactly ... No-one is trying to argue that Hi-VIz will stop cages hitting bikes ... so this has to be the best advice ever ... Look after yourself out here ... don't rely on other people ... or articles of clothing ...

What about hi-viz causing accidents? Target fixation. They see you, they hit you but when asked I'll bet the first phrase will be along the lines of SMIDY because they still don't perceive you.

[Matariki]

If only 3.1% of the population could pass the test, then you should assume you wouldn't pass - you would loose the "right" to be on the public road in/on a motorised vehicle.

In NZ we have a culture of everyone driving. It's partially because of our geography and how far apart everything is, and partly due to the lack of options getting there, and the control over those options.

Any test that told 96.9% of the population they were no longer allowed to drive is [IMHO] harsh and opressive.

With the Gorilla test that you mentioned in a previous post, they said only 50% got it right, I didn't know it was as high as 96.9% (can you show me where got the statistics from?)
To be honest, I'm at a loss of what could be done to make New Zealand roads safer without violating rights. There are some things that I personally think that are written in the road code that are disasters waiting to happen in practice such as the 2 second rule (considering reaction times and sense of timing in general vary from person to person).

[bogan]

To be honest, I'm at a loss of what could be done to make New Zealand roads safer without violating rights.

Don't think about the cost of change, think about the net cost. Sharing the roads with wombles who might kill me or somebody I know through their ineptitude seems like a violation of rights, and a bigger one than a periodic competency test. In saying that, the way TPTB usually do things, it would end up being a piss easy test that cost heaps and achieved little.

[oneofsix]

To be honest, I'm at a loss of what could be done to make New Zealand roads safer without violating rights. There are some things that I personally think that are written in the road code that are disasters waiting to happen in practice such as the 2 second rule (considering reaction times and sense of timing in general vary from person to person).

I can but it costs money instead of making it. Separate traffic force, no speed or red light cameras, cops on the street picking up actual infringements that are indicators of lack of concern about the use of the road, earning their donut quota. A non-indicator is often a self centered person that will run your off the road rather than share the road with you. Can't be bothered writing a book on lost cause.

I don't see your problem with the 2 second advice, it only really covers the reaction time and it takes less than 2 seconds to react. If your reactions aren't fast enough there is no rule preventing you from allowing more. Anyhow the 2 second thing is not the rule it is only a piece of helpful advice.

[p.dath]

One thing that was impressed on me when I was learning to write research papers was to NEVER cite any part of a paper wher the conclusions contained the words 'might, may, could' etc. As these all point to inconclusive results and results cannot be relied on.

Having read the paper cited by the OP (BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.37984.574757.EE (published 2 February 2004)) I can find so much wrong with the multivariate analysis that I'm suprised it passed peer review. There are so many confounding factors that affect the results (eg age,riding experience, lack of licence etc), that unless these factors are removed from the analysis then no conclusions can be made.

One thing that surprised me about that study as well is they let the control group decide weather to wear high-viz or not. It strikes me the control group should be told what to wear. Otherwise you immediately get the results affected by people's personal opinions on the subject. E,g. People who are very risk adverse might be involved in less accidents and choose to use high-viz. Doing it the way they did you can't tell if the results are now because of the persons attitude or their clothing.

[bogan]

One thing that surprised me about that study as well is they let the control group decide weather to wear high-viz or not. It strikes me the control group should be told what to wear. Otherwise you immediately get the results affected by people's personal opinions on the subject. E,g. People who are very risk adverse might be involved in less accidents and choose to use high-viz. Doing it the way they did you can't tell if the results are now because of the persons attitude or their clothing.

Ideally each person would do alternate weeks, or perhaps alternate days to ensure the rider forgets if they have it on or not. That way it is normalised for the rider/bike/route/ pretty much everything.

[Maha]

Why is there a 'not sure' option on the poll? there is no grey area, they either are, or they are not....idiots.

[Matariki]

Why is there a 'not sure' option on the poll? there is no grey area, they either are, or they are not....idiots.

'Not sure' was for people who don't know; don't have experience with Hi-Viz or know much about it, or are still trying to decide based on evidence, or don't understand the general question etc.

[Bassmatt]

One thing that surprised me about that study as well is they let the control group decide weather to wear high-viz or not. It strikes me the control group should be told what to wear. Otherwise you immediately get the results affected by people's personal opinions on the subject. E,g. People who are very risk adverse might be involved in less accidents and choose to use high-viz. Doing it the way they did you can't tell if the results are now because of the persons attitude or their clothing.

Let face it, that particular study has holes big enough to drive a truck through and isn't worth the paper its written on.
In saying that I'm sure msac will be referencing it continuously- if they ever get around to actually doing anything.

[Ocean1]

Why is there a 'not sure' option on the poll? there is no grey area, they either are, or they are not....idiots.

The various studies have pretty much all failed to discern any difference in risk between those wearing Hi-Viz apparel and those not. In the face of such overwhelming evidence you'd be an idiot to stipulate anything but "No, it doesn't make any difference". Unless you have fresh, qualified and peer reviewed evidence to the contrary.

[Maha]

'Not sure' was for people who don't know; don't have experience with Hi-Viz or know much about it, or are still trying to decide based on evidence, or don't understand the general question etc.

That does sound idiotic.

The various studies have pretty much all failed to discern any difference in risk between those wearing Hi-Viz apparel and those not. In the face of such overwhelming evidence you'd be an idiot to stipulate anything but "No, it doesn't make any difference". Unless you have fresh, qualified and peer reviewed evidence to the contrary.

Those voting are offering thier opinion only, nothing study based.

[Bassmatt]

Those voting are offering thier opinion only, nothing study based.

This is KB, no one here offers an opinion without doing the research first!

[Matariki]

That does sound idiotic.



Those voting are offering thier opinion only, nothing study based.

Well, Its my poll and I like to see what everyone thinks.