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

[oneofsix]

I don't know whether it works in all circumstances but it definitely works with a combination of factors. I was riding with another rider to an IAM run on Sunday. We were travelling north on the Auckland motorway, both with hi viz on naked bikes and my riding partner had a white helmet. When we dropped our speed to match a couple of 80 km/hr speed restrictions, vehicles following us were definitely reluctant to pass until they could edge up and have a look. Oh, apart from the twat in a sporty looking Audi that passed everything at about 140! Have also noticed a moment's hesitation by car drivers in other circumstances too and sometimes, that's all you need for awareness.

Seems you be saying that because they were concerned you might be some sort of law enforcement peeps they were cautious around you? Doesn't seem the outfit made you any more visible. Seems more that if the popo wore camouflage (don't give TPTB ideas, they have their muftis) it would have worked as well. Perhaps they were worried you were a couple of Mufti bikes Being on a IAMS ride highly likely you either looked like a couple of muftis or a popo trainee and instructor

Either wya the Hi-viz did not do its job, it acted as a disguise instead.

[Blackbird]

I see where you're coming from but it's probably splitting hairs. The fact that the average cager might think I'm a cop and be a touch more circumspect around me, even momentarily, has at least registered that I'm there. I'm quite happy with that whatever the root cause. Like I said, upright bike, hi viz but probably less likely to have happened on my Blackbird. On that, motorists paid attention because of the blue-white 100w headlight - definitely made a difference.

[oneofsix]

I see where you're coming from but it's probably splitting hairs. The fact that the average cager might think I'm a cop and be a touch more circumspect around me, even momentarily, has at least registered that I'm there. I'm quite happy with that whatever the root cause. Like I said, upright bike, hi viz but probably less likely to have happened on my Blackbird. On that, motorists paid attention because of the blue-white 100w headlight - definitely made a difference.

I appreciated that and agree however the title (yes I know threads usually stray from their title) is about difference to visibility and it does appear the difference was to reaction after haven been seen. Yes a hair split but one that could see you forced to wear something that is doing no good for a supposed benefit that even in your case would quickly wear off whilst the restrictions remain.
Glad it worked for you, hope you found the car drivers reactions as amusing as I would have.

[Jantar]

......
Where does this 'black is the most visible' shit come from too??
Ever tried hiding in dayglo?
FFS.

I have read the whole thread and haven't noticed anyone claiming that 'black is the most visible' . What I have seen, and mentioned myself, is that black is the least conciously seen colour, and as such the human brain depicts an "undefined" area in the field of vision and interprets this as a threat.

There are a number of european studies from the 1980s that show riders dressed entirely in black have a better satety record than those in coloured gear. The threat perception is just one theory to explain this. Another is that riders dressed entirely in black are generally more experinced and buy better quality gear, while those in coloured gear are less experienced and so bought cheaper gear. The more experienced riders are less likely to be involved in accidents despite the colour or quality of gear. Remember this is from the 1980s whenleather gear was black and what textiles that were available were generally coloured.

In 1990 the Hurt report had among its conclusions

13. Conspicuity of the motorcycle is a critical factor in the multiple vehicle accidents, and accident involvement is significantly reduced by the use of motorcycle headlamps (on in daylight) and/or the wearing of high visibility yellow, orange or bright red jackets.

17. Conspicuity of the motorcycle is most critical for the frontal surfaces of the motorcycle and rider.

31. Any effect of motorcycle color on accident involvement is not determinable from these data, but is expected to be insignificant because the frontal surfaces are most often presented to the other vehicle involved in the collision.

32. Motorcycles equipped with fairings and windshields are underrepresented in accidents, most likely because of the contribution to conspicuity and the association with more experienced and trained riders. .

In other words headlights ON prevented more motorcycle accidents than any other factor involving visibility.

From the MAIDS report (1999): Bright colour upper and lower torso garment enhanced conspicuity in 2.7% of accidents. Now that is small enough to be insignificant.

[scumdog]

From observation I have noticed that broken patterns/mixed colours tend to blend into the background 'clutter' far too easily, regardless of how bright said colours are. (Similar to WW1 'dazzle' paint on ships.)

One solid bright colour seems to show up from further away.

Oh, and lot of Hi-viz benefit is lost when the rider wearing it has it hidden behind a a large screen/fairing and/or tall top-box/luggage.

[oneofsix]

I think the human brain, and most animal ones too, have evolved to avoid shadows (black) as an instinctive reaction and be attracted to colour. With most things a seconds doubt means we continue on until we decide, with black we tend to avoid first. It is not that black is more visible but it does cause the reaction I would prefer.

[swbarnett]

I think the human brain, and most animal ones too, have evolved to avoid shadows (black) as an instinctive reaction and be attracted to colour. With most things a seconds doubt means we continue on until we decide, with black we tend to avoid first. It is not that black is more visible but it does cause the reaction I would prefer.

Comes back to the theory that we avoid things we consider a threat. Hi-vis is just not threatening.

[f2dz]

I think it makes a difference at night, like others have said. Less so during a sunny day.

I recently had a cage pull out in front of me and stopped me from 50km/h to 0km/h. If I had been wearing my hi-viz the lights from the cars waiting to turn would have reflected off me and she might have seen me.

I say might because there's obviously no guarantee, but with the decreased risk there, why would you honestly not wear hi-viz in that situation?

[Jantar]

I think it makes a difference at night, like others have said. Less so during a sunny day.

I recently had a cage pull out in front of me and stopped me from 50km/h to 0km/h. If I had been wearing my hi-viz the lights from the cars waiting to turn would have reflected off me and she might have seen me.

I say might because there's obviously no guarantee, but with the decreased risk there, why would you honestly not wear hi-viz in that situation?

Oh dear. Another person who is mistaking "Hi Vis" for "Reflectorised". Hi Vis does not relect and at night is no more visible than anything else.

Then, for a car pulling out in front of you, her lights would not be pointing towards you, so what is source of the reflection?

[Ocean1]

I have read the whole thread and haven't noticed anyone claiming that 'black is the most visible' . What I have seen, and mentioned myself, is that black is the least conciously seen colour, and as such the human brain depicts an "undefined" area in the field of vision and interprets this as a threat.

I wasn't going to spend anywhere near that amount of effort on it.

I love scraps of counter-intuitive lore, makes the universe seem reassuringly uncontrolled. And represents a good source of anti-twat ammo.

The black thing. There was also a German study that compared colours worn by accident victims, they arbitrarilly chose black as a form of control, because it was a numerically heavy group and it was obvious that that group was going to produce the highest accident rate. The data didn't make much sense wrt urban results, until someone pulled the black data results into the main data stream. All of a sudden black was the safest colour, in the un-natural and block-range colours of the city. Which also happened to be the highest accident area group.

Which has little to do with the fact that I wear a black composite jacket, more to do with it's wildly effective reflector strips. White helmet, though.

[ac3_snow]

I have only had one person explain the benefit of high vis in a way which has actually made sense to me. I have always been pretty skeptical about whether or not a high vis would prevent some muppet pulling out in front of me or similar.

However I once was told by a cop that I should really be wearing hi vis, to which my first response was yea yea f#@k off. But he said that if I where to get knocked off by some muppet I end up on the road. And if I am wearing a hi vis I am this big yellow thing sliding down the road to which everyones first instinct is going to be to try and avoid. Where with just plain black riding gear you would blend much more easily with the road.

While I still do not wear hi vis, this argument has made me think about it a little bit more.

[f2dz]

Oh dear. Another person who is mistaking "Hi Vis" for "Reflectorised". Hi Vis does not relect and at night is no more visible than anything else.

Then, for a car pulling out in front of you, her lights would not be pointing towards you, so what is source of the reflection?

Splitting hairs a bit there, but I thought it was obvious I was referring to hi-viz type gear which usually has elements of reflective material on it, as per the OP's glancing definition of it.

With that in mind, light from oncoming cars would have provided the light necessary for the reflection in my example.

Otherwise, in other cases, street lamps would be the primary source of light to be reflected. If you're on a road without them and someone pulls across your path without lights being shone in your direction, then yea, hi-viz (reflective or fluoro) doesn't help ya.

[Jantar]

Splitting hairs a bit there, but I thought it was obvious I was referring to hi-viz type gear which usually has elements of reflective material on it, as per the OP's glancing definition of it.....

Nope, not splitting hairs at all. I have three Hi Vis motorcycle vests, none of which have any reflective material at all. For work I have 3 complete sets of protective and Hi Vis gear, 2 of which have reflective stripes. The Op talked of reflective OR hi vis, not reflective AND hi vis. However I will agree that reflective strips do stand out at night for most circumstances other than front on. Hi Vis gear does not.

Oh, I might add that most of my riding at night (over 80%) is on roads without street lights.

[f2dz]

Nope, not splitting hairs at all. I have three Hi Vis motorcycle vests, none of which have any reflective material at all. For work I have 3 complete sets of protective and Hi Vis gear, 2 of which have reflective stripes. The Op talked of reflective OR hi vis, not reflective AND hi vis. However I will agree that reflective strips do stand out at night for most circumstances other than front on. Hi Vis gear does not.

Oh, I might add that most of my riding at night (over 80%) is on roads without street lights.

The definition of hi-viz aside, you certainly can't say hi-viz gear decreases your visibility can you?

[Jantar]

No, Hi Vis does not decrease your visibility, As the Maids report shows it increases visibility by around 2.7%. What it does do is changes a larger single coloured shape to a less defined multi coloured shape that the mind is slower to recognise as a threat.