do "safety vests" really make a difference?

My neighbour delivers blood in his spare time and when he is on duty
he rides an ex-police Pan European. The only difference with a
proper police bike is that the `Police' sign on the front has been
replaced by `Blood'. Now, this bike REALLY sticks out. Every time I
encounter my neighbour I instinctively brake and think `I've been nicked'.

So, in my view, the ultimate safety solution is to buy an ex-police bike.

Originally Posted by Kate

Don't get freaked out! Unfortunately accidents are part of being on a bike but injuries can be prevented/minimised by wearing the right gear. You have to be damn unlucky (or stupid) to kill yourself.

Im not trying to be argumenative here but I strongly disagree with this.

Your gear HELPS. It wont ever PREVENT injuries. Minimise Ill conceed it may do but still not a guarantee.

Unless your gear has a guarantee with it, in which case Ill go buy some. But last I looked NOT ONE manufacturer made that kind of claim.

You have to be realistic. Your gear will help most of the time but you shouldnt be relying on it to prevent injury or save you. Thats what Im trying to say really.

Originally Posted by Professor

My neighbour delivers blood in his spare time and when he is on duty
he rides an ex-police Pan European. The only difference with a
proper police bike is that the `Police' sign on the front has been
replaced by `Blood'. Now, this bike REALLY sticks out. Every time I
encounter my neighbour I instinctively brake and think `I've been nicked'.

So, in my view, the ultimate safety solution is to buy an ex-police bike.

^

What he said.

I would agree a white pan/bmw/deauville with high vis strips on it/a white lid is a lot better than a high vis jacket.

I agree with Northwind's point; I think fluoro gear is probably most useful to stop you getting run over after offs at night. That said, it's the sort of thing that is very difficult to get any sort of definitive statistics on and hence it's hard to say with any real certainty how effective it is.

My personal POV is that at least part of the reason people wearing high vis may have fewer accidents is more to do with the attitude of the individual; a 'tourer' who rides in textbook IAM style, wearing a fluoro jacket is a lot safer than someone on a sportsbike who wants to be Ghostrider and thinks hi-vis is for 'poofs'. If someone is prepared to wear a high vis jacket, they're probably prepared to make all manner of concessions to safety.

[northwind]

Originally Posted by Ceri JC

My personal POV is that at least part of the reason people wearing high vis may have fewer accidents is more to do with the attitude of the individual; a 'tourer' who rides in textbook IAM style, wearing a fluoro jacket is a lot safer than someone on a sportsbike who wants to be Ghostrider and thinks hi-vis is for 'poofs'. If someone is prepared to wear a high vis jacket, they're probably prepared to make all manner of concessions to safety.

Absolutely... That's why statistics are really impossible for it... You can't get stats for people who wouldn't have seen you but did, and you can't seperate out the hygience factors of relative rider safety.

Originally Posted by Ceri JC

What he said.

I would agree a white pan/bmw/deauville with high vis strips on it/a white lid is a lot better than a high vis jacket.

I agree with Northwind's point; I think fluoro gear is probably most useful to stop you getting run over after offs at night. That said, it's the sort of thing that is very difficult to get any sort of definitive statistics on and hence it's hard to say with any real certainty how effective it is.

My personal POV is that at least part of the reason people wearing high vis may have fewer accidents is more to do with the attitude of the individual; a 'tourer' who rides in textbook IAM style, wearing a fluoro jacket is a lot safer than someone on a sportsbike who wants to be Ghostrider and thinks hi-vis is for 'poofs'. If someone is prepared to wear a high vis jacket, they're probably prepared to make all manner of concessions to safety.

Still no guarantee:

http://www.visordown.com/forums/atta...1&d=1133792859

PS Hi Viz on a tourer only works from behind. The front of the bike hides it from anything ahead

I wear a high vis vest for commuting only. The main reason for it is that it will speak on my behalf in court when I'm dead and a driver claims he didn't see me. It might just add a bit more to his punishment by making his excuses seem lame - i.e. my headlights were hardwired on and I had a high vis vest.

I no longer wear it for leisure riding for two main reasons:

1, I doubt it is that visible from the front especially on an SVS or my current bike where you are leaning forward with the screen in the way.

and most importantly:

2, I actually found it made my life a lot more dangerous. I think it gave other drivers the impression that I was a learner or nervous new rider and found even sh*tty slow cars were attempting overtaking manoevers on me when I was riding at the speed limit!

E.g. I had a 1.2 Corsa overtaking me in a 30 zone when I was doing 35 and following a car (so they gained all of 5 meters of road space as they couldn't overtake it) plus I had a couple of BMW's overtake me when I was doing 60 down country roads with blind corners.

Since I stopped wearing it I haven't had any such incidents. Obviously in the rush hour when commuting they can't overtake anyway.

People don't see you cos they don't look. Having a loud can will get you noticed far more (unfortunately by the fuzz too!) than a vest will.

I wear a hi viz belt over my gear during winter cos the weather is rubbish, the visability poor and I am commuting to and from work in the dark. As Mr North says, I don't want to be standing on the side of the road cos my bike has broken down and the ignorant/stupid/dangerous/incompetant etc road users cannae see you.

What will be the most effective thing to do though is to go and get some advanced training. You will learn how to ride safely, maximise your visability and how to deal with adverse conditions and situations.

Originally Posted by lynw

Im not trying to be argumenative here but I strongly disagree with this.

Your gear HELPS. It wont ever PREVENT injuries. Minimise Ill conceed it may do but still not a guarantee.

Unless your gear has a guarantee with it, in which case Ill go buy some. But last I looked NOT ONE manufacturer made that kind of claim.

You have to be realistic. Your gear will help most of the time but you shouldnt be relying on it to prevent injury or save you. Thats what Im trying to say really.

lol, we've argued about this before.

I have said it can prevent injuries as in my case, according to the doctors and paramedics, it did. According to the medical people, if I hadn't been wearing all the armour, I would have broken at least a leg.

Definitely agree with you on the not relying on it though, same as people assuming they can be seen because they are wearing hi-vis.

[northwind]

Originally Posted by lynw

Your gear HELPS. It wont ever PREVENT injuries. Minimise Ill conceed it may do but still not a guarantee.

You have to be realistic. Your gear will help most of the time but you shouldnt be relying on it to prevent injury or save you. Thats what Im trying to say really.

I can see what you're getting at, but I think you left it open to misinterpretation... Gear can and does prevent injuries, it just doesn't guarantee to prevent injuries.

I hate wearing one, so to cheer me up my other half managed to order me one with:

"Caution,
Female rider with PMT!"

On the back of it.