Hi-Vis or Not

[embee]

You do need to treat some research statistics with a little caution.

There was a European study carried out a couple of years ago into motorcycle accidents (incidentally the UK decided it wasn't interested in participating) which concluded that there was no significant effect of wearing Hi-vis clothing. What wasn't always noted when quoting this was the fact that the wearing of hi-vis by motorcyclists on continental Europe is virtually unknown, so the sample was totally insignificant.

One other aspect to contemplate is the correlation between the wearing of hi-vis and the "risk-averseness" of the individual, i.e. if someone thinks it's a good idea to wear hi-vis they are likely to be the sort of person who is particularly defensive anyway, so is it the hi-vis or is it the extra careful approach that makes the difference? We may never know................................


..........and on the Niton £95 jacket, yes it's very pricey but it works 100%. On the other hand I've paid £30 or £40 for stuff that's absolute cr@p at keeping you dry, so which is the better deal?

EDIT - NORTHWIND - SNAP

[northwind]

And thus I win

Originally Posted by northwind

All getting a little testy, isn't it?

With the statistics there, unfortunately there's a major and irreducable hygeine factor (bias)- riders who wear hi-viz are more likely to be safety conscious riders, which in itself reduces the number of accidents they'll suffer. If you take the statistics as proof, it also proves that you're less likely to have a single-vehicle accident, ie crash through rider error, if you wear hi-viz. The correlation's the same.

Not to say that it doesn't make you safer... But, just be careful with the statitstics.

Exactly! Hi-Vis makes little to no difference, if you're concerned about your safety then the best thing is to not ride like an **** (He says with current sig... )

Yeah, agreed, statistics without complete knowledge of factors and how the data was obtained aren't all that useful, which is sort of why I've linked 2 contradictory reports, and why I'm winding my neck in on this issue :P Definitely implying from that that wearing hi-viz will make you 37% safer would be a pretty unfounded assumption. Im sure theres a whole load of factors, im just 100% convinced that in any given situation, assuming the rider doesnt act differently (the key assumption here i guess) the rider with hi-viz is going to be very slightly safer than the rider without. Whether the overconfidence outweighs the safety gains is probably a pretty individual thing. And as xlewdx posted earlier, in his particular situation (on the floor from black ice, so possibly not his fault in any way, shape or form, ie. proably wasnt riding like an @rse) he would have got run over by a truck, but didnt due to the vis vest. Thats one rider that most definitely was safer. Now we need someone who got hit while wearing one, who thinks they wouldnt have been hit if they hadnt worn one to post to balance things out...
So safety-wise, the best thing to do is wear hi-viz and dont ride like an @rse...

Originally Posted by shao

Well, that contradicts the other nicely, 37% lower risk wearing hi-vis, that's a pretty big number. More diggeng required methinks...

The problem is, there has never been (and is unlikely to ever be) any truly telling research about how much exactly hi-vis improves your odds.

People who are prepared to spend the money getting one and time putting on a hivis jacket, (as well as enduring the questionable aesthetics of it) are likely to make concessions to safety in other aspects of their riding. They are more likely to have a "sensible" bike (I've yet to see a blown 'Busa with the rider in a fluoro jacket...), engage in advanced rider training and generally take fewer risks. Someone who habitually rides like a **** and filters through near stationary traffic at a ton is unlikely to wear high vis. In this respect, it's more symptomatic of a rider's standard/style, rather than the direct cause/prevention of accidents.

The only test I can think of, would be very expensive to properly implement and is as follows:

1. Take a large group (at least 2000) of "dangerous" riders: people on sportsbikes and streetfighters. Weekend warriors, who have a large number of convictions for very high speeding offenses, dangerous driving, have all crashed several times and who normally spit at people who wear high vis.

2. Take an equally large group of "safe riders": IAM senior observers, ROSPA gold standard riders and police class 1 motorcyclists who all ride tourers or cruisers. All of whom ride all year round, have never had an accident they could have avoided, all wear high vis and white lids as a matter of course.

3. Split both groups in half, combine half of each group with a half from the opposite lot.

4. Allocate one of these groups high vis, and the other lot none.

5. Send them back out onto the roads, the one lot only being allowed to wear white lids and forced to wear high vis jackets every time they ride, the other lot having to wear only black leathers and lids, with no reflective strips at all.

6. 12 months on, compare accident stats for the year for both groups.

My hypothesis is that the difference between the high and low vis groups would be very close and certainly not 37% different.

It would be key to the integrity of the study that people:

a) Stuck to wearing high vis, every time they ride, had they been told to do so and visa versa. To this end, you would need a large personal incentive and a way of catching them out, should they break it. It'd have to be, say, a £10K "reward" for taking part in the study and if you were spotted (perhaps this could be done via cameras) wearing a high vis when you weren't supposed to, or were riding without one when you should have been, you are not given the award and your results are removed from the study.

b) Rode the same routes as they did before and with the same people. It would cloud the survey if the dangerous lot didn't ride with their like minded mates anymore because of the stick they got for wearing high vis. I don't have a clear idea how you'd do this...

c) Were from all over the country; no point having one group in London, the other in northern Scotland.

Of course, this study would still not be 100% accurate, but it would give a far better indication than we currently have.The survey would need even larger groups and more testing to see what effect different things had: one group in fluoro jackets, one in white lids, one with high vis scotchlite taping, etc. Ideally, you'd also want some "middle of the road" riders as another group.

The downside is, it'd be comparatively expensive to do, for what is a niche market/area of the populace. It would only be pertinent to bikes too. People being stood by the road (eg police/road builders) is a completely different case and I think the results wouldn't reflect (no pun intended) on how much of a difference it makes to them.

Yep, i agree Ceri, 37% is a ridiculous figure, im not supporting it merely quoting for interest. Id expect the difference in a reasonably balanced survey to be pretty small, but there. Maybe only a couple of percent, but im speculating now...

Originally Posted by shao

xlewdx posted earlier, in his particular situation (on the floor from black ice, so possibly not his fault in any way, shape or form, ie. proably wasnt riding like an @rse) he would have got run over by a truck, but didnt due to the vis vest. Thats one rider that most definitely was safer. Now we need someone who got hit while wearing one, who thinks they wouldnt have been hit if they hadnt worn one to post to balance things out...
So safety-wise, the best thing to do is wear hi-viz and dont ride like an @rse...

lol, my most recent accident was a head-on collision with a car. It was daylight and dry. Unfortunately the driver wasn't awake so I don't think it would have mattered if I had high-vis on or not.

Originally Posted by Tigerrrr.......

You also state that only those behind will see you? Rubbish! It has the same reflective qualities from the front as the back. You never seen the Police on bikes approach you from the front?

Having spent a year with someone riding a Pan with hi-vis behind me Im a little bit more clued up as to how much of a hi-vis jacket is [well more isnt] visible over the fairing, tank and light than you think. I would suggest you notice the bikes behind from their lights more than any hi-vis until they get closer to you.

I wasnt saying you cant be seen from the front at all but its unlikely - the amount of the jacket visible over the tank, bars, fairing, screen is small but then add the front light will drown out the background and my point is you wont see it until the bike is very close and then only a small bit at that.

But I guess Im just not as superhuman and perfect as some of you.

Originally Posted by Kate

At no point has Lynw said 'don't wear hi-vis'. If you want more information, this topic comes up every year as autumn approaches.

At the end of the day, there are arguments for and against wearing hi-vis. Its your choice.

Never said she did and I'm sure she's well respected but the other stuff she said was rubbish [it's nothing personal]. Newbies tend to take advice from more experienced members and form opinions from what's said. I make no apology for pointing out what she said as wrong and irresponsible.

So apart from hi-vis looking crap can you tell us all what the arguments against wearing it are? I can't think of a single argument against it.

Hi-vis does enhance safety and increase visibilty etc - fact. If anyone can prove it otherwise then come forward for the benefit of us all.

End of.

[northwind]

Originally Posted by lynw

Having spent a year with someone riding a Pan with hi-vis behind me Im a little bit more clued up as to how much of a hi-vis jacket is [well more isnt] visible over the fairing, tank and light than you think. I would suggest you notice the bikes behind from their lights more than any hi-vis until they get closer to you.

He rides a massive green Honda! You could hide a hi-viz elephant behind that fairing And remember, that VD ****, was it FJSRider, reckoned the reason he got SMIDSY'd that time was specifically because he had his headlights on and the reflective patches on the fairing