MAG at it again

[mondo traveller]

The biggest threat to motorcyclists at the moment is prats on mobile phones and texting whilst driving, thats what the Police need to address, easy to do a clamp-down if only we were to see bike cops, a rare sight nowadays.

[Gedge]

You can have the hi-viz gear and headlights on but careless drivers still wont see you C'est la guerre.Defensive and tactical driving will save you more times than bike gear.

My take is if improving my visibility to others works just Once, it's worth it. BUT, the chances are that I will never know when it worked....

+1.

The oft-trotted out statement to the effect of "my mate wore hi viz and still got hit so that means it doesn't work" is factually incorrect as it fails to consider any occasions that the rider wasn't involved in an RTC because he/she was seen as a result of their hi viz. In other words, you can't measure what doesn't happen!

So, in the same way you can't measure the perceived benefits of Hi Viz...of course the other thing to try and factor in is what is known as risk compensation whereby riders who believe they are safer ( because they are wearing hi viz, leather, protection or a bike with abs) tend to ride faster and with less attention than riders who feel vulnerable ...it's the argument for fitting car steering wheels with a razor sharp spike and no seat belt....

[Gedge]

The biggest threat to motorcyclists at the moment is prats on mobile phones and texting whilst driving, thats what the Police need to address, easy to do a clamp-down if only we were to see bike cops, a rare sight nowadays.

Even easier to do with mobile cameras...which some forces are doing very effectively ...( some do more mobile phone and no seat belts than they do speeders)

[simonw]

...So, in the same way you can't measure the perceived benefits of Hi Viz...of course the other thing to try and factor in is what is known as risk compensation whereby riders who believe they are safer ( because they are wearing hi viz, leather, protection or a bike with abs) tend to ride faster and with less attention than riders who feel vulnerable ...it's the argument for fitting car steering wheels with a razor sharp spike and no seat belt....

Yep, agreed (although I can't say I feel any safer with or without it). You echo the point I was implying - it's an almost impossible thing to measure the effect of. I think the closest you can get is that sometimes it helps (dark night, sensible driver) and sometimes it hinders (sunny spring day against a backdrop of bright new foliage).

(On the other point mentioned re helmet colour, wasn't there an Australian survey done a few years ago which found fluro orange (or yellow?) was the "best" colour overall?)

[ollydog]

For as long as motorcyclists are as badly over-represented in RTA casualties as they are we are going to represent the 'low-hanging fruit' as far as casualty-reduction initiatives are concerned.

I don't have the latest data to hand, but last time I saw any coherent breakdown of figures it transpired that while the 'other party' was responsible for most bike v car crashes (especially urban ones), most motorcycle fatalities were single-vehicle relatively high-speed incidents involving an unpracticed rider leaving the road for no apparent reason at all except human error.

I do wonder about motorcyclists who wear 'cammo' gear, then complain that people don't see them...errr engage brain people, soldiers wear that stuff because it makes them difficult to see!

thought the cammo would only apply to off road users doh, black and white still have the best visual contrast to be seen in the right light at and background.

there is a reason why other road users pull out and its all to do with brain temp, how many times have we got to where we are going and not quite remembered the journey, for the brain to process that amount of info would cause it to over heat, so a portion of the brain is used that acts like a switch to energizer the full system when the norm changes such as a junction or over take

steve

[Mike101]

Here is a question for you all....If hi viz is the answer to stop drivers pulling out in front of us...why do cars pull out in front of cars...maybe if all cars were hi viz life would be safer.

Hi viz or not...people do not look..simple as that.

Mike

[Mike54]

...So, in the same way you can't measure the perceived benefits of Hi Viz...of course the other thing to try and factor in is what is known as risk compensation whereby riders who believe they are safer ( because they are wearing hi viz, leather, protection or a bike with abs) tend to ride faster and with less attention than riders who feel vulnerable ...it's the argument for fitting car steering wheels with a razor sharp spike and no seat belt....

Yep, agreed (although I can't say I feel any safer with or without it). You echo the point I was implying - it's an almost impossible thing to measure the effect of. I think the closest you can get is that sometimes it helps (dark night, sensible driver) and sometimes it hinders (sunny spring day against a backdrop of bright new foliage).

(On the other point mentioned re helmet colour, wasn't there an Australian survey done a few years ago which found fluro orange (or yellow?) was the "best" colour overall?)

Again you are posting opinion. It can be measured. Why do you think hi viz is pretty much compulsory on construction sites? For fun? Because someone once had a thought it might work and was a good idea? No. It's because there have been numerous studies done which categorically prove under test conditions that for static and very slow moving people walking, they are noticed more. This does NOT mean it works on a motorcycle and there has never been an effective study done on it. However, there have been studies done on helmet colour, and the most noticeable helmet colour is white, not fluo.

You cant talk about the burden of proof since you cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof (scientific proof) is on the person who says "it works" - and there is no proof.

[AndyB]

It's not about having something that stands out, it's more important to have a contrasting colour that can't be mistaken for anything else. Anyone working on part of the rail network has to wear an orange hi viz vest because the yellow might be lost in low sun or mistaken for a green signal and funnily enough those very clever people at the ACU have over the years decided that if you're either a novice racer or first time at a road circuit you're wearing an orange bib to start off.

[simonw]

Again you are posting opinion.

Of course I'm posting opinion, because:

This does NOT mean it works on a motorcycle and there has never been an effective study done on it.

You cant talk about the burden of proof since you cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof (scientific proof) is on the person who says "it works" - and there is no proof.

I didn't talk about a "burden of proof". In a reasoned debate between two or more parties the "burden" lies with each party to prove its point.

My point was there is no conclusive evidence either way, though logic infers it will be helpful on some occasions and not on others.

[Mike54]

Again you are posting opinion.

Of course I'm posting opinion, because:

This does NOT mean it works on a motorcycle and there has never been an effective study done on it.

You cant talk about the burden of proof since you cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof (scientific proof) is on the person who says "it works" - and there is no proof.

I didn't talk about a "burden of proof". In a reasoned debate between two or more parties the "burden" lies with each party to prove its point.

My point was there is no conclusive evidence either way, though logic infers it will be helpful on some occasions and not on others.

I don't think you understand the term, frankly

For example, I am an atheist. I do not believe there is a god. I cannot prove a negative, it's impossible, so the burden of proof is on the believer to show me evidence that there is a god.

In this scenario, there is no factual evidence that hi vis works on a motorcycle, its simple. So the burden of proof is on those who say it does work to prove it. And since there has been no definitive study done, they can't. Anecdotal evidence simple does not count as "proof"