High Vis question

FourTwenty wrote

They won't get it. They are already confused enough.

Hmmmmm.
Maybe you could accept that someone like Saga Lout does 'get it' but comes to a different conclusion to yours.
It's possible to accept that hi-viz (or DRLs for that matter) will sometimes make you more visible, sometimes make you less visible and sometimes be irrelevant because a driver doesn't look (or doesn't see), and yet still choose to wear it because you feel the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. In fact, isn't someone who's listened to the interminable 'debate' less likely to see hi-viz (or DRLs) as a shield of invincibility, recognise that sometimes they'll make you less visible and therefore ride accordingly (risk compensation )?
For myself I should (in France) use DRLs all the time, but mostly run on sidelights -probably at least in part out of sheer awkwardness if I'm honest - and don't own anything that could be remotely described as 'hi-viz' (does black count?)........so as long as I believe that hi-viz and DRLs would actually keep me perfectly safe then, not using 'em, I must actually be safer. Or something.
If someone posts to the effect that they must be seen because they wear hi-viz / use DRLs / ride on full beam then use of a is more than justified..............to say that anyone who chooses to use those 'aids' 'doesn't get it', regardless of their attitude to them, reliance on them and whether they've thought through the issues, is not big and not clever. Unless of course you have evidence to show that overall it's safer to avoid these things (as opposed to pointing out circumstances where they may be disadvantageous).
You just don't get it.

I only wear hi vis in the wet. I needed new waterproof gear and thought why not go the hi vis route? It combines staying dry with increasing your visibility to others in less than ideal conditions, might work might not but it cant harm and I stay dry.

---

SG#1203

duanelightley.googlepages.com/

Taipan wrote

Who actually knows or can prove if Hi-viz, . . . and DLR work to your advantage or not?

When you asked (or didn't - I'm still not sure ), I posted up a link to a load of crash stats. from the late 70s (when DRL & hi-viz were almost unknown), to far more recent (where most riders use AHO or headlamp on by choice, and hi-viz is common).

OK, I accept that there have been other changes (traffic density, car 'A' pillars, etc.), but roughly - and I can't say more accurate than that from the figures I found - there are the same percentage of 'SMIDSY' crashes now as 40 years ago.

---

Training info is (C) Malcolm Palmer. He asserts his right to be identified as author under the Copyright Design Patents Act 1988 & may be quoted only as part of a post in the Visordown bb by another board member. Author should be contacted for written permission before any other use, storage, transmission or recording, by any means.

Read my mutterings:

http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/

FourTwenty wrote

They won't get it. They are already confused enough.

Could you get your schizophrenic friend to do your shift here?

He's much more pleasant these days.

Any credablity that fjs/420/pieater ever had has totaly gone now with this multiple user bollox.
I kinda feel sorry for the old guy now.

QUALCAST wrote

Any credablity that fjs/420/pieater ever had has totaly gone now with this multiple user bollox.

Like no-one has ever had multiple 'personalities' on here before? Some of them are legendary!

QUALCAST wrote

bollox.

Are the bollocks to go with the penis video you posted in Gallery? :burnout:

---

Training info is (C) Malcolm Palmer. He asserts his right to be identified as author under the Copyright Design Patents Act 1988 & may be quoted only as part of a post in the Visordown bb by another board member. Author should be contacted for written permission before any other use, storage, transmission or recording, by any means.

Read my mutterings:

http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/

FourTwenty wrote

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that visibility aids don't 'work' as well as people would like to think and none that I've found that unequivocally suggests that they do.

And therein lies the problem.

If you're arguing with someone who thinks hi-viz etc is a cure-all then you're performing a public service (on the basis that you might make others think about the issue) by pointing out that it isn't, and that in certain circumstances it may be positively harmful...........

but if you're criticising someone who's followed the 'debate', is aware of possible downsides yet still feels (in the absence of evidence to the contrary, because there isn't any that you've posted, AFAIK) that on balance they're safer in hi-viz than not, then you need to come up with some better arguments than 'it's a safety blanket'.

There isn't definitive evidence out there, the question whether hi-viz etc are 'safer' or 'less safe' may in fact have different answers for different riders. Isn't it enough that people think about it?

FourTwenty wrote

No. Follow your logic to it's conclusion and you'll find that non-motorcyclists never have bike incidents at all. Which tells us that you would be best to give up riding now as you'll be much 'safer'.

Why the 'no' and why the ?

That's absolutely true, driving a car would be safer. What's your point?
Is it an all or nothing thing for you? Motorcycling is inherently more risky than other forms of transport, is that an argument for not addressing risk whilst doing it?

trogggy wrote

There isn't definitive evidence out there, the question whether hi-viz etc are 'safer' or 'less safe' may in fact have different answers for different riders. Isn't it enough that people think about it?

Which is actually the key point - and why in many threads I've put forward the alternative of riding to be seen rather than relying on a passive lamp or jacket.

So:

• Use 'active positioning' - move across the lane width to attract attention and reduce the area of the 'killing zone'.
  
• Expect drivers to encroach - so the more likely it seems the more action you take, whether speed, position, getting their attention if they're not looking at you, etc.
  
• Get ready to jump if all else fails
  
• And more . . .
  

---

Training info is (C) Malcolm Palmer. He asserts his right to be identified as author under the Copyright Design Patents Act 1988 & may be quoted only as part of a post in the Visordown bb by another board member. Author should be contacted for written permission before any other use, storage, transmission or recording, by any means.

Read my mutterings:

http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/

Horse wrote

Which is actually the key point - and why in many threads I've put forward the alternative of riding to be seen rather than relying on a passive lamp or jacket.

So:

• Use 'active positioning' - move across the lane width to attract attention and reduce the area of the 'killing zone'.
  
• Expect drivers to encroach - so the more likely it seems the more action you take, whether speed, position, getting their attention if they're not looking at you, etc.
  
• Get ready to jump if all else fails
  
• And more . . .
  

Absolutely. And I've read your posts with interest, they've made me think about my own riding and I've tried (and do try) to put those ideas into practice. But they're not necessarily an 'alternative', are they? They may be complementary.
Questioning someone's expectations of hi-viz, especially when they feel they must be seen, cannot be a bad thing. But there isn't the evidence out there to say whether overall it's a help or a hindrance to safety, so criticising people who have read the arguments and have made their own choice seems a little silly. And descriptions like 'moron vests' don't give the criticiser any more credibility.

FourTwenty wrote

Yes. How do you get those who think just because of hi-viz 'drivers get out of your way or move over to let you past' to think about anything? Especially if they don't realise that those who wear hi-viz still manage to have incidents?

And they would be the people who you would be justified in criticising. As I said.

Quote

What about those who 'think it just might make a difference' fail to consider it 'just might make a difference' and make things worse too?

And they would be the people who you would be justified in questioning and criticising. As I said.

Quote

That wearing a piece of fluorescent clothing in order to 'make your riding safer' is pissing in the wind.

Where's your evidence for that?

Quote

There is your problem. You still believe that, despite no evidence for, wearing hi-viz is somehow 'addressing' any risk.

Where have I said that?

Quote

It isn't. I clearly have failed to manage to get you to think at all.

As above, where's your evidence that 'unequivocally suggests' that hi-viz doesn't have any benefits? There isn't any.

What you actually mean is that anyone disagrees with you is wrong. Or am I wrong?

FourTwenty wrote

There is your problem. You still believe that, despite no evidence for, wearing hi-viz is somehow 'addressing' any risk.

It isn't. I clearly have failed to manage to get you to think at all.

With that last comment, you have just shown yourself to be utterly closed minded, not to mention arrogant beyond belief.





As usual.

trogggy wrote

Absolutely. And I've read your posts with interest, they've made me think about my own riding and I've tried (and do try) to put those ideas into practice.

Good , but I hope you never have to put the 'jump' in to practice

trogggy wrote

But they're not necessarily an 'alternative', are they? They may be complementary.

Nope, they're an alternative - an alternative that requires 'active' thinking rather than 'passive' "He must have seen me"

Because . . .

trogggy wrote

Questioning someone's expectations of hi-viz, especially when they feel they must be seen, cannot be a bad thing.

. . . I've heard people say "He must have seen me - I had my headlight on!"

trogggy wrote

But there isn't the evidence out there to say whether overall it's a help or a hindrance to safety,

And that's the most damning statement about lights and hi-viz anyone could contribute.

With almost 100% daytime headlamp use, and any amount of hi-viz clothing, riders are still getting SMIDSYd in the same numbers.

---

Training info is (C) Malcolm Palmer. He asserts his right to be identified as author under the Copyright Design Patents Act 1988 & may be quoted only as part of a post in the Visordown bb by another board member. Author should be contacted for written permission before any other use, storage, transmission or recording, by any means.

Read my mutterings:

http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/

Horse wrote

Good , but I hope you never have to put the 'jump' in to practice

Acksherly I first came across the 'jump' idea (from a tutor at uni) a little over 20 years ago. Maybe it would have worked for me then, not so sure I'd manage as well these days.

Quote

Nope, they're an alternative - an alternative that requires 'active' thinking rather than 'passive' "He must have seen me"

You can't combine active and passive safety measures?
I agree the 'he must have seen me' is positively dangerous, but are you saying that everyone who uses hi-viz (even after reading SS and thinking about it ) has that attitude?

Quote

Because . . .

. . . I've heard people say "He must have seen me - I had my headlight on!"

With respect that's no argument. All that means is that if your expectations of a passive safety measure are wrong your decision-making (and therefore safety) will be compromised. You can't expand that expectation to fit everyone who uses that passive measure.

Quote

And that's the most damning statement about lights and hi-viz anyone could contribute.

With almost 100% daytime headlamp use, and any amount of hi-viz clothing, riders are still getting SMIDSYd in the same numbers.

It isn't actually. It's more a comment on the difficulty of obtaining reliable evidence in a study, with the myriad of factors that would need to be controlled.

FourTwenty wrote

This is pointless. As I already pointed out to you Horse has quoted a previous post of his that suggests there is no difference in the numbers of riders being involved in incidents over 40 odd years.

If you accept that as evidence there is some. If you don't, then you would be best to take it up with him.

Of course it's evidence. It's an indicator. There's plenty of evidence that hi-vis and DRLs work, as well. Of course none of those studies are definitive, and holes can be picked in the methodology of all of them, due to the number of variables that need to be controlled.
The trouble is, evidence is not 'proof', and there isn't anything out there (and probably never will be) that proves whether it's useful or not to everybody's satisfaction.

Quote

You not wrong (in this case) although if you can find some evidence to convince me and I will concur.

To convince you of what?
That other people can come to a different conclusion to yours, based on the evidence available at the moment? If you can't see that already I'm not going to be able to convince you. The door is shut.

Quote

But I was referring you back to your first quote I replied to in that post.... 'Isn't it enough that people think about it?' Was that too sophisticated for you?

It wasn't clear, so you can have your back.

But not too sophisticated, no.


I think you may find it useful to read my posts carefully before replying. You seem to be under the impression that I think using hi-viz is helpful and will make me safer. I don't. I'm unconvinced that it will, but unconvinced that it will be a disadvantage overall (as long as you don't assume etc etc....).
Is that too sophisticated for you?

trogggy wrote

Acksherly I first came across the 'jump' idea (from a tutor at uni) a little over 20 years ago. Maybe it would have worked for me then, not so sure I'd manage as well these days.

Just stand up - that's all I had time to do when I used it (and I had to wait from 1980 until 4 years ago to get a chance to try it out . . . ).

trogggy wrote

You can't combine active and passive safety measures?

What I'm saying - or at least, getting people to consider riding in a way that acknowledges (but that takes a while to type) - is that if you're on a 'collison course - or damned close - a driver, then you are making yourself difficult to see (as in 'recognise and remember' - and I'm not a psychologist BTW, so they may not be the correct terms), whatever you're wearing.

Try this:
www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_mib/index.html

However well daytime visibility aids work at a distance (and I don't dispute that, and I recall some of the other 'anti-' posters doing so too), the key area is 3 - 4 seconds away from the junction - where any rider should be clearly visible.

ANd this is where positioning comes in - movement attracts attention, and the position change moves you away from the danger.

trogggy wrote

You can't expand that expectation to fit everyone who uses that passive measure.

Some people work it out for themselves:
www.visordown.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4416384&postcount=1

So are you saying that some riders deliberately use h-viz even though they don't think it'll do them any good, and may do 'harm'? [Apart from the 'waterproof' aspects]

trogggy wrote

It's more a comment on the difficulty of obtaining reliable evidence in a study, with the myriad of factors that would need to be controlled.

While I agree - and you're not the first to point it out - that there may be many factors involved, we have as near to 'absolutes' as you'll get: '70s 'no viz', '90s 'hi-viz'.

Wouldn't you have expected something more clear-cut?



Here's some assorted quotes I dug out a while back:

Leonard [US] 1974 (non-academic)

Varied the appearance of his motorcycle, then recorded the number of right-of-way violations.

'Ordinary' motorcycle, headlamps on, 'spectacularly visible' - all suffered an average of between 1.8 and 2.0 violations per day.

In 'police rig' there were 0.1 violations per day.

Moral? "What's in it for me? Make it worth my while to see you."


Fulton [UK] 1980

Subject driven along a road route in a car, asked to look down side roads and look for motorcyclists. The subject saw all of them.

Moral? "You have to look to see."


Shaw [UK] 1979

Compared the accuracy with which subjects estimated the speed of a motorcycle with headlamp on, and off.

Subjects over-estimated the speed for lower speed of approach
Subjects under-estimated the speed for higher speed of approach

The reversal from over- to under- took place between 50-55mph with the headlamp off, and between 35-40mph with the headlamp on.

Moral? "If a driver thinks you're going slowly, they're more likely to . . ."


Hurt & Vaughan found:

A lower frequency of daytime light use by riders in the accident group than in the non-accident group;
A higher frequency of daytime light use by riders involved in conspicuity-related accidents than by riders involved in non-conspicuity accidents.


members.optusnet.com.au/carsafety/esv19_paine_mc_drl.pdf

Intro:

" . . . an in-depth study in Europe (ACEM 2004) . . . 37% of all cases the primary factor . . . failure of another operator . . . 73% in daylight . . . headlights in use in 69% of these . . .

---

Training info is (C) Malcolm Palmer. He asserts his right to be identified as author under the Copyright Design Patents Act 1988 & may be quoted only as part of a post in the Visordown bb by another board member. Author should be contacted for written permission before any other use, storage, transmission or recording, by any means.

Read my mutterings:

http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/

trogggy wrote

There's plenty of evidence that hi-vis and DRLs work, as well.

Plenty?

Links, please.

But how do you mean 'work'? Did people see what they were asked to look for, or is there proof that DRL & hi-viz significantly reduced (using the criteria you mentioned earlier) bike crashes?

---

Training info is (C) Malcolm Palmer. He asserts his right to be identified as author under the Copyright Design Patents Act 1988 & may be quoted only as part of a post in the Visordown bb by another board member. Author should be contacted for written permission before any other use, storage, transmission or recording, by any means.

Read my mutterings:

http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/

Horse wrote

So are you saying that some riders deliberately use h-viz even though they don't think it'll do them any good, and may do 'harm'? [Apart from the 'waterproof' aspects]

Almost.
Well, okay no.
But I am saying some riders (the ones who've read a few SS threads, for example) will use passive safety aids in the belief that they're good in some situations and bad in others. If they feel (as there's no definitive evidence to the contrary) that the good will outweigh the bad then they may choose to use them. If not they won't.
That's not a very radical concept, surely?

Quote

While I agree - and you're not the first to point it out - that there may be many factors involved, we have as near to 'absolutes' as you'll get: '70s 'no viz', '90s 'hi-viz'.

Hmmmm..........
Change in speed of bikes - those pesky disc brakes, full face helmets etc leading to false confidence (risk comp.............no, I won't go there ); reduced visibility in modern cars (A pillars etc), increased traffic density (more filtering? More people pushing / rushing out of junctions?), more distractions in a car, airbags and seatbelts meaning drivers are less cautious [S](risk...[/S]...................maybe you can't compare like-for-like.
Certainly it's not convincing evidence of anything.

Quote

Wouldn't you have expected something more clear-cut?

Me?
Why?
What do you think I believe?

wally vests look stupid.

Leonard Hatred wrote

wally vests look stupid.

At least it means you see them if you think they look stupid...