They won't get it. They are already confused enough.
Who actually knows or can prove if Hi-viz, . . . and DLR work to your advantage or not?
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:
Any credablity that fjs/420/pieater ever had has totaly gone now with this multiple user bollox.
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.
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'.
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 failsAnd more . . .
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?
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?
That wearing a piece of fluorescent clothing in order to 'make your riding safer' is pissing in the wind.
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.
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.
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,
Good , but I hope you never have to put the 'jump' in to practice
Nope, they're an alternative - an alternative that requires 'active' thinking rather than 'passive' "He must have seen me"
Because . . . . . . I've heard people say "He must have seen me - I had my headlight on!"
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.
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.
You not wrong (in this case) although if you can find some evidence to convince me and I will concur.
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?
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.
You can't combine active and passive safety measures?
You can't expand that expectation to fit everyone who uses that passive measure.
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.
There's plenty of evidence that hi-vis and DRLs work, as well.
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]
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?
Leonard Hatred wrote
wally vests look stupid.
Become a fan of Visordown
Follow us on twitter
Other Immediate Media Sites
Our eCommerce Platform
© Immediate Media Company Ltd 2012. This website is owned and published by Immediate Media Company Limited. www.immediatemedia.co.uk