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?
If they feel 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?
Change in speed of bikes slower uban traffic speedsthose pesky disc brakesbetter suspension, tyres, handling etcfull face helmets better protective clothing, superior scratch/mist-resistant visorsreduced visibility in modern cars larger motorcycles, more with fairingsincreased traffic density (more filtering? less m/c commuters (more FWBs) better training regimesMore people pushing / rushing out of junctions?)Rushing - in this increased traffic density? (see your previous)more distractions Trueairbags and seatbelts meaning drivers are less cautious headlamps on and hi-viz meaning riders are . . .
Certainly it's not convincing evidence of anything
Me?Why?What do you think I believe?
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:
More seriously, the point I'm making is that there have been studies (as you're well aware) that have concluded we should all be wearing hi-viz, white helmets etc.
Good. Care to show us some?
So why did you ask for it?
That I am 'wrong'.
Where did you say that? 'Maybe you could accept that someone like Saga Lout does 'get it' but comes to a different conclusion to yours.'
Yes. Saga Lout (and others) come to a different conclusion to mine (and Horses) but that is because I believe they fail to consider the obvious alternate view to their point (that Horse posted).
The bracketed assumption being the big 'IF'. The assumption being made by all the users is that hi-viz is some sort of a benefit in the first place isn't it?
At least it means you see them if you think they look stupid...
Perhaps he meant 'in the shop'?
No, it's not. Sounds very much like the sort of arguments put forward for wearing FWB leathers Still, just because people believe it, doesn't make it true.
Not convincing, perhaps, but even with all those changes taken in to account we have the same %age of riders being SMIDSYd . . .
I asked 'expect'.
And with respect, it's more obvious than a very obvious thing that hi-viz has benefits in certain situations.
YouIf you want to be taken even slightly seriously I suggest you find and present it to us.
But whether 'for' or 'against' that doesn't change those acc. stats. I posted, does it?
Most of the accident studies say that the motorcyclists conspicuity is the issue - even when other motorists and witnesses will say that the bike was clearly visible . . . Hence 'LBFTS' - Looked, But Failed To See as one of the research topics.
You are the one that told us there was 'plenty' of evidence for. I don't think there is. If you want to be taken even slightly seriously I suggest you find and present it to us.
I honestly can't answer that, because I don't have an expectation.
OK, I'll give you mine then, to borrow.
I'd expect that if the majority of riders were using a safety aid that was 'targeted' against the cause of the main urban accident type, then there would be significantly less such crashes than there were before that initiative was introduced.
But there isn't . . .
If use of that safety-aid turned out in fact to increase the risk, what would you expect to see in the figures?
Where are you? Why are you here? Look at this
In the 70s daytime headlamps were rare to the point of being almost unknown.
What? The night-time drunks?
Conclusions Low conspicuity may increase the risk of motorcycle crash related injury. Increasing the use of reflective or fluorescent clothing, white or light coloured helmets, and daytime headlights are simple, cheap interventions that could considerably reduce motorcycle crash related injury and death.
You tell me, I'll borrow your expectations now.
Back then people would've waved at you frantically to tell you your lights were on in the daytime.
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