Hi-Vis campaign

Paparazzo · 04-10-2011 10:44pm

Going Forward wrote: »

I am open to you or anyone else here explaining how your safety and visibility and presence on the road would not be enhanced by you wearing an outer Hi Vis jacket (over your existing PPE).

Because if you can't see a bike with a light on driving down the road, chances are you're still not going to see it if the rider is wearing a different colour jacket.

Going Forward · 04-10-2011 10:50pm

pixiebean22 wrote: »

And what about people who drive around with only one light working or no lights on at night or fail to use their indicators correctly or fail to use roundabouts correctly. Are they taking a pro-active role in trying to ensure and promote personal safety? No but nobody is proposing any expensive new regulations for those idiots.

Again, these things should not be happening, but we all see them happening.
Regulations regarding road worthiness of vehicles exist to deal with them, but you as a motorcylist are not responsible for their shortcomings and you are not in a position to do much directly about their failings. YOU ARE in a position to do something about your own safety.

pixiebean22 wrote: »

Do you only respect bikers who wear hi viz?

I respect every road users right to a safe passage, but I do have more respect for someone who makes a bit more of an effort, not just because its the law.

Dont you also have more appreciation and respect when a motorist keeps to the left of his lane to allow you to overtake for example or acknowledges that he sees you in a rear view mirror?

Going Forward · 04-10-2011 10:53pm

Paparazzo wrote: »

Because if you can't see a bike with a light on driving down the road, chances are you're still not going to see it if the rider is wearing a different colour jacket.

Fine, but what about a rider emerging from a side road?

daenerysstormborn3 · 04-10-2011 10:54pm

Going Forward wrote: »

Again, these things should not be happening, but we all see them happening.
Regulations regarding road worthiness of vehicles exist to deal with them, but you as a motorcylist are not responsible for their shortcomings and you are not in a position to do much directly about their failings. YOU ARE in a position to do something about your own safety.

I respect every road users right to a safe passage, but I do have more respect for someone who makes a bit more of an effort, not just because its the law.

Dont you also have more appreciation and respect when a motorist keeps to the left of his lane to allow you to overtake for example or acknowledges that he sees you in a rear view mirror?

And the people driving around in cars acting the idiot ARE in a position to do something about their driving.

Yes but i don't see what that has to do with hi viz. That is a courtesy very few drivers extend and i certainly don't expect it. I have come to expect drivers swerving out of their lanes as if to run me off the road when i filter past or overtake them.

daenerysstormborn3 · 04-10-2011 10:57pm

Going Forward wrote: »

Fine, but what about a rider emerging from a side road?

So hi viz will provide road users with the ability to see around corners? That is magic. I wonder when using my lights became defunct.

Going Forward · 04-10-2011 11:01pm

amacca wrote: »

Isnt it for the most part also their choice to travel that way because they enjoy it as a mode of transport....so if its their choice to be more vulnerable shouldn't it also be their choice what colour clothing to wear (within reason, helmets ppe should be mandatory imo)...+ should the RSA etc also not have to come up with some proper scientific research that proves high viz will actually reduce the accident rate among motorcyclists before making it mandatory.........I would at least like to see some proper research that accounts for other factors involved in the accidents studied produced

most of us know the risks when we get on a bike and yet we choose to do so anyway.....

+ if they do prove that its safer and make it mandatory for motorcyclists then shouldn't they also make it mandatory for cars to have a high viz paint scheme and give you no choice when it comes to picking the color of your new car.....you may not be as vulnerable driving but you can still die in a car or die because one hits you so making them more visivle would be worth it if it saves one life........fairness you know, whats good for the goose etc

you choose to drive a car...which potentially makes you vulnerable to injury and the individuals you hit...fine..ok but weel make it just that iota safer by dressing your car up in high viz...how does that sound?

that's cool I suppose

I wear high viz at night or in poor conditions....I dont wear high viz when I feel there is little need for it (at times when I'm perfectly visible without it)...fine dry day etc...believe me the fact that sometimes I don't have high viz on does not mean I'm not being pro-active in staying safe....being on a bike tends to focus the mind...there are plenty of utter tools in dayglo orange/yellow in my experience......putting that vest on doesn't magically make you a better safer rider or seem to change what an unobservant motorist will do in my experience.

Agree with most of what you say there.

Heres a cheeky thought though, in relation to your point about having all cars in dayglo by law: Well if it was the law I suppose I'd have to abide by it; AND: Is there any chance at all that a lot of motorcyclists would actually LIKE to be given an excuse (i.e its the law!!) to wear the Hi Vis without being in fear of being riduculed by their mates????

ifah · 04-10-2011 11:29pm

Going Forward wrote: »

It's not an uninformed post, it's based on 28 years of professional driving.

Good, your presence and visibility on the road may well be enhanced for other road users in foggy mornings, sunsets, twilight hours etc.

I did not say it was a major factor in accidents, I said your visibility is a major factor for other road users.

I am open to you or anyone else here explaining how your safety and visibility and presence on the road would not be enhanced by you wearing an outer Hi Vis jacket (over your existing PPE).

Good to see that you have chosen to ignore all of the points here that point to OBSERVATION being the problem - not visibility.
I gave an example earlier of lack of observation and concentration causing an accident, another poster just gave an example of nearly being sideswiped because a driver didn't look at him. One rider had a full high viz on & I'm not sure if PixieBean had - Please explain how much more high viz you want to make people look and see.

Paparazzo · 04-10-2011 11:32pm

Going Forward wrote: »

Fine, but what about a rider emerging from a side road?

The same. If you can't see a rider merging from a side road wearing a black jacket you have eyesight problems. Anyway, the rider will wait for the car to go by.

I've said it before, making a decent standard back protector compulsory makes far more sense. They're guarenteed to reduce injuries and help in all offs. But thats harder to police, and doesn't look as good to the general public as it's not visible.

amacca · 04-10-2011 11:33pm

Going Forward wrote: »

A Is there any chance at all that a lot of motorcyclists would actually LIKE to be given an excuse (i.e its the law!!) to wear the Hi Vis without being in fear of being riduculed by their mates????

on that I can only speak for myself here...and personally speaking I work real hard at not giving two flying fooks what people think (i suffered from caring about what others thought a long time ago but I'm more or less over it now - horrible way to live)...so I wear it when I want to (within reason - when I think it is appropriate)...and I don't when I don't...if anyone dislikes what is still my choice I don't care....I learned a long time ago that most people who engage in ridicule for real are usually more insecure than the intended recipient of the ridicule......+ a lot of bikers don't fit into the preconceived notion of thrill seeking immature adrenaline junkies that some people seem to have of them.

Ill tell you what would make me dislike wearing high viz though...the thought that I was forced to and the thought that everyone else was going to be wearing it too and looking the same ...

Going Forward · 05-10-2011 12:23am

ifah wrote: »

Good to see that you have chosen to ignore all of the points here that point to OBSERVATION being the problem - not visibility.
I gave an example earlier of lack of observation and concentration causing an accident, another poster just gave an example of nearly being sideswiped because a driver didn't look at him. One rider had a full high viz on & I'm not sure if PixieBean had - Please explain how much more high viz you want to make people look and see.

I'm not interested in relating personal anecdotes from my driving experience regarding motorcylists on the roads, but if you like I could start!

Bear in mind that the above sentence is neutral.
I, the same as anyone else who drives for a living, have had good and bad experiences with motorcylists, as I am sure you have had with other motorists.

And I cant speak for other motorists, some of whom do not have much of an interest in or ability to drive safely.

SonOfPerdition · 05-10-2011 1:01pm

ifah wrote: »

Good to see that you have chosen to ignore all of the points here that point to OBSERVATION being the problem - not visibility.
I gave an example earlier of lack of observation and concentration causing an accident, another poster just gave an example of nearly being sideswiped because a driver didn't look at him. One rider had a full high viz on & I'm not sure if PixieBean had - Please explain how much more high viz you want to make people look and see.

visibility and observation are intrinsically linked. Any discussion about one must include the other.

ifah · 05-10-2011 2:14pm

SonOfPerdition wrote: »

visibility and observation are intrinsically linked. Any discussion about one must include the other.

I agree - but the proposed solutions only highlight Visibility as being an issue.

In most cases the problem is actually observation - if you don't look you will never see.

ifah · 05-10-2011 4:42pm

Going Forward wrote: »

I'm not interested in relating personal anecdotes from my driving experience regarding motorcylists on the roads, but if you like I could start!

Bear in mind that the above sentence is neutral.
I, the same as anyone else who drives for a living, have had good and bad experiences with motorcylists, as I am sure you have had with other motorists.

And I cant speak for other motorists, some of whom do not have much of an interest in or ability to drive safely.

I was a car driver first and biker second and of course I can give examples of good / bad / indifferent motoring - almost every one on the road could and I could look back over specific incidents when I was driving/riding and say something was a bad decision or I was paying enough attention.

However - the whole point of the debate is that MotorCyclists are being singled out for being difficult to see, and the reaction is to make high-vis mandatory. There is no basis for this decision and this is what bikers are worried about. My examples above were to relate occasions when high-vis made no difference to the observation skills of a different section of the motoring fraternity.

Being required to wear high vis is adding another layer of clothing which is not always either comfortable or practical. The quality of high-vis gear is pretty low and in most cases (even the high-vis vests being sent out by the RSA are crap) can cause problems while riding - poorly designed vests turn into kites ....

Just a qualifier - I wear a high-vis vest probably 95% of the time - only times I don't are if I'm going to meet someone and want to look smarter. I wear a high-vis designed for bikers but those ones are expensive - 55 euro.

P.C. · 05-10-2011 6:23pm

Going Forward wrote: »

Agree with most of what you say there.

Heres a cheeky thought though, in relation to your point about having all cars in dayglo by law: Well if it was the law I suppose I'd have to abide by it; AND: Is there any chance at all that a lot of motorcyclists would actually LIKE to be given an excuse (i.e its the law!!) to wear the Hi Vis without being in fear of being riduculed by their mates????

Why do you decend to these unprovoced coments?

Del2005 · 05-10-2011 8:22pm

Going Forward wrote: »

Fine, but what about a rider emerging from a side road?

The rider will be required to wait for a suitable gap in the traffic. Doesn't matter if they are wearing HiViz or not. If someone hits them it'll most likely be the bikers fault.

If a someone is waiting to pull out of a sideroad they would see the bikes headlights before a HiViz, if they look.

Going Forward · 05-10-2011 9:49pm

P.C. wrote: »

Why do you decend to these unprovoced coments?

What exactly is the problem?

Its a simple, if slightly tongue-in-cheek question.(As clearly originally denoted by the smilie-:))

"Heres a cheeky thought though, in relation to your point about having all cars in dayglo by law: Well if it was the law I suppose I'd have to abide by it; AND: Is there any chance at all that a lot of motorcyclists would actually LIKE to be given an excuse (i.e its the law!!) to wear the Hi Vis without being in fear of being riduculed by their mates????:)"

Going Forward · 05-10-2011 10:00pm

amacca wrote: »

on that I can only speak for myself here...and personally speaking I work real hard at not giving two flying fooks what people think (i suffered from caring about what others thought a long time ago but I'm more or less over it now - horrible way to live)...so I wear it when I want to (within reason - when I think it is appropriate)...and I don't when I don't...if anyone dislikes what is still my choice I don't care....I learned a long time ago that most people who engage in ridicule for real are usually more insecure than the intended recipient of the ridicule......+ a lot of bikers don't fit into the preconceived notion of thrill seeking immature adrenaline junkies that some people seem to have of them.

Ill tell you what would make me dislike wearing high viz though...the thought that I was forced to and the thought that everyone else was going to be wearing it too and looking the same ...

Well said!!!

SonOfPerdition · 06-10-2011 9:52am

Anecdotal evidence is not a reliable means to form an opinion, but it still doesn't stop people from doing so, and this thread is full of it.

The endless debate over the wearing of high viz vests is pretty pointless in it's current form.

What is needed is the results of a proper scientific study on the effects of motorcyclists wearing a high viz vest to determine if there is a statistically significant reduction in accidents involving motorcyclists who wear them.
If the study shows an improvement in the accident rate then the evidence supports the introduction of the regulation.
If there is no improvement then riders can use this as evidence that the regulation is pointless.
If no such study exists then I am willing to wear a high viz vest for whatever period of time is required to gather this information. If it means that regulation makes the wearing of a vest mandatory to ensure compliance then that's fine by me.

Frankly, we have bigger issues to worry about in this country, bikers up in arms over the wearing of bibs makes us all look like morons.

SOP

turbodiesel · 06-10-2011 12:29pm

SonOfPerdition wrote: »

Anecdotal evidence is not a reliable means to form an opinion, but it still doesn't stop people from doing so, and this thread is full of it.

The endless debate over the wearing of high viz vests is pretty pointless in it's current form.

What is needed is the results of a proper scientific study on the effects of motorcyclists wearing a high viz vest to determine if there is a statistically significant reduction in accidents involving motorcyclists who wear them.
If the study shows an improvement in the accident rate then the evidence supports the introduction of the regulation.
If there is no improvement then riders can use this as evidence that the regulation is pointless.
If no such study exists then I am willing to wear a high viz vest for whatever period of time is required to gather this information. If it means that regulation makes the wearing of a vest mandatory to ensure compliance then that's fine by me.

Frankly, we have bigger issues to worry about in this country, bikers up in arms over the wearing of bibs makes us all look like morons.

SOP

I've suggested that in my response to the RSA.

That if hi viz becomes mandatory then it should only be mandatory for a 3 yr period and the RSA should issue the jacket or a grant towards it. Maybe 50 quid off your road tax renewal so that only legally current users can take part in being guinea pigs. On the third year they could study the findings of the previous two years wearing of hi viz and then decide if it is to be long term compulsary. But i still strongly object to being forced to wear a hi viz, stenches of "nanny state". I choose to wear a hiz viz vest and wear it 95% of the time but also like the ability to remove it from over my jacket when i am using the jacket whilst not riding the bike.

daenerysstormborn3 · 06-10-2011 2:14pm

SonOfPerdition wrote: »

Anecdotal evidence is not a reliable means to form an opinion, but it still doesn't stop people from doing so, and this thread is full of it.

The endless debate over the wearing of high viz vests is pretty pointless in it's current form.

What is needed is the results of a proper scientific study on the effects of motorcyclists wearing a high viz vest to determine if there is a statistically significant reduction in accidents involving motorcyclists who wear them.
If the study shows an improvement in the accident rate then the evidence supports the introduction of the regulation.
If there is no improvement then riders can use this as evidence that the regulation is pointless.
If no such study exists then I am willing to wear a high viz vest for whatever period of time is required to gather this information. If it means that regulation makes the wearing of a vest mandatory to ensure compliance then that's fine by me.

Frankly, we have bigger issues to worry about in this country, bikers up in arms over the wearing of bibs makes us all look like morons.

SOP

Bibs? What bibs? Try reading the whole thread before accusing people of being concerned about something you perceive as being irrelevant.

SonOfPerdition · 06-10-2011 4:57pm

pixiebean22 wrote: »

Bibs? What bibs? Try reading the whole thread before accusing people of being concerned about something you perceive as being irrelevant.

Have you any supportive evidence that the wearing of high viz vests (which I also refer to as bibs) has no safety impact on motorcyclists?

If you can provide such evidence I'll support your stance.

MikeC101 · 06-10-2011 5:10pm

SonOfPerdition wrote: »

Have you any supportive evidence that the wearing of high viz vests (which I also refer to as bibs) has no safety impact on motorcyclists?

If you can provide such evidence I'll support your stance.

The proposal isn't for vests / bibs, it's for long sleeved hi viz garments.

I don't think there should be an onus to prove there's no safety aspect though; rather it should be on the instigator to prove that there's some of positive impact as justification to make it a mandatory requirement.

daenerysstormborn3 · 06-10-2011 6:22pm

SonOfPerdition wrote: »

Have you any supportive evidence that the wearing of high viz vests (which I also refer to as bibs) has no safety impact on motorcyclists?

If you can provide such evidence I'll support your stance.

This evidence has been posted in the motorbikes forum previously.

If you need statistics to make choices for you, find them yourself.

SonOfPerdition · 06-10-2011 6:34pm

MikeC101 wrote: »

The proposal isn't for vests / bibs, it's for long sleeved hi viz garments.

fair enough, but in comment #5, Noel Brett refers to "high-visibility vests".

MikeC101 wrote: »

I don't think there should be an onus to prove there's no safety aspect though; rather it should be on the instigator to prove that there's some of positive impact as justification to make it a mandatory requirement.

So if there WAS evidence that high viz vests had a positive impact on safety you'd support the requirement?

And in the absence of such evidence are you not willing to participate to help determine the effectiveness of high viz vests?

SonOfPerdition · 06-10-2011 6:37pm

pixiebean22 wrote: »

This evidence has been posted in the motorbikes forum previously.

Any chance of a link so that I can review your claim?

P.C. · 06-10-2011 7:04pm

Going Forward wrote: »

What exactly is the problem?

The problem is simple

- you started by calling bikes juvenile
- then you implied that bikes don't want to wear Hi-Viz because they don't want to look silly in front of their mates.

Why don't you make a reasonable argument/discussion with out trying to imply that bikers are juvenile/immature.

Wanting the freedom to make your own choice is not immature.

Steffano2002 · 06-10-2011 9:01pm

Well if I have to wear a high visibilty vest then I demand that all cars/vans/trucks be painted in fluorescent yellow.

What's that? You don't like fluorescent yellow and you want the freedom to choose your own colour?

Well, that's exactly the freedom I want too...

MikeC101 · 06-10-2011 9:54pm

SonOfPerdition wrote: »

fair enough, but in comment #5, Noel Brett refers to "high-visibility vests".

He does (constantly actually) but the proposal is fairly clear that it's a long sleeved garment.

SonOfPerdition wrote: »

So if there WAS evidence that high viz vests had a positive impact on safety you'd support the requirement?

I don't think so. I already wear a high viz jacket in poor visibility conditions, but I'm not going to start wearing one in bright daylight. All I see happening is a new line of defence for car drivers that hit bikes. "Well, yes I pulled across the road without looking and ploughed into a bike that had right of way on a sunny June afternoon, but your honour, he's one of those speed junkie bikers and....he wasn't wearing a high viz!"

Riders wearing white coloured helmets are apparently less likely to be involved in accidents - should everyone be made wear a white helmet?

Black, grey and silver cars are more likely to be involved in accidents - should we ban those colours from the road?

I just can't understand how a motorcycle with daylight running lights (which I am in favour of) is so hard to see, yet sticking a patch of high viz yellow on the rider - crouched over a sportbike or or behind a fairing - makes more of a difference. Honestly if drivers find it that hard to see a bike, they shouldn't be on the road.

It just feels like a huge cop out to me.

SonOfPerdition wrote: »

And in the absence of such evidence are you not willing to participate to help determine the effectiveness of high viz vests?

There's no proposal at all to actually try and determine the effectiveness though. If there was I'd have no problem participating.

But it'd need to be extremely well controlled - my only mode of transport is my motorcycle, I've taken a good few lessons I didn't need to to increase my skills, I commute year round in rush hour (well what passes for it in Dublin) traffic, I read and re-read advanced motorcycle manuals, and drive extremely defensively. Every other road user is out to kill me as far as I'm concerned... While doing that, I've never been in an accident of any kind in Dublin. So if they stick a high viz on me and that continues...is that because of the hi-viz?

I'd have far less of a problem with a more sensible approach - high viz vests after a certain time, on bikes without drls / scooters with weak lights, or whatever.

Interesting point :

Based on a study of injuries sustained by motorcyclists in the Strathclyde region of Scotland, the Transport Research Laboratory estimated that improvements in helmet design could reduce motorcyclist fatalities in Great Britain by 20%. The UK has led a European research project to improve the minimum standards of helmets and visors.

(from www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Motorcycles/National_Motorcycle_Action_Plan.pdf)

Potential 20% in fatalities is huge, but I've seen nothing from the RSA on this, and as we can't even currently get 0% VAT on helmets in Ireland, I won't hold my breath.

If you're looking for studies, the two major reports are the Hurt Report from the 80s, done in the USA http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MOTORCYCLE_ACCIDENT_CAUSE_FACTORS_AND_IDENTIFICATION_OF_COUNTERMEASURES_VOLUME_I-_TECHNICAL_REPORT.pdf

And the MAIDS study, by the EU, started in 99 http://www.maids-study.eu/

Both broadly agree that in the majority of motorcycle crashes involving other vehicles, the other vehicle is at fault (75% of the time in Hurt), but they don't agree on high vis. Hurt says it makes a big difference (but some of it seems to include drls as well), MAIDS says it has far less of an impact in collisions.

Paparazzo · 06-10-2011 10:51pm

The only way is to have 2 big groups (say, 1000), one with and one without. Come back 2 years later and compare.

Even if it's safer I still wouldn't wear one. I could drive a 5 ncap starred car if I was so worried about safety.

SonOfPerdition · 06-10-2011 11:43pm

MikeC101 wrote: »

He does (constantly actually) but the proposal is fairly clear that it's a long sleeved garment.

And the RSA documents refer to high viz 'jackets' when they talk about high viz vests. The terminology isn't clear I grant you that, and one thing I hope is that common sense prevails .. i.e., There is no requirement for expensive high viz gear. Hopefully during the consultation with biker groups this will be cleared up.

I don't think so. I already wear a high viz jacket in poor visibility conditions, but I'm not going to start wearing one in bright daylight.

But this is Ireland where weather changes so bloody frequently, and we're not exactly known for our days of sunshine. Besides, wearing a high viz in bright sunlight doesn't reduce your safety does it?

All I see happening is a new line of defence for car drivers that hit bikes. "Well, yes I pulled across the road without looking and ploughed into a bike that had right of way on a sunny June afternoon, but your honour, he's one of those speed junkie bikers and....he wasn't wearing a high viz!"

ah, that's just speculation. besides if it was mandatory, us law abiding bikers will be wearing them ... wouldn't we?

Riders wearing white coloured helmets are apparently less likely to be involved in accidents - should everyone be made wear a white helmet?

Black, grey and silver cars are more likely to be involved in accidents - should we ban those colours from the road?

I'd like to see a source for those claims as I haven't heard them before. I guess it would depend to what degree the colours make a difference, are the stats significant or marginal? If true it'd be a consideration when picking the colour scheme next time i'm buying a helmet.

I just can't understand how a motorcycle with daylight running lights (which I am in favour of) is so hard to see, yet sticking a patch of high viz yellow on the rider - crouched over a sportbike or or behind a fairing - makes more of a difference. Honestly if drivers find it that hard to see a bike, they shouldn't be on the road.

It just feels like a huge cop out to me.

But this is an opinion based on personal bias. I could just as easily mention that i think high viz make a rider significantly more visible in certain lighting conditions.

measured results are far more meaningful, and the bigger the test sample the more reliable the results.

There's no proposal at all to actually try and determine the effectiveness though. If there was I'd have no problem participating.

ah . . but here's the beauty. By default the great experiment will happen because all the required information will be available. Accident stats will be available for the years prior and after high viz vests became mandatory. All anyone has to do is analyse trends in those figures to determine if the vests made any significant difference to the overall figures.

my only mode of transport is my motorcycle, I've taken a good few lessons I didn't need to to increase my skills, I commute year round in rush hour (well what passes for it in Dublin) traffic, I read and re-read advanced motorcycle manuals, and drive extremely defensively. Every other road user is out to kill me as far as I'm concerned... While doing that, I've never been in an accident of any kind in Dublin. So if they stick a high viz on me and that continues...is that because of the hi-viz?

Thats a straw man argument. The level of your skills has no bearing on the effectiveness of a high viz vest.

I'd have far less of a problem with a more sensible approach - high viz vests after a certain time, on bikes without drls / scooters with weak lights, or whatever.

I kinda see what you mean, but i'd argue that some times lighting conditions are poorer during the day depending on cloud cover. Then the evening time could be brighter. So a time based system wouldn't make sense here, we're blessed with ****ty weather.
ALL PTWs should have DRLs imo.

Interesting point :

(from www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Motorcycles/National_Motorcycle_Action_Plan.pdf)

Potential 20% in fatalities is huge, but I've seen nothing from the RSA on this, and as we can't even currently get 0% VAT on helmets in Ireland, I won't hold my breath.

indeed, interesting, but not relevent to the discussion about the merits of high viz.

If you're looking for studies, the two major reports are the Hurt Report from the 80s, done in the USA http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MOTORCYCLE_ACCIDENT_CAUSE_FACTORS_AND_IDENTIFICATION_OF_COUNTERMEASURES_VOLUME_I-_TECHNICAL_REPORT.pdf

And the MAIDS study, by the EU, started in 99 http://www.maids-study.eu/

Both broadly agree that in the majority of motorcycle crashes involving other vehicles, the other vehicle is at fault (75% of the time in Hurt), but they don't agree on high vis. Hurt says it makes a big difference (but some of it seems to include drls as well), MAIDS says it has far less of an impact in collisions.

cheers, I'll spend some time looking at these sources over the weekend. Thanks for the links.

Hi-Vis campaign

Comments