Hi-Vis campaign

Jak O Shadows

Hi all,

This is the email i have sent to Noel Brett of the RSA noelbrett@rsa.ie, I am also sending one to Leo Varadkar, but I am going to reword it first and also to my local TD's. I think we should also have an online petition but the wording would have to be worked out and agreed upon.

Feel free to use it and rework it as you see fit.

I am one of the over 2000 bikers that took to the streets to protest about the increasingly restrictive legislation being applied to motorcycling and motorcyclists, unfortunately the RSA is one of the organisations proposing this legislation.

I have read the national motorcycle action safety plan 2010-2014 and the vast majority of it I whole heartedly agree with. However there are some huge contradictions in the document.

Firstly; section 4.3 deals with personal protective equipment and encouraging the use of it. Why then is there no recommendation to lobby the Government to reduce or remove the VAT on this protective clothing in an attempt to reduce to cost to consumers. This especially applies to helmets as we are legally obliged to wear them. This seems to be a glaring omission, and certainly questions the Government’s commitment to ‘putting its money where its mouth is’ so to speak. Reducing the VAT would be a cost effective and simple way of encouraging usage while showing that the Government is genuinely committed to Motorcyclists safety.

Secondly; Section 4.4 deals with visibility and it is this section that has angered motorcyclists especially section 4.4.5. Initially this section highlights that 40% of motorcyclists wear hi-Vis vests, the next section states that the RSA ‘will seek to address the variation in wearing rates and improve overall rates’ again this is commendable and I assume would involve advertising and education. The final section is what has brought thousands of bikers onto the streets in protest.

‘4.4.5 The Motorcycle Safety Action proposes the introduction of regulations for the
mandatory wearing of high visibility upper body clothing with full sleeves for
ride and pillion passenger.’

Firstly you have not provided any evidence that this will increase my safety. In fact it could equally be argued that it will decrease the safety of some motorcyclists. Young inexperienced riders could be given a false sense of security and assume they are more visible than they actually are. Us older, more experienced riders are not convinced as our experience on the roads of Ireland tell us otherwise. In order for us to be ‘seen’ by other road users they have to ‘look’ in the first place. I can attest that it is often a failure to look that causes accidents not a failure to see. The increasing prevalence of the use of mobile phones by other road users is compounding this problem. In the last 3 weeks I have had two incidents with drivers on mobile phones. One pulled out in front of me without looking, the other encroached into my lane again without looking, on both occasions I was wearing Hi-Vis. . On both occasions it was my experience, training and road awareness that prevented an accident, not my attire. While I do wear Hi-Vis most of the time I honestly feel that its effect is negligible

The EU MAIDS study backs this up when it states;

“in 65.3% of all cases, the clothing made no contribution to the conspicuity of the rider or the PTW [powered two-wheeler, i.e. motorcycle]. There were very few cases found in which the bright clothing of the PTW rider enhanced the PTW’s overall conspicuity (46 cases). There were more cases in which the use of dark clothing decreased the conspicuity of the rider and the PTW (120 cases)."

The MAIDS report was unable to recommend specific items of clothing or colours to make riders better seen. You have chosen to ignore these findings.

More worryingly is the message this proposal sends out. You are telling all road users that if you fail to look and cause an accident with a motorcyclist, that the motorcyclist is at fault because they weren’t wearing a hi-vis jacket. It is a ‘blame the victim’ mentality that absolves other road users of responsibility and places all the responsibility and culpability onto the shoulders of motorcyclists.

I have been riding bikes for 25 years, I wear a helmet by law but I also wear body armour, leather and high tech textiles. I wear armoured gloves and boots. This I do out of choice as it is in my interest to do so. I fit braided steel brake hoses and uprated brake pads to increase braking efficiency. I fit brighter headlight bulbs and ride with my headlight on, this I do by choice. I also choose to wear a hi-vis vest most of the time. I have reflective material on my bike and helmet to increase my night time visibility. I do all these things by choice and I do not need to be coerced into doing them. I am an adult who can make my own decisions about my safety.

This is the hypocrisy of your proposal, as long as I wear a helmet and a hi-vis jacket I am complying with the law, and thereby somehow ‘safe’. This is patently nonsense. If Hi-vis is the panacea for motorcyclists why isn’t it being imposed on cyclists and pedestrians who are also considered to be vulnerable road users? This smacks of a ‘soft touch’ option where a small group are being singled out for restrictive legislation.

The anger of motorcyclists is palpable, the RSA is now been seen as the enemy, imposing nanny state bureaucratic legislation on motorcyclists. Instead of working co-operatively and collaboratively with motorcyclists and their representative organisation you have decided to go down an adversarial route. It is telling that MAG Ireland does not appear under the ‘partners’ section or the ‘Organisations we like’ sections of your website. Our representative organisation is effectively excluded and our voices have been silenced. The response of Brian Farrell, RSA communications manager to a query from MAG UK sums up your attitude to motorcyclists “We do intend to seek to introduce the measure in 2014, subject to consultation with motorcyclists and industry on the most appropriate type of hi-vis material and possible solutions." That is not consultation, it is dictating. It is a patronising and condescending attitude which is all too prevalent in Ireland.

This one decision has undone the good work your organisation had done with its bike safely campaign. I for one will be lobbying my political representatives about this and I am sure that this will not be the last protest we will see. It would be a much more sensible approach as section 4.4.4 states to encourage use of hi-vis by offering them at reduced price or giving them free to motorcyclists. But this would require investment and working with motorcyclists, sadly you have chosen the lazy route of legislation and the erosion of personal freedom.

Sincerely

Jak O Shadows

Here is a draft of a possible wording for an online petition.

We believe that the Road Safety Authority’s intent to make the wearing of full sleeve high visibility jackets for motorcyclists mandatory is unnecessarily coercive, unproven in its effectiveness and an invasion of personal freedom. It shifts the blame away from drivers who fail to look properly, and places it on riders who are entitled to use the roads unencumbered by unproven safety measures. We ask the RSA to abandon this proposal until its effectiveness can be scientifically proven and to engage with the motorcycle community in a campaign to increase the use of High Visibility clothing on a voluntary basis.

I wrote it very quickly so any comments ammendments and proof reading are welcome.

amacca

v. well written...conveys exactly how I feel about the whole thing.

I'll sign that petition + attend any protest rides I can.

Jak O Shadows

I have got an email reply from Noel Brett, I am genuinely surprised. I have asked him if I can post it up online. Awaiting his response

Jak O Shadows

Here is the reply I got from Noel Brett

Thank you for your e-mail expressing your concerns regarding the proposed requirements for mandatory high visibility jackets for motorcyclists.



I note that you have read the Nation Motorcycle Safety Action Plan and that you are in agreement with the vast majority of the recommendations within the document.



I also note that you believe that there are contradictions contained within the document in particular in relation to Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) and the fact that there is no recommended action to lobby the government to reduce or remove the VAT on PPE. The RSA has made a number of submissions and recommendations to the Department of Transport in relation to the removal and reduction of VAT on PPE and I will continue to recommend to the Government that consideration be given to incentivising the use of PPE.



You will be aware that motorcyclists are more difficult to see because of their relatively small frontal area compared to other vehicles and research indicates that 68% of collisions in Ireland occurred during daylight hours when visibility was good. The RSA is aware that many motorcyclists, such as you already wear high visibility vests and use daytime running lights. You suggest that raising awareness and education around this issue is essential to improving overall compliance rates and I agree. In the event that there are high wearing rates by 2014, the RSA will then re-evaluate the need for compulsory wearing of high-visibility vests. In the event that there is a need to make a high visibility vest compulsory, the RSA will not make a decision on the type of high visibility vests without consulting with motorcyclists and the industry.



Further, can I also point out to you that the RSA has in fact been tackling poor driving that impacts on motorcyclists for example;



1- Current TV and internet campaign entitled ‘Underneath’ which specifically addresses this issue.

2- Compulsory Driver Training for all new car Learner Permit holders including module material on sharing the road with bikers.

3- Driver CPC is 7 hours of compulsory training each year for truck and bus drivers and specifically covering biker awareness.

4- Leaflet with motor tax renewal notices highlighting biker awareness.

5- Repeated media releases during the year highlighting the need to be biker aware.

6- Focus in driving tests on biker awareness.



I agree that irresponsible behaviour by drivers using mobile phones is reprehensible and an issue that the RSA will address through its ongoing education programmes and through enforcement by the Gardaí and also by recommending increased sanctions for such behaviour.



I commend you on your road safety awareness and practice in relation to ensuring your safety and that of others by the actions that you have outlined in your e-mail however not all motorcyclists are as safety conscious or take the measures or actions that you yourself have undertaken. The RSA is not solely advocating the wearing of helmets and high visibility jackets as the panacea. The RSA will continue to advocate for the removal of VAT or other measures that will incentivise the wearing of PPE.



I can re-assure you that this is not a soft-touch option where a small group is being singled out for restricted legislation. It is the intention of the RSA to encourage the use of high visibility vests by offering them free of charge to motorcyclists. For your information, the RSA has provided approximately 50,000 specifically designed high visibility vest for motorcyclists free of charge per annum. This was done most recently in July with Bike Buyers Guide.



In reference to your observation that MAG Ireland are not listed as a partner organisation on the RSA website I am pleased to advise that MAG Ireland are now included and are considered an essential partner in promoting motorcycling safety. Can I also re-assure you that your representative organisation is not being excluded nor or your voices being silenced.



Once again, thank you for your e-mail and I trust that this is of assistance in clarifying the stance and position of the RSA.

LagunaSeca

excellently written letter JOS and an encouraging response from the RSA

Going Forward

Hi Viz should be mandatory for all motorcyclists, cyclists, horseriders on public roads and pedestrians outside of built up public lighting areas.

It is their responsibility to ensure their own safety and your VISIBILITY is a major factor for other road users.

The biker fraternity should wake up to reality and just forget about the juvenile leather jacket macho image.

I personally feel constrained when I wear my seatbelt, and would like to have a choice of not wearing it, but I realise that it is there for my own safety and accept it.

thewatch

Going Forward wrote: »

Hi Viz should be mandatory for all motorcyclists, cyclists, horseriders on public roads and pedestrians outside of built up public lighting areas.

It is their responsibility to ensure their own safety and your VISIBILITY is a major factor for other road users.

The biker fraternity should wake up to reality and just forget about the juvenile leather jacket macho image. And anyway its been shown in studys that Hi vis makes no difference to collision rates. I can find the link for you if you like

I personally feel constrained when I wear my seatbelt, and would like to have a choice of not wearing it, but I realise that it is there for my own safety and accept it.

So if we're not visible it's our fault you crash into us? Well we're not visible IF YOU DON'T LOOK!! That our fault too is it?

There's much more to the Hi vis issue than concern about looking macho and FYI since you ASSume it's a fashion thing, leathers are generally worn as PPE.

Why does our safety have to be regulated?

If car drivers were all made to wear crash helmets the amount and severity of injuries after a collision would be x times less. Do you agree? should we make every car driver wear helmets now? or maybe a massive spike in the steering column would do the job so your forced to drive smoothly and more carefully. It's for your safety!!

sleepysniper

Going Forward wrote: »

Hi Viz should be mandatory for all motorcyclists, cyclists, horseriders on public roads and pedestrians outside of built up public lighting areas.

It is their responsibility to ensure their own safety and your VISIBILITY is a major factor for other road users.

The biker fraternity should wake up to reality and just forget about the juvenile leather jacket macho image.

I personally feel constrained when I wear my seatbelt, and would like to have a choice of not wearing it, but I realise that it is there for my own safety and accept it.

Yeah and sure we might as well all go round wrapped up in cotton wool too....you know, for safety like.:rolleyes:

Del2005

Going Forward wrote: »

Hi Viz should be mandatory for all motorcyclists, cyclists, horseriders on public roads and pedestrians outside of built up public lighting areas.

It is their responsibility to ensure their own safety and your VISIBILITY is a major factor for other road users.

Motorbikes by law have to have lights front and rear. If a car driver can't see a motorcycles lights what difference would it make if they have Hi Viz or not on?

Making bikers wear Hi Viz is removing the need for motorists to pay attention when driving.

Going Forward wrote: »

The biker fraternity should wake up to reality and just forget about the juvenile leather jacket macho image.

I'd much rather come off a bike in macho leathers/textile then a Hi Viz.

Going Forward wrote: »

I personally feel constrained when I wear my seatbelt, and would like to have a choice of not wearing it, but I realise that it is there for my own safety and accept it.

The difference here is that there is scientific studies which proof that wearing a seat belt is safer for the person. There have been no scientific studies which show that motorcyclists wearing Hi Viz are any more visible to motorists, but there are loads of anecdotal stories of Hi Viz making no difference. If they come out with a few per reviewed studies which proof that Hi Viz will make me safer I'll wear it.

amacca

Del2005 wrote: »

The difference here is that there is scientific studies which proof that wearing a seat belt is safer for the person. There have been no scientific studies which show that motorcyclists wearing Hi Viz are any more visible to motorists, but there are loads of anecdotal stories of Hi Viz making no difference. If they come out with a few per reviewed studies which proof that Hi Viz will make me safer I'll wear it.

agreed...if they can prove scientifically that it is safer I would swallow this a whole lot easier (I would still think it should be my choice however)


at the moment the whole thing feels a bit like scapegoating a minority.....the minority that seem by and large to be the ones being crashed into....but to be fair to "going forward" while he/she has just called the entire biker fraternity juvenile on a biker forum no less at least he/she is saying everyone should be made wear it not just motorcyclists..

..place is going to look fugly with everyone wandering around with council worker jackets on them....youd also wonder if the value of wearing high viz would be nullified if everyone was wearing them

seas of dayglo yellow or orange everywhere you go...nice

if one life is saved etc....we might as well all stay at home...its statistically safer...............until everyone starts dying of heart disease

Going Forward

thewatch wrote: »

So if we're not visible it's our fault you crash into us? Well we're not visible IF YOU DON'T LOOK!! That our fault too is it?

Your visibility, whether you accept it or not, may be a contributing factor in any accident.

Road use is not a single person endeavour, everyone plays a part in contributing to their own and other road users safety.

thewatch wrote: »

There's much more to the Hi vis issue than concern about looking macho and FYI since you ASSume it's a fashion thing, leathers are generally worn as PPE.

No need to ditch the leathers- Hi Viz would further augment the safety benefits of, and can be worn over existing PPE.

thewatch wrote: »

Why does our safety have to be regulated?

Put simply, because of the financial cost of road traffic accidents to EU member states. "In 2004, the estimated annual costs, both direct and indirect, of traffic injury in the EU-15 countries exceeded 180 billion euros."

I actually have some sympathy for the campaign, but sadly, the days of actually "enjoying" driving or riding a bike are well and truly over due to over-regulation and the never ending slew of new laws governing every aspect of personal transport.

amacca

Going Forward wrote: »

Your visibility, whether you accept it or not, may be a contributing factor in any accident.

true.................but it may not be as critically important a factor as these campaigns make out

so why then are they going after it so balls out.......why are they not going down the mandatory ppe route (+ drop the vat on them etc) or at least going away and doing some proper research

why are they not banning the colour black on all cars (statistically more likely to be involved in accidents)

why not mandatory high viz strips on all new beemers, mercs, porsches (all makes).....that would make them more visible to the pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, other cars they might hit and help those getting crashed into take more effective measures to avoid them....its the same argument surely?

Going Forward wrote: »

Road use is not a single person endeavour, everyone plays a part in contributing to their own and other road users safety.

true......and motorcyclists seem to have been singled out to play a part that other road users are not being asked to play...there are three problems with this as I see it

1) as has been said countless times...its almost as if the blame is being laid on the shoulders of motorcyclists not all of the road users that contribute to the accidents

2) it may not actually be that effective in achieving a reduction in road deaths at all...so it could turn out to be just another piece of ill thought out clipboard warrior tripe

3) it smacks of targetting a minority...if road safety was a case of everyone contributing then they wouldn't just target one group of road users like this..................everyone would be asked to play their part...rather than driving the thin end of the wedge with motorcyclists first before moving on.......................imo its not about road safety anyway...its more about the road safety industry and a new motorcycle mot + servicing industry ultimately taking more euros out of hapless pockets (its the law dontcha know now pay up or dont ride)

Going Forward wrote: »

No need to ditch the leathers- Hi Viz would further augment the safety benefits of, and can be worn over existing PPE.

true...manufacturers could even integrate the reflective/high viz stuff into the clothing (as some of them already do) ...in fact this would probably be better than full on yellow/orange all over as it would break up the profile and make the thing more visible

but I've always been a personal choice man and live with the consequences of your choices without expecting someone else to pay the bill................I'm not one to cry nanny state at the first opportunity but this sort of stuff depresses me to the core of my being.....sometimes my species repulses me

Going Forward wrote: »

Put simply, because of the financial cost of road traffic accidents to EU member states. "In 2004, the estimated annual costs, both direct and indirect, of traffic injury in the EU-15 countries exceeded 180 billion euros."

I will read the document but perhaps you could save me the time ...what was the breakdown of those costs do you mind me asking......was that insurance payouts (that have already been paid for by the pool of premiums the various companies have collected aah the poor insurance companies..profit margins not as good as they could be boo fcukin hoo if thats the case)...was it hospital bills that the various motorcyclists involved contributed to by paying their taxes........was it clean up bills at accident sites etc...who in fact is paying the 180 billion..was it companies upset that their drones missed time at work because of accidents (whats next on the menu to ensure a productive work till they drop workforce............ ban kitchen knives......hard hats in the bedroom ...high viz glassware etc)

what portion of it would have to be paid anyway and who is doing the paying + who is receiving the payment?

how much of a reduction do they reckon people wearing yellow high viz jackets on motorcycle will achieve in this 180 billion bill spread across 15 countries with what must be close to 700million people living in them

how accurate are their estimates do they reckon ...whats the margin for error on them...how are they calculated...and who is doing the calculating....................is it unelected mr. faceless in Brussels figuring out how best to manipulate his European subjects by getting a couple of discredited academics to lend their name to a study because they cant get any of their submissions into a decent peer reviewed journal?

Going Forward wrote: »

I actually have some sympathy for the campaign, but sadly, the days of actually "enjoying" driving or riding a bike are well and truly over due to over-regulation and the never ending slew of new laws governing every aspect of personal transport.

How depressing....and you think bikers are juvenile for trying to preserve some personal freedoms.....................I know what side of the fence I come down on at any rate

the less pointless bureaucracy the better and the less costly for individuals imo

P.C.

Going Forward wrote: »

Hi Viz should be mandatory for all motorcyclists, cyclists, horseriders on public roads and pedestrians outside of built up public lighting areas.

It is their responsibility to ensure their own safety and your VISIBILITY is a major factor for other road users.

The biker fraternity should wake up to reality and just forget about the juvenile leather jacket macho image.
I personally feel constrained when I wear my seatbelt, and would like to have a choice of not wearing it, but I realise that it is there for my own safety and accept it.

Please refrain from making uninformed coments such as the one in italics/bold.

Your post was going so well up till then.
If you want the regular posters on here to respect your opinion, leave out the cheap shots at bikers.

Del2005

Going Forward wrote: »

Your visibility, whether you accept it or not, may be a contributing factor in any accident.

If someone can't see a 55W halogen light how the hell will passive reflective material make me any more visible. Making us partially responsible because someone else isn't looking properly is what we are complaining about. If they can't see the headlights of my bike and knock me off, I'm partially liable if I don't have HiViz on

There are no laws planned to make cyclists or pedestrians wear HiViz, or for cyclists to use DRLs, so why pick on a tinny minority who have already spent large sums of money making themselves safer above the minimum level required by law.

Make people responsible for their actions, pulling out in front of a motorbike is down to inattention or bad eyesight, why put the onus on the potential injured party for a licensing system that takes an eye test when a person is ~17-20 years old and allow them to continue driving without ever getting their eyesight checked again.

Going Forward

P.C. wrote: »

Going Forward wrote: »

Hi Viz should be mandatory for all motorcyclists, cyclists, horseriders on public roads and pedestrians outside of built up public lighting areas.

It is their responsibility to ensure their own safety and your VISIBILITY is a major factor for other road users.

The biker fraternity should wake up to reality and just forget about the j
uvenile leather jacket macho image.
I personally feel constrained when I wear my seatbelt, and would like to have a choice of not wearing it, but I realise that it is there for my own safety and accept it.

Please refrain from making uninformed coments such as the one in italics/bold.

Your post was going so well up till then.
If you want the regular posters on here to respect your opinion, leave out the cheap shots at bikers.

Okay, I'd like to withdraw the word "juvenile".

BTW I thought Mr. Brett 's email was
NoelBrett@rsa.ie. Not sure if the capital letters make a difference.

PS I wonder does gaybyrne@rsa.ie work too??

thewatch

Going Forward wrote: »

Your visibility, whether you accept it or not, may be a contributing factor in any accident.

Nonsense. If you crash into me it's your fault.

No need to ditch the leathers- Hi Viz would further augment the safety benefits of, and can be worn over existing PPE.

Prove it or show any data thats backs your point up here

I actually have some sympathy for the campaign, but sadly, the days of actually "enjoying" driving or riding a bike are well and truly over due to over-regulation and the never ending slew of new laws governing every aspect of personal transport.

That's a load of bull too. And it's proposals like this "mandatory" Hi vis crap that we are trying to prevent from escalating into over regulation :rolleyes:

ifah

Going Forward wrote: »

Hi Viz should be mandatory for all motorcyclists, cyclists, horseriders on public roads and pedestrians outside of built up public lighting areas.

It is their responsibility to ensure their own safety and your VISIBILITY is a major factor for other road users.

The biker fraternity should wake up to reality and just forget about the juvenile leather jacket macho image.

I personally feel constrained when I wear my seatbelt, and would like to have a choice of not wearing it, but I realise that it is there for my own safety and accept it.

Yet another uninformed post by someone who has no idea of the observation skills of certain groups of motorists.

The proposal is for mandatory full arm high-viz at all times - not just at night.

I agree that visibility is a factor in some accidents but to say it is a major factor is ridicilous - OBSERVATION is the major factor.

Here's a little example -

2 weeks ago - 8.45 am , week day, road conditions dry with clouds overcast (no sun)

Approaching roundabout at Half Way House on N3 (inbound) -

Traffic moving at approx 25-30 kph, sloing down to about 10 kph approaching roundabout

Large Yamaha VMax (400 cc I think) Scooter (Rider wearing full sleeve Hi-Vis Jacket) in line of traffic, Nissan Micra behind him about 15 metres back, next in line - Me on a 650 Suzuki about 8 metres behind micra, also wearing High Vis (Vest in my case).

Yamaha stopped at roundabout to allow cars to pass him,
Micra never even hit her brakes or changed direction until she hit the Yamaha from behind - bear in mind she had been tailing him for at least 250 metres
Micra driver had been checking her phone - I could see her in her mirrors.

Please tell me how any increased visibility would have assisted in this case .....


As for the childish comment in relation to Leather jackets - you really don't know what the point of the Leather PPE Jackets/ Pants / Boots / gloves etc are do you ?

Paparazzo

When are people in this forum going to learn and stop getting wound up by peoples idiotic opinions who clearly don't have a clue what they're talking about?

Anyway, slightly worried about Noel Bretts response. Especially this bit:

In the event that there are high wearing rates by 2014, the RSA will then re-evaluate the need for compulsory wearing of high-visibility vests. In the event that there is a need to make a high visibility vest compulsory, the RSA will not make a decision on the type of high visibility vests without consulting with motorcyclists and the industry.

CJhaughey

Paparazzo wrote: »

Anyway, slightly worried about Noel Bretts response. Especially this bit:

That sounds like an ultimatum to me. Wear them or we will make you wear them.
Not at all encouraging.

Paparazzo

CJhaughey wrote: »

That sounds like an ultimatum to me. Wear them or we will make you wear them.
Not at all encouraging.

He says he'll discuss with the motorcycle industry to find out what type. Can't picture any one working that won't interfere with climate control of a jacket. I still can't picture this coming in.
Will helmets on bicycles be next?

CJhaughey

Paparazzo wrote: »

He says he'll discuss with the motorcycle industry to find out what type. Can't picture any one working that won't interfere with climate control of a jacket. I still can't picture this coming in.
Will helmets on bicycles be next?

I can understand helmets on cycles, but again studies have shown that having to wear a helmet on a bicycle actually caused a decrease in people cycling.
Is that what these proposals are about? Making it so difficult and awkward that people choose the easy option of driving a car?

turbodiesel

CJhaughey wrote: »

That sounds like an ultimatum to me. Wear them or we will make you wear them.
Not at all encouraging.

So if we all wore them until 2014 as "volunteers" in a study and whereby the RSA did little else to stop road traffic accidents occuring and there was no discernable decrease (most likely) specifically due to the perceived (magic vision) improvement of visability then we could decide to keep or ditch them ourselves......

I wear a hi viz vest but am against the compulsion to wear one. The vest should be enough in comparison to full length jackets......

turbodiesel

I will read the document but perhaps you could save me the time ...what was the breakdown of those costs do you mind me asking......was that insurance payouts (that have already been paid for by the pool of premiums the various companies have collected aah the poor insurance companies..profit margins not as good as they could be boo fcukin hoo if thats the case)...was it hospital bills that the various motorcyclists involved contributed to by paying their taxes........was it clean up bills at accident sites etc...who in fact is paying the 180 billion..was it companies upset that their drones missed time at work because of accidents (whats next on the menu to ensure a productive work till they drop workforce............ ban kitchen knives......hard hats in the bedroom ...high viz glassware etc)

what portion of it would have to be paid anyway and who is doing the paying + who is receiving the payment?

how much of a reduction do they reckon people wearing yellow high viz jackets on motorcycle will achieve in this 180 billion bill spread across 15 countries with what must be close to 700million people living in them

how accurate are their estimates do they reckon ...whats the margin for error on them...how are they calculated...and who is doing the calculating....................is it unelected mr. faceless in Brussels figuring out how best to manipulate his European subjects by getting a couple of discredited academics to lend their name to a study because they cant get any of their submissions into a decent peer reviewed journal?



How depressing....and you think bikers are juvenile for trying to preserve some personal freedoms.....................I know what side of the fence I come down on at any rate

the less pointless bureaucracy the better and the less costly for individuals imo

I'm sure if they spent 10% of that 180 billion annual bill on Road User Training & Hazard Perception (everyone from cyclists upwards) for all road users they would see more than that returned in a saving of road accidents and lost lives.

amacca

turbodiesel wrote: »

I'm sure if they spent 10% of that 180 billion annual bill on Road User Training & Hazard Perception (everyone from cyclists upwards) for all road users they would see more than that returned in a saving of road accidents and lost lives.

what I was driving at (albeit obliquely)

if you'll excuse the pun.

Going Forward

ifah wrote: »

Yet another uninformed post by someone who has no idea of the observation skills of certain groups of motorists.

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

ifah wrote: »

The proposal is for mandatory full arm high-viz at all times - not just at night.

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

ifah wrote: »

I agree that visibility is a factor in some accidents but to say it is a major factor is ridicilous - OBSERVATION is the major factor.

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).

amacca

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).

why bother, its probably impossible to argue that (unless the thing becomes so ubiquitous/common place no one notices anymore)....for me its about fairness and choice as well so with that in mind

I would be open to you explaining why fitting every motor vehicle/car with a high vis paint job like say a like Garda car would not enhance their visibility making the road safer for everyone (obviously not the same as a garda car but same level of visibility)

why not deny every motorist the choice of what color car they want...it would probably be safer and they would definitely be more visible if they drove around in a high viz paint scheme...similar argument dontcha think?....see any potential problems with it.....if you drive a car currently would you be happy to drive around like that...would you be happy if everyone else also had a similar coulour scheme?

btw...dont give me the frontal area stuff...the high viz paintjob would make the cars more visible too, it should in theory be safer...just like making all motorcyclists look like council workers would.

Going Forward

I accept all those points, but isnt the point which keeps being brought up in relation to motorcycle safety is the rider's vulnerability and susceptibility to major injuries even in relatively low speed collisions?

I, the same as other motorists, regularly encounter motorcyclists on the roads, no problem.

But when I encounter one wearing either a Hi Vis vest or full jacket, I know that that rider is taking a pro-active role in trying to ensure and promote his personal safety and I appreciate and respect that attitude when displayed by any fellow road user.

daenerysstormborn3

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).

Because you have to look to see hi viz. The problem is that other motorists are not even looking in the first place so how is hi viz going to make a difference to them not looking?

For example, this evening I was pulling out of a car park, there was a car pulling out of the Superquinn car park to my left. I had my indicator on to turn left and the way was clear for me to pull out. The car driver had his left indicator on and just as I went to change up through my gears as I was passing him, I had to slam on the brakes as he swung out in front of me and turned right out of the car park, looking to his left. Not once did he look to his right, the direction I was approaching from. How would hi viz have made a difference in that situation? You have to look to see.

daenerysstormborn3

Going Forward wrote: »

I accept all those points, but isnt the point which keeps being brought up in relation to motorcycle safety is the rider's vulnerability and susceptibility to major injuries even in relatively low speed collisions?

I, the same as other motorists, regularly encounter motorcyclists on the roads, no problem.

But when I encounter one wearing either a Hi Vis vest or full jacket, I know that that rider is taking a pro-active role in trying to ensure and promote his personal safety and I appreciate and respect that attitude when displayed by any fellow road user.

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. Do you only respect bikers who wear hi viz?

amacca

Going Forward wrote: »

I accept all those points, but isnt the point which keeps being brought up in relation to motorcycle safety is the rider's vulnerability and susceptibility to major injuries even in relatively low speed collisions?

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?

Going Forward wrote: »

I, the same as other motorists, regularly encounter motorcyclists on the roads, no problem.

But when I encounter one wearing either a Hi Vis vest or full jacket, I know that that rider is taking a pro-active role in trying to ensure and promote his personal safety and I appreciate and respect that attitude when displayed by any fellow road user.

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.

Paparazzo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.