Hi-Vis campaign

SonOfPerdition · 06-10-2011 3:57pm

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 4:10pm

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 5:22pm

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 5:34pm

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 5:37pm

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 6:04pm

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 8:01pm

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 8:54pm

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 9:51pm

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 10:43pm

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.

SonOfPerdition · 06-10-2011 10:53pm

Paparazzo wrote: »

Even if it's safer I still wouldn't wear one.

Your comment reminds me of this for some reason.

MikeC101 · 06-10-2011 11:26pm

SonOfPerdition wrote: »

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?

I've had a good few sunny days I took off to head off somewhere this year, the most recent being last week. A high viz jacket would have f**ked up my (overly) expensive jackets venting nicely.

Again, I don't get the "ah sure it doesn't do you any harm" reasoning. If I'm going to be forced to wear something, at the very least I want proof it'll make a positive difference, not the idea that it at least doesn't make a negative one.

SonOfPerdition wrote: »

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

I genuinely don't think it is. Insurance companies use any available out to avoid paying in accident, you don't think neglecting to wear mandatory hi viz won't be one of them?

And on the second point, I don't know. I didn't wear my L hi viz when I was obliged to, after trying it a few times and experiencing what seemed to me to be a noticeable increase in tailgaters.

SonOfPerdition wrote: »

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.

The helmet thing varies - my personal opinion is that it was stated once (whether based on evidence or not), and more "safety minded" riders picked up on it, and it became a self fulfilling thing.

For the car thing: http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc263.pdf

Pink cars are safer...let's paint everyones car pink.

SonOfPerdition wrote: »

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.

Sure - but that's how I make my choices when it comes to riding a bike - I balance my perceived risk versus the reward.

SonOfPerdition wrote: »

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

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.

I do see the reasoning here, to an extent. But can you imagine the uproar if you tried something similar on car drivers? It's because bikers are a minority, have a bad public image, and are poorly organised in Ireland that will allow it to be enforced.

SonOfPerdition wrote: »

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

I'm not being smart here, it's not a straw man argument... I'm not trying to represent your argument as that, and then argue against it, I'm just pointing out that a proper study of the effectiveness of a high viz is going to be incredibly difficult to do. And as such, it simply won't be done.

SonOfPerdition wrote: »

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.

Or the state could just treat me like the adult I am, and allow me to make my own decisions, based on my personal appetite for risk.

SonOfPerdition wrote: »

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

I would consider it quite relevant, to me it sums up the attitude towards motorcyclists safety (which is what this is apparently all about). Something with the potential to decrease deaths by 20%, and the RSA response is to list it, then ignore it ( "The Motorcycle Safety Action Plan will support the enforcement of helmet wearing among all motorcyclists." - is this even an issue in Ireland?)

SonOfPerdition wrote: »

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

No worries - beware the age of the Hurt report (and that it's in the US - check out the stats regarding helmet wearing!).

MikeC101 · 06-10-2011 11:30pm

SonOfPerdition wrote: »

Your comment reminds me of this for some reason.

In fairness this isn't the same thing. Helmets have been pretty much conclusively proven to reduce fatalities and injuries. Hi viz might make it easier for drivers to see you, if they're looking, maybe, in certain lighting conditions. Depending on which study you believe.

Paparazzo's line of thinking is perfectly valid as far as I'm concerned. If we were concerned with being as safe as we could be, we wouldn't be riding motorcycles. (Of course we wouldn't leave the house either). Peoples risk appetites are different, that's it really.

Please Kill Me · 08-10-2011 9:11pm

Jesus H. Christ lads, I can't believe this horse**** is still dragging on!!! What do ye not get?? It's not about looking "cool" or not in front of mates, it's about freedom of choice. My jacket has built in armour in the shoulders/elbows/back. It has reflective piping. In the event of an accident, I have a certain amount of protection. If these ridiculous jackets are bought in, they have NO protection in them!! Why would I wear that instead of a jacket with protection?? Or even if we have to wear them OVER our own jackets, would that not make it too bulky/cumbersome to ride and use the controls properly??

My best mate had an "incident" in Lucan the other day while wearing a long sleeve hi-viz jacket AND wearing a white helmet, when some dozy bitch pulled out in front of him and said....you guessed it..."sorry, I didn't see you!" So there ya go, it won't make a blind bit of difference if f**k-wit drivers are too pre-occupied to see you anyway!

Bottom line, they can bring in the law all they want, I for one will NOT be wearing one!!

Paparazzo · 08-10-2011 11:58pm

Please Kill Me wrote: »

Bottom line, they can bring in the law all they want, I for one will NOT be wearing one!!

Agree with that!
Was talking to someone who did an accredited lessons. He said the guy doing the lessons warned against wearing an L plate on his back. Reason was, you get every driver trying to pass you making it dangerous.
I would love to see how many actual bikers are involved making these decisions.

Please Kill Me · 09-10-2011 11:21am

Paparazzo wrote: »

He said the guy doing the lessons warned against wearing an L plate on his back. Reason was, you get every driver trying to pass you making it dangerous.

Yep, I did the same when I was giving the missus riding lessons. It's like having an L-plate on her back was giving tossers a target to aim for. When she was out without the L-Tabard, there was no issues. Makes sense don't it?? :rolleyes:

Paparazzo wrote: »

I would love to see how many actual bikers are involved making these decisions.

You can bet your ass there's NONE!!

uncle betty · 15-10-2011 11:20pm

Please Kill Me wrote: »

Yep, I did the same when I was giving the missus riding lessons. It's like having an L-plate on her back was giving tossers a target to aim for. When she was out without the L-Tabard, there was no issues. Makes sense don't it?? :rolleyes:

You can bet your ass there's NONE!!

Not quite true, more's the pity. This guy Wim_van_de_Camp is a central player in all this.

It says it all of course that, as he put it...

first and foremost I am an MEP and that is my perspective

Quote above taken from righttoride

Del2005 · 16-10-2011 4:03am

The thing which I can't understand about this is that if it's supposed to make us more visible on the roads why aren't they trying to make the least visible road user wear them also.

Cyclists during the day aren't required to have lights and there's no requirement for pedestrians walking on unlit roads at night to be visible.

Why don't they make it law for cyclists to wear HiViz, they generally don't have DRLs? Since there are so many more cyclists then motorcyclists the results either way would be quicker.

bladespin · 16-10-2011 9:42am

I've never heard of any study that proved that Hi visibility gear reduces accidents, in my own experience it makes absolutely no difference at all, I've had many instances of 'pull outs' with and with out the gear (I wear it sporadically, also have what would be described as hi-vis leathers lol).

The thing that made my mind up was when I was in a car crash last year, a nice lady pulled out of a junction as I was passing through it, resulting in the write off of my beautiful (and very visible Alfa), I had headlights and fogs on at the time (no it wasn't foggy - I foolishly thought they would improve my visibility lol), fact was (as she admitted at the scene) she just didn't look, how can any kind of gear change this???
It may be beneficial on a building site etc where drivers are instructed and trained to look for them but on the road none.

I bear her no grudge, luckily no-one was hurt and have made the same mistake myself wihout suffering any consequence, what we do need to figure out how to chnage this kind of behaviour and put some thought into our driving (of any vehicle), but for some reason the powers that be seem very hesitant to make any real changes that affect car drivers, they had no problem rushing through a flawed basic training for motorcyclists, why can they not do the same for cars?
Though IMO a better idea would be a refresher course every few years for all.

daenerysstormborn3 · 16-10-2011 10:21am

bladespin wrote: »

I've never heard of any study that proved that Hi visibility gear reduces accidents, in my own experience it makes absolutely no difference at all, I've had many instances of 'pull outs' with and with out the gear (I wear it sporadically, also have what would be described as hi-vis leathers lol).

The thing that made my mind up was when I was in a car crash last year, a nice lady pulled out of a junction as I was passing through it, resulting in the write off of my beautiful (and very visible Alfa), I had headlights and fogs on at the time (no it wasn't foggy - I foolishly thought they would improve my visibility lol), fact was (as she admitted at the scene) she just didn't look, how can any kind of gear change this???
It may be beneficial on a building site etc where drivers are instructed and trained to look for them but on the road none.

I bear her no grudge, luckily no-one was hurt and have made the same mistake myself wihout suffering any consequence, what we do need to figure out how to chnage this kind of behaviour and put some thought into our driving (of any vehicle), but for some reason the powers that be seem very hesitant to make any real changes that affect car drivers, they had no problem rushing through a flawed basic training for motorcyclists, why can they not do the same for cars?
Though IMO a better idea would be a refresher course every few years for all.

How many posters on this thread have said "I was wearing hi viz and x/y/z still happened"? There's your study. It makes no difference.

Keith186 · 16-10-2011 3:40pm

The main problem is people don't pay attention and then cause silly avoidable accidents. If they looked in the first place they'd see you, hi-viz or no hi-viz.

I wont be wearing hi-viz gear because of of some silly law. I can't see too many Garda caring if I do or don't wear it. They've more important things to worry about than being the fashion police!!

seanybiker · 16-10-2011 6:03pm

Keith186 wrote: »

The main problem is people don't pay attention and then cause silly avoidable accidents. If they looked in the first place they'd see you, hi-viz or no hi-viz.

I wont be wearing hi-viz gear because of of some silly law. I can't see too many Garda caring if I do or don't wear it. They've more important things to worry about than being the fashion police!!

Was talking to aa cop about it and he said it'll be a law he won't be enforcing. Suppose what he says and what he does could be different.
See me man in the Sunday world today?
One pic the chap had boots, leather pants, leather jacket, gloves and helmet. The other pic was same fella with flip flops, shorts, hi-viz and helmet. First illegal and second pic legal. It's odd when you see it how pathetic this law is.

elaverty · 16-10-2011 9:01pm

They could get Specsavers to sponsor the HiViz Tops for all bikers,,and

when the non bikeing drivers still pullout into the path of the biker and knock them off,,they can get specsavers phone number of the Jacket and make a booking,,,,because half of roadusers are either blind or are driveing around in Cuckoo Land and just dont make themselfs be aware of Motorcyclists on the roads,,,,You hear time and time again after a accident that the culprit will say Sorry Mate,I just Didnt See You,,I dont beleive this to be true,How can they not see us for fcks sake,its either they have a sight problem or as stated earlier there is a big difference between the act of Looking and the act of Seeing,,,,some people just go through the motions of Looking,but dont actually see anything,,,

I do wear a hiviz bib wen on the bike,but im honestly not convinced of its Advantages,,i still get people pulling out in front of me,,,Take last week for example i was motoring down a clear straight stretch of road in a town,with a petrol station 200yrds further up on my Lefthand side,,i could see a car pulling out of the station geting ready to proceed into the lane,,I had my hiviz on and my headlight on,,,i made what i called eye contact with the driver (i could see that she was looking at me)after being happy that she could see me i open up the throttle again to proceed,,just as i did this she decides to pull out into the traffic,in my pathway..I had to hit the brakes and fortunatly avoided hiting her,,She stoped at a red light about 100yrds up the road,,,so i got of the bike and walked upto her drivers window and asked her in a nice polite tone,because i was genuinally interested to know what her take was on what just happened,,,,I said to her what were you At,,did you not see me or What,,,and her reply was yes she saw something,but she thought that i was a Truck in the distance,,
So it just reinforces my Bikeing Mantra to me,,which is RIDE LIKE YOU ARE INVISABLE,,,,

Paparazzo · 17-10-2011 10:13am

seanybiker wrote: »

Was talking to aa cop about it and he said it'll be a law he won't be enforcing. Suppose what he says and what he does could be different.
See me man in the Sunday world today?
One pic the chap had boots, leather pants, leather jacket, gloves and helmet. The other pic was same fella with flip flops, shorts, hi-viz and helmet. First illegal and second pic legal. It's odd when you see it how pathetic this law is.

That picture sums it up nicely!
My dad used to sell bikes, he said when someone bought a bike, it was normal for them to use their money left over to buy a jacket (as you'd expect). But he said loads of people would head down to champion sports to get an addidas or nike one and ignore the biker ones!

kevin-46 · 17-10-2011 2:13pm

if thats the case then people should have to wear them

uncle betty · 17-10-2011 3:58pm

kevin-46 wrote: »

if thats the case then people should have to wear them

If what's the case ?

kevin-46 · 17-10-2011 9:47pm

all bikers wearing hi vis

daenerysstormborn3 · 17-10-2011 9:49pm

kevin-46 wrote: »

all bikers wearing hi vis

You said if that's the case. If what's the case?

uncle betty · 17-10-2011 10:01pm

kevin-46 wrote: »

all bikers wearing hi vis

That isn't even a sentence, much less an answer.

Paparazzo · 17-10-2011 10:03pm

pixiebean22 wrote: »

You said if that's the case. If what's the case?

You're the case

bladespin · 18-10-2011 10:27pm

kevin-46 wrote: »

if thats the case then people should have to wear them

TBH a shell suit would provide as much protection as a high vis vest, possibly a little more.:rolleyes:

P.C. · 19-10-2011 7:45pm

kevin-46 wrote: »

if thats the case then people should have to wear them

Paparazzo wrote: »

You're the case

PLEASE TRY AND KEEP IT ON TOPIC.

Alkers · 21-10-2011 6:30pm

I didn't mean this to be in any way scientific but I made a quick video of how negligible the difference is when wearing a HiVis Vs when not wearing one while approaching a car that would potentially violate the bikers right of way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ODGEN-vG-g

Steffano2002 · 21-10-2011 10:01pm

Simona1986 wrote: »

I didn't mean this to be in any way scientific but I made a quick video of how negligible the difference is when wearing a HiVis Vs when not wearing one while approaching a car that would potentially violate the bikers right of way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ODGEN-vG-g

Jesus man! You have time on your hands! lol

Fair play to you in fairness! And as expected, the Hi-Viz vest doesn't make a bling bit of difference...

Please Kill Me · 24-10-2011 9:47am

Steffano2002 wrote: »

And as expected, the Hi-Viz vest doesn't make a bling bit of difference...

Hi-Vis will only make a difference if drivers are actually watching the road, and not texting/shaving/shouting at kids/doing make up etc. (delete as applicable)

Hi-Vis campaign

Comments