While I'm totally opposed to compulsory wearing of HiVis Vests, I will continue to voluntarily wear mine as I have, in one form or another, for forty odd years. Until all road users, be they 2,4 or 4plus wheelers, have 20/20 vision & they make the bitumen out of foam rubber, I will continue to wear a vest. It's fine for jonb & all the other parrot (as you call them) haters not to wear a vest & ridicule those who do, but until you are involved in a fatal you have no idea & should think more about staying alive & out of a wheel chair.
Ride as if they are all out to kill you because half the bastards are.

I don't think that wearing a vest will make them see you, they've got other things on there minds and just aren't paying attention. If they can't see a bike with it's headlights on what difference is a vest going to make..?
If I have noticed a car driver isn't looking my way, I give the bike a loud rev and that usually does the job, loud pipes save lives

email (option): horror@blueyonder.co.uk

They're never going to see you with a black-out mask, head light on or not.

oops, where did the blackout mask come from? I agree with Mr Horror I'm affraid. If they don't see me on my gsxr with headlights on, whats the use of a vest?

By the way, there are no blackout masks available for a gsxr1100.

cheers
ynse

Rollo, use the search box on this forum and key in "dazzle".

email (option): dannydefazio@sumpmagazine.com

I can see the logic of why they produce Hi Viz vests but about 10 years ago I left work on my 350 Trail Bike with lights on and wearing my Hi Viz Day glo Orange Royal Mail rain coat and was "T" Boned by a lad in a van. Lay in the road waiting for the Ambulance I politely asked him what the "F" is wrong with you and he said, "I didn`t see you mate" Ian.

email (option): ianhince@tiscali.co.uk

with a red supertrack jacket and a yellow vest on i think the dutch mp's view of me as a papagieen (the mp who i was quoting) is relative,i do look a bit like a tropical parakeet.

i wear a yellow vest, i ride every day, have seen and been involved in smashes over the years, seen a lot of bodies as well, the vest is just a nicety, they still dont see me, what keeps me alive isnt the vest but the use of the brain and eyes and thinking.

as it says in section two of the new drivers manual from the fifties:
treat everyone else on the road as if they are mentally deficient.

now i choose to wear a vest, that is a choice, however, being told i Have to wear one is a very different matter.

as for ridiculing people,im sure i could find more interesting words than parakeet in dutch, if i was going to ridicule someone.

Hi Rollo..I have only stated my personal view on this and at no point have I been critical of anyone who chooses to wear Hi Viz...However, I think it is a dangerous mistake to assume that Hi Viz neccessarily makes you any more visible or any safer. What actually prevents you getting into an accident in most situations is the way YOU drive...not the other person..Take a look on You Tube and find the (shocking) clip of the English Police Motorcyclist who was stationary, with Hi Viz clothing, Hi Viz on the bike and with blue lights flashing but who was struck and killed by an oncoming driver who 'didn't see' him in the middle of the road, directly in front of him..and in broad daylight....I don't wear the stuff on principle because I refuse to accept that I am not fully visible to anyone who is actually looking and rely on my own awareness to keep me out of trouble...which it has done for 42 years apart from minor accidents..I would ask you this...Do you have trouble seeing other motorcyclists on the road..with or without Hi Viz..or do you believe that a motorcycle and rider are in fact less visible than a 100 other similar sized objects that can be seen without difficulty?...Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Hi Rollo, I think most of us have been swiped off the bike by the guy who didn't see us or at least had near misses.My last one was last summer when the chap stopped then reversed into me,he hadn't seen me of course although i had been following him for at least two miles (with lights on) I don't think any amount of Hi - Viz etc. is going to stop that sort of idiot but i suppose anything that cuts down the odds of being hit cannot be a bad thing.It is my view though that it has to be personal choice as to if we wear it or not - we are all grown ups.What i am against is being told that i have to,as Basil Faulty would say "Thats how Nazi Germany started" Mick.

email (option): sally_jones@btinternet.com

To quote that horribly annoying Tesco's ad:

"EVERY LITTLE HELPS!"

'Nuff said.

Good grief. It's no wonder that politicians keep making all these stupid rules when even bikers totally misunderstand conspicuity.

It DOESN'T follow that being noticed means being SEEN. It's not the same thing. Very often, when drivers say "I didn't see you, mate," what they really mean is that they saw you PERFECTLY, but they failed to correctly interpret what they saw.

In other words, they saw "something", but didn't work out exactly what that something was, and what it was doing.

When high visibility paint was invented, everyone saw it. It was bright and fluorescent, and it was effectively a new colour. But now, high visibility is commonplace. It's on road signs, and traffic cones, and crossing attendants, and motorcycles, and cyclists, and construction workers.

It's also splashed on billboards and shop signs. Schoolkids wear it. Highway workers wear it. The list goes on.

But most of this high visibility stuff is STATIONARY, or moving very slowly. Once you stick that on a high speed motorcycle, or even a relatively low speed bike, things change dramatically.

No one expects a construction worker standing on the pavement to come hurtling at them at 30, 40, 50mph, or whatever. That means that a motorcyclist wearing high visibility gear might actually be DISARMED or DISADVANTAGED. A driver pulling out of a sidestreet might well see the high visibility vest, or whatever, but may fail to identify it as a biker. He might well FIXATE on it, then plot the object as stationary, and pull out.

Remember; he's making split second decisions. At 60mph you're moving at 88 feet per second. That's an amazingly short reaction time for thousands of drivers. Factor in a dirty windscreen, or a large "A" pillar, or a bit of street furniture, or a windscreen wiper, or a sneeze from the driver, or a SatNav on the screen, or just poor concentration, or drink, or drugs, or a mobile phone, and you can have a two second "lag". That means you can be noticed 166 feet away and still easily be hit.

All the high visibility stuff in the world won't help, and might hurt, if a driver can't quickly plot your speed and direction.

Get these facts clear in your head. Stationary high visibility is NOT the same as MOVING high visibility. That reflective vest can just as easily get you killed as keep you alive.

Ride defensively. Make yourself visible by "high profile" riding. Make eye contact. Signal. Allow extra time. Zig-zag into a driver's line of vision where appropriate. Time your manoeurvres carefully. Honk. Rev your engine. Hang back. Pass extra wide. But NEVER, NEVER, NEVER assume that high visibility will get you seen. It might merely get you noticed, and that's not the same thing.

"Every little helps" is NOT true. It can also get you soundly killed.

email (option): dannydefazio@sumpmagazine.com

So just explain again,a biker riding ultra defensively in camo is safer than the same rider in dayglo ?

Hello Pat. Yes, sometimes that might well be true. It depends on the background conditions.

If you're riding through a forest wearing camo, you probably will be less easily noticed. But riding down a busy and colourful high street in Dayglo isn't necessarily going to get you noticed or "seen" either.

If you were a military planner, you wouldn't have your troops wearing the same camo gear in all theatres of war. You'd dress them for desert fighting, or snow fighting, or night fighting, etc. You look at local conditions and how those conditions might change as the battle moves.

The underlying point is that there isn't a quick fix. Everything affects everything else. Daylgo can work like camo. It's a disruptive pattern. It can break up the silhouette of a motorcyclist. The colour can, in fact, be so "powerful" that the eye sees the Dayglo, but ignores the shape around it (in this instance a rider).

Worse still, the rider often continues riding blithely along figuring that he can easily be seen and tends to ride that bit less defensively. That's basic risk compensation.

Even daytime lights can, in some extreme situation, make you LESS visible. During WW2, they used to fix brilliant lights on the leading edge of aircraft wings. That made the aircraft harder to spot by U-Boats who normally could easily see a 100% black aircraft against a bright sky, and then dive to safety. However, once the spotlights were installed, the aircraft had a much greater chance of pouncing on a U-Boat and dropping some depth charges. Radar killed off that idea.

Meanwhile, a rider coming down a hill with a bright sky behind and a headlight shining is, in some instances, less visible that a plainly silhouetted biker.

The bottom line? Let riders choose the best gear that suits their local conditions, riding style, etc. Let riders decide on daytime headlight usage. Arguably, if you really wanted to make motorcycles safer, you've have to develop a Dayglo colour unique to bikers. Say, a blue colour. That would help distinguish a (rapidly) moving object from a (relatively) static one.

In short, "simple" solutions don't solve complex situations.

email (option): dannydefazio@sumpmagazine.com

I forgot to mention I first joined MAG in 1981 and do get most of the arguments about bike safety.The big problem is other road users.I wear hi vis as most of my riding is on single track lanes at slow (M21)speeds.I would recomend "Human Aspects of Police Driving" Gordon Sharp 1997 to anyone interested in the cognitive aspects of driving. This book covers many of the issues raised in this discussion
Cheers Pat

The same observations have been made regarding daytime lights...The driver sees the headlight and nothing else (fixation)..As the light 'in isolation' is small, the relative increase in size as it approaches is also small...leading the driver to misinterpret the approach speed. He has seen you alright..or at least your headlight..but then makes the fatal (for you) error of judgement that tells him he has time to pull out and be away before you arrive...oops!...As Danny says it's not a simple subject...a distance and speed sensor in the wings of the car with an 'in cabin' warning klaxon is probably the answer.. ....Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

i find the why me type of riding/driving works well its why do i have to give way to some other driver why do i have to slow down and let the lorry/car behind who is follwing me to close go by one police cheif said if you treat every driver on the road as an idiot you can not go to wrong i drive a land rover which is not that fast for todays traffic

Another major area being overlooked in road safety at the moment is A-pillars on cars (the pillars on either side of the windscreen).

I hired a hopeless Vauxhall Zafira recently and had a hell of a time "seeing round roundabouts" or diagonally across junctions. I've noticed that with a lot of other vehicles too. Huge A-pillars, often coupled with oversized door mirrors (plus SatNavs and phones and parking permits, etc). Some cars have double (or split) A-pillars.

It's crazy. These vehicles are seriously dangerous to other road users, but nothing is being done. I'm thinking of mailshotting every MP in the Commons.

Old American cars had dogleg windscreen pillars (look at the Tri-Chevys or 50s Cadillacs) With these vehicles, visibility was far superior. Modern cars often have more glass, but visibility is way down on what it used to be. Tell that to your MP sometime.

email (option): dannydefazio@sumpmagazine.com

Hi Danny, Ironically, you can thank laws to protect the driver for those huge door pillars...Regulations detailing the crash and crush resistance of car body shells resulted directly in more heavily constructed pillars for increased strength..and that is why nothing has been done about it. A classic example of unintended consequences...Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

True, Danny, the huge "A" posts were designed as a safety measure to make sure the roof retains it height when driving upside down!, However, in itself it created a new hazard, so was this really a "safety feature" of a new car?

email (option): davmax@ntlworld.com

Hi Dave..That depends entirely on whether you are inside or outside!.. .unless you fail to spot an Artic....Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

You're absolutely right on the 'A' posts Danny. I sometimes have to drive a Transit Connect at work and it's bloody scary what can disappear into that unseen space. As a motorcyclist, I work round it, but it's not easy and I'm sure that my more couldn't-care-less colleagues don't make any special effort.

The aspect of target fixation can be simply proven, such as in the case of dug latrines, Scouts or troops for the use of. Throw a white stone in and even the most habitual foot-pisser will aim straight.

Hi Ian/Dave. Yes, I'm aware of the regulations regarding stronger A-pillars. And basically, I'm in agreement. Cars that overturn shouldn't collapse on their drivers and passengers.

But not all A-pillars are the same. Some vehicles manage with relatively small A-pillars (VW Polo, plenty of BMWS, etc). But others have let the designers run riot and have put form way above function - and part of the (implied) function is that the vehicles are safe for the user, and for other road users.

MAG and the BMF needs to run an A-pillar campaign. Bikers need to be made more aware of the dangers and understand just how poor visibility is in many modern vehicles.

P.S Better get off this thread now because even I'm starting to fall asleep.

email (option): dannydefazio@sumpmagazine.com

'I can't see properly out of this car because that bit of the body is in my way..but I can't be assed to move..I'll just pull out anyway'..said Mr. Lemming in an uninterested voice..Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

When I was driving home yesterday in my dog-slow old diesel car with the headlamps on, some twat in a quilted jacket on a modern scooter with an oversized top box pulled out in front of me from a filling station. He looked me in the eye, waited till I was twenty yards away and then gave it a big handful of twist & go.

He can't blame the 'A' post. He was lucky that he pulled out in front of a motorcyclist who looks for the gap rather than a car driver who brakes in a straight line until the point of impact.

He knew he was completely safe because all his friends in France have been exempted fron Hi Viz regulations and are therefore not in any danger..Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Hi all
I am sure i have read somewhere of late that vehicle recovery firms are wanting to change to red flashing beacons on their vehicles as every man and his dog has amber and nobody is taking any notice any more .
There is a saying familiarity breeds contempt which is true of headlamps once you thought volvo now you dont take notice.
when i started riding a motorbike my dad said be careful they are all trying to kill you and he himself had been a motorcyclist and he didnt really want me to have one.
I dont know the answer but i dont think its hi/viz as head on how much of it would you really see
yours Charlie

I think compulsory HI Viz ground to ground missiles on motorcycles is the answer..or maybe just compulsory motorcycles..they don't seem to crash into each other very often even though they are invisible...Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Talking of target fixation. I had a case of that a few years ago. I was on a roundabout with my son on the pillion, when a woman pulled out across my path (I had signalled to pull off into the petrol garage) and I hooted her. She stared directly at me and maintained eye contact while still pulling across my path. Fortunately I was able to abort the turn and contine around the roundabout and avoid a collision. Even though we had eye contact for what seemed ages, I'm sure she would have used SMIDSY..... "Sorry Mate I Didn't See You". No amount of dayglo would have made any difference.

email (option): stinkypete80@hotmail.com

I think it was because they didn't like you.....

Seriusly, I think a pound of semtex and a contact det behind the headlamp would make the myopic twats suddenly notice you....

email (option): stinkypete80@hotmail.com

Could the issue be that because cars are so safe today that drivers tend to take a more relaxed attitude to road safety? All the skill has been taken out of driving with cars that brake for you, (if your ABS won't let you skid, you never get to know how dangerous it can be) park for you, switch your lights on for you, switch the wipers on for you, but then fill them with alternative distractions such as ipod connectivity, sat navs with lots of buttons to push to find the nearest petrol station, cafe, bluetooth, even google! I think all these detatch the driver from his/her responsibilities, at least on a bike you can only really focus on the riding so you tend to concentrate more, when was the last time you felt so sleepy on a bike that you nodded off for a few seconds? By the very nature of motorcycling in that it isn't really comfortable getting wet/cold/buffetted from the wind so you tend to stop for a break more even if it's for petrol or a cigarette so you never really get into a none concentrating mode

email (option): davmax@ntlworld.com

i noticed on a car with these braking sensors on the front there are no sensors in the middle of the front bumper because of the number plate and the front parking sensors will not detect you tow ball for the same reason was bumped by a benz in a carpark

Well gents, didn't that just stir the possum (& a few galahs as well) Thank goodness the forum is alive & well.