reposted from: http://youtu.be/mAnKvo-fPs0
Video with Prof. Susan Greenfield.
BeSeenOnABike & BeSeenPromtions blog brings news about bicycle safety, promoting your organisation and making roads safer.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Revved-up reaction to hi-vis for bikers
This follows on BSOAB earlier post. http://beseenonabike.blogspot.com/2011/07/road-safety-gb-reader-comments-to.html
12 Road Safety GB readers have commented on this story (at 22/7/11)
A recent news story in which a Road Safety GB motorcycling expert warned against hi-vis jackets becoming compulsory for motorcyclists in the UK attracted a record number of comments from readers.
Dave Glanville, West Yorkshire’s specialist PTW RSO, made his comments in response to a move by the French government to make hi-vis jackets compulsory for motorcyclists. He cautioned against this in the UK, preferring a ‘common sense approach’. He argued that hi-vis clothing will not improve conspicuity on bright days, but stressed that wearing it is always advised in poor light.
Road Safety UK Reader Comments (edited by BSOAB)
newer comments are above older comments
The study carried out in New Zealand and referred to above by Bob Craven was reported in the BMJ in 2004 and seriously flawed.
The study tried to draw a link between conspicuity aids and injury risk. Whilst the conclusion the author drew was that riders wearing hi-vis and using DRLs were less at risk of accidents resulting in injury, the results actually showed that those having the accidents and suffering injury were unlicenced, disqualified, riding under the influence of alcohol, inexperienced, or riding an unfamiliar machine. All of these are known to be high risk factors.
There were also unresolved contradictions. Whilst the author claimed that white helmets were effective in reducing accident risk, it was also found that a white fairing (far bigger surface area!) was NOT effective.
The Langham study was far more relevant to understanding why motorcycles are 'invisible' as it addresses why the shape of a motorcycle/rider isn't picked up by car drivers when it should be in clear view. It should be obvious that there's only a small zone in which the rider is actually at risk of being hit by an emerging car - very close and the rider can pass the junction before the car can emerge into its path, and further back the rider can stop.
In urban accidents where the majority of SMIDSYs take place, the distance where the rider cannot avoid the collision is a matter of ten metres or less!
It should be pretty obvious that at this kind of distance the bike and rider are almost certainly in plain view if the rider has adopted a basic "see and be seen" strategy and put himself where he is in line of sight.
So why isn't a rider 10m from the driver seen? There's some research (it was reported in MCN around 10 years ago - I can't find the link right now) to the effect that we don't actually look for vehicles when looking to emerge into a stream of traffic - we learn by experience to look for gaps we can pull out into!
In other words, drivers and riders both fail to implement a proper 'scanning' regime at junctions and because of the nature of their inadequate search pattern, they tend to look BEHIND vehicles that are close up, whilst relying on a combination of the eye's sensitivity to movement to detect a hazard and on the 'shape detection' system that Langham recognises to identify the hazard.
As a motorcycle on a collision course barely moves against the background, the 'motion detection' system fails and the lack of recognition of bikes by car drivers means out of sight, out of mind and if the rider is equally unaware of the issues, the result is often a "looked but did not see" accident, in which hi-vis and DRLs are equally ineffective -
If hi-vis and DRLs worked, there should be a redistribution of accidents away from junctions since riders first started using DRLs in the mid to late 70s and hi-vis in the 80s. The fall in junction accidents should have become more pronounced since permanently wired headlights were introduced in the last few years. As far as I can see, there's no such evidence shown by accident statistics.
Kevin Williams / www.survivalskills.co.uk
Kevin Williams, Kent
Quite right Roy, hi viz is not the be all and end all. Conspicuity is only part of the problem and it's obvious that a bus, lorry or car will be more easily seen and recognised than say a scooter in a town situation and therefore will be avoided, whereas the scooter may be overlooked. Some argue that it is seen as a bicycle and not considered to be going fast or a danger. There is also the argument that drivers do not expect to see a bike as there are so few of them and therefore they are not expected and so the image do not register in the optical cortex. So much for smidgy.
I agree that as more and more twv appear on the roads either more will be injured or the rest of the motoring public will become more aware and therefore will be more accomodating.
On a personal note I will repeat that whilst riding, some 30% of drivers at junctions, I am approaching, look to the left first before looking in my direction and sometimes they are already moving out into my path or they dont bother looking my way at all. Frequently when I see a driver looking away from me, I sound my horn as an audible warning but the bike horn is a weak one and sometimes is not heard and it has no effect. I am forced to travel even slower which I dont mind as its safer to do so. But it is disconcerting.
I agree that as more and more twv appear on the roads either more will be injured or the rest of the motoring public will become more aware and therefore will be more accomodating.
On a personal note I will repeat that whilst riding, some 30% of drivers at junctions, I am approaching, look to the left first before looking in my direction and sometimes they are already moving out into my path or they dont bother looking my way at all. Frequently when I see a driver looking away from me, I sound my horn as an audible warning but the bike horn is a weak one and sometimes is not heard and it has no effect. I am forced to travel even slower which I dont mind as its safer to do so. But it is disconcerting.
Research into this topic was carried out in the late 1990s by Dr Martin Langham of Sussex University. Martin demonstrated that motorists are psychologically programmed to look for what he called geometric icons. A car is a horizontal rectangular icon and seen frequently; a motorcycle is a vertical rectangular icon and seen very infrequently, hence drivers appear to be speaking the truth when they say they did not see the motorcycle. This is conveniently linked to interesting historical data. In 1923 the number of vehicles on the road exceeded 1 million for the first time. 40% were motorcycles. In 2011 there are 34 million cars on the road. Motorcycles are only 1-2% of all vehicles hence drivers do not "think bike". Dr Langham's theory proposed that it is not it is not simply a question of conspicuity and supported this with evidence of stationary police vehicles being written off after being struck by other cars whose drivers claimed not to have seen the police car. A survey carried out with the co-operation of Sussex Police showed that, of the 40 police motorcyclists based at their Brighton Traffic Unit, 39 had been hit by cars at junctions, again with drivers claiming they never saw the rider. Need I ask, how hi-viz is a police motorcyclist?
It seems to me that the answer lies in education, both for the driver and rider. I am not sure how this can be progressed effectively because drivers tend to be inaccessible but I never cease to advise fellow motorcyclists to assume drivers have not seen you and allow the maximum margin for error. At junctions, slow down, move away from the danger and expect the driver to cross your path so be prepared to brake. Very defensive, yes, but, after 48 years of motorcycling, I am still here.
Roy Buchanan, Epsom
It seems to me that the answer lies in education, both for the driver and rider. I am not sure how this can be progressed effectively because drivers tend to be inaccessible but I never cease to advise fellow motorcyclists to assume drivers have not seen you and allow the maximum margin for error. At junctions, slow down, move away from the danger and expect the driver to cross your path so be prepared to brake. Very defensive, yes, but, after 48 years of motorcycling, I am still here.
Roy Buchanan, Epsom
I think the study Bob refers to concluded that wearing reflective/fluorescent clothing reduced the risk of a crash injury by 37%, a white helmet by 24%, and riding with headlights on by 27%. Obviously you would need to check the methodology before basing any action on it. Lots of motorcycle safety research is summarised on www.esum.org.
Mark Jessop, East Yorkshire
Mark Jessop, East Yorkshire
I use to driver a lorry which is 13'6" high & 8' wide & bright yellow cars would pull out in front of that making brake hard. It's the car drivers that are the problem lack of concentration maybe less toys & no phones at all hands free or not may help? You could make day running lights compulsory.
Steven Bradbury, (was Devon now Finland)
Steven Bradbury, (was Devon now Finland)
Do you mean research by the same industries that stand to make a profit from 'Hi-vis' sales, Honor?
Bob, do you know if the NZ survey took into account such factors as the experience/riding style/journey type of those who tend to wear HV or not? Otherwise it's a bit like telling us that all accidents can be attributed to rider conspicuity, without considering all the other facts.
Anecdotal evidence from many sources - including my own experience - suggests that wearing fluorescents in good visibility results in a much higher level of driver rights of way violations.
Phil McFadden, Pembrokeshire
Bob, do you know if the NZ survey took into account such factors as the experience/riding style/journey type of those who tend to wear HV or not? Otherwise it's a bit like telling us that all accidents can be attributed to rider conspicuity, without considering all the other facts.
Anecdotal evidence from many sources - including my own experience - suggests that wearing fluorescents in good visibility results in a much higher level of driver rights of way violations.
Phil McFadden, Pembrokeshire
Conspicuity is not a new thing. They were talking about the same as us in the 1970s and probably before that.
So its an age old problem that has been with us for at least 40 yrs. Shame someone hasn't sorted it by now.
As regards the question of a survey..... only one to my knowledge has been done and that was in 2009/10 in New Zealand of all places [obviously got the same problems with motorcyclists there]. Anyway, I don't think it hit the relevant authorities here as it was undertaken through their NHS [or similar] and appeared, wait for it, in our medical journal the BMJ in April 2010.
It did come out in favour of high vis and also white helmets. I believe that this is the only record of a survey done on conspicuity.
Bob Craven, Lancs
So its an age old problem that has been with us for at least 40 yrs. Shame someone hasn't sorted it by now.
As regards the question of a survey..... only one to my knowledge has been done and that was in 2009/10 in New Zealand of all places [obviously got the same problems with motorcyclists there]. Anyway, I don't think it hit the relevant authorities here as it was undertaken through their NHS [or similar] and appeared, wait for it, in our medical journal the BMJ in April 2010.
It did come out in favour of high vis and also white helmets. I believe that this is the only record of a survey done on conspicuity.
Bob Craven, Lancs
There is an obvious need for a research study to demonstrate whether hi-viz for bikers, cyclists and equestrians is effective and, if so, what style or pattern and which items work best. One for the industries to take up please?
Honor Byford, North Yorkshire
Honor Byford, North Yorkshire
Road Safety GB reader comments to 'Compulsory hi-vis gear gets thumbs down from UK bikers'
34 roadsafetygb readers have commented on this story (at 22/7/11)
.gif)
Following the news that compulsory hi-vis jackets for motorcyclists are among a raft of new traffic laws to be introduced in France, a Road Safety GB motorcycling expert has warned against similar measures being adopted in the UK.
“But that does not mean we should surrender our enjoyment of life or personal liberty simply to satisfy a set of theories about road safety, or because it suits political ambitions, or because those entrusted with a position of authority have since forgotten why they were first entrusted.”
Speaking on behalf of Road Safety GB, Dave Glanville, West Yorkshire’s specialist PTW RSO (Powered Two Wheelers Road Safety Officer), said: “Compulsory hi-vis clothing for any road user group is not ideal and not something we would want to see in this country. What is needed is a common sense approach on an individual basis by road users themselves and a commitment from all road users to pay full and proper attention to the road environment.
“Good conspicuity is not just about what a rider wears or whether they have lights on the bike, but also about good road positioning, speed and direction – as well as considering the blind spots and vision limitations of other drivers and vehicles around them.
“Hi-vis clothing is unlikely to improve conspicuity on bright sunny days when visibility is good and it may even lull people into a false sense of security. However, we would always advise people to wear it in poor weather or low light conditions, when some drivers may struggle to see and identify a motorcycle and rider or indeed a cyclists or pedestrian.”
For more information contact Dave Glanville on 0113 2475804.
Edited summary of Road Safety GB reader comments to(original story)
Following the news that compulsory hi-vis jackets for motorcyclists are among a raft of new traffic laws to be introduced in France, a Road Safety GB motorcycling expert has warned against similar measures being adopted in the UK.
The reason that cyclists/motorcyclists should wear fluorescent yellow gear during the day is that drivers can be 'blind' to them. Drivers may be looking but sometimes they just don't see cyclists!
Drivers often day-dream and don't give their full attention to road users. This is known as 'inattentional blindness' (wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness
Inattentional Blindness means that we may not see something at all unless we are paying attention to it. See the playing basketball video: http://www.beseenonabike.co.uk/acatalog/Survival_of_the_Brightest.html on the 'Be Seen On A Bike' website.
Chris Street, Ringwood, Hampshire
unless there is legislation to say so then many motorcyclists will not wear High Vis.
Bob Craven
Sometimes I wear urban dayglo - commuting or motorway. That is my choice and my choice is also that it is pink and not the cloned yellow we see all the time.
If everyone wears the same then individuals don't stand out and disappear. One only has to look at the Dutch video produced when the 'daytime headlights' first reared its ugly head. There we see proof that a bike with lights on if all other traffic has lights on just disappears.
I wonder at the IQ of the people who make these suggestions and try to impose them without proof. Education and proof is what is required and not imposing ill conceived and unwarranted ideas by powers that be just to make themselves feel good.
Anne Gale, South Glos
From UK France Bikers.com – halfway down the page (hidden amongst the other articles) in English.
UPDATE – 21 June 2011:
"Further to the bikers’ demonstrations that took place last Saturday throughout France and paralysed the entire nation (read below), Michèle Merli, in charge of France’s road safety and working closely with Claude Guéant – current French interior minister, has made herself heard on national radio. According to Ms Merli, it would appear that the bikers have totally misunderstood the proposed obligation for all to wear a fluorescent high visibility yellow vest! Ms Merli has said that it has never been a question of wearing that vest but rather propose (not impose?!) to the bikers that they wear a little yellow strap around their arm so that they can be better seen by motorists (...)".
Whether anybody agree that a yellow arm band will make the slightest difference is besides the point. What is the point is that this whole eruption of "compulsory Hi Viz jackets" has been blown out of proportion and is just scaremongering. As per Ms Merli's comments, it was a proposal to wear an arm band - not compulsion to wear a jacket. Equally, articles about the Irish having compulsory day glo/Hi Viz is not true – it was a proposal in a consulation, that has gone nowhere, possibly because the Irish government is bankrupt and road safety is no longer high on the agenda of things to do.
What an incredible waste of time and energy!
Elaine Hardy, Northern Ireland
I have two main concerns about hi-vis jackets:
1.It gives the rider a false sense of security.
2.If everyone ends up wearing them people will just ignore them. So those who are doing dangerous tasks will be ignored, thus undermining the point of wearing hi-vis in the first place.
Alan Jones, Wiltshire
I have worn Hi-Viz (Sam-Brown and vests), but it still didn't stop a myopic car driver pulling out on me and colliding with me resulting in a broken shoulder blade.
The problem is not one of being visible to other road users, but one of other road users actually looking!
There should be compulsory eye sight tests every three years, and any 'sorry I didn't see you' be made an automatic admission of guilt!
George Legg, North Somerset
In response to David Short's comments regarding Hi Viz jackets. I recall when Mr Short was the Campaigns Manager for MAG UK and proposed to have the employees of MAG wearing Hi Viz jackets.
At that time, Mr Short argued that the wearing of Hi Viz jackets was necessary for insurance purposes and to protect MAG from any claims by its employees. Two employees opposed this proposal, for the following reasons, 1) there was no onus on the MAG staff to wear Hi Viz for insurance purposes; 2) the view that the wearing of Hi Viz was and should remain a personal choice. 3) there was no empirical evidence - one way or the other - that Hi Viz would actually make the slightest difference in the avoidance of a "SMIDSY".
What he and indeed many supporters of "Conspicuity at all costs" fail to consider is that ultimately, the responsibility of good riding requires skill, concentration, attention and a strong sense of ones own mortality.
I am surprised that Mr Short, once Campaigns Manager for MAG UK should write that "I always wear HI Viz and always have headlights on, (something else that MAG campaigned against)" considering he signed up to MAG's philosophy when he took employment with this organisation.
Elaine Hardy, Northern Ireland
I suppose it depends on whether we want to deal with the major route cause - road users not paying proper attention - which will be of benefit to all road user groups or whether we want to further alienate a group of road users who are already difficult to engage with and distrustful of the road safety 'industry'.
Personally I'd rather see promotion of appropriate hi-viz use in conjunction with the teaching and encouragement of behaviours (as mentioned by Ian) which also increase conspicuity. Research may well show that hi-viz allows the wearer to be seen from further away (it would be hard to imagine that it wouldn't) but it still relies on the person looking in the first place.
If you don't look for something, you don't see it.
Honor, I believe Gaultier is working with Dayglo at the moment, perhaps he'll be in touch next week...
Dave, Leeds
Kevin, Wigan. I neither wear hi-viz nor ride with my headlights on in daylight and very rarely do drivers pull out in front of me. What could you think that is due to?
I would suggest that you have to help 'drivers look properly'. What I do (and had been doing for some time before I even knew it was a 'theory') is a little wiggle on approach (when they are looking in your direction, obviously) as this movement attracts attention even if the driver is not looking, they see the movement.
(Check out Z-line, looming response and change blindness if you want to know more).
Ian, Taunton
Yes indeed Honor, those involved in the promotion of hi-viz in all sorts of working environments might well be mistaken. All I'm asking is for some evidence that they are not.
Clearly you have no more information on whether 'being seen' reduces the numbers of incidents any more than I. The paper you linked to is of interest, but I wonder why they avoid measuring how much someone dressed in black is 'conspicuous' in their experiment?
My concern is that unqualified people are making/promoting/advocating the use of hi-viz without ANY evidence that it reduces incidents. And this is not just wrong, it is unprofessional.
Ian, Taunton
I spent 22yrs of the 32 I served as a Police motorcyclist and 15yrs of that training riders at the most advanced levels. I cannot remember how many RTC's involving motorcyclists, sometimes fatal I attended. Conspicuity is a huge factor in motorcyclists safety, move on. I would not leave home without wearing a hi viz on my bike.
Brian Westlake-Toms, South Wales
I haven't yet found any information about anyone studying the effectiveness of hi-viz wear in use by motorcyclists. There is an American study that compared the effectiveness of hi-viz wear used in spring and autumn in a rural area, used by pedestrians - seeking to see if orange or green-yellow was more effective - and also found that long sleeved jackets were more effective than sleeveless waistcoats. This study is "Seasonal variations in conspicuity of hi visibility garments" MARY LYNN BUONAROSA and JAMES R. SAYER, University of Michigan, Nov 2007.
Clever colleagues are trying to get a copy of the Cranfield study into the effectiveness of hi viz worn by horse riders. I will post this if/when it is located. However, hi viz clothing for road workers, in industry, on the railways and in most other industrial, construction and highway settings rather suggests that an awful lot of people do think it works in those environments. They may all be wrong.
Personally and unscientifically, as a car driver, I have frequently found that I have seen a motorcyclist or cyclist or horse rider who is wearing a reasonable area of hi viz material more easily and, I believe, sooner, than I would have done without the hi viz. This is true both in rural and urban areas by day or by night.
Personally, I use it and I think it helps. No cure-all, but it helps. That'll do for me.
And still no call from Chanel - do they not read this website?
Honor Byford, North Yorkshire
Would someone please point me to where there is some empirical EVIDENCE that wearing hi-viz is a benefit?
Clearly those arguing in favour of its use (be it voluntary or compulsory) will be able to do so, as they are not basing their arguments on nothing other than subjective personal opinion are they?
Thanks!
Ian, Taunton
While it is sensible for high any valuable road user to take such precautions, I don’t think it should be mandatory.
You could take this kind of safety logic to its extreme, and suggest that the reason for higher KSI rates for motorcycles is because they are exposed (compared to say car divers who are enclosed within their vehicle) and therefore argue that motorcycles should be banned because of this risk?
As suggested – should all vehicles be painted day-glow colours?
Should all pedestrians have to be kitted out in HiVis (or helmets)?
The benefits of HiVis should be promoted though education, not enforcement.
Adam, Hants
I have ridden motorcycles of all sizes and types on the road for 38 years now and regularly commute 55 miles each way in all weathers to and from work. There is no doubt that the more conspicuous you are the less chance there is of being knocked off. I always wear HI Viz and always have headlights on, (something else that MAG campaigned against). Yes, not everyone will see you but most will. As a car driver, as many motorcyclists are and therefore much more 'bike aware' there are still those "Where the chuff did he come from", moments by bikers travelling too fast without being conspicuous. The good news is that more real world bikers are waking up and smelling the coffee and every day on my travels I see more bikers wearing Hi vis. At my annual pilgrimage to the TT races, (37years) riders are wearing hi viz. Its simply common sense. More and more clothing manufacturers are producing good quality non nerdy Hi viz clothing, Dianese are even producing leather suits with air bags incorporated. Excellent I say, costs will come down over time and make them more affordable for every day riders.
The tragic fact is that however self righteous and morally correct a biker may be one will always come off a poor second best in a road collision. With a casualty rate that far outstrips any other road user group it is inevitable that society will look at means of reducing the unacceptable level of PTW casualties.
Motorcycle interest groups, instead of railing against everything that has the noble cause of casualty reduction at its heart should work positively with everyone. Hard wired lights, ABS, 100bhp limits are all issues that have been 'protested about' with the result that the organisations lack credibility at the negotiating table.
The world fortunately is moving on and in the real world of motorcycling riders are making choices, more are riding in Hi viz. As the older vehicle fleet reduces newer bikes are all hard wired and ABS is percolating its way to smaller capacity machines and not just the domain of the top end market.
Should Hi vis be compulsory? Not yet but more proactive campaigns to promote their use and the clear benefits would be good. Voluntary compliance is always better than compulsion. But! If casualty rates do not reduce then one can hardly expect society to sit back and accept the current state of affairs.
David Short, Calderdale Road Safety Team
If a driver uses SMIDSY as an excuse or explanation for hitting and injuring or killing a motorcyclist (or anyone else on the road for that matter) the decision to prosecute and on what charges is a matter for the CPS in conjunction with the police. The driver doesn't get to choose to let him or her self off just by claiming SMIDSY. However, that doesn't absolve any road user, especially vulnerable road users such as cyclists, bikers or horse riders (include myself in the last group) from taking sensible and reasonable precautions for their own safety, including making themselves visible to other road users. It isn't an "either-or" matter it's a question of being sensible and reasonable and taking some responsibility for yourself as well as expecting that others will look out for you.
My offer to Chanel still stands but they haven't rung me yet.
Honor Byford, North Yorkshire
It stuns me, given all the work done to reduce death and serious injury on our roads in the past few decades, that a driver can still kill a vulnerable road user, say 'I didn't see them' and face no further consequence. Other than perhaps living with themselves afterwards.
Failure to look properly has been the major contributary factor in collisions for years and yet 'I didn't see them' is still a useable defence to a prosecution for death by careless or dangerous driving? What message does that send out?
Should the onus be on vulnerable road users to be seen or less vulenerable road users to actually look and pay attention to the road environment?
Making people wear hi-viz is only a sticking plaster, we need to deal with the cause first.
Dave, Leeds
Whilst I cannot argue against a person's right to live their life as they want to, within the rules of society, it never fails to amaze me at how vociferously people will defend their right to ignore safety aids. Lycra wearing champions of pedal power demand the right to expose their cranium to contact with the tarmac instead of wearing wimpy crash helmets, (which apparently reduce impact speed by 11 mph so I understand) so I cannot expect motorcyclists to be any different.
Last week someone did mention to me that some schools in my area refuse to use reflective tabards on their pupils as it "May confuse a driver"
Personally, I believe people need legislation for their own benefit, (Seat Belts, Compulsory Crash Helmets, Alcohol Limits for Drivers) and the KSI figures for the country as a whole bear this out.
Still, I have never felt the urge to throw myself screaming from the top of a tower, attached to 30 metres of knicker elastic, but it is my right to do so.
Enough rambling. If it saves lives, do it, and to hell with how you look.
Steve Barber, Northampton
A continuity of 'passing the buck'.
"Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You" (SMIDSY).
And so the more vulnerable are made to further suffer ignomy and discrimination. Is it any wonder they protest? Whenever visibility is an issue, it becomes the minority group that is made to comply with some form of legislation aimed at 'Safety'. Yet it is the largest and more powerful vehicles in terms of mass and inertia that are seemingly exempt from such discrimination.
As has been stated by others, no matter the size, brilliance, or even loudness of the vehicle, many will not see, as they do not look. They do not hear as they do not listen or have deafening sound systems preventing them. They do not have a responsible attitude towards other road users. Such desires to make all "Be Seen" is but a buck passing exercise in blame transference. "You weren't wearing a Hi-viz . . . You didn't have your headlight on, etc. If all vehicles were painted in orange day-glo, had lights on all day, the same complacency of those who wish to drive and ride 'casually' with regard to others safety, then accidents will continue, until we all park up and die.
Legislate and be damned. It might make a difference, and so no-one could say we didn't try.
It might also be said: 'They have no understanding.'
Derek Reynolds, St Albans
The Highway Code is consistent in its advice that vulnerable road users (Pedestrians, Cyclists, Motorcyclists and Horseriders)should wear light coloured clothing in daylight and reflective clothing/accessories at night.
It would be interesting if Honor shared the research on Horseriders with us.
John Doyle
As regard conspicuity there is a paper or several out about trials that took place in some antipadian island and it found in favour of the use of high vis and also white helmets. It gave some stats on the subject and I believe that France could possibly be using these as support for their decision.
Hi viz may make you more visible in the depths of winter, but after witnessing cars pull out on full size fire engines with lights and sirrens on, a bright vest isnt going to help, if some one can't be bothered to look it doesn't matter what you are wearing. Just ride defensively and concentrate.
Mark, Leicester
I use class 3 HiViz and also ride with my headlight on all year round. No-matter what we wear, it doesn't stop drivers pulling out in front of us. Drivers need to look properly before pulling out of a junction or changing lanes.
Kevin, Wigan
Well, hey why stop at motorcyclists, let's paint all cars, vans n lorry's in Dayglo to. Hey make it law too. All pedestrians should also wear a high vis bib in case they want to cross the road at a non designated crossing, what works for one works for another ........Kevin, Wigan
Mark, Wolverhampton
There are already online campaigns around the issue such as MAG's 'Say no to day-glo'. They're one of the UK's largest motorcycle user groups representing over 10,000 riders... and UK riders are joining the demonstrations in France. The media forms part of the backlash, MCN reaches over 50 000 riders - you only have to look at the sort of comments there are appearing in online forums across the country to see the negative feelings this has generated among riders.
Dave, Leeds
I think the same was said about seatbelts and helmets. There is no evidence of a backlash beyond the media saying there is, but it will be interesting to see how this is introduced and develops in other countries and whether it works, is accepted or not.
Honor Byford, North Yorkshire
Honor, there's a difference between advice and compulsion, it's about personal responsibility - something our current government are apparently quite keen on.
Horses don't have head & tail lights so they don't stand out so well, they tend not to use dual carriageways and motorways either. If a driver hits a horse and rider (or a cyclist or motorcyclist) and says I didn't see you because you weren't wearing hi-viz clothing is that a good enough excuse? I would hope not. How much later does a driver looking at their satnav, mobile phone or ipod see a rider on a rural road?
We have just got to the point in this country where riders are using hi-viz as personal choice in the appropriate conditions as part of their safer riding plan, something I applaud but the move by other EU countries to make it compulsory is creating a back lash against the use of hi-viz clothing here and could lead us to take a big step backwards.
Dave, Leeds
Interesting that we are offering different advice to motorcyclists than to horse riders and cyclists - who are exhorted to wear hi viz at all times. What little research there has been into conspicuity and the effectiveness of hi viz wear for ordinary road users (and it is far too little) was into hi viz clothing for horse riders. This demonstrated that, on a rural road, a horse and rider using hi viz clothing would be seen by a driver up to 3 seconds earlier. At 25 mph this is an additional 111 feet, at 35 mph it is 166 feet. Hi Viz is recommended to them throughout the year and particularly in spring and summer when trees are in full leaf and create numerous areas of shadow in both town and country - areas in which the single road user is less visible. Wet and overcast days also make the individual road user harder to spot. I would recommend using hi viz all year round - sensibly. We do not need to plaster ourselves from head to foot but a sensible item or items is a good investment. The problem is the lack of research into non PPE standard clothing to tell us what works best. We are seeing more and more two or three colour hi viz wear that is completely untested for effectiveness. Does this patchwork effect act as camouflage and make you less visible? or more so? we don't know. But at least if the French are making it compulsory, we might see some more stylish offerings. If Chanel or YSL are involved, I and my team hereby volunteer to road test their collections.
Honor Byford, North Yorkshire
Monday, July 18, 2011
SMIDSY (Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You)
Why are so many road accidents caused by road users failing to see one another?
I heard of SMIDSY acronym via RoadSafetyUK article on French compulsory use by motorcyclists of fluorescent HiViz jackets during the day.
More about SMIDSY at SafeSpeed.co.uk.
I heard of SMIDSY acronym via RoadSafetyUK article on French compulsory use by motorcyclists of fluorescent HiViz jackets during the day.
More about SMIDSY at SafeSpeed.co.uk.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Test your night sight with this interactive link
reposted from: Reflexite mailshot
The Safety Institute of Finland have developed a great demonstration showing the benefits of pedestrians using reflective material.
You play the part of the driver and control the distance, the choice of low or high beam. Select the clothing of the pedestrian and adjust the distance using the controls.
It is worrying how close a pedestrian has to be in non-reflective clothes, before you can see him.
Click here to try the interactive website!
The Safety Institute of Finland have developed a great demonstration showing the benefits of pedestrians using reflective material.
You play the part of the driver and control the distance, the choice of low or high beam. Select the clothing of the pedestrian and adjust the distance using the controls.
It is worrying how close a pedestrian has to be in non-reflective clothes, before you can see him.
Click here to try the interactive website!
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Spanish Distance Device for cyclists - but is it safe?
Thanks to Robert Hayter for info.
I was concerned that several cars were pulling out and crossing the white lines in the middle of the road to avoid hitting the 'safety device'. Could these cars cause accidents? When the car hits the 'safety device' does it rebound and hit the cyclist? At 1'10" cyclist extended the device and car behind almost had to swerve out into path of oncoming traffic. Dangerous!
Website: www.bicyline.com or http://www.dinoinvdes.com/index.php?
I was concerned that several cars were pulling out and crossing the white lines in the middle of the road to avoid hitting the 'safety device'. Could these cars cause accidents? When the car hits the 'safety device' does it rebound and hit the cyclist? At 1'10" cyclist extended the device and car behind almost had to swerve out into path of oncoming traffic. Dangerous!
Website: www.bicyline.com or http://www.dinoinvdes.com/index.php?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)