Fair point and one I'd agree with but I'd like to think the police don't have a hidden agenda with this inititive and are trying to improve safety for motorcyclists.
Some off the schools round here give the kids, (around pre-teen age), them disposable flouro vests, and they're great for seeing em in the low light.
You can be so busy watching the convoy walking down the footpath, that you don't see the idiot on the push bike who is wearing black as his/her brightest colour!!
I always wear my ambulance jacket when on the bike. Those of you who have met me will have seen it. I have found that if you ware a hi-vis jacket the police pay less attention to you. I have also found that riding a silver pan euro with antennas and covert lights fitted to it and an ambulance jacket you tend to get motorists behaving around you.
I have always had doubts about conspicuity measures like daytime lights and high viz clothing. There are some circumstances where something conspicuous can act as camouflage. For example in the First World War, the dazzle paint schemes used on ships broke up their shape and reduced the number of torpedo attacks. In the Second World War, aircraft avoided detection by surfaced submarines by using lights on their wings to make them blend into a light sky.
There is also the more dangerous issue that by taking the high viz route we're shifting responsibility away from car drivers to look allowing them to blame motorcyclists for not dressing up like Christmas trees.
I take reasonable precautions according to the conditions, mainly riding defensively and, if stopped for it by the fuzz would respond with, "Yeah, yeah. How long have you been riding motorcycles then? Are you aware of all the issues associated with conspicuity? Thank you for the high viz vest." Put it in my top box and be on my way.
Like most issues, the rider should decide and not fall victim to propaganda or bullying.
Those methods were (and are) used for breaking up a single silhouette placed against a constant backdrop. In other words used to break up the outline of something that stands out.
So what you say is very true, but doesn't apply in our case.
Also, you mention that the hi-viz route shifts responsibility from car drivers. Is it their responsibility to ensure that we are clearly visible?
Propaganda or bullying?? Lol! Take a chill pill man lol. There's nothing bullying about being stopped and advised of the benefits of conspicuity as far as I'm concerned. Anything that reduces accidents is a good thing surely?
I ride an all black bike with NO chrome, all black riding gear and Matt black helmet and I will let you know that I am perfectly visible.... in snow!
(Also have one of the Icon hi-vis vests which is a real nice piece of kit but haven't had reason to wear it yet. For those who don't know Icon clothing, they hide a little St Christopher in a pocket somewhere to help keep you safe too!)
There is also the more
dangerous issue that by taking the high viz route we're shifting
responsibility away from car drivers to look allowing them to blame
motorcyclists for not dressing up like Christmas trees.
A very pertinent point there Cata.
If you can't see someone riding a bike when you "look", then you're failing to look at all.
SMIDSY is a misnomer. SMIDL is more like it.
My Dad travelled several hundred yards along a road and made eye
contact with the woman waiting to pull out from a side turning. She
very kindly waited patiently until he was right in front of her, before
she plowed straight into him. He didn't have anything fluorescent
(we're talking 1971 here), but he did wear a white lid and gloves (gauntlets, probably liberated from a MoD stores someplace) and
did have his headlight on.
Later (c. 1990) a double hip replacement for a friend of mine, riding
pillion with her hubby, both in textiles with fluoro and reflector bits
on them, white bike, panniers with reflector strips, headlight. Couple
of girls in a mini at a side turning, same thing, pulled straight into
the bike as it was passing their junction.
Hi-viz does not equal magic cloak of protection.
Until they make it illegal to ride without wearing hi-viz, roadside
lectures by the police should not be encouraged IMO. By all means, hand
out the vests at events (as Sussex Police already do from their stand at Brightona,
Brighton Burn-Up etc etc etc) and chat about road safety to people, but
to use it as an excuse to stop bike riders innocently travelling to
work, breaking no laws? Hmmmm...
I'm not anti-Police and I'm not anti-hi-viz, per se... but I do have a niggling
concern at the back of my mind that sooner or later, this is going to
be used by insurance companies as the get-out clause where other
motorists pull out on bikes. They'll make it the bike rider's "fault".
Let's keep clothing as a matter of personal choice.
Hi vis gear doesn't make you instantly visible to all, it is true.
I know this better than most when an old friend of mine got knocked off his bike by someone pulling out in front of him many years ago. Not only was he wearing a full hi-vis jacket, but he had a white helmet, a white Pan Euro with orange and yellow fluoro markings, flashing blue lights and a siren!!
Yes he was a copper on a call and got knocked off his bike by a young lady as he was riding through Wakefield on his way to a bike accident!
But I do believe that bikers are easier to spot with fluoro gear on, but we all have our own opinions.
What I would say to all those who are concerned about fluoro becoming compulsory is that from my experience there is little evidence to actually prove that fluoro gear makes you safer. As such I'd think any government (apart from perhaps the Swiss!) would struggle to make it law.
With regard to the camouflage effects of high viz, I think my examples can apply to motorcyclists when there is a bright background exacerbated by the irregular shape of bike and rider.
While motorcyclists should make themselves visible, it should still be the primary responsibility of other road users to actually look and it doesn't require high viz to be visible. Road positioning is as much a factor.
What really concerns me is the attitude of a measure that will probably help to reduce accidents although there's not proof that it will is not a bad thing. A high proportion of riders comply, there's little effect but some bright spark in the Government makes it compulsory because of compliance and massaged casualty figures. I've all too often heard the road safety lobby advocating something because it "saves lives" to guilt trip everyone into accepting it. This is where many of the oppressive motoring laws and police behaviour comes from.
We should be free to make our own decisions but bear in mind their long term consequences as well as any possible short term safety advantage. Paranoid? Perhaps but I've seen too much of this from the likes of Brake, PACTS , RoadPeace and even RoSPA.
Are the police going to stop all riders who do not have a headlight on during daylight? They must have nothing better to do. I always ride with my headlight on. I've got no choice on my pesent bike, but even so. I think that from a distance a headlight is a much better safety feature and shows up more than a high vis jacket.
![Police target riders for not wearing hi-viz (2) - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8mobileLQ.jpg)
![Police target riders for not wearing hi-viz (2) - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8desktopLQ.jpg)
