November's Hi-Viz Thread :)

[ink ink]

Originally Posted by Horse

Not particularly, no. But since me'n'him are seen as rabidly 'anti', many people don't actually read what we post. Perhaps I'm guilty of glossing over instead of reading his posts because I think I know what he's saying, or going to say



Not really; advanced search, posts by, 'Staying Alive, and choose a few keywords you think the post will include.

Give it a go

Originally Posted by Voyager

Oh for fucks sake.

The intention is to make the bike appear to have more width/solidity/breadth in the dark by joining the rear reflectors with a panel of red reflective material which is bright - but only when seen directly from behind when lit by headlights (as seen in the flash from the camera in that picture)

This has been reported to me as that it may not be happening - but I can't tell as I'm riding it.

Ignore the usual "Oh for fuck's sake" stuff.

[Horse]

Originally Posted by The Spin Doctor

Although a bib is too high to be effective on dip beams.

Originally Posted by The Spin Doctor

Whatever...

Add me to the list too . . . as I posted earlier, I think they do often show up.

Lights aren't perfect - otherwise you'd never see reflective road signs above dip-beam cut-off, there is usually some scatter.

I didn't say "It's fantastic" - but it can be beneficial.

And FWIW my suit has large panels on the ankles too.

[demographic]

Originally Posted by The Spin Doctor

Whatever...

No doubt you get oncoming drivers flashing you because of your badly adjusted lights too

You might get some reflection from light scatter but it's not nearly as effective as retro reflective low down. The panels on my Aerostich are clearly visible in photos from a bike following me, when the bands on the waistcoat are no bloody use whatsoever.

Nope, the only time they flash me is when I am driving about at night in town and have forgotten to knock my lights on or when they are warning me of speed traps. Oh and the times when its someone I know.

The retroreflective aspect works just like the retroreflective part of roadsigns which I can also see pretty clearly at night
Thats no bullshit, it just does.

In fact sometimes I dip my lights cos big roadsigns reflect too much light otherwise.

[Horse]

Originally Posted by Voyager

The intention is to make the bike appear to have more width/solidity/breadth in the dark by joining the rear reflectors with a panel of red reflective material which is bright - but only when seen directly from behind when lit by headlights (as seen in the flash from the camera in that picture)

This has been reported to me as that it may not be happening - but I can't tell as I'm riding it.

Originally Posted by ink ink

Do you not remember his saying the effect on his bike might not be the widening thing that he wanted?

There is a known benefit on lorries (although the Voyager [bike] is not particularly wide) from such 'linking', for similar reasons to why lorries often have the entire back 'outlined' in red retro-reflective strips.

But as you can see from his quote, he has a clear idea of what (limited) circumstances it may help. But I doubt he relies on it.

After all, he has two tail lights and a number plate too.

FWIW my bike is wider - but the panniers are matt black - so I added retro-reflective material, mainly to make it show as a 'wider/solid' object when parked.

So this:

Originally Posted by Voyager

Voyager's not so sure now

Isn't really relevant because we have different reasons. Also they're probably different to any reason a rucksack/hi-viz wearer has (If they have a reason other than "Cos it's safe!").

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by ink ink

Voyager's not so sure now.

Thinking they're safer is a dangerous attitude, with or without yellowness.

Eh?

Originally Posted by ink ink

How would a rider behave if he was risk compensating for a reflective back?

That is not what I said is it?

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Horse

There is a known benefit on lorries (although the Voyager [bike] is not particularly wide) from such 'linking', for similar reasons to why lorries often have the entire back 'outlined' in red retro-reflective strips.

But as you can see from his quote, he has a clear idea of what (limited) circumstances it may help. But I doubt he relies on it.

The reasoning was when the 'twin bike headlights can look like a car far away' idea was postulated (and the manu's dimly started having only one headlight for dip/one for main ) that the Voyager(s), having two car taillights, might be seen as a car 'further away' in poor conditions. The reflective panel was intended to create some 'completeness' to the rear of the bike and enable it to be seen as a whole.

Although it has been reported to me recently as not being that obvious when the tail lights are on - and having looked at a couple of emergency service vehicles recently the red/yellow does not appear to be that 'reflective' from the rear either - the next test might be a strip of red 3M diamond tape above the lights.

[wasabi]

Originally Posted by demographic

Nope, the only time they flash me is when I am driving about at night in town and have forgotten to knock my lights on or when they are warning me of speed traps. Oh and the times when its someone I know.

I get flashed quite a lot when the Fazer's lights are dipped but I'm 'making good progress' away from a junction. Front suspension is a bit soft so I suspect it is lifting a bit.

[The Spin Doctor]

Originally Posted by Horse

Add me to the list too . . . as I posted earlier, I think they do often show up.

Lights aren't perfect - otherwise you'd never see reflective road signs above dip-beam cut-off, there is usually some scatter.

I didn't say "It's fantastic" - but it can be beneficial.

And FWIW my suit has large panels on the ankles too.

Originally Posted by Demographic

The retroreflective aspect works just like the retroreflective part of roadsigns which I can also see pretty clearly at night

I'm not saying there's NO scatter... so there's obviously SOME reflectance...

But let's assume... and I know it's a huge leap... we're making an intellectual decision on what to wear based on what shows up best on dip beam (because that's what most drivers will be on in urban areas, and if they're on main beam in rural areas it won't matter).

The answer is reflective panels low down.

A waistcoat with bands up over the shoulders is just about the worst option.

Here are both on the same bike at the same time... compare and contrast.

Note that in the twilight conditions the panels on the calves show up clearly - the bands on the vest don't reflect at all.

It's not bleedin' rocket science to work this out, and just because something that "sort of" works doesn't make it a good choice.

[demographic]

Originally Posted by The Spin Doctor

I'm not saying there's NO scatter... so there's obviously SOME reflectance...

But let's assume... and I know it's a huge leap... we're making an intellectual decision on what to wear based on what shows up best on dip beam (because that's what most drivers will be on in urban areas, and if they're on main beam in rural areas it won't matter).

The answer is reflective panels low down.

A waistcoat with bands up over the shoulders is just about the worst option.

Here are both on the same bike at the same time... compare and contrast.

Note that in the twilight conditions the panels on the calves show up clearly - the bands on the vest don't reflect at all.

It's not bleedin' rocket science to work this out, and just because something that "sort of" works doesn't make it a good choice.

I know what I have seen with my own eyes* and I have without any shadow of a doubt seen retroreflective materials in my dipped headlights, just as I also know beyond any shadow of a doubt that I also see retroreflective roadsigns reflecting rather a lot of light when I have my lights on dip.
You might have noticed that as you go towards cars at night that you can still clearly see their lights even when they are dipped?

Well "its not bleedin rocket science" to understand that the light that you can clearly see when going towards them also gets reflected back by retro reflective stuff.

I really don't give a flying fuck about "It being a good choice" or not, the only aspect of your point I am disputing is this...

Originally Posted by The Spin Doctor

Although a bib is too high to be effective on dip beams.

and thats cos its wrong and we can go on for (looks at page number) another 32 pages and bring masses of poor photos to bear on the situation but I honestly couldn't be arsed with that or we can just agree to differ shall we? Mmmkay?
It saves me the hassle of pissing about proving what I already know by taking photos of roadsigns and Vizzy Vests down the road with my lights on dip if we do this


* I know its been said that I have eyes like a shithouse rat but thats cos I have found tenners at the bar before.

[Higherboooser]

Originally Posted by The Spin Doctor

Try reading this, where I attempt to explain the issues

[/QUOTE]

Thanks - I read your opinions.

As well as having had advanced / survival skills training, judging potential hazards accordingly, come winter, I choose to wear a neon yellow HG journeyman with reflective strips. It's toastie, warm and certainly not fibs that I'm seen better in it. Probably as it looks like a coppers jacket. When it's cold I wear my snug Schuberth C2 with whie and blue reflective strips on the back - it's amazing how traffic keeps distance - an inurance policy by adding stickers.

My blade is covered in dayglo orange (not my doing) and has always been well spotted on the road by motorists imho.

I don't think my experience is caused by a false sense of safety.

There's a for and against for many tivialities. I'd rather take all preventions possible.

However in India I ride in shorts and flip flops with no lid, albeit at much lower speeds and ride even more defensively.

I ride according to the possible reactions of other motorists.

[The Spin Doctor]

Originally Posted by demographic

I know what I have seen with my own eyes*blah blah blah
Well "its not bleedin rocket science" to understand that the light that you can clearly see when going towards them also gets reflected back by retro reflective stuff.

And the more incident light, the more light reflected.

I really don't give a flying fuck about "It being a good choice" or not, the only aspect of your point I am disputing is this...

So you really just want to pick an argument?

Well "its not bleedin rocket science" to understand that the light that you can clearly see when going towards them also gets reflected back by retro reflective stuff.

Where have I said it's not?

The "poor photo" which happens to be poor because it was taken in poor light conditions, and clearly shows the low panels working well whilst the panels on the vest aren't. Twilight is the most difficult viewing time, so a good time to consider retroreflective kit

and thats cos its wrong

Fine. Night.

[trogggy]

Originally Posted by The Spin Doctor

We don't know what for sure?

That there is no significant change in the pattern motorcycle accidents?

We do know that for sure. As I said, the accident demographics are there to be looked at, involving studies from a variety of different sources spread across the whole time from from the period before riders used conspicuity aids to the current day when many riders do.

Across the period conspicuity aids came into use, there is no change in the way riders continue to have accidents at junctions.

Its not absolute number of accidents or the measurable or otherwise near misses that are important but the change in distribution of the pattern of accidents across different scenarios.

I came across some figures on the ROSPA website the other day relating to motorcycle accidents. Web page here:
Motorcycle Training - The Beginner's Guide
I tried to copy the first table on that page without success (maybe someone with a clue could) so I've summarised it here:

Originally Posted by me

Casualties amongst motorcyclists have dropped significantly between 1995 and their 1981-1985 average. Motorcyclist fatalities fell by 45%, serious injuries by 68%, and slight injuries by 57%. Overall TWMV user casualties have decreased by 60%.

It goes on to say...

While some of the changes in motorcyclist casualties may be attributed to the fall in motorcycle use, the motorcyclist casualty rate per billion kilometres travelled in 1999 had also fallen by 26% from its 1981 - 85 level.

At first glance these figures seem to contradict the assertion that 'there is no significant change in the pattern of motorcycle accidents'. Partly because of the overall reduction in casualties per mile (in a period of time in which use of DRLs / hi-viz was growing), but perhaps more significantly their different distribution (non-fatals reducing faster than fatals).
I'm not claiming anything here, I'm asking whether these figures are contradicted by other studies.

[Jim at SRSP]

Originally Posted by trogggy

I tried to copy the first table on that page without success (maybe someone with a clue could) so I've summarised it here:

Best I can manage:
Table 5 : TWMV Casualties in Great Britain, 1981/85 and 1999
Casualties 1999 1981-85 % change
Fatal 547 989 -45
Serious 6,361 19,714 -68
Slight 19,284 44,490 -57
Total 26,192 65,193 -60

Edit: looks fine on screen but the tabs didn't work when I posted it

[The Spin Doctor]

Originally Posted by trogggy

At first glance these figures seem to contradict the assertion that 'there is no significant change in the pattern of motorcycle accidents'.

The page you quoted (which I know about) also says:

"caution should be used when interpreting trends from changes in accident data from one year to the next."

Key word: "pattern".

I didn't say anything about absolute numbers or accidents/mile.

Urban accidents at junctions still make up the bulk of motorcycle / car accidents with the bike having right of way.

If accident strategies adopted by riders worked, you'd expect to see a reduction in the reportage of such accidents.

Partly because of the overall reduction in casualties per mile (in a period of time in which use of DRLs / hi-viz was growing), but perhaps more significantly their different distribution (non-fatals reducing faster than fatals).
I'm not claiming anything here, I'm asking whether these figures are contradicted by other studies.

The page you've quoted also states:

3.10 Casualties by Location
Overall, almost three quarters (72%) of motorcyclist casualties occur on built-up roads (roads with a speed limit of up to 40 mph), even though such roads carry less than half of motorcycle traffic. The pattern differs for different types of motorcycle. Around 85% of moped and scooter casualties occur on built up roads, compared to around 70% of motorcycle casualties.

There are various accident studies and reports going back to the Hurt Report. I've looked at various reports as well as collated figures from the UK, the US, Sweden, EU, Thailand and Australia. There is a useful literature study from Oxford Uni 3-4 years back.

They all show that urban accidents, where the car violates the motorcycle's right of way is a highly signficant contribution to motorcycle accident statistics.

You have to be careful reading the data - for instance the Booth report was used as the backbone for quite a few years as a justification for saying that it was blind Volvo drivers who killed motorcyclists. This is reported thus:

3.20 The Booth report, published in 1989, assessed nearly 10,000 motorcycle accidents in the Metropolitan Police area. It concluded that nearly two-thirds (62%) of motorcycle accidents were primarily caused by the other road user. Half of the accidents were caused by car drivers, and 10% by pedestrians. The report found that two-thirds of motorcycle accidents where the driver was at fault were due to the driver failing to anticipate the action of the motorcyclist.

Note, Met police area - in other words although it covered a large segment of the riding population, the riding conditions were limited almost entirely to urban areas. The Cheshire report mentioned which was written by John Moss (a MAG member as it happens) looked at the Peak District, so the focus there is on rural road accidents:

3.21 In contrast, the analysis of motorcycle accidents in rural Cheshire found that 67% of motorcycle accidents were due to rider error, with losing control on a bend and overtaking featuring strongly.

So, yes, I stand by my statement - from the Hurt Report in the early 70s onward, riders are still having significant numbers of accidents at junctions, and the strategies adopted do not seem to have worked.

[trogggy]

Originally Posted by The Spin Doctor

So, yes, I stand by my statement - from the Hurt Report in the early 70s onward, riders are still having significant numbers of accidents at junctions, and the strategies adopted do not seem to have worked.

You said a bit more than that though (or at least that's the way it comes across). No-one's* ever claimed that hi-viz or DRLs (or even reflective strips) will stop all accidents. Most proponents will say they believe they have a marginal effect.
If all you're claiming is that there were lots of SMIDSYs before hi-viz and there are still lots now (but not necessarily the same amount / proportion / whatever) then I would have thought that was obvious.
Are there any studies that compare accident frequencies year-on-year?

I take your point about treating the figures with caution btw, that's why I'm asking if there are alternative numbers.



*No-one sane. There are nutters on both sides of every argument of course.