[Linda]

Right people we have started a poll on whether YOU want hi-viz or not. The RSA has stated that if they get 70% compliance with wearing of hi viz, then they won't make it compulsory if they don't they will make the wearing of a full sleeved for rider and pillion compulsory.

We know some people are totally opposed and some people are totally for


Linky (hopefully) http://www.magireland.org/


If as usual I did'nt put up a working linky you can find it on the MAG home page.

We want to know what you as riders want so please spread the word

Thanks

[Darkcloud]

It's mad to compare hiviz to seatbelts and helmets..

A seat belt WILL save you from going through windscreen or head butting fellow passenger
A helmet WILL stop your head being mashed against ground or another object...


A hiviz jacket MIGHT, but only might, make another road user see you..I often wear a hiviz in the winter or in the dark...does it make any difference? Not really...car drivers may well see you when they wouldnt have otherwise (this we will never know..) but they still pull out in front of you as if you weren't there...
There's so much hiviz going on nowadays: from Police to cyclist to bikers to workers to school kids to council workers etc etc it's EVERYWHERE...
Hiviz might make a differnce on a dark road but in broad daylight it will make fcuk all difference and bikers should be allowed make up their own mind as whether they should wear it or not....

[Linda]

Norrie, on 02 September 2011 - 11:30 AM, said:

I agree with anything that adds to rider safety.

You never hear about "freedom of choice" from those doing track days, (you wear what you are told to wear) yet there is a hew and cry about road safety legislation.

Can you imagine the carnage if it was not compulsory to wear helmets? The injuries would be too horrific to contemplate.

I was attacked for these views before on another forum but I am entitled to an opinion the same as everyone else.

Your view is as valid as anyone elses Norrie. Personnally I think you should always listen the person might have a point you've never thought about. The poll really is to find out what riders feel, after all theres no point is MAG campaigning against if most riders want to.

Norrie, on 02 September 2011 - 12:52 PM, said:

This would be my objection to wearing a Hi-Viz jacket, surely the vest would make more sense. The cost of an armoured Hi-Viz jacket would be prohibitive for a lot of people in these hard times. Young people starting out on their first bike have enough costs to contend with.

Very good reasoning for a more reasoned approach to the subject.


The French gov has just backpedeled on their proposal and are now suggesting that riders should be forced to wear reflective armbands.

[joe soap]

Darkcloud, on 02 September 2011 - 01:07 PM, said:

It's mad to compare hiviz to seatbelts and helmets..

A seat belt WILL save you from going through windscreen or head butting fellow passenger
A helmet WILL stop your head being mashed against ground or another object...


A hiviz jacket MIGHT, but only might, make another road user see you..I often wear a hiviz in the winter or in the dark...does it make any difference? Not really...car drivers may well see you when they wouldnt have otherwise (this we will never know..) but they still pull out in front of you as if you weren't there...
There's so much hiviz going on nowadays: from Police to cyclist to bikers to workers to school kids to council workers etc etc it's EVERYWHERE...
Hiviz might make a differnce on a dark road but in broad daylight it will make fcuk all difference and bikers should be allowed make up their own mind as whether they should wear it or not....

if a Hi-vis saves one life then it's wort it,,, the arguement will be ,,,they do stand out

This post has been edited by joe soap: 02 September 2011 - 01:44 PM

[gipi]

Think the problem with hi-vis for bikers is that it blends in too much with the surroundings now - between builders (ok, maybe not so many any more!), road workers, walkers, runners, bus drivers (yep, I've seen them), and even newspaper sellers, there's so much hi-vis around the roads that it can lead to "hi-vis blindness" - which won't help our visibility one bit!

When I wrote off my bike in a crash back in the 80s I was wearing a Sam Browne Belt (which I always did back then) - didn't help the car driver to see me, obviously!

I wear a hi-vis vest most of the time now (when I'm not wearing the Giller Jacket coz it's raining!!), but I'd never force anyone to wear one - has to be people's choice.

PS - just voted in the poll and read the MAG comments. One comment resonated with me, the one about the criminals. When my folks were broken into during the summer, the 3 b*****ds who broke in got out of a van and put hi-vis vests on, so they looked like workers. Other (genuine) workers who saw them assumed they were in the area to do a job, and took no notice of what they were actually up to.

This post has been edited by gipi: 02 September 2011 - 02:37 PM

[Ozzy]

is there a black hi-viz then maybe and thats a big maybe. But the laws are there to be broken if its brought in

it will be like the dont use your moblie if driven thats never enforced

[wesifumi]

Ozzy, on 02 September 2011 - 02:41 PM, said:

is there a black hi-viz then maybe and thats a big maybe.

Bottom right

By wesifume at 2011-09-02

[Tazzzie]

Kelpie, on 02 September 2011 - 12:24 PM, said:

To be honest I think people have more of a problem feeling they're being told what to do, than they have wearing the actual hi viz. I'm not at all sure that's a good argument not to.

Absolutely its bloody great reason. In fact its THE best reason.

A bloody yellow jacket is not going to save my life. Its the lid and armour that'll do that. I wear that by choice (well not the lid, but yeah I'd wear that anyway).

Mostly I wear the hi viz because of the pockets. Occassionally people move out of the way because of it.

How do we feel when they decide that motorbikes are just too dangerous ?

[whose-law-anyway]

I'm a bit confused.

If we vote that we dont want high vis vest then they wil make it a law and you (mag) will fight this

However if we all agree to wear one then they wont make a law.

Does this mean that you vote the opposite to what you think or are you tring to trick us into this and then make the law and say it had full support from the motorcycle community.

The simple fact of this matter is, the government will have another way to fine people and blame the vunerable (motorcyclists) in the event of an accident it will be automatically wrong cause you didnt have a compulsery vest on.

I'm not goig to bother do anything as usual and if they make it law i will be grudgingle wear one and do as im told just like i have done my entire life.

[The Mex]

How could I be wearing a Hi Viz over the denim cutoff?

(... and before some smart alec says it, I do wear one when marshalling.... but only to look like the other marshals... )

[danceswithmopeds]

3 years ago I was sideswiped on Lower Dorset St. just before canal bridge. I was wearing Hi-viz orange waistcoat over long-sleeve Hi-viz yellow jacket.
2 x 55w foglights (on), under headlights. 2 LED 'bullets' on ends of hand guards.
Weather was perfect for me to be seen. A little overcast, dry. Daylight .
Gobsihte claimed he didn't see me. It might have helped if he had even glanced in my direction before he changed lane9without looking or indicating).
Music from his car was so loud I could hear it over my engine noise, wind noise and my ear plugs.

So, just what else could I do?

[Fr Dougal]

I wear a full sleeve high viz 70% of the time. Most of the time commuting or if visibility is poor or in the rain but sometimes I just don't want to wear it if it's warm and sunny. I prefer to have the choice though.

Sometimes in Spain in 35-40degs, shorts or jeans and tshirt tho...

[petecourtney]

Linda, on 02 September 2011 - 09:03 AM, said:

...The RSA has stated that if they get 70% compliance with wearing of hi viz, then they won't make it compulsory...

That's a curious statement/decision on the part of the RSA. How will they quantify it?

joe soap, on 02 September 2011 - 10:47 AM, said:

i never wore a seat belt untill i had to [ i was excempt in the Taxi untill 2004 i think] and if i had a choice i wouldn't wear it

+1, does that mean making it mandatory is a good thing?

The Greek, on 02 September 2011 - 10:56 AM, said:

Will it cost me money?
No.

I presume it will cost you money if you are out on a bike not wearing one. Isn't that how safety works in this country? Someone decides what's safe and if you don't comply you get a bill in the post... and possibly some 'bonus points'.

Shinwacker, on 02 September 2011 - 11:18 AM, said:

I only wear safety gear to keep the rian out, if it didn't rain all the time I would go around in jeans and a t shirt

I wear the best gear I can afford. But who's to decide that my gear is any more or less suitable than someone elses gear? If you want to wear jeans and a t shirt then you are well within your rights to do so, I have done similar in the past myself and will do so again in the future.

Norrie, on 02 September 2011 - 11:30 AM, said:

I agree with anything that adds to rider safety.

You never hear about "freedom of choice" from those doing track days, (you wear what you are told to wear) yet there is a hew and cry about road safety legislation.
...
I was attacked for these views before on another forum but I am entitled to an opinion the same as everyone else.

I disagree with anything that makes it more difficult/expensive for people to get out on a bike.

I've never been on a trackday, but I have read threads on IBF with people querying what sort of gear can be worn on track days. And I've read people posting they can't do a track day because they can't afford the gear required.

Btw, I don't know when I last read a thread on IBF were EVERYONE agreed!

[Norrie]

Right, I'm off on me holliers, Hi-Viz and all, hopefully it will keep the rain out as it's going to pish down all next week. LOL

[Lilliput]

Norrie, on 03 September 2011 - 08:08 AM, said:

Right, I'm off on me holliers, Hi-Viz and all, hopefully it will keep the rain out as it's going to pish down all next week. LOL

Have a great time Uncle Norrie , will catch up with you when you are back

[Linda]

petecourtney, on 02 September 2011 - 09:34 PM, said:

That's a curious statement/decision on the part of the RSA. How will they quantify it?

Apparently they had people out counting us. In Galway 97% of riders on that day/s were wearing hi-viz. They seemed very happy with that. My worry about such a statement is if they get the 70% rate they want will this mean if you had an accident and weren't wearing a hi-viz would they insurance companies deem that you were a contributing factor because you didn't wear one.

+1, does that mean making it mandatory is a good thing?

Personally I don't think so. The problem isn't about making us more visible. The problem is making other road users aware that they share the roads with vulnerable road users. The new EDT for car drivers doesn't mention observation until lesson 6 and then it is only a couple of lines. To my mind that is far too late, it should be drummed into them from the early stages. I know when MAG set up IRTA the training course started teaching observation before the trainee left the car park and the IBT course now used is very close to the Initial Rider Training project funded by the EU which is to be the standard across europe and Og was involved in that has the same standard. (you can look at the initialridertraining.eu online). To my mind that is was is needed.

I presume it will cost you money if you are out on a bike not wearing one. Isn't that how safety works in this country? Someone decides what's safe and if you don't comply you get a bill in the post... and possibly some 'bonus points'.

Apparently so, no scientific evidence required whatsoever just what someone deems to be a "safety" issue. God forbid that you should ever question the great god safety.

I wear the best gear I can afford. But who's to decide that my gear is any more or less suitable than someone elses gear? If you want to wear jeans and a t shirt then you are well within your rights to do so, I have done similar in the past myself and will do so again in the future.

Yep let the rider decide

I disagree with anything that makes it more difficult/expensive for people to get out on a bike.

Ahh but if they can price us out of the market then they won't have to take the backlash for an outright ban

I've never been on a trackday, but I have read threads on IBF with people querying what sort of gear can be worn on track days. And I've read people posting they can't do a track day because they can't afford the gear required.

Btw, I don't know when I last read a thread on IBF were EVERYONE agreed!

Thankfully no it would be so boring

Norrie, on 03 September 2011 - 08:08 AM, said:

Right, I'm off on me holliers, Hi-Viz and all, hopefully it will keep the rain out as it's going to pish down all next week. LOL

Have a good one and may you get some

This post has been edited by Linda: 03 September 2011 - 11:00 AM

[kairos]

What about a compulsory 3 sets of xmas lights wrapped around the bike and a disco ball hanging from the back ?

RSA should be more concerned about why the level of competence/diligence/knowledge shown by the average drivers every day is so poor. Need a proof ? Try commuting on the M50 for a week.....

[PhilTrixxxter]

Norrie, on 02 September 2011 - 11:30 AM, said:

Can you imagine the carnage if it was not compulsory to wear helmets? The injuries would be too horrific to contemplate.

Completely off topic but there is evidence that the extra size and weight of a helmet can increase neck and spinal injuries, so although they are obviously good in a direct head impact they are not always good.

Back to hi viz Ive read a few things about things being too bright and blending into the background, im probably going to word this badly and can't be bothered to look for a link. But basicly I think its your mind is used to seeing everything lit up so it doesn't distinguish somebody in hi viz as well as it would a dark object. Also at different times and lighting conditions can alter all the effectivness of all these tings so surely it should be up to the rider to judge on the conditions.

[ridertraining]

danceswithmopeds, on 02 September 2011 - 08:30 PM, said:

3 years ago I was sideswiped on Lower Dorset St. just before canal bridge. I was wearing Hi-viz orange waistcoat over long-sleeve Hi-viz yellow jacket.
2 x 55w foglights (on), under headlights. 2 LED 'bullets' on ends of hand guards.
Weather was perfect for me to be seen. A little overcast, dry. Daylight .
Gobsihte claimed he didn't see me. It might have helped if he had even glanced in my direction before he changed lane9without looking or indicating).
Music from his car was so loud I could hear it over my engine noise, wind noise and my ear plugs.

So, just what else could I do?

You could 'Not be in a position where you could hear his music'? Presumably then he wouldn't be able to sideswipe you.

Yes, he SHOULD have looked, but caveat biker

[shiner]

one summer when of from fishing i worked in Donegal town. 17 miles each way, each day. start of the summer i had( for no political, or religious reason)
an Orange vest on, happy days, it got dirty, so during the summer i got a yellow/lemon, one.
i had a fue near ones wearing it. when we went to fish in Norway, when i was ashore, ALL the people working on the streets/roads wore Orange.
i was chatting to a snow plought driver( yes he spoke english). he told me that Orange stands out much better that yellow/lemon.
all the life saving items on our ship is/are orange.

now to you question. should be up to me to wear what i wanna wear.
yes i wear a hi viz, MADE in DONEGAL.

http://www.sioenappa...reland-46.aspx. so here a great product, made in Ireland.