Hi-vis Compulsory

[FJ_Biker]

This is in MCN and they are in the business of selling papers. Take it with a pinch of salt.

The Motorcyle Action Group (MAG) believes its a step towards reduced insurance payouts for riders NOT in hi-vis, to be followed by new laws making the gear compulsary.

Huge leap in logic and sensationalist.
Put me off joing MAG tbh (sorry fj, jsut sayingn how I felt when I read it).

You must remember MAG is not just about high VIS jackets. They have done a lot of good over the years. Email MAG and tell them what you think about the statement.

[slowr1der]

That exact scenario happened to me one evening last August/Sept. I was sat at a well known KD roundabout in Andover and a bike cop had pulled someone over near by and then he came and sat next to me on bike hoping I would move on I think....... Anyway he then started to go into this Hi Vis Jacket/Vest scenario, by this time I was joined by a mate and a discussion was had.

He put across the insurance liabilities argument and we argued the toss about it from our point of view. He was attempting to give us some Hi Vis vests for free as it happens which fair play I have no issues with wearing WHEN I CHOOSE to wear one though, not because I have to wear one everytime I get on a bike.

There is a reason I like biking and that's because of the freedom of it all to be who I wanna be when I go out.

Oh and the thing that made me laugh about this copper was that he lectured me about hi vis....said he always wears one on his private bike and then told me he rides with no headland on during the day....wtf

[ZZR600Dude]

I can see the argument that wearing hi viz seems to be against the freedom and image of biking.
I have two hi viz jackets but I dont always wear them.
After cleaning and waxing the bike and putting on the leathers the least thing I feel like doing is dressing up like a builder in hi viz.

Would help if there were decent hi viz products out there that actually made the rider look good (dont know if thats possible)

Remember traffic cops have hi viz uniforms and hi viz stripes all over their bikes to make them stand out from the rest of the traffic. Chat to the police riders at bike safe and they have seen some pretty horiffic stuff so encouraging people to wear some thing that may save your life them why not.

Dont agree that anyone should be pulled over though for not wearing one as its not currently the law to do so. If it were then fair play.

[Snowy]

As a car driver as well as a biker I can say from personal experience that my eye is always drawn to a biker in hi viz in the distance. A lot of car drivers who arent looking out for bikes will also subconciously spot the hi viz thinking it a traffic cop.

Can't see the problem with it being made law myself. All new bikes have to have lights on permanently as a saftery feature. I remember when seat belts became law in cars and loads of people complained, but I wouldnt drive one now without. If Hi Viz became law then in a few years people would think nothing of putting it on.

Think part of the problem is the limited range of hi viz available as most make you look like your off to do a days work at the building site.

The trouble is that new cars will soon also have compulsory daytime running lights and this in my opinion will make it more difficult to differentiate between cars and bikes. This will mean car drivers will become "lazy" in their forward observation. It's hard enough as it is to estimate a bikes speed in bad light situations when there is only one point of light to use as a reference. It will be worse when everyone else has their lights on as well. I run with three daytime lights on in a "triangle" which is effective as it's different from what drivers are expecting and hopefully makes them more aware. Hi Viz may well be a necessary evil to help distinguish a bike from everything else.

[Uber Dave]

I read this this morning as well in my MCN. I can see both sides of the argument to be honest but the one thing that bugs me is that this is SUPPOSED to be a free country. Effectively they are telling us what to wear, it wouldnt happen if you were walking down the street so why if you are on a bike.

As far as my understanding of the current law goes (I may be wrong so feel free to correct me) the only bit of protective equipment we are required to wear is a helmet. So legally you could ride in your underwear as long as you have a helmet on. So they are not saying we have to wear clothes why step in with the hi-viz stuff.

The Motorcycle Action Group (MAG) believes its a step towards reduced insurance payouts for riders NOT in hi-vis, to be followed by new laws making the gear compulsory.

And for the insurance side of things, all my experience with insurance they try to wriggle out of paying anything if they can get away with it. So I don't see that as been over the top or sensationalist I can see that very quote becoming a reality if the vest thing goes much further.

It should be my choice to wear what I want. Will they try to make all bikes 40% day-glo next? Who would want something if that was the case??

[slowr1der]

If the Moto GP boys start wearing one then i will lol and infact i had to wear one at work when riding a bike for 4 years although tbf we only had to wear Hi Vis Oct-March and had the choice to wear H belt during Spring/Summer.

[Snowy]

I read this this morning as well in my MCN. I can see both sides of the argument to be honest but the one thing that bugs me is that this is SUPPOSED to be a free country. Effectively they are telling us what to wear, it wouldnt happen if you were walking down the street so why if you are on a bike.

As far as my understanding of the current law goes (I may be wrong so feel free to correct me) the only bit of protective equipment we are required to wear is a helmet. So legally you could ride in your underwear as long as you have a helmet on. So they are not saying we have to wear clothes why step in with the hi-viz stuff.

The Motorcycle Action Group (MAG) believes its a step towards reduced insurance payouts for riders NOT in hi-vis, to be followed by new laws making the gear compulsory.

And for the insurance side of things, all my experience with insurance they try to wriggle out of paying anything if they can get away with it. So I don't see that as been over the top or sensationalist I can see that very quote becoming a reality if the vest thing goes much further.

It should be my choice to wear what I want. Will they try to make all bikes 40% day-glo next? Who would want something if that was the case??

There is a difference between freedom and being perceived as living in a "free" country. Car drivers have to tax and MOT their cars, have to wear seatbelts and can't use a mobile while their driving. We have to wear helmets. But we have the right to freedom of speech (sort of) and the right to self defense (within reason). There's an exclusion and a rule for most things even in a free country.

[Ducatista]

Well here's the MCN view on "contributory negligence"

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/IN...p;R=EPI-121326

So there doesn't appear to be a lot of consistency in what they report.
I don't think ethics or quality journalism is their thing.

Paul - I don't think I look much like a builder in my jacket

http://www.topgearsuperstore.com/-mo...p3ga50k0tme321

[Tiger_Jim]

I sometimes wear one on my 1 mile commute on my scooter, but havn't been wearing it lately. A couple of days ago a car joined the roundabout from my left and he would have hit me if I hadn't anticipated his actions. He was completely oblivious to my presence. As from tomorrow, I'm going to start wearing it again. YOU'RE A LONG TIME DEAD.

[mick188]

This is the second time this issue has been raised in MCN and putting it into perspective it is only two counties that have decided to promote the wearing of Hi Viz. You will probably find that this is only part of an overall road safety campaign targetting all road users.

Personally I believe the wearing of Hi Viz in scooters and mopeds is a good thing as they are more likely to be overtaken by cars and it will make them more visible (at night) from the rear. For the rest of the biking community there is no point. I drive/commute massive miles in a car and I also ride in all weathers and I have yet to have seen a Hi Viz first before seeing the bike.

In fact those bikers who wear large Hi Viz are kidding themselves if they think they are being seen better and may not therefore ride defensively. I would hope that I ride in a defensive manner and I always assume the motorist has not seen me until I see the whites of his eyes.

Safe Riding! [smiley=thumbsup.gif]