Hi-vis Compulsory

[Geordie Stu]

Reading in this weeks MCN. Police are to ramp up a campaign to get more riders to wear safety vests.

The article goes on to read. Thousands of motorcyclists could be stopped by police for not wearing high-visibilty clothing as more forces adopt a policy already seen in the South-east. Riders will be pulled up & given a lecture on "being seen" as well as reflective vests put on over leathers.

Motorcycle lobbyists say the schemes signals a shift of blame onto riders for accidents caused by drivers who don't see them (SMIDSY)

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.

The group is urging riders stopped to make a formal complaint to the relevant force.

[Dabz]

wearing hi-vis can't hurt..it's only vanity that makes people not want to wear vests or jackets

[R2D2]

Aye, but it's a slippery slope to allow the police to start pulling bikes over when they haven't broken any laws. I agree with the MAG on this one, and if I get pulled and lectured for not wearing a high-vis, a polite letter will be on its way to the force concerned.

Besides, when was the last time you saw a copper pull over a dark-coloured car and say "now, that's not a very visible paint colour you're picked there...", get the driver bollocked for being late for work and tell them to paint the thing yellow?

Chris (who does wear his high-vis occasionally)

[Kevinb]

Never have worn one and never will.
If someone can't see a 6'5" 300lb monster on a 1700cc bike with its lights on then they shouldn't be driving.
Do the police go around in bright cars all the time. No they also drive black Volvo's and BMW's without 'Police' all over them when they don't want to be seen.

[Geordie Stu]

Its not the wearing of Hi-vis I object too its shifting the blame on to us if someone doesn't see us. whether wearing Hi-vis or not.

[Ducatista]

Aye, but it's a slippery slope to allow the police to start pulling bikes over when they haven't broken any laws.

Under UK law the police can already pull you over without any reason to do so.

I have mixed feeling on this.
Clearly the intention is to stop bikers killing or maiming themselves which I think most of us would agree is a good intention and possibly a good use of tax payers money consdiering the expense of a facility (£1.25M when I did bikesafe in 2005).
Remember that word "lecture" is MCNs interpretation and their interest is to sensationalise.


Motorcycle lobbyists say the schemes signals a shift of blame onto riders for accidents caused by drivers who don't see them (SMIDSY)

Well let's play devils' advocate for a moment.
Do you have a responsibility for being seen and avoiding accidents on the public highway?
I don't agree with Chris or Kevin that a car is the same as a bike for visibility purposes, it also doesn't incurr the same risk or death or serious injury or the same economic or human cost.

So the argument boils down, what risks/costs should we be able to take in a public space and on a public budget? and how much choice should we have?
For example should we allow people to climb mountains when there's a chance they might incurr hugh expense in terms of search and rescue.

Personally I see nothing wrong in encouraging people to wear high viz but it should remain optional. We already have compulsorary helmets and most motorcyclist voluntarily wear a lot more armour for their own protection. I believe both the MCN and MAG articles are a bit sensational, but then it's important that someone points out the dangers and stops this being the thin end of the wedge.


Motorcycle lobbyists say the schemes signals a shift of blame onto riders for accidents caused by drivers who don't see them (SMIDSY)

I think that's a leap in logic, but I do think riders have to take some responsibility if they value their life/health.


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).


The group is urging riders stopped to make a formal complaint to the relevant force.

I would urge people to withold judgement.
None of the police officers I know would "lecture" you (MCN's words).
Do you think a complaint is a good way to waste tax payers money when the police are trying to protect your health, safety and tax bill?
I would urge people not to make their mind up on how the police are dealing with this and make your mind up once you've actually spoken to them.
Those of you who have been on bike safe will know that they are a nice bunch of guys.

Remember that hi-viz is not the only way to be seen.
Positioning and speed are factors as well.
It's dangerous to believe you are invincible just because you are wearing hi-viz.


Its not the wearing of Hi-vis I object too its shifting the blame on to us if someone doesn't see us. whether wearing Hi-vis or not.

The police aren't doing that stu.
That's stuff that's made up by MAG and MCN by some huge leaps in imagination.

[Geordie Stu]

Through out the article the Police are saying the same message "Be Seen & Be Safe"

Aren't we seen enough bright coloured clothing, lights etc, the wearing of Hi-vis doesn't mean you won't be seen.

More education for car drivers instead of targeting bikers

[Ducatista]

More education for car drivers instead of targeting bikers

Have you passed on your proposals for consideration?

[Dabz]

I really can't see how a suggestion to save peoples lives can be bad. Cars don't have to be hi-vis no, but the are able to have accidents and more often than not there's no injury to the driver. Bikes have accidents and usually result in injury, so you can't compare one with the other. I don't agree withit being compulsory, but don't see how people can be so against something that is being suggested with their own safety in mind.

Plus bearing in mind this is from MCN which is effectively a tabloid newspaper, it's probably nothing to worry about in the first place :P Next week they'll be claiming all bikes are to be made o have 4 wheels

[ZZR600Dude]

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.

:D

[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.

:D

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/INSURANCE/insuranceresults/2010/January/jan0709-can-hi-viz-clothing-help-with-a-claim/?&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/-motorcycle-clothing-mens/textile-jackets-trousers/richa-motorcycle-clothing-rix-2-fluro-jacket-p-5144.html?osCsid=3tfvcv84d2i2p3ga50k0tme321

[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]

[Davey]

YOU'RE A LONG TIME DEAD.
At least you don't have to pay taxes :D

I think I'd be less visable with a Hi Viz on - whilst wearing my white leathers :) I had to wear one when I was instructing/ marshalling etc and often wear one if doing long journey or even riding through London but wouldn't want it enforced to be done

[Thorkill_The_Tall]

There's precious little in the way of documented evidence either for or against the use of high visibilty clothing for motorcyclists.
However, I was able to find a reference to it on the sometimes dubious (in my opinion) Wikipedia facility.
It appears that there have been only two major studies of the subject, the Hurt Report in North America and the MAIDS Report in the E.U.

The interesting passage that caught my attention was the following:

A New Zealand study supported the Hurt Report's call for increased rider conspicuity, claiming fluorescent clothing, white or light colored helmets, and daytime headlights may reduce motorcycle injuries and death. The study found that wearing reflective or fluorescent clothing reduced the risk of a crash injury by 37%, a white helmet by 24%, and riding with headlights on by 27%. [10]

However, the MAIDS report did not back up the claims that helmet color makes any difference in accident frequency, and that in fact motorcycles painted white were actually over-represented in the accident sample compared to the exposure data. [11] While recognizing how much riders need to be seen, the MAIDS report documented that riders' clothing usually fails to do so, saying that "in 65.3% of all cases, the clothing made no contribution to the conspicuity of the rider or the PTW [powered two-wheeler, i.e. motorcycle]. There were very few cases found in which the bright clothing of the PTW rider enhanced the PTW’s overall conspicuity (46 cases).There were more cases in which the use of dark clothing decreased the conspicuity of the rider and the PTW (120 cases)." The MAIDS report was unable to recommend specific items of clothing or colors to make riders better seen.

So, once again, our Government, or whoever has decided to grasp the mantle of motorcycle safety on our behalf, is going directly against the findings of a report they have used our tax pounds to pay for.

Still, as always, I shall look on the bright side and the next time my Mother gets robbed by a couple of thieving scroats, I shall know where to find a policeman.

The full Wikipedia page can be found here:
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Motorcycle_safety#Causes_of_accidents

[scotchpie]

I wear one in the winter and when its getting dark, I keep it under the seat of the bike, I think the 2.99 the vest cost is well spent if it stops old ethel (or eric) T boning me in their metro. I must admit that I don't wear it in good conditions, but thats about personal choice, and the way it looks I guess.

We all know the risks of biking and are clever enough to make up our own minds about wearing one, I really object to health and safety nazis trying to scare us in all aspects of life. I know the dangers, I will make up my own mind.

[Davey]

Dunno if they're right or wrong as anyone can write stuff on Wikipedia - but on a case of getting knocked off and goes to court due to some dozey idiot pulling out - of course it'll sound better you riding in Hi-Viz etc etc hence me riding withit in London. TBH if they can't see my bright headlights, proper legal road positioning and can't hear my bike a few inches of hi-viz isn't making any difference - but I wear it incase something happens. As an instructor it was different as also gave notice to people behind you and easier to spot students when they'd forgotten thier lefty and rights :)

[Thorkill_The_Tall]

Dunno if they're right or wrong as anyone can write stuff on Wikipedia - but on a case of getting knocked off and goes to court due to some dozey idiot pulling out - of course it'll sound better you riding in Hi-Viz etc etc hence me riding withit in London. TBH if they can't see my bright headlights, proper legal road positioning and can't hear my bike a few inches of hi-viz isn't making any difference - but I wear it incase something happens. As an instructor it was different as also gave notice to people behind you and easier to spot students when they'd forgotten thier lefty and rights :)

As I said, I agree with your view of Wikipedia and it's sister websites, but it's not too difficult to use their references to do a personal bit of sleuthing:

http://www.maids-study.eu/

[finbar]

Think I am with Davel on this one.

I have ridden 1000's of miles (over 22 years) as a progressive sporty bike rider and former London courier. I have formulated the following conclusion in my time through the examples and article mentioned below!

1)As a courier I had the worst 'did not see you' accident a week after I decked out my white bike with yellow reflective stickers, conclusion: if the f#cker does not look they will not see you.

2)Chief observer of TVAM (IAM bike club ) wearing the brightest clothing known to man, big fat f#cker too, on a Pan European (bus of a thing) on an IAM ride out (A420 open junction great visability, middle of summer), had a Woman doctor pull out on him in the middle of nowhere, as she'was in a rush' conclusion; see above.

I think what people forget is the mechanics of humans eyes and the wiring of the brain, we percieve change (today is colder/hotter than yesterday etc) much more accutely than pretty colours, especially our peritheral vision; flashing lights, hitting full beam (numerous times) changing road postioning (zig zagging# before a junction....REALLY grabs attention, try it you will see the buggers notice you then! might be a case of what the f#ck is the biker doing... but if it saves me, all is well!) grabs attention way better than a bit of colour. Look up the phenomenon of 'Luming' coming up to junctions, theory goes, at distance the size of an oncoming bike as veiwed from an another vehicle at a junction changes very little untill the bike gets really close to the junction. By this time it is hard for the bike to avoid a collision, this ties in with the limitations of human perception mention above, when I read this article it really clarified ideas I had developed over time and it was nice that proper science had been done on this subject.

Note: # this looks really ugly to the casual observer and IAM types hate the idea as 'it looks messy' having done the IAM stuff there seemed to be an obsession with being smooth, but coming upto junctions (use only near fast open junctions, does not work in towns [smiley=thumbsup.gif]) one needs to be a bit more 'jerky' to be noticed (percieved). ps will not help you on black ice! ;D :'(

[Scotty]

+1 Finbar, if the f*ckers don't look, they won't see you, no matter how gaudily you're decked out.
Putting the cynical hat on for a minute ;) it could be viewed as the thin end of the wedge, "their" way of transferring liability for SMIDSY collisions if we're not perceived as having taken adequate precautions to excuse their sub-standard driving.
When I'm president of the country (as leader of the Voice of Reason Party, our motto: Strength Through Anger), all SMIDSY perpetrators will be hung, drawn and quartered, and their remains paraded through the streets - driver education! [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

[kawasakiz]

I think it's a case of run before you can walk. Hi vis vest compulsory before protective clothing. I was going to GW'S the other day, driving through Lechlade in my just washed, very white Transit van with lights on and some t##t pulled out in front of me. Good job I wasn't on the Bike, what next.....Hi vis for Transit vans...........

[Ducatista]

it could be viewed as the thin end of the wedge, "their" way of transferring liability for SMIDSY collisions if we're not perceived as having taken adequate precautions to excuse their sub-standard driving.

I understand the danger, but the police are not the least bit interested in civil liability. They really could not care less about that.
So whilst I can see the potential consquence I can't see any reason as to why this would be intentional on the part of the police.

The police will tell you that even with blues and twos and sirens going, people still pull out on you.

[Jon_W]

Ingredients of this artical:

A pinch of information
A bucket of opinion
Simmer for 1hr
Stir
Serve

Bon appetite!

I wouldn't base any debate on an arrtical in MCN... they are so often wrong that you cannot take anything in there as read.

I would point out that liability can be contested in any accident and it is for a court to prove liability, not the goverment. So the transfering of liability onto the rider is just plain nonsence until it is proven in court.

As to hi viz... the police are trialing a scheme to encourage riders to wear hi-viz. That is a long way from compolsery hi-viz and a change in the law will require much more than an artical in the MCN!

[StreetHippo]

This is, as others have said, a typical MCN sensationalised peice of journalism, BUT, other countries have gone down the line of no armour/protective clothing = no claim, so we do need to be wary. Next up: compulsory airbag jackets as they have definately been proven to save lives*

Stu

* This may be utter bollocks, but you get my gist 8-)

[Ducatista]

Perhaps some of you should consider joining an organisation like MAG.
I agree with FJ that they have done a lot of good in the past and campaign on a lot of issues.

Discussion boards are great, but chatting on here doesn't actually acheieve anything unless it motivates people to actually do something.

[ZZR600Dude]

Sorry if its a bit off topic as this is more to do with headlights in the daytime as opposed to hi viz, but may be the two are connected.
Anyway fount this article on the web:

During WWII there was a camoflage scheme called Yehudi. (For you younguns, Yehudi is the little guy who turns on the light when you open the refrigerator door.)

Patrol bombers hunting subs in the North Atlantic could be seen a long way off. Yehudi hid the bombers in the background sky light.

It works like this: there was a row of lights along the leading edge of the wings and around the nose of the plane. The brightness of the lights was controlled by a rheostat to match the brightness of the sky. The bomber would blend into the background and could get a lot closer before being spotted.

So, you drive with your lights on all the time? Does that include when you are driving out of the sunset? A motorcycle can disappear completely under those circumstances.

:-?

[Ducatista]

So, you drive with your lights on all the time?

Thanks for the warning, but on new bikes there is no choice.
There is no off switch for lights.

[ZZR600Dude]

So, you drive with your lights on all the time?

Thanks for the warning, but on new bikes there is no choice.
There is no off switch for lights.

Sorry should have made it clearer. The whole last part of my previous posting after the bit that say I found this one the web was just just a cut and paste of someone elses comments, and not my views.

:)

[Sharik]

What concerns me is that it appears to target a minority of road users with the justification being that it is “safer” for the motorcyclist and that the legislators appear to be addressing road safety. What it fails to address is the general appalling standard of driving in this country, which is the main cause of all road casualties, be they motorcyclists, pedestrians, cyclists, etc. To address this there is a requirement for Traffic Police to be back on the road and taking people to task for their inappropriate or dangerous driving/riding, mechanically unsound vehicles, etc and moving away from the reliance of machines that, by their very nature, can only see one problem (usually speeding) in a very localised area (I appreciate average speed cameras are slightly different but still only act as judge and jury on speeding). By making such statements it is the hope these will be viewed as being positive about road safety. They are targeting a group that are a small minority of road users who enjoy little sympathy (or understanding) by the majority of road users, who will without any thought, back such a campaign. There will be no appreciation that there is no real safety benefit in compulsion (I have no problem with individuals choosing to wear hi-viz clothing) and allow further road safety cameras to be installed thereby increasing payments into the public coffers that it is the real driver (no pun intended) at the same time doing nothing to halt or reverse the continued deterioration in driving behaviour.

[Geordie Stu]

I have sent an email to Wiltshire Police to get their veiw point & if they are considering similar action.

I will let you know in due course

[wiltshire builders]

What to do what to do.......I ride a bike to look cool. Hi-viz is un-cool but so is being buried head first into the side of a volvo.......argh!

(I don't really ride to look cool for that i do press ups in the street)

[ZZR600Dude]

What to do what to do.......I ride a bike to look cool. Hi-viz is un-cool but so is being buried head first into the side of a volvo.......argh!

(I don't really ride to look cool for that i do press ups in the street)
P.S. no disrespect to builders from my earlier comments, I just dont want to look like one on my bike.
:-?

[wiltshire builders]

What to do what to do.......I ride a bike to look cool. Hi-viz is un-cool but so is being buried head first into the side of a volvo.......argh!

(I don't really ride to look cool for that i do press ups in the street)
P.S. no disrespect to builders from my earlier comments, I just dont want to look like one on my bike.
:-?
It's funny you should say that because they are also trying to make it compulsory to have 2" of arse cleavage showing above your leather jeans. (1 piece suits will have a little window on the lower back)

[Ducatista]

I have sent an email to Wiltshire Police to get their veiw point & if they are considering similar action.
I will let you know in due course

Great, let us know how you get on, even if you get no response, as I'll be seeing the chief inspector (head of road policing) in April.

[BoatingBiker]

when hi-vis jackets first came out they were great for standing out on the road on the bike.

However now lorry driver wear then whilst driving, dog walkers use them, joe public walks in them, construction works wear them to work..............etc, etc so now motorcyclist do not stand out in the crowd as they once did !

My employer provide them for me at work but I chose not to wear them on the bike, my choice my risk !

[aprillia_dave]

hi read most of your arguments about hi vis clothing, mcn as some one said are to make sales of their mag, which if you read them goes round in circles about bikers, police stopping bikers in wales , limit power output on bikes, new test for learners. hi vis jackets is now their topic!, I myself will wear one at night as car drivers dont see us on the road , and watch out for people at junction on their phones, yellow jackets wont help.


Safe riding

[Geordie Stu]

Some of you may have read that I sent an email to Wiltshire Police below is the reply I got.

"Unfortunately, I don't read MCN so do not have knowledge of the article you refer to. I have not heard of any proposed change in legislation to make the wearing of 'Hi-Vis' compulsory. That's not to say that it is not on its way, but it does sound very unlikely to me. Due to the number of legislation changes there are in the UK each year, it is usual that Police Officers' are notified of changes which affect their role very near to the time of implementation. The 'Think Bike' campaign has been around for many years and it was my understanding that it was predominantly directed at other road users to pay more attention to motorcycles when exiting junctions and overtaking etc. I can see why some forces would give advice and hand out 'Hi-Vis' to motorcyclists' linked to the 'Think Bike' campaign as it centres on others seeing motorcyclists. I am not aware of any campaigns within Wiltshire in the near future looking at handing out 'Hi-Vis' clothing to motorcyclists."

That information provided above was from a Police Motorcyclist. Looks like Wilt****ePolice have no immediate plans to start stopping us & handing out Hi-Vis [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

[igbell]

Thank god for that, I dont mind wearing a jkt at night when I want to but to be made wear one is a different matter

[Jon_W]

Some of you may have read that I sent an email to Wiltshire Police below is the reply I got.

"Unfortunately, I don't read MCN so do not have knowledge of the article you refer to. I have not heard of any proposed change in legislation to make the wearing of 'Hi-Vis' compulsory. That's not to say that it is not on its way, but it does sound very unlikely to me. Due to the number of legislation changes there are in the UK each year, it is usual that Police Officers' are notified of changes which affect their role very near to the time of implementation. The 'Think Bike' campaign has been around for many years and it was my understanding that it was predominantly directed at other road users to pay more attention to motorcycles when exiting junctions and overtaking etc. I can see why some forces would give advice and hand out 'Hi-Vis' to motorcyclists' linked to the 'Think Bike' campaign as it centres on others seeing motorcyclists. I am not aware of any campaigns within Wiltshire in the near future looking at handing out 'Hi-Vis' clothing to motorcyclists."

That information provided above was from a Police Motorcyclist. Looks like Wilt****ePolice have no immediate plans to start stopping us & handing out Hi-Vis [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Makes sense... another sensational flop from the comic....

[BB]

From my personal experience, Wiltshire bike coppers (as indeed the majority of coppers I have met over the years) are a good bunch of guys who enjoy riding the same as the rest of us. They want us to stay safe but also recognise that we are all individuals. 8-)

BB