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??