(06-18-2014, 11:19 AM)Firstfour_imp Wrote:

(06-18-2014, 10:42 AM)pechorin75_imp Wrote: I won't get involved in arguments about mandatory safety equipment....but that said, having just read the anti-hi-viz article linked in a previous post, I'm a bit disgusted. I mean, I'm all for personal freedom/responsibility, but in a world where drivers often "never even see" the motorcyclists they kill, I find arguments against hi-viz from a safety standpoint pretty ludicrous.

The proof that it works is right there before your own eyes.

I was driving a car the other day when I saw a BMW rider waiting at an intersection further up the road. He was wearing a bright yellow hi-viz jacket. I'd wager I saw him literally hundreds of yards earlier than I would have otherwise, and continued to be aware of his presence. How can that possibly be a bad thing for the motorcyclist?

When I myself have worn a high-viz vest, it's been very obvious to me that drivers have given me more room. Is that a bad thing?

As to this guy's contention that motorcyclists are apt to become more reckless if they wear hi-viz--i.e., the "transfer of responsibility" argument--I seriously doubt it. You could argue against any safety device of any kind on that basis! I mean, have riders really become more reckless since they started wearing helmets?

I may ride like I'm invisible, but that doesn't mean I actually want to be invisible!

But I think what bugs me about the article more than anything is this: He's telling people not to adopt safety equipment that may well save their lives one day because--get this--as more of them do, the greater the odds it'll end up becoming the law for everyone. What a selfish, dishonest argument! His personal whims force him to argue that hi-vis is useless--something I'll bet he doesn't actually believe--so that he can then argue against people wearing it.

But it's a counterproductive argument, at least with me. After reading it, I wanted to go out and buy some more high-vis gear just to spite the guy.

That anti-hi-viz guy is a complete idiot.

(06-19-2014, 09:24 AM)AzBob_imp Wrote:

(06-18-2014, 11:19 AM)Firstfour_imp Wrote:

(06-18-2014, 10:42 AM)pechorin75_imp Wrote: I won't get involved in arguments about mandatory safety equipment....but that said, having just read the anti-hi-viz article linked in a previous post, I'm a bit disgusted. I mean, I'm all for personal freedom/responsibility, but in a world where drivers often "never even see" the motorcyclists they kill, I find arguments against hi-viz from a safety standpoint pretty ludicrous.

The proof that it works is right there before your own eyes.

I was driving a car the other day when I saw a BMW rider waiting at an intersection further up the road. He was wearing a bright yellow hi-viz jacket. I'd wager I saw him literally hundreds of yards earlier than I would have otherwise, and continued to be aware of his presence. How can that possibly be a bad thing for the motorcyclist?

When I myself have worn a high-viz vest, it's been very obvious to me that drivers have given me more room. Is that a bad thing?

As to this guy's contention that motorcyclists are apt to become more reckless if they wear hi-viz--i.e., the "transfer of responsibility" argument--I seriously doubt it. You could argue against any safety device of any kind on that basis! I mean, have riders really become more reckless since they started wearing helmets?

I may ride like I'm invisible, but that doesn't mean I actually want to be invisible!

But I think what bugs me about the article more than anything is this: He's telling people not to adopt safety equipment that may well save their lives one day because--get this--as more of them do, the greater the odds it'll end up becoming the law for everyone. What a selfish, dishonest argument! His personal whims force him to argue that hi-vis is useless--something I'll bet he doesn't actually believe--so that he can then argue against people wearing it.

But it's a counterproductive argument, at least with me. After reading it, I wanted to go out and buy some more high-vis gear just to spite the guy.

That anti-hi-viz guy is a complete idiot.

Who posted saying they were against hi-viz vests?

I like the study that was posted, I was unaware of any prior to that. Anecdotal mentions of cagers supposedly giving pause when we ride with different eq or whatever is just that, anecdotal, and highly subject to confirmation bias.

While it may be "lame," I kinda liked the picture of the vest made to look like the police vest. Our cops don't wear hi-viz vests, though. People here don't even turn their heads to look before changing lanes, so I wonder how much being more conspicuous can help. Like I said, it can't hurt.

Does anyone know of a hi-viz vest that flows bunches of air? Most that I've seen are some kind of polyester/plastic that blocks all wind, which would basically kill me in the heat. The leather jacket is bad enough by itself.

(06-19-2014, 09:59 AM)Elipten_imp Wrote: Some adhesives degrade the strength of the material used to construct the helmet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk