Open Face Crash

[Firstfour_imp]

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.