Does hi-viz motorcycle clothing work?
by Gavin Grewal on Oct.16, 2012, under Gavin Grewal, Team Blogs
I am a big believer in ‘hi-viz’ clothing. If it gets you noticed when you are out on your bike I think it is worth its weight in gold.
I even went as far as ‘borrowing’ a hi-viz bag cover for my rucksack from Chef. Couple this with wearing a bright white helmet and riding a bright white bike, I was pretty happy clocking up the miles safe in the knowledge that everyone and their dog will see me.
The net result is that I look like this most days:
Then it happened, my first ‘crash’. Picture it; 8am on a Friday morning travelling in lane one of a dual carriageway at around 60-65mph. In lane two is a family saloon car and we’re travelling side by side. When all of sudden car driver decides she wants to come off at the next exit slip; swerves from lane two, collides with my right leg and forces me off the dual carriageway with her.
Now I would like to put something here about how I used my excellent motorcycling skills set to ensure I kept my bike upright whilst gradually slowing down and warning the driver of my presence. That did not happen. Instead sheer panic immediately set in and I just pulled a stupid face and repeatedly hit the engine start button thinking it was the horn.
On a serious note I was lucky to stay upright and not be rolling down the road on my head at 60mph. You will be glad to hear I did manage to get the lady driver’s attention and inform her of my displeasure at the whole event.
After this experience I am a little less confident in the value of hi-viz. I will not stop wearing it but I am searching for the next big thing to add to my arsenal. Andrew Dalton has some Gucci auxiliary lights on Dora (his Triumph Explorer). I am more used to seeing these on the big BMW bikes and they always draw the eye.
As an experienced rider, Andrew is of the opinion that wearing hi-viz doesn’t necessarily increase other road users perception that you are there and in some cases may do more to create a potential hazard up ahead – motorists may think you’re a pretend policeman, and their driving style suddenly becomes less normal and predictable as they try to “drive by the book”.
Other EU countries, such as France, have even gone so far as to make it compulsory for motorcyclists to wear hi-viz, punishable by a fine if found not wearing the requirement in day-glo motorcycle clothing.
So, what are your thoughts on hi-viz? Do you swear by it or think it is a waste of time? What accessories could I get to improve my visibility to other road users? Share your stories and tips on how you stay visible in the comments below.
About Gavin Grewal
Trainee Solicitor at White Dalton and Special Constable with the local constabulary. Rides a 2011 Yamaha YZF-R125.
The comments on this blog are moderated. After posting a comment you will not see it immediately as it will go into a moderation queue for an admin to approve. If your comment is to do with a motorcycle accident that you require advice on, please call us on 0800 783 6191 instead.
You can post a comment either using your Facebook account or by using the form at the end of the page. Note that if you use your Facebook account, the comment you place here will also appear on your Facebook page.
October 16th, 2012 on 8:51 pm
I have written an article for RiDE Magazine which sets out the science for and against hi-viz/ day glow kit. The science doesn’t support it and young Gavlar gets pushed across a lane of traffic in eye bleeding dayglow. I’ll post the Ride article up once the edition comes off the shelves. Any way I don’t use it, not as a fashion point, but because in my considered opinion it makes no difference.
October 18th, 2012 on 10:21 am
As a daily all weather commuter I agree that high viz is not effective.
Hi Viz makes you look like all other cyclists, which I don’t want to be related to!
The best Hi Viz i’ve seen is what the police wear – the check pattern gets attention, as you have to do a double check to make sure it’s a police officer, or a security guard.
I had the same experience as described above, but when the ford KA drove into me (50 mph), I gave it a firm back hander ( with re-enforced knuckles on my gloves I might add!), and blared the horn – this worked well! the dent it left would be a reminder to the young girl driving to watch her mirrors in the future!
since then the best defense from drivers not seeing you is to assume they haven’t! I ride looking in their mirrors, to see if they are paying attention – texting their mates on their lap, fumbling with a hot drink, or cigeratte and generally trusting that they will pull out on me at any time.
that and getting an assessed ride with the police at bike safe is the best kit i’d reccomend.
October 19th, 2012 on 8:32 am
Hi-vis definitely did not work for me, as Martyn is currently sorting out my claim!, riding a Kawasaki GTR tourer, ultrabrite headlight bulb, wearing my eye stinging hi vis council jacket, with added full set of bright blue neons front and back on my bike, the guy who took me out on the motorway said those famous words,”sorry, didnt see him”, as above poster has said, being very vigilant, watching a drivers eyes, since the crash I am now a very careful rider, almost too careful, very hesitant, and am always looking for bad drivers, I admit I do not ride as much now since the accident, think I will look for a checker type jacket myself, thought dont think it will help really, regards.
October 19th, 2012 on 4:57 pm
I have very mixed feelings about the use of Hi-Viz products. Although it seems most cagers can spot a Hi-Vis Police rider other motorcyclists (who, maybe do not have the same ‘presence’ on the road) frequently seem to be invisible and the number of SMIDSYs certainly seems to be on the increase. Now that most modern cars seem to be trying to outdo the Blackpool illuminations during daylight hours the motorcyclist, with his single headlight, seems to be perceived as a car a long way away. The preponderance of DRLs has completely negated the biggest safety asset we used to have when running with our headlight(s) on. Now we are just lost in a sea of lights.
Ken.
October 19th, 2012 on 5:00 pm
Everyone now wears HiViz so it doesn’t stand out to be seen anymore.
October 19th, 2012 on 5:18 pm
Hi Gavin,
Can make three suggestions.
Firstly – Join MAG if not already a member – They are helping fight for our rights to ride the motorcycle of our choice in the gear of our choice as long as we remain within the law. I firmly believe that without them motorcycling in Europe will slowly be legislated out of existence.
Secondly – Ride as if you are invisible – at least you know what the other driver will do! Hi Viz is not the answer and in fact it can lead to a false sense that other road users will see you – they won’t !
Finally – Join the nearest IAM group and work with them to improve your planning and observation skills.
Enjoy the Journey,
Alan
October 19th, 2012 on 5:19 pm
It’s possible you were obscured by the B pillar of the car and the driver simply couldn’t see you. A friend of mine has a Harley with straight through exhausts. Man that thing is loud! The serious point is even if a driver couldn’t see he’d KNOW he was there because he would be able to hear him.
So, my advice is to put some aftermarket exhausts on to make your bike louder (within the limits of the law). It gives another means for you to be noticed.
October 19th, 2012 on 5:20 pm
I seem to remember at least two incidents where police bikers have been run into by car drivers not only were they on their very visibly marked bikes and wearing all the usual hi-viz that they wear but actually with blues and twos going. If car drivers don’t look they won’t see us even if we ride stark naked!
October 19th, 2012 on 5:21 pm
Hi Vis or No Hot Vis, that is the Question:
Whether ’tis easier for the Driver to see me
And react to my prescence, saving me a fortune;
Or does the dismissive Driver vear towards me, unleashing a wave of troubles my way…?
To Be Seen Or Not To Be Seen is the Challenge all
Two Wheeled Brethren face Daily…
I ride a Bike as Black as Night, covered in Dark Robes, with a Dark Helmet protecting my visage…
And by opposing this with a High Vis Jerkin, I doth create a stark contrast about my personage.
No one wants to die, to sleep, yes, but No more.
My Protection is my knowledge; my reflexes; my awareness & my ability to treat all who share my path as imbeciles; incapable of rational thoughts…
The prospect of heart-ache, pain & loss
that accompanies a fall; keeps my wits about me, and helps me return safely, to my loved ones.
I am but a man, astride a machine & my freedom is an afront to those trapped within their cages.
So, i am wary in my travellings
& wise to never ride weary
with my mind alert, I can predict & react to many things that are thrown across my path…
The trick is to respect the road you travel upon.
Do not succumb to false confidence
Never assume you have been seen…
People say that even those Brave Knights of the Road; riding steadfastly, with sirens wailing & lights a-flashing; to aide the injured or accost villains committing heinous crimes; have been caught with their pantaloons down & suffered falls from grace…
Ay the trick to riding safe is Respect
& the avoidance of complacency.
Aides to Safety, are just that, Aides.
They will assist you but, be aware, they won’t protect you!
To sleep, perchance to dream,
Ay, there’s the rub!
(my apologies to Willy Shakespeare for the blatant plaguarism)
October 19th, 2012 on 5:31 pm
I agree with the fact that Hi-Vi is not effective in getting noticed!
I was “savaged” by a rampant Volvo 760, , yep I did say “Volvo”,
That was doing a three point turn in a stationary traffic jam.
I was waring a bright yellow motorcycle jacket, white crash helmet
with headlight on dip beam traveling at 15mph.
But as I said, ,it was a Volvo!!!
October 19th, 2012 on 5:34 pm
I have this Hi-Viz debate quite often. In my experience the only time I’ve found Hi-Viz helpful has been when riding in fog – where you still get the odd looney driving past you at mach 1, but my High Viz refelctive sash gets worn over the jacket in fog – and so far it seems to have made me more visable – especially since bikes don’t have rear fog lights. If drivers don’t look they won’t see you, regardless of what you are wearing. Even if they do look it doesn’t guarantee that they have seen you. Best not to rely on conspicuousy aids and just treat all other road users as if they haven’t see you – It’s not just with bikers either I’ve had near SMIDSY’s from other drivers when in my Landrover Discovery – and that is big and conspicuous!
October 20th, 2012 on 8:27 am
As usual, they didn’t see you because they wasn’t *!*!*! looking.
Maybe the answer is more training, maybe even an off road riding course to learn vital bike control rather than lighting yourself up like a Christmas tree which they still won’t see!!
I will say it’s never happened to me (yet) so I can’t say how I will react in the same circumstances.
October 20th, 2012 on 8:46 am
I ride motorcycles AND bicycles, and find that high-viz tends to make very little difference to the average half-asleep driver. Though it shouldn’t be so, WE have to take the responsibilty for ourselves, and assume that NO ONE has seen us, and be prepared to act accordingly. If we don’t, whether it’s our fault or not, getting hit or knocked off a bike (powered or otherwise)is still going to hurt, and our being in the right isn’t going to change that.
Whether you choose to where high-viz gear or not, be safe out there folks.
October 20th, 2012 on 3:55 pm
I was riding alongside a motorcycle cop, hi-viz etc, on a bikesafe course and a car pulled straight out in front of us. The policeman pulled the motorist over to give them a warning and was told “sorry didn’t see you”. I have never been a fan of hi-viz anyway and agree with the other posts reflecting the view that we should assume all other road users are idiots or at least haven’t seen us. I also agree with the comment that if a car is travelling alongside you for several seconds then you need to adjust your speed to give yourself space and potential escape options.
October 21st, 2012 on 12:02 pm
I think the main point here is nothng at all to do with visibility it is to do with road sense and positioning. You should never put yourself in a position where something like that can occur. You said that you and the car were side by side. Why? Because the car wasn’t overtaking you fast enough? If a car is in the second lane of a DC they are carrying out an overtake so should be travelling considerably faster than you are. If they are crawling past or not even gaining on you, slow down, let them past and then overtake them again if necessary. Don’t sit along side them if you can avoid it and keep out of their blind spot at all cost. In addition to this, get right over to the left hand side of the inside lane. Increase the safety margin. Then as soon as you see any sideways movement you can take evasive action, consider use of the horn etc. I don’t believe that hi-viz makes any difference and that’s why I don’t wear it. The best tool you can have to keep you safe on the road is training. Get yourself on a Bikesafe course and consider the advanced test. It makes a huge difference.
October 23rd, 2012 on 8:45 am
It’s an impossible question to answer and frankly I am dismayed at some of the attempts made here. No one can say if it makes any difference because no one knows just how many drivers DID see the high viz/white helmet/headlight and avoided making contact with the rider because of it, it’s only the ones who didn’t LOOK who we get to know about.
As a rider of over 40 years who was police trained and examined to advanced level 12 years ago and who ran his own bike courier business for 10 years I can say with absolute certianty I wouldn’t leave home without high viz clothing but I agree fully with Steve Shaw and good roadcraft/training to advanced level is the ultimate protection for all riders, that will do far more good than loud cans!
October 24th, 2012 on 2:06 pm
[...] Gavin Grewal, Team Blogs Thank you to all of those of you who commented on my first blog about the merits of wearing Hi-Vis, there are some great ideas on how you can stay [...]
October 28th, 2012 on 11:39 am
HiViz can be useful especially in the event of an accident as it will help your case. Apart from that it is an extra layer to help keep you warm
Loud pipes only tell where you are going to not wheree you are coming from. I had an example of that on Friday doing 60mph in the nearside and the bike filtered at a faster speed and I didn’t hear it until it was alongside my car.
The best advice given to me was back in 1959 when I started riding and that was treat every road user as an idiot.
And the only information you get from an indicator is that the bulb is working.
October 29th, 2012 on 1:34 pm
Hi Richard, I am of the view that every riders experience shapes there risk assessment. However there is no evidence I am aware of which says dayglow assists. There is quite a lot of evidence which says an illuminated headlight helps and reflective clothing creates a flash which the human eye picks up. Once the new edition of RiDE gets on the shelves I will post up my article in the current issue which looks at the science of dayglow. I don’t wear it, but I do have auxillary lights on my bike, which, unscientifically, I have found very effective. The basic problem is, as I see it, if a car driver looks, he will see a motorcycle and its rider. If he does not look, then he will not see. Hi visibilty gear does not help in that common scenario. I am not a dayglow hater. I wear it on my pedal cycle and whilst running on the road. If I thought it made a contribution to my safety I would wear it.
October 29th, 2012 on 1:40 pm
Hi Ron, wearing dayglow is unlikley to help your case as Judges recognise motorcyclists are not invisible. It is a personal choice. If I have a dayglow jacket but I don’t wear it as it makes some car drivers react in a most peculiar way – they mistake me for a motorcycle copper and then start driving by the book, 10 mph below the speed limit and trying to crawl up the kerbs. The last time I road in a dayglow was at a crash scene, being video’d by a forensic collision investigator. On two occasions in less than 5 minutes a car and a van had pulled out on me within about 10 metres – my bike also had the auxillary riding lamps illuminated. So I get back to my basic premise. If they won’t look they won’t see.
October 29th, 2012 on 1:42 pm
Phil Innamorati – that was magnificent. I am speechless. That is a rare state for me!
March 5th, 2013 on 9:35 am
Dear Andrew,
Thank you so much for the courtesy of your reply.
It would seem that at the heart of this exchange is your statement that
“… there is no evidence I am aware of which says dayglow assists…..
If I thought it made a contribution to my safety I would wear it.”
One conclusion, consistent with this proposition is that it is logical to hold the view that because there is no evidence for the existence of something, that something does not exist. That construct is illogical.
Simply because you do not have evidence that something exists does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn’t exist. In contradicting your own position, I cited three publications, two of them peer reviewed and case-controlled and all of them from highly authoritative sources.
All of this scientific evidence attests in a highly consistent fashion to the significant contribution offered by hi-viz in terms of a reduction in the risk of being involved in an accident. Importantly these studies have adequate statistical power which in layman’s language means that they have been performed in such a way that they would have detected any differences had there been any differences to detect.
Likewise had no differences been present this would be reported accurately (i.e. no false positives or negatives).
I would be intrigued to learn whether you feel there are now substantive grounds for maintaining the view espoused in your published piece.
Perhaps you would let me know when you have had a chance to read the relevant publications (warning here, MAIDS2 is a large body of work)?
And please don’t take my description of ‘ill-informed’ in any pejorative sense since I had no intention of using it in such a fashion.
The context I was trying to construct was founded on your statement that you were not aware of evidence to support the beneficial use of hi-viz whilst at the same time it was out there in the public domain. Hence ‘ill-informed’ as a descriptor.
My qualifications for commenting as I do rest upon two elements. Firstly very long experience on two wheels in the UK and Ireland and secondly a lifetime spent in clinical research where I was charged with establishing whether drug A actually made patients better and if so by how much. Mixed in amongst this was other work along similar lines. In this, there is not a lot of difference between designing studies that work out whether drug A ‘works’ and those that set out to determine whether hi-viz ‘works’.
Consequently, I was more than a little troubled by your seeming reliance on Farber and Olsen’s “close analysis of previous peer reviewed studies”. Unfortunately I am unsighted of this body of work but should it rely on trying to retrospectively homogenize data from different studies I would caution you against giving it any reliance. Even with statistical meta-analysis it is on very shaky ground and an extremely poor rationale for suggesting “it does not feature as something motorcyclists should do”.
And you can be assured that hi-viz was of absolutely no use to me when I was knocked off my bike in 1967 by a motorist who infringed my right of way in heavy traffic one dark night in the rain. Equally I am evidentially assured that in the daytime my chances would be better with hi-viz than without it.
Thank you Andrew. I would like to accept your invitation to add my own contribution to the high-viz debate on your blog with one amendment; perhaps edit out the ‘End of story’ concluding remark since in science that can never be true.
Kind regards from a wet and windswept Tipperary where Dalton is indeed a frequently found name.
Safe riding.
Paul McCarthy
March 5th, 2013 on 9:38 am
Thank you Paul, from a bleak and snowy Buckinghamshire! I am trying to find the time to read the huge Maids report which I have printed off. I will make no observation on the science behind it but there is a danger here of us using evidence in two different ways. You are much more likely to use the Baconian method. I am much more likely to use inference – lawyers and scientists handle evidence in quite different ways. The difference is between “inference” and “replication” – which is why lawyers often have a problem with scientific studies. I will try to send you the summary of Olsen and Farber upon which UK mainland Police Forensic Investigators rely. My fundamental issue with high visibility is that I am satisfied that if you are seen wearing it, you will be seen without wearing it, especially if your motorcycle is illuminated. If you are seen on a motorcycle but you are mistaken for a motorcycle police officer (which happens a lot over here) then a minority of other road users become ever more unpredictable – but that is a personal observation based on my experience. I will edit out the “end of story” – which is a surprising conclusion from a scientist. I suspect that was a rhetorical flourish, something we lawyers are prone to! I am happy enough with meta analysis of peer reviewed studies but share your concern that there can be “rubbish in, rubbish out” with meta analysis.
One thing experience has taught me is that the raw material for most collision surveys is quite often poor as it is based on findings which are based on witness recollection in an adversarial environment with little actual forensic analysis because the raw material of forensic analysis for motorcycle collisions is inherently weak.
March 6th, 2013 on 2:34 pm
This morning on BBC radio I heard a report regarding the Met Police force pedestrian officers proposal to move from drab to high-viz. In a pilot study in East London in they reckoned crime went down by some enormous margin when officers wore bright clothing. Not exactly comparable to motorcycle conspicuity but in the same general direction.