ffs don't start going down the cost analysis route that is what gets politicians off..... we all know that smoking costs the NHS and as you say 'society' so ban it completely.....er no that would upset people and its there choice....

Then there's obesity ok cost to the nation....... mandatory education and organised PT for fatty's..... yeah as if I can just see the big boned shudder at the thought lol.....

drink driving cost to the nation....ok breath testers attached to ignition... relatively cheap but er no that would never do....

Benefits...cost to the nation..... well don't give anymore than than one would expect on minimum wage...would get the ''sick lame and weary of their arses'' oh the incitement to riot is boiling now...

You see don't start coming with the argument of cost the the nation because where does it stop....... high vis vest ok it is reflective and yes it will make you more noticeable but it isn't going to save you in a spill and if you look at the other measures that arrogant French twat is forcing on bikers...it is easy to see he is on a crusade against bikers on a lot of other subjects...... should we make pedestrians wear high vis vests as it is more of a cost to society the numbers of those knocked down every year than motorcyclists.. I'm sure that our H & S officer and our paramedics/ ambulance techs along with our statisticians will agree on that??....or does that not fit in with the point you are trying to .... put across...?????????

                                                                                                                                                                             

were are you guys going with this, think its gone of track.
 Think our main concern should be if we are forced to wear Dayglo and safety clothing it will give insurance company's a getout clause if they say we were wearing the wrong clothes

Hey .... somebody gets it!

Quote from a couple of pages back;

"So, would I oppose legislation to make us wear high vis in this country.  Yes, my main reason being that it creates a precedent that could result in bikers being found at fault in accidents where they clearly should have been seen with high vis or not."                                                                                                                                                                             

Is anyone going on the protest ride in Birmingham on Saturday against this?                                                                                                                                                                             

Sorry LR, but I'm presenting a seminar on the economic benefits of compulsory high visibility clothing for motorcyclists ...... oh, wait a second!


                                                                                                                                                                             

Lol. Like it ;-)                                                                                                                                                                             

Thank you ..... takes a bow!
                                                                                                                                                                             

how about make it compulsory for able bodied people to pass a bike test before driving a car..............                                                                                                                                                                             

ATOH,
 we were talking about that on Sunday, on the Fallen Bikers ride, for Darren.  Dont know if you could make them do the full test but at least do thier CBT ?
Rob
                                                                                                                                                                             

I'm probably missing something here but if it is a legal requirement and you don't wear it then you are at fault in that you have contributed to the accident in the same way as if you were speeding.
                                                                                                                                                                             

Probably Gloom, but not necessarily.

What we must remember is that simply breaking the law is not sufficient evidence in itself to find fault in an accident.  So, for example, someone may be breaking the speed limit at the time of an accident, but this doesn't automatically mean that excessive speed is a contributory factor.

Let's presume for a second that high vis is made compulsory, which I think is very unlikely, in this country at least.  If a rider gets knocked off whilst not wearing their high vis vest, then this should only be considered an issue should "failure to see" from a third party be a contributory factor.

Even then, there is the question of whether it would be reasonable to expect the third party to have been able to see the rider regardless of wearing of high vis or not.

However, as you say, any barrister defending the third party would try to use the fact the rider wasn't wearing his/her compulsory high vis as a defence for his client not seeing the bike.  Even when a site visit/reconstruction would show that the rider was clearly visible even without high vis.

Which is why I would oppose such legislation.

If you know what I mean lol!                                                                                                                                                                             

Here we go again ....

Perhaps they should have a tiered approach for every form of road user there is in order of vulnerability?

So, before you can learn to ride a horse you have to take a cycling proficiency test.  And you have to pass a test proving you can control a horse on the public highway before you can learn to ride a moped.  And then a moped test before you can learn to ride a bike etc etc ...

Or ..... maybe people should be made to pass a test for every form of road user/vehicle there is before being allowed to take any vehicle on the road on your own?

Or ..... maybe it's just not practical and a far better alternative would be to include an element on vulnerable road users on ALL driving tests be that car, motorcycle, hgv etc?                                                                                                                                                                             

It's ridiculous though I remember the think bike campAigns as a kid and recently it makes more sense and actually works by educating the main injury factor the 4 wheeled box of which I do drive. It isn't just the vis vest, there are numerous rules that the frog minister is trying to take in this just seems to be the face of it that is stirring everyones emotions..... No filtering bhp limitations, aftermarket parts... Customisation banned it's some dick who has a thing against bikes see's us as easy target

Or maybe at irregular intervals run the think bike campaign and actually have the police nick a few of the road rage car drivers who do unsafe dangerous manoeuvres against bikes. Then publicise it it's the only way to get it over is by making an example of them... It works when someone in the biking world is prosecuted we al think twice about it..... But the police are not interested in it.

two topics merged.  thanks                                                                                                                                                                             

Ok then,   Weaing a dayglo vest, isn't going to stop some myoptic old fart from pulling out in front of you, FACT   If they can't see your blazing 60w headlamp, hear your 100db race can what use is a dayglo vest going to be NONE, simples....   I was right next to one yesterday, on a roundabout and the old twat pulled straight across into my lane almost taking the paint off my fairing, then when i tooted him acted like it was my fault i was on the road,   ummm this is one bloke who's not going to be wearing any dayglo any time soon, not because i still live in the dark ages, but because i just don't see any benefits to it, and it doesn't match me bike    And in this twitterface generation, there seems to a more and more i don't care attitude to other road users doesn't seem to matter if your on a bike or in a car,   If I had a £1 for the times i've had people just pull into the outside lane right in front of me, i'd be a very, very wealthy man.   I don't know if it's because they don't see you / don't care your doing 60mph in a 60 limit and the're only doing 35mph and think they can overtake at 1mph more than the thing they've just pulled out to overtake or if it's because they've been brain washed by this endless B/S that speed kills and they "do" see you and just want to slow you down, because they see themselves as some sort on self imposed upkeeper of the law,     Way back when, it seemed this sort of idiot was only ever encountered on sunday once a month, now it seems they are out every day, and not just one at a time but in droves, just waiting to p**s you off and i for one am getting sick and tired of it,   ok sorry rant over now and i'm counting to ten, 1, 2, 3,4...                                                                                                                                                                             

Totally agree with you Blade, bunch of ferkin barstewards the lot of em lol I am not wearing any dayglow shite either no wuckin furries....there..                                                                                                                                                                             

I'm sorry but anyone that thinks a hi vis jacket makes any difference to people seeing you on a motorcycle are gravely mistaken. Again speaking from experience I HAD to wear a hi vis jacket when instructing and so did the pupils I rode with (up to 2) and people STILL pulled out infront of us and STILL said they didnt see us. In fact in some cases I challenged some drivers who said they hadn't seen us when in fact they did, but chose to ignore our presence. Its the easiest thing in the world to say " I didn't see you " and everyone thinks "Yeah, of course, because the other party was riding a motorcycle".   I had one driver who even overtook myself and two pupils before cutting my nose off at a roundabout when he turned left. His excuse? He didn't see me When I said he was talking rubbish as he had just carried out 3 seperate overtakes on us - If he hadn't seen us, then who had he moved out to overtake? ? not once but 3 times. The upshot is, he just didn't care, he was in a rush to get to his own destination and sod anyone else out on the road who was not in a car.   To be visible to other road users, it has been proved that the best thing to do is to stand out. and as every thing (during the day) is brightly coloured, then a contrast (wearing black) may be the best thing you can do. Which is why the RAF paint their training aircraft Black, and not bright green so people can see them.   Wearing bright colours during poor light conditions (fog, overcast etc) can make a difference, also wearing reflective clothing at night   Riding with headlights on makes a real difference when the rider is further away, and in a rural setting. Whereas in urban surroundings, riding with lights on makes the approach speed of a motorcycle harder to judge. So if a car pulls out infront of you when you have your headlight on and knocks you off - Are they going to say "Sorry mate, I DID see you, but I thought I had time to pull out" or "Sorry mate, I didn't see you" Who's going to admit to the first one ? ?   The most effective thing to do on a motorcycle is adopt a prominent postion in the road, which is inline with the drivers seat in a car. Which is wheee most experienced bikers ride anyway? Why? Because just about everyone expects to see cars on the road, so their eyes by habit go to that position in the road where they expect to get eye contact with a car driver (Which is why left hand drive cars look odd at first glance - no one in the drivers seat).   Sorry for the long post, but the hi vis jacket / clothing thing always gets on my wick, mainly because its a knee jerk easy option which isn't very effective at all. You are either visible, or you are not, there is no more, or less visible. It comes down to driver psychology, and after doing all the instructing around Bradford, then you quickly get the idea that everyone else is an idiot, so don't take anyone for granted that they know, or care that you are there.                                                                                                                                                                             

I do wear hi vis mostly, but prefer to be given a choice!   "The didn't see you bit" Is another way of saying, that they are a crap driver. There is no excuse for not seeing another road user. If they did not see you, they were not driving safely.   All car/lorry drivers etc should have at least one days experience on a motorcycle. Perhaps this will make them realise out life is their hands and only partly in ours as motorcyclists.                                                                                                                                                                             

Driving "without due care and attention" is a prosecutable offence its time the Police started doing thier job and having these morons.   The excuse "I did not see you " is not acceptable.   Let's just bin the Hazard Perception bullsh*t.   End of story.