‘The French plan to force all motorcyclists to wear dayglo vests is as
naive as it is outrageous’ says The Motorcycle Action Group (MAG).

MAG claim there is no clear evidence that high visibility clothing leads
to a reduced accident rate among motorcyclists. That aside, the group
claims there is something fundamentally immoral about criminalising the
victims of accidents who refuse to adopt tactics designed to address the
failings of those who cause them.

The move toward the adoption of high visibility clothing stems from the
common excuse used by motorists; “I’m sorry I?didn’t see you.”

MAG believes that visually seeing a motorcycle and mentally recognising
it as an issue for a motorist are two distinct experiences. Furthermore
there may be many instances in which, at the time that a motorist
initiates a man oeuvre that leads to a collision, the motorcycle is not
within the driver’s field of vision. In such cases high visibility
clothing is completely irrelevant.

MAG?UK?will be supporting the French riders who are lobbying vigorously
against this intrusive proposal and will fiercely resist any moves to
make high visibility clothing mandatory in this country.

MAG?President Ian Mutch said: “To criminalise thousands of innocent
people unless they adopt a dress style which to many is totally
unacceptable, reflects the ascendency of unsympathetic arrogance over
common sense.”                                                                                                                                                                              

You already have to carry one when your over there, but from my experience from riding there is that car drivers are OK as far as mopeds go but rather intolerant of motorbikes. 

However the kids that ride round on mopeds are suicidal, especially once the sun comes out & very little clothing is worn, never mind any protective gear ... perhaps the laws should concentrate more on protective clothing rather than visibility?                                                                                                                                                                              

While I agree that clothing and safety equipment can mitigate risk and injury I think mandating high vis clothing to mitigate the shortcomings of other road users is a step to far.
Perhaps slapping the drivers that use SMIDSY as an excuse with a couple of thousand Euro fine might be more productive. 

It's a dumb idea.

But..

From a beaurocrats point of view its the closrst thing to recognized safety gear there is. Your expensive leathers don't count because they aren't ce approved. Your boots the same. Gloves too.
A hi viz is officially safe. So that's okay.

Crap buy thats the "logic".

Graham

  How come they are so sure that is the answer?   In my personal experience I've been almost bulldozed, out of the lane I was in, several times by folk who just didn't see me even tho I was wearing a hi-vis tabbard. They are so focused on being in the correct lane or getting to where they are going that they are blinkered, like a horse, to other road users, especially bikers.                                                                                                                                                                                     

I have always worn a hi vis vest on the bike and don't feel properly dressed without one. Having had a collision where the driver did not see me because they were not looking It put me in a better position.   In my case the officer investigating the crash instantly ruled out the "sorry mate didn't see you" defense from the driver as I had taken all reasonable steps to protect myself and make myself visible to other road users.   Alto high vis works at might too. If you are on the road in your black leathers then from the rear at night your only indication to other road users approaching from the rear is your rear light and number plate light. With a high vis you are visible from at least half a mile away on a straight road. i have had comments from friends saying that that have seen the jacket a long time before they have seen the bike.   To anyone who thinks that a high vis vest is a stupid idea then I will invite you to spent 2 - 4 hours fully imobilised on a spine board. I say 2 - 4 hours because if you have not time critical injuries then it can take that ling to be seen by a doctor sent through x-ray and then the films reported on before you are cleared and released. By the way during that time you will need to use the loo and that requires assistance for a third party usually a nursing axillary who has to hold things in place for you.                                                                                                                                                                             

IMHO, Bikers should get involved in the IAM the KSI rate would reduce and hi-viz gear would be less necessary, that said if if doing motorway travelling I do wear the Hi-Viz.
My experience as a driver and rider in France is that the French are very tolerent of bikers. Maybe it's because it's a larger country so mile for mile there are less of them.                                                                                                                                                                             

they are crazy at the traffic lights                                                                                                                                                                              

It's irrelevant to me whether day glo works or not, I just do not want to be forced to wear it against my will,
“To criminalise thousands of innocent
people unless they adopt a dress style which to many is totally
unacceptable, reflects the ascendency of unsympathetic arrogance over
common sense.”

                                                                                                                                                                             

Badly thought out IMO, something that could double as a white flag would suit better.                                                                                                                                                                              

"To criminalise thousands of innocent people unless they adopt a dress style which to many is totally unacceptable"     Just to poke a hole in your statement there. you working engineering what branch it does not say. But in engineering the health and safety executive force you to adopt a cress style depending on what you are doing.   Welders have to wear masks, gloves and overalls that meet standards. If you go onto a building site you must wear a hard hat and a hi-vis.
by your own definition are these people then criminals if they do not conform to the what the HSE tell them to wear in order to carry out their jobs.

You are not criminalising people who do not wear the clothing prescribed for the activity they are carrying out. What is your opinion on wearing protective clothing on a bike? would you be as passionate if you were told you had to wear textiles or leathers and gloves to ride a bike?
Bikers are in a very vulnerable position on the roads. more so than a cyclist. Bikers have no protective frame around them to adsorb the impact of a collision. Ad motorbikes move at comparable speeds to other vehicles around them then the human eye tend to ignore the bike as it is a small target in the field of view. The brain tends to ignore small static objects on the field of view while processing other information. this is just how the brain works. you can train the brain to register these object. this is why bikers notice more thing than non bikers. when you do you IAM / ROSPA car or bike training this is one of the skills you develop.   I could geek you for hours on the mechanics of injury and analysis of event leading to the collision but i won't It is a fascinating thing to study. It is one of the first things you study in ambulance 101 how did the patient get where they are. once you know that you have a dam good idea of what will be wrong with them.                                                                                                                                                                               

LOOK i  am not here for a argument, had enough of that on other forums, i was simply stating my point of view on the matter,

this is MY statement

"It's irrelevant to me whether day glo works or not, I just do not want to be forced to wear it against my will"

poke as many holes in it as you like,

                                                                                                                                                                             

we could go into a Monty python sketch here. you say argument I am having an intellectual discussion but that seems to be lost in the face book world we live in. It used to be an MTV world but times and technology have moved on. Unfortunately the motorcycling community has not and still think that any negativity toward motorcycling is a bigger insult than a yo mama.
                                                                                                                                                                             

Go Pagan!

My sentiments entirely. So many of the biking community throw a wobbler when told to do something regardless of whether it saves their life or not.

I wonder how many of these also drive cars, but don't complain about seat belts?

I too work in engineering and if I'm on a live carriageway without high vis then I'm not insured, simple as that. And forget about live building sites, because if I'm not wearing high vis, boots and a hard hat, I simply won't be allowed on!

I get pretty pi**ed off about the attitudes that some bikers have (not pointing fingers here mind before I get shot down lol). I am in the lucky position to be able to both promote biking professionally but also to be able to actually make a difference regarding biker accidents.

And yet every year hundreds of bikers are killed and harsh though it may be, one of the reasons many are dead is because they have either been doing something they've been told they shouldn't or they've not been doing something they've been told they should!

And before people start with the "it's the fault of the car driver" read the DfT stats, cos a third of all fatal bike accidents don't even involve another vehicle. And as far as the argument for high vis goes, the vast majority of the remaining two thirds have "failure to see" as a contributory factor.

This is a case of the "nanny state" taking over again, istead of making poeple responsible for their own actions or inaction as the case may be.                                                                                                                                                                             

Well said bbbent! I am not only concerned by the oppressive nannying attitude of the state and on this occasion a neighbouring state but the attitude that supports it from some members of this forum.

For the record, and I used to argue these points when I was with the BMF. Conspicuity is not an exact science. There are some circumstances where what may appear to be high viz can act as camouflage. That's why in World War 1, it was discovered that dazzle painted ships were torpedoed less that those with a plain paint scheme. On the question of lights, aircraft in World War 2 could sneak up on surfaced submarines more easily by switching on lights on their wings which made them invisible against the sky. There are recent studies which have been inconclusive about the claimed benefits of conspicuity for motorcyclists. So, as they say in MAG, let the rider decide.

As for predictions of something dire happening if you don't wear high viz, that's just scare mongering. It may still happen or happen for other reasons. And all the claims about the negative attitudes of motorcyclists when motorcyclists are often responsible for causing tthe accidents may be true and we certainly need to put our house in order but it's irrelevant to the discussion about conspicuity. You can still misjudge a bend and crash if you're dressed like a Christmas tree.

The enthusiasm for motorcyclists to adopt conspicuity measures is shifting the problem from its source - making other road users look and its a way of shifting blame from the errant road user. The sooner the problem is addressed by the threat of prosecutions for inattention instead of putting the responsibility on motorcyclists, the better.

  And before people start with the "it's the fault of the car driver" read the DfT stats, cos a third of all fatal bike accidents don't even involve another vehicle.   Not sure where I read this info but it stated that 'nearly all motorbike accidents ARE down to other road users and not the rider'. Not sure if those accidents were fatal tho.  Soz. not much use that is it? lol   Have to say I agree with bbbent and Cata.                                                                                                                                                                                     

I must admit that some riders are their own worst enemy with the way they ride and this goes a long way towards the problem. In my travels i've found that generally speaking in europe people seem to be more aware of two wheels than this country.                                                                                                                                                                             

Its natural that people who work in or have been affected by motorcycle accidents/injuries think that they are in the best position to offer advice (A bit like some ex smokers!).  Also, for them to side with any supposed safety scheme put forward by the authorities, as a way of imposing restrictions on bikers.   It doesn't however make it right for them to force their beliefs in a 'holier than thou' way, on other people and belittle them with their own statistical proofs, because in the scheme of things, statistics can be made to support any viewpoints being expressed.   We, as bikers, are individuals, that come together on occasions to have 'the craic'. Some of us, including those in our fifties and older, have seen our civil rights eroded over many decades and biking is more or less our only release nowadays from imposed suppression from a 'nanny' state. Most of us on here, I hope will make their own minds up on whether to wear hi viz jackets or not, however much proof that, 'it's good for us', is forced down our throat! I too do not wish to get into a debate with the 'righteous' pro 'Hi Viz' brigade, as I guess from what I've written above, you know my position???!!!!                                                                                                                                                                               

I'm off to France in September,will I have to take one with me? I have one in the car for when I go to France(I go there fairly regularly),along with the triangle,bulb kit,first aid kit etc-I hope I don't keed this lot too as I've no idea where the warning triangle would fit on my bike!