Will you wear a high-viz if it is mandated by law?

uncle betty

Is there any proposal to make headlight modulators compulsory ?

They are arguably at least as effective a measure, if visibility and road safety are the goal.

Of course what they wouldn't achieve for the Eurocracy, is the required increase in the culture of mindless conformity.

Keith186

I wore one before for a while and it didn't make any difference so I stopped wearing it.

Don't see the point so I don't think I'll bother with it, it depends on how strictly it's enforced.

If they were serious about road safety the Gardai should be targeting the all the small things that drivers do wrong not just speed. They should target (all vehicle) drivers who don't indicate, drive with no lights in bad/dark conditions, texting and so on.
A lot of the small things cause people to not bother paying attention and they'll never be pulled up on them.
The Gardai should do an undercover 'no mercy' blitz for 5 or 6 random weeks in the year going forward and that alone would make drivers a bit more aware.


These new measures being brought in are mostly bullshít but as it's the EU they can only make regulations instead of really tackling road safety.

daenerysstormborn3

People fail to take into account the laundry list of things that can distract other road users but not bikers. Eating, drinking, using a mobile phone, reading, fiddling with the radio, doing make up, doing hair, disciplining the children, these are all things that I see other road users do on a daily basis while driving. Yet, it's still our fault when other road users do not give their driving their full attention and cut us up.

Incorrect use of indicators and roundabouts is one of the worse things I have to deal with every single day. How will me wearing hi viz make other road users use their indicators correctly or use a roundabout correctly?

Jak O Shadows

Depending on the sanction I will probably wear one if they make it mandatory, but it will be the dirties mankiest hi viz on the planet. Walk on it, put it on, ride over it, put it on.....Will they stipulate how clean they have to be

MikeC101

Nope.

I have an ex police high viz overcoat I'll throw on on dark mornings and evenings, or in heavy rain.

But on a bright sunny day? (Or, more realistically for here, a not too overcast bright day.) No.

Better training and teaching defensive riding skills will save far, far more lives than mandatory high viz.

faceman

I wear a Sam Brown belt at night but i dont wear it during the day, nor would i wear any high vis during the day. My lights are always on so there is no need.

Tbh, even having a Sam Brown on at night isnt necessary but I wear it on the off chance I come off the bike so that other motorists can see me.

daenerysstormborn3

I had my hi viz vest on today coming into work because it was foggy and misty rain was falling. That was my choice.

TheUsual

Del2005 wrote: »

If the driver can't see the bike with it's lights on how will they see the high viz until their lights are shinning on it?

I like the way they are proposing this to save bikers but aren't making it law to wear protective clothing. If they really wanted to save bikers from harm they'd make PPE compulsory and test road users eyes more often then once, when they are usually 18-20 and so have great eyesight!

But no they are going to make the biker more "visible" or partly to blame if they aren't wearing hi viz

Dead right.
I always wonder how many cars are driven without correct glasses, or none at all.

TheUsual

MikeC101 wrote: »

Nope.
I have an ex police high viz overcoat I'll throw on on dark mornings and evenings, or in heavy rain.
But on a bright sunny day? (Or, more realistically for here, a not too overcast bright day.) No.
Better training and teaching defensive riding skills will save far, far more lives than mandatory high viz.

Right, you can wear 3 helmets and 7 jackets and some lowlife will still cut you off for no reason except they are looking at a video or text messsge.

faceman wrote: »

Tbh, even having a Sam Brown on at night isnt necessary but I wear it on the off chance I come off the bike so that other motorists can see me.

I agree 100%, but as an option, not a law.

pixiebean22 wrote: »

Incorrect use of indicators and roundabouts is one of the worse things I have to deal with every single day. How will me wearing hi viz make other road users use their indicators correctly or use a roundabout correctly?

It won't, bad driving is bad driving, and you are not the Gardaí. You just have to protect yourself on the roads and keep away from the drunks and aggressive nuts on the roads. Don't get angry with them, and if you have to ... report them to the fuzz.

Pkiernan

No chance I'll wear one.

If a driver cannot see or hear my bike coming from less than 500 yards he/she is in dire need of glasses and a hearing aid!

The requirement to wear a certain style of clothes while going about my personal life is not acceptable to me.

If I am forced to wear a hi-viz, then I will wear it and nothing else - then they'll wish they had just left it all well alone!! :pac:
Is there a law to say that one cannot drive a bike with one's tackle exposed?

carsQhere

If it becomes law and you are knocked off while not wearing one, you will be deemed to be partially at fault and an insurer may use that fact to reduce or avoid any payout.

Wossack

carsQhere wrote: »

If it becomes law and you are knocked off while not wearing one, you will be deemed to be partially at fault and an insurer may use that fact to reduce or avoid any payout.

Pretty much sums up why Im vehemently against this becoming law. The intention is good - to save lives - the reality, is that its another out for the insurance company, and a stick for culprits to defend themselves with.

Pkiernan

carsQhere wrote: »

If it becomes law and you are knocked off while not wearing one, you will be deemed to be partially at fault and an insurer may use that fact to reduce or avoid any payout.

This is quite a stretch.

Only a Court can "deem" this, not an insurance company.
It would make for an interesting case - I'd love to see the State or an insurance company try to prove your statement.


The next step is making us all have Ice-cream Van speakers on our bikes.

TheUsual

allthedoyles wrote: »

Its a well-known fact that many motorists are blind to bikes , and they look out for cars coming and cannot see the motorbikes .

Many lives have been lost because of this .

Of course you can refuse to wear hi-vis , but if it is the law , then you may have to be held accountable .

In my opinion , if it just saves one extra life on the roads , it will be worthwhile implementing .

The message should not have to be repeated :

• be safe - be seen

bull****

MyKeyG

Jeez guys it's a Hi-viz jacket not a rucksack full of bricks. What's the big deal, or are you all just stubborn?

TheUsual

MyKeyG wrote: »

Jeez guys it's a Hi-viz jacket not a rucksack full of bricks. What's the big deal, or are you all just stubborn?

Ok, wear one every single day and let me know how that gets on.

Pointless.
Annoying.

MyKeyG

TheUsual wrote: »

Ok, wear one every single day and let me know how that gets on.

Pointless.
Annoying.

Oh my god. Are you trying to tell me that a light weight Hi-viz vest is such a burden on top of normal attire and a leather jacket? Really?:rolleyes: Plenty of people wear Hi-viz jackets every day. Loading docks, security, police etc but no as always bikers are exempt from everything.

Kev_ps3

MyKeyG wrote: »

Jeez guys it's a Hi-viz jacket not a rucksack full of bricks. What's the big deal, or are you all just stubborn?

If you bought a nice new car would you like to put a yellow cover over it? No didnt think so.

MyKeyG

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

If you bought a nice new car would you like to put a yellow cover over it? No didnt think so.

We're not talking about covering any type of vehicle in anything. The argument is about removable Hi-viz attire. Nobody's asking you to paint your bike luminous so your example is flawed.

However if the government did introduce hi-viz measures for drivers to the extent that I had to paint a hi-viz stripe on me car then I wouldn't like it but I would certainly comply. There are people on this thread talking about outright defiance of the law if the measure is introduced and over what? It's required attire for any individual in an environment exposed to machinery, you have to wear one operating a forklift going 5 miles an hour for goodness sake. What! Are bikers afraid they won't look cool?

thewatch

MyKeyG wrote: »

We're not talking about covering any type of vehicle in anything. The argument is about removable Hi-viz attire. Nobody's asking you to paint your bike luminous so your example is flawed.

However if the government did introduce hi-viz measures for drivers to the extent that I had to paint a hi-viz stripe on me car then I wouldn't like it but I would certainly comply. There are people on this thread talking about outright defiance of the law if the measure is introduced and over what? It's required attire for any individual in an environment exposed to machinery, you have to wear one operating a forklift going 5 miles an hour for goodness sake. What! Are bikers afraid they won't look cool?

Objecting to the Hi Vis is more to do with the "mandatory" aspect.

I could be lit up like a Christmas tree on the road an yet still get hit by other drivers because they only see you IF they look

I'm an adult why must I be told I have to wear Hi Vis? If I want to wear it I will but why the requirement. It's another unnecessary intrusion into my life

If this law comes in and I choose not to wear Hi Vis and I am involved in an RTA will "blame" be placed on me for not wearing Hi Vis?

These are the main reasons for objecting. The minor reason to object in my opinion bikers think Hi Vis is Super Gay

Are you a biker?

Wossack

MyKeyG wrote: »

Oh my god. Are you trying to tell me that a light weight Hi-viz vest is such a burden on top of normal attire and a leather jacket? Really?:rolleyes: Plenty of people wear Hi-viz jackets every day. Loading docks, security, police etc but no as always bikers are exempt from everything.

You're obviously predisposed towards bikers, so this may be fruitless, but I'll try and detail why Im against this:

The insurance/crash aftermath implications, mentioned in post 43. This is my main objection.

The stipulations, I believe are for it to be full arm length high vis. There are a couple of implications to this:

• There are very few on the market atm, making them expensive. The majority of high vis worn by dockers, forklift drivers, cyclists etc are unsuitable for motorcyclists. They open too easily, billow about and become a distraction at speed.
• Longslieved clothing over longslieved clothing is tedious to put on, every day, every time you want to go anywhere on your bike. I can imagine the more protecting leather jacket eventually being ditched by some folk in a hurry in the morning, so they can put on their mandatory high vis more easily.

Couple of others:

• Am I allowed wear a backpack? I wear one everyday currently, as I have no other storage on my bike. Will it have any implications on post 43 above? How about if I didnt wear one, and had a topbox instead? Would it be any less obstructive to being able to see the highvis?
• Highvis, worn everyday is going to get filthy. The reason why so much of biker clothing is currently black, is so that it disguises this. Me parking my bike up under the office and making my way to my desk, I hope I dont pass anyone important, as I'll look like I woke up in the alley.

The other minor fact, is there is no proof that high vis has any impact on crash statistics.

All I can think of at this hour, but Im sure there's more.

sleepysniper

MyKeyG wrote: »

Oh my god. Are you trying to tell me that a light weight Hi-viz vest is such a burden on top of normal attire and a leather jacket? Really?:rolleyes: Plenty of people wear Hi-viz jackets every day. Loading docks, security, police etc but no as always bikers are exempt from everything.

Oh My God yourself, you have failed to realise that in your list there that all those people have to wear Hi-Viz as part of their job.

Riding a motorbike isn't job, its a choice, and no thewatch, I highly doubt he's a biker:pac:

MyKeyG

Wossack wrote: »

You're obviously predisposed towards bikers, so this may be fruitless, but I'll try and detail why Im against this:

The insurance/crash aftermath implications, mentioned in post 43. This is my main objection.

The stipulations, I believe are for it to be full arm length high vis. There are a couple of implications to this:

• There are very few on the market atm, making them expensive. The majority of high vis worn by dockers, forklift drivers, cyclists etc are unsuitable for motorcyclists. They open too easily, billow about and become a distraction at speed.
• Longslieved clothing over longslieved clothing is tedious to put on, every day, every time you want to go anywhere on your bike. I can imagine the more protecting leather jacket eventually being ditched by some folk in a hurry in the morning, so they can put on their mandatory high vis more easily.

Couple of others:

• Am I allowed wear a backpack? I wear one everyday currently, as I have no other storage on my bike. Will it have any implications on post 43 above? How about if I didnt wear one, and had a topbox instead? Would it be any less obstructive to being able to see the highvis?
• Highvis, worn everyday is going to get filthy. The reason why so much of biker clothing is currently black, is so that it disguises this. Me parking my bike up under the office and making my way to my desk, I hope I dont pass anyone important, as I'll look like I woke up in the alley.

The other minor fact, is there is no proof that high vis has any impact on crash statistics.

All I can think of at this hour, but Im sure there's more.

I'm certainly not predisposed towards bikers, why should I have any issue with bikers? But where you state practical reasons my argument is from the point of view of safety and I think the latter outweighs the former. I'm not a biker but I've heard of enough deaths to realise that maximum safety is of paramount importance. You don't have the same protection as you do a car in the event of a collision e.g. reinforced chassis, seat belt and airbag. The RSA are considering this proposal as a safety measure and a lot of people on here are treating it as an attack on their fashion and comfort.

People in all industrys that are required to wear Hi-visibility attire have to put on clothes too. Dock hands, site workers, Gardai and many more have to wear the long sleeve luminous jackets not just the vests. Theirs are just as tedious and dirt prone as yours will be. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Look we're obviously not going to see eye to eye on this but let me say one last thing. If it does come in and bikers decide not to wear them what's for an absolute certain is that there will be consequences according to RSA regulation. That can't be disputed.

MyKeyG

sleepysniper wrote: »

Oh My God yourself, you have failed to realise that in your list there that all those people have to wear Hi-Viz as part of their job.

Riding a motorbike isn't job, its a choice, and no thewatch, I highly doubt he's a biker:pac:

No I'm sorry they don't wear them for their job, it's not a uniform it's primarily for safety. That's the point I'm trying to make.

thewatch

MyKeyG if we had your view on life that everything must be regulated so we all bounce around "safely" life would be ****

Wossack

MyKeyG wrote: »

I'm certainly not predisposed towards bikers, why should I have any issue with bikers? But where you state practical reasons my argument is from the point of view of safety and I think the latter outweighs the former.

There is a balance between the two. Its the reason why helmets arent mandatory for car drivers. Why neckbraces, 3 point harnesses, and firesuits arent mandatory. They will make cars safer, no doubt and proven, but making them law..? The practical implication would be disproportionate to the gains. People who think otherwise, can however go ahead and wear a helmet, neckbrace, 3 point harness on their daily commute. If you make it law, theres no choice. Its removing this choice I'm so against.

I am not against highvis, and wear it quite regularly at night time, when I do think it has some effect. I just dont want it forced upon me 24/7.

MyKeyG

thewatch wrote: »

MyKeyG if we had your view on life that everything must be regulated so we all bounce around "safely" life would be ****

That is a fairly big exaggeration of my point. I was merely trying to point out that motorcyclists have very limited protection as it is when it comes to protection. A lot of people on this thread seem to be of the opinion they are being victimised in some way by this proposal.

Henry Ford III

If it was a legal requirement I'd wear one.

sleepysniper

Hi-Viz is not going to protect me/make me more visible when cage drivers simply dont look/use their mirrors!

Wossack

MyKeyG wrote: »

That is a fairly big exaggeration of my point. I was merely trying to point out that motorcyclists have very limited protection as it is when it comes to protection. A lot of people on this thread seem to be of the opinion they are being victimised in some way by this proposal.

And yet theres no talk of anything in regards to actual protective gear, or the removal of lethal wire barriers or VAT exemption on motorcycle helmets etc etc

While victimisation may not be the word, if this law is passed, the onus will be on the biker, to make themselves more visible, not for the car driver to drive more carefully.