Don't diss Dayglo Dereks

[ScottyUK]

I’ve heard the “no evidence” argument before. I guess many smokers came up with the same line for during the 60s and 70s.

OK so lets say there is no evidence. I’ve wasted a couple of quid. So what. If it just means one additional driver notices me and avoids a close encounter then it’s paid for itself.

Being totally honest, I don’t get why people need it to be proved as statistically beneficial before they do it. What is the down side?

[Cresta]

Thing is, and I think an earlier poster pointed this out, you could be lit up like a proverbial Christmas tree but if people aren’t looking they simply won’t see you. I’ve almost been taken out when people actually eyeball me!

I think the best defense is a defensive style of riding.

[ITS_BLUE]

just so i know … what are us female dayglo’ers known as ?

cos i wasn’t a derek last time i looked

[Porkscratchin]

Hmmm…

well i’m the original.

Dayglo at work both as bike plod and as Motorcycle instructor and names Del which is shortened from Derek.

wheres me prize?

[andrew_7]

And when does Dayglo become “PowerRanger” ?

Judging by your avatar Del, it’s a fine line…

[Lou]

Would this count as a dayglo derek???

Attachments

[Stranger]

I don’t tend to wear high vis during a sunny day - if I’m not seen in sunlight then I doubt it’ll help having the high vis on. I always keep it in my tankbag though cos when it’s raining or gets darker I reckon it helps, makes it easier to be seen from the sides aswell so I’m happy enough wearing if it only helps a little.
So light me up please

[Cresta]

Most ROWV accidents are from the front. Screens, rucksacs and more importantly your headlight glare will obscure any jacket you’re wearing rendering them useless. Also, to be effective they have to reflect light which they wont be doing if a vehicle is turning out onto you . It’s a very common misconception high-viz serve any useful purpose except to mark you out as some kind of post-test novice, but more worryingly, the craze for it is deflecting study into the real causes of accidents as Prower comments in his well-thought out and coherently argued Digest Paper:

6pointanswersbikedrl.pdf

**

The preoccupation has led to the gross neglect of enquiry into other causes of motorcycle accidents. It has reprehensibly done, and continues to do, grave harm to motorcycle safety.

**

There’s also a phenomena known as risk homeostasis which, if anything, will put you more at risk - because you believe your responsibility to avoid an accident is less important than the responsiblity of the other driver to create the situation in which it can happen.

Also well worth a look is the DfTs own in-depth study into motorcycle accidents:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme5/indepthstudyofmotorcycleacc.pdf

[buttonmonkey]

The trouble with quoting “scientific studies” is that you can always find others that disagree.

This was taken from a BMJ article published in 2004

Use of reflective or fluorescent clothing
Nearly 20% of control drivers were wearing some type of reflective or fluorescent clothing. Drivers wearing reflective or fluorescent clothing had a 37% lower risk of crash related injury than those who were not wearing such materials (multivariate odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.94). When stratified by ambient illumination (table 3), the protective association seemed to increase with falling light levels, although numbers were small at twilight, reducing the precision of the effect estimate.

Helmet colour
The main colours of helmet reported by control drivers were black (39.8%), white (30.6%), and red (13.8%). Compared with wearing a black helmet, use of a white helmet was associated with a 24% lower risk (multivariate odds ratio 0.76, 0.57 to 0.99). We found similar associations for red and a combined group of yellow and orange helmets, although these did not achieve standard levels of statistical significance. Self nominated description of “light coloured” helmet compared with “dark coloured” helmet was associated with a 19% lower risk.

Headlight operation
Of the 175 control drivers randomly surveyed at night, 100% were using their headlight. At twilight, 91 (88%) of the 104 control drivers reported having their headlight turned on. Of the 954 control drivers randomly surveyed during the day, 719 (75%) had their headlight turned on—609 (64%) on low beam setting and 92 (10%) on high beam, with 18 (2%) unsure whether high or low beam was used. Overall, voluntary use of headlight in daytime was associated with a 27% lower risk of crash related injury (multivariate odds ratio 0.73, 0.53 to 1.00)

Full article here

[Cresta]

Odd article that, as it appears to contradict itself!

**

We observed no association between risk of crash related injury and the frontal colour of drivers’ clothing or motorcycle. Similarly, no difference in risk occurred for self nominated light versus dark coloured clothing or motorcycle.

**

[buttonmonkey]

Cresta (23/11/2008)

Odd article that, as it appears to contradict itself!

I think the reason for that was addressed later in the article

Bright colours worn during the day, daytime use of headlight, and reflective or fluorescent clothing are thought to enhance conspicuity by increasing the brightness contrast between the surface or object it is on and the background environment. The finding that helmet colour was associated with injury crash risk whereas frontal colour of clothing was not was unexpected. Hurt et al contended that the principal coloured surfaces with any real potential for contribution to conspicuity are the fairing shield and the rider’s upper torso garment.13 They considered that the surface presented by even a full face helmet was no more than 20% of that of an upper torso garment and therefore the contribution to conspicuity would be expected to be low. A possible explanation for our findings is that 80% of the controls wore black, blue, or brown top clothing and black or blue clothing from the waist down. Owing to the small numbers wearing light coloured clothing, our study may not have had the power to detect an effect of brightly coloured clothing if it existed. Our study was also limited by the one “catch-all” category for reflective and or fluorescent clothing. These materials offer maximum conspicuity advantage in differing ambient light conditions—fluorescence at twilight and reflective material at night, and we were unable to determine the individual contributions.

[Cresta]

Not very useful then is it!

New Zealand’s a very sparcely populated country with much less congestion in its urban centres so I’d be sceptical it had any relevance anyway.

The much more recent UK study by our own DfT is more worrying as it’s showing an increase in fatals and serious accidents after an apparant drop. I ride in London daily, and have done for many years and I can’t help noticing an explosion of high-viz usage. That, coupled with the fact all bikes since 2005 have been hard-wired would suggest, if your assumptions on conspicuity were true, that there’d be a decrease in RTAs, but that just hasn’t happened (the reverse is true).

You may be aware Austria has experienced similar findings and is reversing the EU Directive which forced daylight running lights onto motorcyclists.

Having many years experience myself I’m of the opinion they serve no aid. I would, however, defend your personal right to wear one should you so wish, but I would stress this should be a personal choice and NOT mandatory, as should be the case with daylight running lights.

[Choprocker]

ITS BLUE (22/11/2008)

:)just so i know … what are us female dayglo’ers known as ?

cos i wasn’t a derek last time i looked

Doris? or Daphne,maybe?

[buttonmonkey]

Cresta (23/11/2008)

That, coupled with the fact all bikes since 2005 have been hard-wired would suggest, if your assumptions on conspicuity were true, that there’d be a decrease in RTAs, but that just hasn’t happened (the reverse is true).

That could be down to more not less people using mobiles whilst driving or just the poor driving standards there seem to be in the country now.

I would, however, defend your personal right to wear one should you so wish, but I would stress this should be a personal choice and NOT mandatory, as should be the case with daylight running lights.

Well I am going to carry on riding in my hi vis jacket and light coloured helmet as well as fitting an HID kit to the bike plus two extra running lights as I believe, as does ROSPA, that they do aid conspicuity.

I ride in London daily but the first 10 - 12 miles of my journey are down badly lit A roads and if I should have a spill and be left lying in the middle of the road I feel more confident a car coming along would have a better chance of seeing and avoiding me in my current kit rather than being clad in black from head to toe, but that’s just my opinion.

[Cresta]

Indeed, and you are very welcome to it!

RoSPA aren’t the be-all & end-all either, btw: they’re even more anal than the self-appointed IAM, who, incidentally, endorse the same inaccurate assumptions.

[Cresta]

I believe accident rates will continue to rise until riders take it upon themselves never to assume ‘they’ve been seen’ in the first place.As I said earlier it’s about defensive riding, personal responsibility and individual skill levels.

Also, from a car/truck drivers perspective, whenever I come across a dayglo derek I expect him to be less skilled, more cautious and hesitant, and more prone to making fundamental mistakes.