Seen this?

[Nik]

Comments from the Motorcycle Action Group on the high visibility clothing initiative

I have read that Sussex police are stopping motorcyclists who are spotted riding without reflective clothing. An article in the weekly ‘Motorcycle News’ states that police officers are providing advice on the use of reflective items, handing the riders reflective vests which they are urged to wear, and checking their bikes for roadworthiness.

As a body that exists to represent the interests of motorcyclists we are concerned that riders are being stopped on the highway when they are doing nothing wrong and implicitly told that their behaviour falls short of what is deemed appropriate.

The Motorcycle Action Group (MAG) is concerned that a tactic whose value in reducing road accidents is unproven, is being promoted in a way that does not appear to reflect the uncertainties and sensitivities that surround this issue.

MAG is uncomfortable with the implicit suggestion that riders are partially to blame when involved in accidents with motorists who claim not to have seen them. MAG has a philosophic commitment to free choice over the clothing style and standards which riders adopt and so we view any attempt to coerce riders into a code of clothing conduct as worrying.

MAG remains sceptical of drivers’ claims of not seeing motorcyclists. It seems reasonable to speculate that no driver at the scene of a typical intersection accident would admit to seeing a motorcycle but pulling out anyway in the belief that there was enough time to complete the manoeuvre. MAG believes that the issue of ‘unseen’ motorcycles is more complex than many think. Moreover there is concern that riders who wear reflective kit believe themselves to be more visible to motorists in all circumstances and subconsciously ride less defensively in consequence, sometimes with tragic consequences.

As the road safety debate has evolved to a more sophisticated level, the aspects of human behaviour I have mentioned here are enjoying more serious consideration, certainly the phenomenon of risk compensation is pretty much now universally accepted as axiomatic.

Against this background your initiative, though obviously well motivated, appears conspicuously simplistic and worrying inasmuch as it shifts the onus of responsibility to the rider’s detriment. We would value your comments on these observations and hope that you will take this letter as an invitation to an ongoing dialogue in pursuit of enhanced road safety for all road users.

I wonder in conclusion if you would consider an operation that involves stopping motorists for random roadside eyesight checks? Operation spectacle perhaps?

Ian Mutch
MAG President

[v8_trike]

I wonder if they will be handing out fines for small plates / loud exhausts / etc along with the dayglo vests?

[Grav]

Mr Mutch has my support on this matter. The bum nugget who damn near killed me claimed not to have seen me when questioned by the traffic plod dealing with him. The traffic plod looked up and down the nice straight road, then looked at the beautiful blue sky and told the bum nugget to tell the truth or he was getting nicked for dangerous driving. The copper only asked me two questions about the accident.

Did you have your headlight on? Yes.

How far away from the junction where you when he turned right? About ten feet.

He told me that's what their scene of accident investigation had showed them and they did not consider me to be at any point at fault for the incident.

There is a distorted view that reflective clothing makes you more visible and it's bollocks. I was riding about a few days ago in a nice bit of winter sunshine. The sun was low on the horizon and there was a bike heading in the other direction. I saw his headlight from quite a distance yet did not see his reflective jacket until he was about 50 feet from me.

The powers that be don't see to appreciate that reflective clothing only w*rks in certain circumstances, they have been told by some nugget on the payroll at the TRRL what they wanted to hear and not the whole truth.

Give them hell, Mutchie.

[bill?]

there was a bike heading in the other direction. I saw his headlight from quite a distance yet did not see his reflective jacket until he was about 50 feet from me.


thats prolly when your light shone on his reflective jacket.
how the feck are these jackets/vests supposed to work when your approaching a junction and the lights of the vehicle wanting to come out of said junction aren't even pointing at you.

[Shadders]

They are great for cyclists who you will approach at speed, and I mean national limit here not excess before I get pulled up on that!!

But as for motorcyclists, it will only stop people rear ending us. So unless thats your bag, wear them to protect you from some rear action. Otherwise they are as much use as the copper who has just pulled you for not wearing one!! :D

[chris munc]

I have been rear ended twice in the last five years both times I was wearing hi vis gear.

[dracken1]

I have been rear ended twice in the last five years both times I was wearing hi vis gear.

what you wear during your deviant sexual practices is up to you:D


Sorry this "i didn't see you" has never cut it for me. As far as i'm concerned if you didn't see, then either you didn't look, in which case driving without care etc.
Or your eyesight is not what it should be. In which case get an optician or get off the bloody road.

[Sir Ewok]

Right on, Mutchie. Too many fuckwits get away with virtual murder by saying we were not seen. SMIDSY's should carry a six month ban if the driver is proved to be in error, maybe drivers would not be soo keen to claim I didn't see you if that was the case. When in the car, I always allow extra distance for bikes and scooters because I know how easy it is to make a mistake...........

[John Hopkins]

I am in favour of Hi Viz jackets at night time because they do show up a large area of the rider, during the day they don't do any good except to keep the rain off.

Having said that, we are in the middle of a long slippery slope, Seat belts, helmets, air bags, mobile phones, GPS systems, all carry fines for use or non use so it won't be too long before a law comes out that insists on Hi Viz gear, not because it will save lives, but because it will generate more income for the government to fritter away.

John

[John Hopkins]

I wonder if they will be handing out fines for small plates / loud exhausts / etc along with the dayglo vests?

That seems to be part of it.


handing the riders reflective vests which they are urged to wear, and checking their bikes for roadworthiness.

Ian Mutch
MAG President

John

[lowrider]

It don't matter what you wear.
Some prats simply will not look properly regardless.:rolleyes:

[ChopperFXR]

Whatever the motivation for this action by the police, the outcome of the exercise will be distorted by the people that came up with the idea, to try and prove themselves right. My opinion is that it is a dangerous precedent to allow this to happen unchallenged.

Forget all the scientific bullshit and the so called experts opinions and research, the long and short of this is that IF THE FUCKWIT DRIVER IS NOT LOOKING FOR YOU, HE WILL NOT SEE YOU.

On my way to the clubhouse a few weeks ago. Riding my FXR. Came off a roundabout and the traffic was almost stationary. I went to the outside of the line of traffic and was moving at about 10 -15 mph. Just ticking along passing very slow moving vehicles. A woman pulls out of the petrol station opposite. She was NOT looking anywhere near MY direction, NOR LOOKING WHERE SHE WAS GOING. The daft cow was routing around in her handbag, mobile phone in her gob, holding the wheel with one hand.

I stopped and blasted the horn. She didn't stop, just took the hand that WAS holding the wheel and stuck two fingers up at me!!! Now, my FXR is a big bike. Its' a big V Twin with 2" bore straight through ground pounder exhausts. She barks like a scrap yard dog, sets car alarms off as I ride past. The headlight will melt the paint off a volvo at fifty paces and I am not exactly a midget sat on top of the bike.

This bloody woman drove about 100 yards on the wrong side of the road, dodging bollards before cutting in front of someone. As I was approaching, the traffic had stopped. I could see the silly bitch on the phone and lighting a fag at the same time. I pulled up alongside and bellowed at her to "GET OFF THE FUCKING PHONE AND WATCH WHERE YOUR GOING". She jumped a bit at being shouted at, then still holding the phone, took the fag out of her ugly mug and said "Sorry, I didn't see you"!!! She saw me well enough to stick two fingers up at me though. I wanted to smack her stupid face into the dashboard. I was fuming and couldn't help thinking that trying to teach someone with her mentality and attitude is a complete waste of fucking time. I have never hit a woman in my life and never will, but if ever a woman deserved a slap it was that daft and bloody dangerous bitch.

HiViz clothing will get you noticed on a building site, but NOT when riding a bike. Trying to put the onus onto bike riders is just passing the buck. It is car drivers that need and MUST be educated to look for bikes. Only very stiff penalties for knocking a rider off will make these fucking light blind and deaf assholes watch where they are going.

We even have court rullings reducing compensation for riders injured by these lunatics because the rider may have been wearing dark clothing, didn't have his lights on etc. (I am sorry but I cannot remember where I heard/read that bit).

MAG and other riders groups need to get at those that make these stupid plans and get them to tackle the real problem and NOT the victims of car driver stupidity. As an experienced long time bike rider, ex bike instructor and bike builder, I know how important it is to make sure my bikes are in tip top condition. They are all properly maintained with excellent brakes, tyres etc. If there is something wrong with any of them, I fix it BEFORE I ride. I do whatever I can to make sure I am as safe as I can be on the road.

Now can somebody tell me how you take any sort of precaution against a fuckwit car driver, that drives and uses a mobile while lighting a fag, with a poxy attitude?

Chopper.

[richie]

Black thats the way to go :thumbsu:

[jcb]

only way to be seen is flashing blue lights,which proves the old bill aint intrested in safety as theyd let us use them else.....

[Nik]

only way to be seen is flashing blue lights,which proves the old bill aint intrested in safety as theyd let us use them else.....

I know a bike copper who was taken out by a woman on a dual-carriageway who changed lanes on him and forced him into the central reservation while he had the blues and twos going ... doesn't always work for them either. :eek2:

[Nik]

I reckon we should all fit these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLKL7EwTOZo

:D

[Captain Smurf]

Couple of weeks ago I was riding home from a rally. I'd slept til 10, then had a full breakfast, stood around talking and drinking coffee and packing up. Didn't get off site until about 12-30.

Only a few miles and I'm in Grantham. It's a route I know and the weather is fine, road dry. Before I go round a roundabout I can see that traffic is stopped on my route.

I overtake a car which is slowly moving towards the queue. As I get alongside the front bumper the car starts to do a U turn. I feel the bike move but hold it up, whilst hearing some horrible crunching noises.

Move over to kerb. Get off and quickly see no damage to bike. Turn around and see that the car has a crunched front bumper, on the offside.

Young woman walks over to me and I ask "What were you doing?". She didn't say SMIDSY - she said "You're not supposed to overtake here" (single, unbroken, centreline - which I didn't cross as the road is about 1.5X normal at this point). When I said yes I can she said "But cars cannot overtake in towns" - to which I reply yes they can if it's safe to do so.

When I mention potential problems if she makes an insurance claim she tells me I'll be okay as it was her fault. We resolved it without recourse to insurance.

My point is that she didn't claim SMIDSY, because she hadn't even looked and, possibly, she didn't look because she was under the misapprehension that vehicles don't overtake in towns. I'll hazard a guess that she was a recently qualified driver. I probably should have suggested she ask for her money back from her driving school. As for the DSA:mad:

[Gregg1100]

A good while ago, there was an exceptionally loud horn mentioned here- for £29.99. Did anyone buy one, and was is loud enough to rattle false teeth in your head :D ?. I may buy two, one for the car and the bike.
Have a good Xmas all.
Greg

[Biker Buster]

This brings to mind an incident whilst I was conducting the final part of a guys CBT on the road. We had been out for the better part of two hours and we had just returned to Dumbarton to head back over to the school. We came through the stupid roundabout at the supermarket, he was in front, and whilst I was part way across the roundabout when this bint flew in from the left nearly took me clean off, she turned into the road and just, by pure luck I would suggest, missed the student and carried on blindly towards the next roundabout. She stopped in the traffic, I pulled alongside her, tapped on the window and when she wound it down, I reached in, grabbed the mobile phone from her ear and launched it right over the road. When she started to whine and explete something about telling her husband, then the police. I told her she almost killed two people and then pointed to the tiny baby she had strapped in the back seat, I then offered to follow her to the police station... oddly enough she declined.

What is it with women and phones? I refuse to answer the phone whilst I am talking to someone,eating, or other such activities. This sends my daughters apoplectic! Why?

Oh and as to the original posting, both myself and the student were high vizzed up, so really, the hi-viz argument is total bollocks.

As everyone else has said, instead of punishing the motorbike accident victim with more levels of testing and greater restriction, punish the twat in the car more appropriately. Using the phone - 6 month ban, causing a non-fatal accident - 6month ban, causing a fatal accident - rest of their lives on public transport etc, etc.

[pyro]

I got taken out by a driver who said he had not seen me some years ago, the policeman who questioned asked why he thought he had not seen me, his response had me and the copper laughing, "His headlamp dazzled me."

[Sir Ewok]

I reckon we should all fit these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLKL7EwTOZo

:D

Would rather have one of those chain gun thingies.......:shoot::shoot::shoot: