Hi Viz

fontana · Post by **fontana** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:54 pm

Does it save lives ?
Dunno, but everytime I see someone in one of these I feel like flicking them the w***er sign

photoupload

Blackal · Post by **Blackal** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:57 pm

Typical R-1 owner............

(hang on........

)

Al

fontana · Post by **fontana** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:05 pm

free upload

Dog Tyred · Post by **Dog Tyred** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:21 pm

Blackal wrote:Typical R-1 owner............

(hang on........ )

Al

The Teutonic Tangerine · Mon Oct 31, 2016 10:58 am

having ridden into and out of London for the last 16 years my view on Hi Viz is this. (it didn't stop a stupid Australian woman driving into me in 2013) But: If the SMIDSY accident is inevitable then surely riding with headlights on, Driving/ spot lamps on and Hi-Viz jacket and or Helmet only strengthens the case against the SMIDSY driver. i.e. it gives you the high ground when it comes to Blame / compensation. I managed to get my accident recorded on the central computer as No fault on my part despite originally being told it would be settled 60/40 i.e. 40% my fault - when she did a right turn and smashed straight into my right-hand side - I was wearing a Hi-viz vest and had headlights on. - as I say it may make no difference to the inevitable crash but may save your no claims bonus. (also she was prosecuted for careless driving and driving outside of the terms of her licence (Australian when she should have had a UK licence) = 6 points on her new licence and £575 fine and her third party insured car written off.

milleplod · Post by **milleplod** » Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:49 am

Hi-viz is fine, if it suits your mindset. But not with 'POLITE' plastered all over it - that's for idiots.

Pete

slparry · Post by **slparry** » Mon Oct 31, 2016 1:10 pm

milleplod wrote:Hi-viz is fine, if it suits your mindset. But not with 'POLITE' plastered all over it - that's for idiots.

Pete

is the right answer

exoticices · Post by **exoticices** » Mon Oct 31, 2016 1:19 pm

I was out on the bike a couple of weeks ago and saw a hi-viz chap in front. I wasn't sure at first if it was a police rider or POLITEHIVIZMAN. As I was catching him I assumed the latter. For amusement I followed him for a bit. He was slow ('old dodderer in car' slow) and his lines were innovative. When we reached the T-junction (gravelly camber) he put his foot down and nearly fell off. I then realised he was 'training' a lad on a 125. Hmmm.

simon · Post by **simon** » Mon Oct 31, 2016 4:04 pm

after an issue with a tractor while I was doing 30, on a yellow bike, with the headlight on, on a clear day, while indicating.. I agree with the Teutonic T.. probably doesn't make much difference.
Still, I've got this for me bonce.. (anonymised to protect the innocent)

CAN YOU SEE ME NOW???

It's bright and looks (slightly) better in daylight.. It's meant to be "Neon Red" (not DDP!).. Thought a hi-viz yellow one would clash with mandarin

(I've yet to put the bike & hat side by side.. fingers xed.)

Blackal · Post by **Blackal** » Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:42 pm

I was out in my tractor one day..................

milleplod · Post by **milleplod** » Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:44 pm

Let's face it, if they're not looking, they'll not see you, end of.

I rode work bikes for the best part of 30 years...often with strobes going for all they were worth, wailers/yelpers doing their thing, headlight on auto-flash....wearing hi-viz, both me and the bike. Guess what. Folk still pulled out on me, turned across me and generally insisted on behaving as if I really wasn't there. One year, I had so many near misses, I thought there was a contract out on me.

A lot of it was at high speeds....but a lot was on slow escorts too - wide loads, VIP escorts, that sort of stuff - as I said, if they're not looking, it doesn't matter what you're wearing, they'll not see you!

Pete

Pete. · Post by **Pete.** » Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:10 pm

I think those vests must be worn mostly by newbie commuters because -

1. They tend to ride quite slowly yet don't vary their speed according to the hazard level.
2. They either don't ever check their mirrors or if they do they must think they are doing the world a favour keeping everyone at their own slow pace.

There's one wearer who rides up the A2 who makes it very obvious that he's seen you in his mirror but hangs right between the lanes of slow/stationary cars and steadfastly refuses to shift over to release the queue that's always behind him.

Seems ironic that he wears a POLITE vest yet behaves in such a selfish manner.

fontana · Post by **fontana** » Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:53 pm

The Teutonic Tangerine wrote:having ridden into and out of London for the last 16 years my view on Hi Viz is this. (it didn't stop a stupid Australian woman driving into me in 2013) But: If the SMIDSY accident is inevitable then surely riding with headlights on, Driving/ spot lamps on and Hi-Viz jacket and or Helmet only strengthens the case against the SMIDSY driver. i.e. it gives you the high ground when it comes to Blame / compensation.

Sorry but this is just not the case.
No insurer can assign blame on a rider for not wearing hi viz.
The only time that can happen, is if you or your bike to not comply with the law.
Hi Viz is not a legal requirement, so therefore cannot be used to assign a proportion of blame on the rider who is not wearing it.
If a car driver collides with a pedestrian on a zebra crossing at night, and the insurer tried to make that person take some of the blame for not wearing hi viz, it would get laughed out of court.

The Teutonic Tangerine · Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:28 pm

fontana wrote:
The Teutonic Tangerine wrote:having ridden into and out of London for the last 16 years my view on Hi Viz is this. (it didn't stop a stupid Australian woman driving into me in 2013) But: If the SMIDSY accident is inevitable then surely riding with headlights on, Driving/ spot lamps on and Hi-Viz jacket and or Helmet only strengthens the case against the SMIDSY driver. i.e. it gives you the high ground when it comes to Blame / compensation.
Sorry but this is just not the case.
No insurer can assign blame on a rider for not wearing hi viz.
The only time that can happen, is if you or your bike to not comply with the law.
Hi Viz is not a legal requirement, so therefore cannot be used to assign a proportion of blame on the rider who is not wearing it.
If a car driver collides with a pedestrian on a zebra crossing at night, and the insurer tried to make that person take some of the blame for not wearing hi viz, it would get laughed out of court.

That's not what I am saying - what I meant was - when he says "I didn't see him" - who is going to be believed you in your hi-viz or him in his car my point is thart you have the high ground as by admitting he didn't see you when you looked like a fluorescent marker pen he's admitting that either he's myopic or he didn't look . As I say I managed to get my claim paid in full and the records show me as no blame. - When it was eventually sorted out I got a refund from my new insurers who had originally loaded the premium on the basis that I had been partly to blame or so the central computer said at the time I insured my new bike.

Herb · Post by **Herb** » Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:43 pm

fontana wrote:
The Teutonic Tangerine wrote:having ridden into and out of London for the last 16 years my view on Hi Viz is this. (it didn't stop a stupid Australian woman driving into me in 2013) But: If the SMIDSY accident is inevitable then surely riding with headlights on, Driving/ spot lamps on and Hi-Viz jacket and or Helmet only strengthens the case against the SMIDSY driver. i.e. it gives you the high ground when it comes to Blame / compensation.
Sorry but this is just not the case.
No insurer can assign blame on a rider for not wearing hi viz.
The only time that can happen, is if you or your bike to not comply with the law.
Hi Viz is not a legal requirement, so therefore cannot be used to assign a proportion of blame on the rider who is not wearing it.
If a car driver collides with a pedestrian on a zebra crossing at night, and the insurer tried to make that person take some of the blame for not wearing hi viz, it would get laughed out of court.

Its not about assigning a proportion of the 'blame' , more that insurers have been trying to reduce payments based on contributory negligence for years.

There was a high profile case where a girl walking on a grass verge was hit by a car and was seriously injured. The drivers insurer is trying to get her compensation reduced based on the fact she was not wearing hi-viz, despite admitting the accident was 100% the cause of their customer.

I can cite numerous cases of similar things with regard cycle helmet law. The accident may be 100% not your fault, but insurers are trying to argue contributory negligence in the case of a head injury if the cyclist was not wearing a helmet, despite helmets not being a legal requirement.

Same with motorcycle accidents. The law says you only have to wear a helmet, but don't expect the insurer to pay in full if you get knocked of wearing nothing but a helmet and a pair of shorts.