Now most of you know that I try to stay clear of the three taboo subjects in any pub conversation, sex, religion and politics. But this one has a distinctly political tinge to it and it’s got me a bit hot under the collar.
A Victorian (why am I not surprised?) policeman is ducking for cover at the moment amid the usual claims that he has been misquoted in a statement that he is reported to have made. In the press he was quoted as saying that the Victorian government will be moving to make it mandatory that all motorcyclists be required to wear high-visibility jackets such as the one shown above whenever they are riding a motorcycle on the road.
Not surprisingly this move has been suggested in the name of “safety” which is the universal cover-all for all legislation that governments wish to pass where they foist unwanted regulation upon the populace. The “It’s for your own good” mantra. Except that it’s NOT.
There is no evidence to suggest that having us wear hi-vis vests will make us any safer on the road than we are now. In fact, the opposite will probably be the case in just the same way as the introduction of compulsory “lights on” on motorcycles in the early 70’s did NOTHING to reduce the number or frequency of motorcycle accidents where a third party was involved.
In fact, this is just another knee-jerk reaction by governments and bureaucrats to try and shift the responsibility for motorcycle/car accidents from the DRIVER to the RIDER. It is, in fact, a rubber stamp to the SMIDSY defence so long used successfully by car drivers who have killed and maimed thousands of motorcyclists. It is saying that it the rider’s responsibility to be SEEN rather than the driver’s responsibility to LOOK. Since most riders are ALREADY doing everything they can to avoid stupid/inattentive/careless motorists it seems hard to believe that anybody with even the smallest amount of intelligence can believe that adding even more responsibility to the rider and taking it away from the driver can achieve anything that even vaguely resembles “safety”
It is said that there are three great lies in the world.
1. The cheque’s in the mail
2. Of course I’ll respect you in the morning
3. We’re from the government and we’re here to help you.
This lie falls into the last category.
GET INVOLVED. Even though action by the various lobby groups will probably stop this stupidity in Victoria THIS TIME, now that the suggestion has been made, you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be raised again at some future date. It will be just like the front number plate debate that rumbles on even though we all know that it’s a crock.
FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS. Let the AMC and MCC of NSW know that you’re opposed to this stupidity. Act now while you can. It’s almost impossible to get a government to rescind a law once it has been gazzetted.
killbam says
Hi Phil, long time lurker from VFRD. I share your views that a lot of “safety” regulation is a crock. If it’s not designed to increase government revenues, such as with front number plates, it’s an intrusive nanny-like attempt. There’s no argument you could make for requiring Hi-Vis jackets that you could not also not make for just banning motorcycles all together.
I also share your skepticism about safety issues. Things which seem safe at first, like red light cameras, in practice can cause more accidents.
However, I’ve found a study that shows Hi-Vis clothing tends to reduce accidents and that motorcycle headlights also tend to reduce accidents. This is the study from 2003: http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7444/857.full
I found it linked from the wikipedia page on Hi-Vis clothing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-visibility_clothing#cite_note-2
The woefully outdate Hurt report also mentions Hi-Vis clothing. “The failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents… Conspicuity of the motorcycle is a critical factor in the multiple vehicle accidents, and accident involvement is significantly reduced by the use of motorcycle headlamps-on In daylight and the wearing of high visibility yellow, orange or bright red jackets.”
Phil Hall says
Wow, you’ve sure done your research, mate. Welcome to the site, by the way. I perhaps could have phrased it a little better, but, in the heat of the moment and all that. I guess my point is that, like “headlights on”, the hi-vis issue MAY benefit motorcyclists in terms of safety but it it is an impost upon US to try and counter the irresponsibility of those with whom we share the roads and that is something that really sticks in my craw.
teza51 says
I pretty much agree with you both but if hi vis is going to save a life its worth considering i could not understand why most manufactures dont do a hivis jacket or leathers but at the moment its up to the individual and maybe that is where it should stay a few of my accidents might have been avoided if i was “SEEN”
grae says
I am impressed by Killbam’s references to research, and impressed by your acknowledgement of such, dad.
I too agree that – the kill point being made – whether overtly or by inference with high vis jackets is that motorcycle riders are responsible for being visible. With little to no focus on drivers responsibility to be more aware of their surroundings, to pay attention.
I am sincerely impressed, and even slightly proud of the fact that our laws regarding phone useage while driving, sms’ etc – based on solid research and facts are what they are. The same laws are being described as government overreach in the US. And said laws aren’t just to benefit motorcycle riders. They’re to benefit anyone who may be anywhere near a moving vehicle.
To me, there should be more of that focus that there was 10 or so years ago on “look out for bike riders”.
I have been impressed by recent news articles I’ve read regarding rationalisation of multi limit stretches of road in high traffic areas by the authorities. Where stretches of high traffic road would change from 60, 70, 80, 40, 50 etc over only a few kilometres.
That to me is one of the considerably main issues regarding drive awareness.
Just watch any damned episode of Fifth Gear where Tiff and VBH are letting their spikey haired co-host test drive a car on the closed course. They constantly instruct him, don’t look down, look up, look ahead.
How many times have we, when driving a car, looked at a speed limit sign, then for the following 10 minutes while turning, driving, in traffic, spent a good portion of our time looking at our speedo, or craning our necks to see it above the wheel, or when turning looked around the spokes in the steering wheel to check on our speed. We’ve made pariah the use of phones while driving. And rightly so. But there’s still been – let’s be blunt – FUCK ALL focus on getting drivers eyes on the road due to their focus on their speed. Be it due to constantly changing speed limits over short stretches of road, or enforcement of speed limits bordering on the statistically unethical with the lower limits such as intimidating road users in to fearing doing even 63 in a 60 zone, not more than 5% of the posted limit.
And in any modern car, no matter the size, an easy feat to accomplish given even a slight rise in the road and dip, or shift in ones seat and change in weight in the foot affixed to the pedal.
We can rationalise speed limits to fewer changes over high traffic short distances.
But we also need to rationalise the approach to enforcement of said limits. And realistic appraisal of use of roads in given limits.
On the highway when nobody is looking and it’s the middle of nowhere and there are no speed cameras and nobody around and it’s the middle of the night and there aren’t even average trip speed cameras – at 100kph, drivers on a long trip are going to naturally be tempted to and often will kick up the jam and hit 110, 115, etc. The higher they dare. But traversing a trip to work, to visit family, in zones from 80 and below. Who really feels compelled to drive “70” when it’s “60”. To save time, on a short trip? Especially in inner city Melbourne, where for years now police have prided themselves on punishing <5% infractions of speed on limits of 60kph.
There needs to be not only a focus on what, as engineers describe as safe speed on a given stretch of road. As what communities on that road wish to be seen as safe given the use of the addresses on said road. And on the authorities wish to see as lawful behaviour on said roads.
There also needs to be a focus on the brass tacks psychological, and biological limits and caveats of the human being, that is driving in those limits.
And I don't even suspect, or feel is likely, but given even the complete lack of scientific evidence to support my position am almost certain is true. The excessively unrealistic given the human being driving and their biological capabilities obligation to focus on their speedometre in high traffic areas from speeds of 50kph to 90kph causes more accidents, even potential fatalities than if the speed limits were rationalised, and their enforcement were more pragmatic given the fact humans drive. Look forward, look up. Look at the road. Look around you. If you are more worried about doing 63 and spend 10%+ time driving looking at your speedo to avoid it in a 60 zone, that's 10%+ of your time you're still covering a significant distance in close traffic at a speed where if you were to colide with a pedestrian, a cyclist, or a motorcycle rider, you would cause either serious injury or a fatality.
Stop. Making. Drivers. Spend. Stupid. Amounts. Of Time. Looking. At Their Speedo. Over. Tiny. Percentage. Differences. IN speed. That will. Cause THEM TO NOT LOOK AT THE ROAD AND PEOPLE USING IT AND HAVE ACCIDENTS!
It benefits nobody but the $ of those who bank the speeding tickets. It resutls in at least a few fatalities per year. No question.
That said, and to close a long comment, of which I've done several tonight.
When it's 40. Do 40. Damnit. Don't bitch.
You notice that doing 40 feels incredibly slow compared to regular road speed? THAT'S THE GOD DAMNED POINT. IT'S BECAUSE THERE ARE CHILDREN INHABITING SAID ZONE. Children, I remember clear as day at school when only 5, have undeveloped spatial awareness. And, as I watched a kid chase a basketball out on to a small private road at a school in Balkham hills, will not notice in their periphery even a vehicle moving as slow as 40kph. And the kid in question, he ran in ot the side of it, and it was only doing 30kph I estimate, even though I was not able to at the time. He still broke his knee.
In 40 zones, it's not only 40kph no more, it's supposed to feel stupid slow. And it's supposed to be inconvenient. Because that inconvenience and slowness just may enable you to slow down and brake in time to only lightly injure a stupidly oblivious child, rather than kill them.
Non school zones up to 110 – whatever.
110 zones?
I'll defer to you on this one, dad. You've driven from Melb to Syd and back on the hume a few times of late, with more than ever dual carriage way. Since the unveiling of average speed cameras the entire length of the trip – how has the trip changed, if at all, as a driver, given the rleative speeds of other drivers on the road, The need to pass. The ease or difficulty of doing the trip and keeping the right speed?
You may disagree, and feel free to. I was fully prepared to dismiss average speed cameras over the Hume as revenue raising. But I could not even pretend to ignore the normalising influence it had on all other drivers. No longer did I have to get annoyed on a long trip with my own speed, relative to others. And other drivers passing me, then slwoing down. It seems like, since those were installed, there are less people driving. Thats because everyone's doing the same speed. So you rarely get close to any other drivers.
I wanted to hate them, but in practice, I've never enjoyed that drive or felt more able to watch the road and not my speed than ever before. I never want them to leave.
But, in closing. I will say this. If you drive. STOP LOOKING AT YOUR DAMNED SPEEDO FOR A MINUTE, DO WHAT TIFF AND VBH SAY, AND LOOK UP, LOOK FORWARD. LOOK IN YOUR MIRRORS. LOOK OUT FOR PEDESTRIANS. CYCLISTS. AND MOTORCYCLISTS. I ALMOST LOST MY GOD DAMNED FATHER BECAUSE DRIVERS DON'T PAY ENOUGH ATTENTION TO WHAT'S ON THE ROAD ON WHICH THEY ARE DRIVING. SO EYES OPEN PEOPLE. I LIKE HIM.
Phil Hall says
Absolutely agree!! Our draconian law-makers, in a misguided attempt to HELP, have actually hindered the process with their obsession on speed.