Least dorkiest hi viz for civilian clothed commuters?

[subaqua]

I wear a seat belt too.
Does the night vision coat fit over a bulky normal coat?

No need to its a bloomin warm coat anyway and doesn't look out of place as normal attire in work . doent meet requiremnts for EN471 or i would wear it as Hi Viz in work ( its not the colour its the retro reflectives that make it " Hi Viz" )

funnily enough the regatta walking jacket i used to wear had pin striping of retro relective along the seams .

seems as tho it is a good idea to be visible when walking in the country too , although not sure if the cows will see me and stop in time

 

[Origamist]

Simply not true I'm afraid There is a "vast raft" of evidence that in a crash the people wearing seat belts are much safer, that is true, not to say pretty intuitive, however, the bit you mention about statistical observations showing that it's the case is rubbish. Statistically, for the driving population as a whole (UK), seat belts have not saved lives. It seems like a paradox but both facts are true.

To me this is analogous to the hi viz argument (and helmets also): in other words overall there may be no evidence that casualty rates are reduced by wearing hi viz (I think this is what you are saying?), but individually it is proven fact that hi viz works in that it does makes people more visible in building sites and so safer - but I don't know if any scientific tests have validated this for cycling too?? Perhaps not and therefore perhaps I can stop looking like a dork.

I am yet to discover a study that can find a link between wearing Hi-Viz and a reduction in cyclist casualties.

This research paper came to a different conclusion:

This study was designed to assess the effect of conspicuity aid use on the risk of crash for commuter and utility cyclists. A slightly greater proportion of cases than controls reported using conspicuity aids. There was therefore a raised odds ratio of collision crash involvement for those using conspicuity aids even after adjustment for a large number of important confounders. The study results do not demonstrate a protective effect as expected given previous work testing the effects of such aids on drivers’ awareness of cyclists and pedestrians. This study demonstrates the importance of understanding why many cyclists remain at risk of collision crash resulting in injury despite the use of conspicuity aids.

http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/12855/

 

[steveindenmark]

I think dorkish is underrated.

 

[KneesUp]

That's good enough to "like" but it's a shame there's no Pat Sharp in it.

All your photoshop belong to me.

 

[Lonestar]

It's gone off topic now from the OP's original post/question and now the stupid comments and insults are starting.

Plus I don't really know the answer to the OP's post anyway.

 

[mjr]

Plus I don't really know the answer to the OP's post anyway.

Ah, is that why more people have commented than voting in the poll?

Also, June 2024 for poll closure?

 

[KneesUp]

It's gone off topic now from the OP's original post/question and now the stupid comments and insults are starting.

Plus I don't really know the answer to the OP's post anyway.

I am still struggling for a definition of 'dorkiest'

As my mum used to tell me (she's a nurse) when I complained about wearing a helmet to cycle to school - "you'll look even more daft with your head caved in"

Following that logic - if they work, none of them are 'dorky' If they don't then then they all are.

Or, as Confucius said "Who gives a stuff what anyone else thinks?"

 

[Lonestar]

I am still struggling for a definition of 'dorkiest'

I think that's why I'm stuck on this question also.

Damn.I've got 8 years to think up the answer.

 

[jefmcg]

 

[Drago]

Simply not true I'm afraid There is a "vast raft" of evidence that in a crash the people wearing seat belts are much safer, that is true, not to say pretty intuitive, however, the bit you mention about statistical observations showing that it's the case is rubbish. Statistically, for the driving population as a whole (UK), seat belts have not saved lives. It seems like a paradox but both facts are true.

To me this is analogous to the hi viz argument (and helmets also): in other words overall there may be no evidence that casualty rates are reduced by wearing hi viz (I think this is what you are saying?), but individually it is proven fact that hi viz works in that it does makes people more visible in building sites and so safer - but I don't know if any scientific tests have validated this for cycling too?? Perhaps not and therefore perhaps I can stop looking like a dork.

it not analogous, because were not discussing seatbelts, and seatbelts aren't designed to aid safety by raising conspicuity.

So to stick to the matter at hand - which is high vis garments - even the government themselves have been able to prove they actually aid safety.

 

[Tim Hall]

I think dorkish is underrated.

It's just down the road from Leatherheadish.

 

[mjr]

As my mum used to tell me (she's a nurse) when I complained about wearing a helmet to cycle to school - "you'll look even more daft with your head caved in"

That can be applied to any placebo, though, whether helmet, hi-viz or volcano insurance.

 

[MontyVeda]

That can be applied to any placebo, though, whether helmet, hi-viz or volcano insurance.

yeah but his mum's a nurse.

 

[KneesUp]

yeah but his mum's a nurse.

She's retired now.

 

[philepo]

it not analogous, because were not discussing seatbelts, and seatbelts aren't designed to aid safety by raising conspicuity.

So to stick to the matter at hand - which is high vis garments - even the government themselves have been able to prove they actually aid safety.

It is analogous. Consider: "seat belts save lives and we know they do because crash tests prove it". This is true. But to say that overall deaths have been cut as a result is not; because people change their behaviour when they think they are safer.

Good mind experiment: imagine everyone driving around in cars with expanding fluffy pillows in the steering wheels that save them in the event of a crash. Now picture all those cars with steering wheels with a dagger in the centre that pops out and stabs them in the eye if they crash. Which is safer? In the crash test the former is, but in the real world and in overall statistics, my money would be on the dagger-wheel (perhaps i should patent it) because no-one wants to risk being stabbed in the eye.

The point is, seat belts will save your own life in a crash, but for society as a whole, they haven't saved lifes (or it is very difficult to prove they have as the evidence is just not clear cut enough).

Now, I don't know of any papers on hi viz efficacy and I can't be bothered to trawl them (please link to the evidence you suggest exists) but I do know that construction worker deaths have fallen by about 60% since they were introduced voluntarily (not that that is proof). I am usually really anti this kind of nanny stuff but as a car driver I do know that cyclists really are almost invisible until you're very close to them. Having said that, I haven't felt any safer wearing the hi viz. so I am going round in circles with my own argument!