Rhythm Thief said:
This is a strange attitude. In the first place, it smacks of snobbery (which no doubt is not your intention), and in the second, as a professional driver I can testify to the fact that a hi vis tabard is one of the most visible things on the road. I agree that hi vis is not a substitute for lights but day or night it can help you to be seen. You don't have to work on a building site to wear it.
I fear, Mr Thief, you misinterpret me. It is a statement of fact, I don't work on a building site or on the railways (any more in the case of the latter.). Such clothing is iirc obligatory there and I have no doubt, once it becomes near ubiquitous on cyclists, it will become obligatory here, on my back, to. Aesthetically it is a freakin' disaster. I prefer style myself.
If hi-viz is the answer, why is not (already) mandatory? Why are cars and more especially motorcycles not flourescent? How come when a London cycle commuter I got hit three times whilst wearing a stoopid hi-viz tabard? Simples. If they ain't looking you could wear Sophie Dahl and they wouldn't see you.
You are a pro driver, your skills, vigilance and experience are not representative of Joe Public imo. If you choose to wear hi-viz