mjr wrote: ... So the pair of Nottingham Uni studies finding no protective effect (the first was http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/12855/ which is available in full - the second requires a sciencedirect login) and the Bath/Brunel Uni research ( http://opus.bath.ac.uk/37890/ ) are not evidence? ...
On the contrary, that's just the type of thing a campaign should be based on, particularly the Nottingham study. I can only refer to a forum version of SMIDSY for not having spotted it before. FWIW, I've done a quick search on "Nottingham" to see how much it's been mentioned before. When another poster quoted a Danish study which apparently supported a different conclusion, you rubbished it, partly on the valid grounds that it involved self-reporting. Had I not seen that, I would have bitten my tongue over the self-reporting in the Nottingham study. If I've understood it correctly, in the majority of cases the authors relied on people's own assessment of their "conspicuity aids." ie an element of countering SMIDSY with "You need a white stick." Nevertheless, this has fundamental importance for the whole Health and Safety policy in relation to hi-viz and is surely worth further, better financed research where for example, more verification would be possible.
I've no doubt you have brought this evidence to the notice of the likes of politicians more than it seems to have been mentioned on here. (I'm surprised it dates from as long ago as 2012.)
And I think it's fair to demand evidence from those promoting costly safety interventions to show that they're worthwhile,
Unfortunately, I don't think fairness comes into it. Convincing the people responsible needs a clear message, with nothing to blunt it.