Can happen to any of us - Wiggo down...

[reohn2]

I am trying to decide if I am group 2 or 4?

My BMWs are in their early thirties, that isnt older is it?

If you're Group4 there's not much hope!

[mrjemm]

Meant kinda P reg to 53 ish. Not quite as old as your's; those're pretty much classics and another group entirely.

As for group4... That brings us to privatisation again, and that's a whole different rant.

[Fasgadh]

BMWs are a bit of a premium product right. OK so how come so many of them have indicators that don't work? Given the money you pay for one of these things, you would think that they could at least get that detail right.

[reohn2]

BMWs are a bit of a premium product right. OK so how come so many of them have indicators that don't work? Given the money you pay for one of these things, you would think that they could at least get that detail right.

It's not just BMW's with fault indicator switches,IMO the term operator error sums up a lot of driving.

[mrjemm]

And there was I thinking there was a new tax on indicator use that I'd not been told about.

Or maybe it's just everyone are so sick of those stupid sensitive ones that you can't turn off easily without them going the other way (i.e. every hire car I've driven for last few years) that they've just given up trying. Bad invention.

[John Holiday]

Have been puzzled by some of the comments regarding what to wear (or not) & visibility.
Today whilst Cycle Training & in persuit of objectivity, we put two children against low background sunlight.
One child wore a dark coat & the other wore a 'high viz' waistcoat. We then asked the other children which child in their opinion was more visible?
They all said that the child wearing the vest was more clearly seen.
Anecdotally, why would consruction & railway workers have to wear 'high viz' whilst working if it had no merit?
I am not suggesting that cyclists should be forced to wear 'high viz', but it obviously makes sense to wear something which makes you more visible, rather than merging into a drab background.
The difference on the Continent,wear few cyclists wear 'cycling' kit, is that everyone cycles & motorists take great care to avoid any contact.Absolute Liability.Bring it on!

[kwackers]

Anecdotally, why would consruction & railway workers have to wear 'high viz' whilst working if it had no merit?

Why indeed???
I suspect it just reduces the chance of a prosecution on H&S grounds.


Like all safety gear it has upsides and downsides. All that's missing is a decent way to quantify them and without that each of us will apply different values, since the overall benefit depends on these values then we can never agree.

One thing I do think we can/should agree on though is that motorists need to take more care. With that in mind I'd say the biggest issue with hi-vis is that it can mean them reducing the amount of care since we're normally more visible. If this happens then when the hi-vis and reflective material aren't helping (hi vis against insipid yellow street lighting and reflectives not directly lit) then it can mean we'd actually be less safe.

Like I said though, without some method to quantify the pro's and con's then it's all just conjecture...

[[XAP]Bob]

Because on a railway you need to identify things from a VERY long saga away, not a requirement on the roads.

[snibgo]

When I worked on the railways, decades ago, I could never work out what the orange jackets were for. (I would call them "hi-viz" but they weren't in those days.) In theory, it was so that a train driver would see me and blow his horn. He couldn't do anything else; trains can't stop in the distance they can see is clear. So it was somewhat daft. A train was always more visible to me than I was to him, however orange my clothing. And it was always my job to get out of his way because if he could see me, he couldn't stop in time.

At best, it added an extra (very thin) layer of safety. If my lookout man dozed off and didn't see the train, and I dozed off and didn't see the train, but the train driver saw either of us he would toot his horn to wake us both up.

[Si]

I sometimes work in museums. More than once I've seen school trips go around the museum wearing hiviz. Thus if we are going to talk anecdotal evidence, I think it underlines the logic often concerned with hiviz, and the fact that reasoning often has more to do with fulfilling RA/HS and insurance criteria than guarding against any real threat.

[BeeKeeper]

I suspect the HiViz for kids in a museum has more to do with making it easier for the teacher to see if one of them wanders off and gets mixed up with, for example, a few kids with their parents.

There is also the effect of having to wear special clothing might have on the wearer. On the railways, the message is: "This is somewhere dangerous so you need to take care." It could also imply: "I have HiViz so I am safe." But hopefully not. However, on a foggy morning outside a station with lots of trains going in all directions is anyone saying there would be no impact on safety if the workers wore dark clothes as opposed to something shiny orange with reflective bits?

[Si]

I suspect the HiViz for kids in a museum has more to do with making it easier for the teacher to see if one of them wanders off and gets mixed up with, for example, a few kids with their parents.

In some maybe, but not when they have the site to themselves!

[bovlomov]

In some maybe, but not when they have the site to themselves!

And what happens if there are three school parties, and all the children are wearing the same colour hi-viz?

Some years ago the police started wearing hi-viz. For a couple of years afterwards, whenever I saw a policeman in the distance I assumed he was a builder.

[thirdcrank]

I've been trying to think what it is about a Honda Civic that might make it look like a duck. I wonder if you are thinking of a Nissan Juke?

[gentlegreen]

I confess I nearly hit a pedestrian tonight on the Bristol to Bath path.
I had just been distracted by an only moderately horrible light coming the other way - I've encountered far worse.
Above all I was going too fast in the dark - approx 14MPH.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsscioIwm5I

If the pedestrian hadn't been wearing light clothing I would probably have hit them - or hopefully skidded into the verge / dropped the bike or whatever.
Quite frankly - having tried that as a pedestrian myself a couple of winters ago, you need lights - front and back. I did - even broke my usual rule and had a flashing red one on my backpack. And I walked on the left.

I won't walk on that path now - found a completely different route.