Hi-viz doesn’t do anything. There’s no statistical difference in casualty rates between people wearing it and people not. Consider that drivers routinely plow into the back of emergency vehicles stopped by the side of the highway, completely wrapped in hi-viz, reflective material, and with million-lumen flashing lights. This is victim-blaming nonsense.
I’d love to see a source for that claim, because I do drive in rural areas with no street lighting, and high vi’s makes a person visible from multiple times the distance.
Also, people driving on the back roads tend to be paying a bit more attention.
You are correct. I forgot to qualify my statement to say that it applies on city streets. Apologies, I can’t find the YouTube video that discussed the study right now.
Hi-viz doesn’t do anything. There’s no statistical difference in casualty rates between people wearing it and people not. Consider that drivers routinely plow into the back of emergency vehicles stopped by the side of the highway, completely wrapped in hi-viz, reflective material, and with million-lumen flashing lights. This is victim-blaming nonsense.
Not necessarily true. Hi-viz markings on vehicles have proven to reduce crashes by as much as 20%.
I don’t see why the same logic couldn’t be applied to crashes involving people.
I’d love to see a source for that claim, because I do drive in rural areas with no street lighting, and high vi’s makes a person visible from multiple times the distance.
Also, people driving on the back roads tend to be paying a bit more attention.
You are correct. I forgot to qualify my statement to say that it applies on city streets. Apologies, I can’t find the YouTube video that discussed the study right now.
Yeah, that makes sense. If you’re already on a footpath, I don’t see how a high vis would make any difference.