The real issue regarding visibility isn't hi viz or not.
It's myopic drivers whose eyesight is so bad they shouldn't be on the road.
For those people dressing yourself head to toe in dayglo and covering yourself in flashing Christmas tree lights will make no difference.
I find it amazing that whilst we insist that a vehicle is tested for road worthiness every year, no such consideration is given to the most important component in any vehicle.
At the very least there should be a mandatory eyesight test every year or two.
It would be easily implementable.
Independent opticians could act as eyesight testing stations in exactly the same way independent garages act as MOT centres.
An eyesight fail would mean that until it's rectified, you would not be able to drive.
Yes that's harsh but surely no sensible person would believe that allowing someone who can barely see to the end of the bonnet on the roads is OK.
Where's the sense in going to all that trouble ensuring a vehicle is roadworthy, but doing nothing to ensure the driver meets equally high standard's of road worthiness.
Gonna tell you a story...
Many years ago, when I was a patrol policeman, I went to the scene of an incident in a local village (not naming names to protect the guilty
). The village has a very busy main road running through the middle of it and had (long gone now) a petrol station halfway along. On the day in question, at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning, a brand new Volkswagen Passat Automatic pulled onto the forecourt and the driver, an elderly gentleman, filled the car with fuel. He then got into the car and started the engine. The car promptly took off like a scalded cat, hit another car on the forecourt, which turned it through 90 degrees and travelled at speed across the main road to embed itself in the shop opposite. Just to complete the mayhem, the driver then put the car in reverse and shot backwards into the street running over the foot of a builder from the next door business who had come to help and into the path of a milk lorry which hit it.
Not a very serious incident and one not without humour, especially as the only substantialy injured person was the big bluff builder jumping up and down and swearing very volubly about his painful foot.
To cut a long story (a bit) shorter, the elderly driver was carted off to hospital for checks and I supervised the clearing up operation, then I went to the hospital just down the road to see how he was. When I arrived, I was buttonholed by the doctor on duty who asked if he had really been driving the car, which I confirmed. He was quite shocked and told me that the man was in no way fit to drive... he was suffering from a condition called (iirc) Cerebral Atrophy.
Armed with this knowledge, I did the next enquiry, which was to visit the home where the driver lived with his son and daughter-in-law to inform them that 'dad' was in hospital. The formalities over, I asked if he should have been driving and told them what the hospital doctor had said. I was told 'Yes, we knew he had the condition... in fact he was aware of it, he's not daft. He went to his doctor the other week when he was thinking about buying the new car and asked if he was still fit to drive. The doctor checked him out and said, yes, he was fine".
When I contacted the doctor, he confirmed this and said, yes he had carried out the required tests and as far as he could tell, the old chap was perfectly mentally and physically fit to drive.
So... what is the point I'm making.
Yes, it would be great if opticians (and doctors) were under a duty to inform DVLA if someone (for whatever reason) is unfit to drive... in fact, they are under just such a duty. The problem is that they only see the patient for at most half an hour under more or less ideal circumstances. What they can't see is how a person reacts when they are, in fact, out there on the road. (I sometimes think, if they could, the roads would be a lot quieter
For such a programme to be effective, you would need to institute an annual targeted health check which would, to be fair, have to apply to everyone. The cost would be horrendous and you can imagine the reaction from the civil liberties groups. Not going to happen.