Legality of Learner vests

SweetCaliber

Hey all,

I have been wondering for the last couple of weeks what the legality of learner vests (reflective vests with "L" plates on them) is?

I was talking to a guy who is selling a bike and he said his sister is a guard and theres nothing about them in the statute, and it's not against the law?

I know the RSA say you have to but is it eally against the law? I got stopped by a garda a while ago at a checkpoint and he wondered why I was wearing the vest also.

Just curious, that's all.

Wossack

yer mans sister is talking out her rear end..

S.I. No. 719/2007 — Road Traffic (Licensing of Learner Drivers) Regulations 2007

(II) category A, A1, or M, shall not drive such a vehicle unless there are displayed on a yellow fluorescent tabard worn over the person’s outside clothing, the letter ‘L’, not less than 15 centimetres high in red on a white ground, in clearly visible vertical positions to the front and rear of the person’s torso,”

SweetCaliber

Thanks! Was just making sure is all

smellslikeshoes

You'd want to find a Garda having a seriously bad day to get hassle for not wearing one. They are a target plain and simple, they do nothing but bring out the worst in drivers. What makes them even more dangerous is if you are wearing one you are probably on a smaller/restricted bike so you wouldn't have the power to put distance between you and some idiot trying to bully you off the road.

Wossack

appreciate they're only human, but pretty poor stating its not against the law just cause they personally hadnt heard of it..

traffic corp would be far more versed in it

there was a blitz on restricted bikes & tabards in Cork about a year ago. Lotta unhappy folks on the various forums iirc. I risked it, but it is a risk. Considerable rope to hang you with if you came across the wrong guy.. (rumours of 1000e fines, ala failure to display L-plates on cars)

rat_race

SweetCaliber wrote: »

Hey all,

I have been wondering for the last couple of weeks what the legality of learner vests (reflective vests with "L" plates on them) is?

I was talking to a guy who is selling a bike and he said his sister is a guard and theres nothing about them in the statute, and it's not against the law?

I know the RSA say you have to but is it eally against the law? I got stopped by a garda a while ago at a checkpoint and he wondered why I was wearing the vest also.

Just curious, that's all.

I have a Gardai friend, who was speaking to other Gardai in the Traffic Corps, and they had never heard of the IBT, restrictions, nothing...not a clue.

Suasdaguna1

L plate vest means to drivers I need to pass this guy even though s/he's keeping up with traffic.

They are in my opinion a magnet to squeeze you off the road.

......when the last time you saw someone wear one apart from near the relevant test centres?

Del2005

Wossack wrote: »

appreciate they're only human, but pretty poor stating its not against the law just cause they personally hadnt heard of it..

traffic corp would be far more versed in it

there was a blitz on restricted bikes & tabards in Cork about a year ago. Lotta unhappy folks on the various forums iirc. I risked it, but it is a risk. Considerable rope to hang you with if you came across the wrong guy.. (rumours of 1000e fines, ala failure to display L-plates on cars)

The Gardaì are as bad as the general public for knowledge of our laws which is a terrible considering they're supposed to enforce it. Loads of threads of them telling people that they need a 4x4 to tow a trailer to the OP not knowing about the tabard!

Just wait till the N tabard comes in. A minimum of 2.5 years wearing a target

Faith+1

rat_race wrote: »

I have a Gardai friend, who was speaking to other Gardai in the Traffic Corps, and they had never heard of the IBT, restrictions, nothing...not a clue.

Well they're obviously not taking their job seriously and studying up on these new rules.

bladespin

Faith+1 wrote: »

Well they're obviously not taking their job seriously and studying up on these new rules.

TBH if a garda studied every change to the law they'd be a solicitor.

Faith+1

bladespin wrote: »

TBH if a garda studied every change to the law they'd be a solicitor.

True but Gardai in the traffic corp should focus solely on the rotr given their position.

bladespin

Faith+1 wrote: »

True but Gardai in the traffic corp should focus soely on the rotr given their position.

Pretty sure the garda giving the (bad) advice in this case wasn't part of traffic.

Hegarz

How does it effect your insurance should you have an accident without it on?

Del2005

Faith+1 wrote: »

True but Gardai in the traffic corp should focus solely on the rotr given their position.

The ROTR aren't laws, it says so on one of the first few pages, they are an interpretation of the law. The Gardaí should be enforcing the laws in our statue book.

Takes off pedantic hat

Hegarz wrote: »

How does it effect your insurance should you have an accident without it on?

Most likely the same as riding an unrestricted bike or driving unaccompanied, both are riding/driving outside the terms of your licence/permit, which means that you loose everything bar 3rd party and the insurance company can sue you for any monies paid out. I've yet too hear of people being sued.

unclebill98

Got pulled by biker Garda.

Got quizzed about bike being learner legal, even used his phone to check spec. Before I left he said I suppose for learner vest doesn't go well with the image? I laughed, he laughed and off I went.

Sagi

Hm, I'm wearing it so far, but have only been on the bike for 2 days..., think it is not bad as far as visibility is concerend and I could not see that somebody was bullying me of the Road. Was quite happy about wearing it when I was on the road in heavy rain with quite bad visibility

What would the opinion on Hi Viz Vest without the L be?

Pataman

Sagi wrote: »

What would the opinion on Hi Viz Vest without the L be?

Every biker should wear them. It makes you a lot more visible to drivers.







Goes and hides........

bladespin

Pataman wrote: »

Every biker should wear them. It makes you a lot more visible to drivers.







Goes and hides........

Lol,have toi say I completely disagree on both counts.

rat_race

bladespin wrote: »

Lol,have toi say I completely disagree on both counts.

I never wear hi-viz, but let's avoid the "we shouldn't have to wear hi-viz, drivers should learn to look properly instead", or the "all cars should be hi-viz instead, in that case, if it would reduce accidents" arguments!

The bottom line is, there will always be dumb drivers who fail to visually register vehicles that are smaller than a car. Doesn't matter about any ifs, shoulds, buts, shouldnts, etc...they exist and that's all that matters.

Hi-viz material makes whatever it is on, more visible and eye-catching. You're more likely to see something hi-viz than something that is not hi-viz if everything else is like-for-like. There's no (sensible) argument that suggests it has no effect, IMO. Seriously like, for people to say hi-viz doesn't increase visibility because there's no scientific research to prove it reduces accidents, needs a slap in the face with some common sense ...

If a biker wants to be a bit safer, hi-viz is an option...it should always be a personal decision though, and not enforced.

Again, I don't wear hi-vis, but I don't justify that decision with myself by saying hi-viz is actually not-hi-viz-but-just-normal-viz.

Del2005

rat_race wrote: »

I never wear hi-viz, but let's avoid the "we shouldn't have to wear hi-viz, drivers should learn to look properly instead", or the "all cars should be hi-viz instead, in that case, if it would reduce accidents" arguments!

The bottom line is, there will always be dumb drivers who fail to visually register vehicles that are smaller than a car. Doesn't matter about any ifs, shoulds, buts, shouldnts, etc...they exist and that's all that matters.

Hi-viz material makes whatever it is on, more visible and eye-catching. You're more likely to see something hi-viz than something that is not hi-viz if everything else is like-for-like. There's no (sensible) argument that suggests it has no effect, IMO. Seriously like, for people to say hi-viz doesn't increase visibility because there's no scientific research to prove it reduces accidents, needs a slap in the face with some common sense ...

If a biker wants to be a bit safer, hi-viz is an option...it should always be a personal decision though, and not enforced.

Again, I don't wear hi-vis, but I don't justify that decision with myself by saying hi-viz is actually not-hi-viz-but-just-normal-viz.

If they can't see 55w of dipped beam a material that reflects some light isn't going to make them see you any easier.

Edit/

Compulsory eye tests at every licence renewal would improve biker safety more than high viz or DRLs and be cheaper.

rat_race

I'm sure they can see a 55w beam, if you point it right in their face. But last time I checked, there's only one of those, on the front of your bike, that are not particularly awesome during daytime. Unless you have covered yourself in 55w lights, pointing every possible direction...? In that case, I commend you...and I'd say a hi-viz jacket is probably pointless.

Anyway, seriously cannot believe how irrational/illogical some people can be on such a simple topic such as a colour. Bright colours are more visible, it's playschool stuff. It's that simple. Lights are hi-viz too. And the more hi-viz on something, the more likely they're going to be seen by the unobservant, or by someone who has mis-judged or made a mistake, or by someone with poor eyesight, etc.

I have no strong opinions on this topic, in either direction, in fairness...I do have strong opinions on people having common sense though. To say because you have a light on the front of your bike, that taking any other measures to increase your visiblity are pointless -- in terms of increasing visibility -- is lacking logical common sense.


Also, hi-viz are not reflectors. Reflectors are reflectors, and hi-viz clothing may or may not have them. You don't need to shine a light on hi-viz to see them.

Wossack

im irrational about it, as the way things are going it'll be law to wear one, and then suddenly you're on the back foot in the event of an accident, even though youre the one who was knocked down.. wt-bloody-f

they need to stop making allowances for the lowest common denominators on the road, and start just taking them off it

rat_race

Wossack wrote: »

im irrational about it, as the way things are going it'll be law to wear one, and then suddenly you're on the back foot in the event of an accident, even though youre the one who was knocked down.. wt-bloody-f

they need to stop making allowances for the lowest common denominators on the road, and start just taking them off it

You don't have to like the law, or upcoming laws, and people should argue (intelligently) against or for whatever they believe is right.

But that's a separate issue...the thread subject was about hi-viz vests and our opinions on it, which leads to people saying the dumbest things -- that high-viz is a myth -- because they don't want to wear them / obey some nanny-law (which is fine).

Argue about fairness, civil liberties, driver awareness training, etc., etc, but don't make us all sound like a bunch of colourblind half-wits -- because IMO that's what we sound like when we say hi-viz is 100% ineffective.

Would be much better if people admitted hi-viz makes a difference, but enforcing it to one small group of road users is unfair and just masks the problem of mass ignorance amongst the majority of road users, who should, for example, undergo further training or eyesight tests, etc. But that doesn't take away from the fact that if you go out on your bike, TODAY, a high-viz vest is safer than no high-viz vest. How can anyone say it isn't, is beyond me. And again, I do not wear anything hi-viz. My bike is fairly dark and so is my clothing.

Del2005

rat_race wrote: »

You don't have to like the law, or upcoming laws, and people should argue (intelligently) against or for whatever they believe is right.

But that's a separate issue...the thread subject was about hi-viz vests and our opinions on it, which leads to people saying the dumbest things -- that high-viz is a myth -- because they don't want to wear them / obey some nanny-law (which is fine).

Argue about fairness, civil liberties, driver awareness training, etc., etc, but don't make us all sound like a bunch of colourblind half-wits -- because IMO that's what we sound like when we say hi-viz is 100% ineffective.

Would be much better if people admitted hi-viz makes a difference, but enforcing it to one small group of road users is unfair and just masks the problem of mass ignorance amongst the majority of road users, who should, for example, undergo further training or eyesight tests, etc. But that doesn't take away from the fact that if you go out on your bike, TODAY, a high-viz vest is safer than no high-viz vest. How can anyone say it isn't, is beyond me. And again, I do not wear anything hi-viz. My bike is fairly dark and so is my clothing.

The thread isn't about high viz. It's about being legally required to wear a high viz with a large L on it that makes most other road users think you are an obstacle that needs to be gotten past at any cost to the person wearing.

I wore the L vest the few days before my test and every driver was overtaking me. I've worn high viz since and not a single driver tried to pass.

I've see motorbikes, cyclists and pedestrians when they are wearing either high viz or not, but I've my eyes tested every year. Most motorists have an eye test when they apply for their first licence, usually before they're 20, and never again. The fact that they can't see doesn't enter anyone's mind they just want to make others more visible to compensate for the lack of willingness to make people undergo regular eye tests if they want to drive a vehicle on the public roads.

prunudo

Del2005 wrote: »

If they can't see 55w of dipped beam a material that reflects some light isn't going to make them see you any easier.

Edit/

Compulsory eye tests at every licence renewal would improve biker safety more than high viz or DRLs and be cheaper.

100% agree with you on the need for the eye test. It's ridiculous that somebody could go 50 years without getting their eyesight re-checked.

rat_race

Getcha. But I was more talking about the direction it took after Sagi & Pataman's comments...

Sorry, don't mean to be sounding like a d1ck (just reading over my comments, I sounded a bit serious looking back) ...

Anyway, I fully agree about the L-vests...and eye testing, Big time...

serious3

i always wear an orange hi-viz, my reasoning being that we are so used to seeing everyone wearing the yellow/green ones that we have become tuned out to that colour, dunno if science backs this up but it makes me feel better and more confident i can be seen, therefore i relax and ride better!

bladespin

I don't think hi-vis makes most bikes more visible, for the many it's going to be hidden behind a fairing most of the time.

Pugzilla

Would I be breaking the law if i was to wear a bag over the L vest while commuting?

Would I have to put an L plate on the bag?

SweetCaliber

Pugzilla wrote: »

Would I be breaking the law if i was to wear a bag over the L vest while commuting?

Would I have to put an L plate on the bag?

I'm always wearing a bag over my vest, the L plate on the front of my jacket is still visible.

End of the day your legally wearing the right vest, nothing about putting an "L" plate on your bag.

Del2005

Pugzilla wrote: »

Would I be breaking the law if i was to wear a bag over the L vest while commuting?

Would I have to put an L plate on the bag?

You have to display the L on the High viz. To be 100% legal you'd need to have two high viz with L. One to wear and the other to display on the rear of the bag

Learner motorcyclists must wear a yellow tabard displaying the “L” plate not less than 15cm high on a white background, in clearly visible vertical positions front and rear worn over the chest clothing.

SweetCaliber wrote: »

I'm always wearing a bag over my vest, the L plate on the front of my jacket is still visible.

End of the day your legally wearing the right vest, nothing about putting an "L" plate on your bag.