Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

eeeee

Yup it's with what I like to call the spa pass. It's so NI get the cost of us back I think for our journey up there I think. It's done from where you get your ticket.

That, and the shifty eyes

Eamonnator

gadetra wrote: »

Yup it's with what I like to call the spa pass. It's so NI get the cost of us back I think for our journey up there I think. It's done from where you get your ticket.

That, and the shifty eyes

I have one of those passes. I don't like to call it a spa pass.In fact, I find that expression to be quite offensive.

eeeee

Eamonnator wrote: »

I have one of those passes. I don't like to call it a spa pass.In fact, I find that expression to be quite offensive.

Fair enough, it's an offensive term, no offense meant to other holders. I still call mine that though cos I got it for physical rather than age reasons.

I also qualify as a para-athete, and was talking to a para Trackie about it all, and that's how we addressed each other. Same as when I was in hospital with similarly bandy people. A term of endearment for us but not for everyone

Qualitymark

gadetra wrote: »

Yup it's with what I like to call the spa pass. It's so NI get the cost of us back I think for our journey up there I think. It's done from where you get your ticket.

That, and the shifty eyes

Funny, in that case, that the northern pass-holders don't have to fill out forms when coming south…?

eeeee

Qualitymark wrote: »

Funny, in that case, that the northern pass-holders don't have to fill out forms when coming south…?

No idea!

CramCycle

I still think you have been duped by a marketing company. There is certainly no legal precedent for such a form AFAIK.

eeeee

CramCycle wrote: »

I still think you have been duped by a marketing company. There is certainly no legal precedent for such a form AFAIK.

It's definitely not marketing, it's a money thing. It only takes your station destination, your pass number and name I think, actually I think it's pretty much just your destination and pass number. Blue/navy and white form. It's been a year since I filled one out.

Qualitymark

I think the ticket man also asked me the reason for my trip, and then he filled out a bunch more sections at speed. But again, why is it filled out south-north, but not north-south?

CramCycle

Its an irish rail thing then, not a legal requirement.

Trying to judge the market they are catering for. Would be far easier if they just added a questionnaire on their online purchasing. The Wexford train would have them now and again.

eeeee

Qualitymark wrote: »

I think the ticket man also asked me the reason for my trip, and then he filled out a bunch more sections at speed. But again, why is it filled out south-north, but not north-south?

Oh now I think we're on about different forms!

Yours sounds much more exciting. I have an irrational love of forms. I could fill them out all day

Yeah it's an IE money thing Cram, I can't get a ticket up north without it. It's not even a good form, it has hardly any questions. Never had to fill one put going anywhere else, I'm disappointed now :pac: Can't get tickets on the net or at a machine with a pass which is annoying!

Harrybelafonte

Forms? You have little to worry about, why in my youth border crossings involved the emptying of cars by the army or customs, a bit of verbal abuse and definitely some sneering. Flying in to Belfast airport meant you got special attention at security in airports and the dodgiest sight in the UK seems to have been having a beard and a northern accent while carrying shopping bags. Forms, pft and all that.

dub_skav

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Forms? You have little to worry about, why in my youth border crossings involved the emptying of cars by the army or customs, a bit of verbal abuse and definitely some sneering. Flying in to Belfast airport meant you got special attention at security in airports and the dodgiest sight in the UK seems to have been having a beard and a northern accent while carrying shopping bags. Forms, pft and all that.

Often by a number of camouflaged soldiers appearing out of the hedges to stop you.
To get back on topic, if the soldiers had been wearing Hi-Vis I wouldn't have needed to change my underpants so often.

eeeee

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Forms? You have little to worry about, why in my youth border crossings involved the emptying of cars by the army or customs, a bit of verbal abuse and definitely some sneering. Flying in to Belfast airport meant you got special attention at security in airports and the dodgiest sight in the UK seems to have been having a beard and a northern accent while carrying shopping bags. Forms, pft and all that.

My dad was a lorry driver and he used to take me with him going up north so they go at least a bit easier in him. Not sure if it worked though, they used to absolutely reef the lorry out of it. Whilst you stood there under the guns. Never crossed without being searched. Even with mini me there!

Forms rock. Doesn't matter how busy I am or what I'm doing, those neat little boxes and rectangles after questions made my brain go 'aaaah' (happy sigh!). Ticking boxes is a particular favourite

Melodeon

Saw this over in YLYL and thought you guys might like it:

tomasrojo

One of the country’s most senior gardaí has backed a proposal by a consultation group to make it compulsory for pedestrians and cyclists to wear high-visibility jackets during the hours of darkness.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/bid-to-make-high-vis-jackets-compulsory-to-save-lives-361899.html

Seems to be related to roads with speed limits higher than 50km/h

Not sure how much chance it has.

EDIT: actually, they seem to be calling for daytime and nightime hi-viz on roads with speed limits higher than 50km/h. Bit hard to tell from this:

He said the committee should also call on the environment minister and the Road Safety Authority to make it mandatory for walkers, runners, cyclists, and all people in charge of animals to wear high-visibility jackets in areas outside 50km/h speed limits.

tigerboon

mandatory for walkers, runners, cyclists, and all people in charge of animals to wear high-visibility jackets in areas outside 50km/h speed limits.


Anybody outside a vehicle in other words.

Lumen

If only there was a law that required cyclists to use lights in the hours of darkness...

rollingscone

tomasrojo wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/bid-to-make-high-vis-jackets-compulsory-to-save-lives-361899.html

Seems to be related to roads with speed limits higher than 50km/h

Not sure how much chance it has.

EDIT: actually, they seem to be calling for daytime and nightime hi-viz on roads with speed limits higher than 50km/h. Bit hard to tell from this:

It's getting hard to keep satire ahead of reality:

https://twitter.com/Flaminghobo1/status/656972345928777728?s=09

mcgratheoin

Lumen wrote: »

If only there was a law that required cyclists to use lights in the hours of darkness...

Or vehicles to keep below a specific speed...

Macy0161

They don't enforce the laws regarding bicycle lights (well they don't enforce for most road offences for all road users), but want to bring in another law that they won't enforce either?

CramCycle

Macy0161 wrote: »

They don't enforce the laws regarding bicycle lights (well they don't enforce for most road offences for all road users), but want to bring in another law that they won't enforce either?

Its basically a law to lessen the burden on motor insurance. If they don't have hi vis, then it must be there fault, even if they have lights, maybe use a phone as a light (seen several walkers do this to alert cars) or are in a well lit urban environment where it should have been expected to meet pedestrians as they jump a red light.

tomasrojo

If I understand the article (and it's so vaguely written that I might not have), people walking at night anywhere should wear hi-viz?

That's the end of anyone who wants to meet a lovely lady/gentleman at the weekend walking to venues. Plenty of drunk drivers. Result!

brianomc

And when everyone is wearing their hi-vis and motorists are still knocking down pedestrians what will be the next excuse for not accepting responsibility*

*assuming pedestrian didnt just walk out in front of the car/that the cyclists lights were working

Beasty

tomasrojo wrote: »

If I understand the article (and it's so vaguely written that I might not have), people walking at night anywhere should wear hi-viz?

That's the end of anyone who wants to meet a lovely lady/gentleman at the weekend walking to venues. Plenty of drunk drivers. Result!

Reading the article and the reference to not being seen until 50m away suggests it was primarily written about pedestrians and perhaps someone thought it should be extended to cyclists for "good measure", completely ignoring the fact there are already lighting rules governing cyclists (and indeed the law sees us as "drivers", not "pedestrians that happen to be on a bike")

Clearly though it's using that 50 km/h speed limit to avoid extension to walking in (most!) built-up areas

eeeee

Oh they can fcuk right off with that utter shyte. Once again teh onus of responsibility is on the cyclist and pedestrian to avoid the poor motorist, who can't even blithely fly along on roads at 50kph+ paying scant attention.

The stupidity and backwards thinking that goes into these schemes never ceases to amaze me. :mad:

Message: Drivers, pay less attention, if you hit a cyclist or pedestrian who isn't wearing high-viz it's their fault! How inconsiderate of them to assume you might be paying attention. Unless a more balanced and holistic view is put forward, we are going to end up in a New York style situation where motorists are absolved of almost all responsibility on the roads, instead it's everyone else's fault.

tomasrojo

Beasty wrote: »

Reading the article and the reference to not being seen until 50m away suggests it was primarily written about pedestrians and perhaps someone thought it should be extended to cyclists for "good measure", completely ignoring the fact there are already lighting rules governing cyclists (and indeed the law sees us as "drivers", not "pedestrians that happen to be on a bike")

Clearly though it's using that 50 km/h speed limit to avoid extension to walking in (most!) built-up areas

Yeah, it's not very clear, though it seems to say that pedestrians and cyclists should wear hi-viz jackets at night, and in addition to that, everyone not in a vehicle should wear a jacket where the speed limit exceeds 50km/h.

I'm probably over-thinking this, which is not an accusation which could be levelled at the originators of the idea.

tomasrojo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, it's not very clear, though it seems to say that pedestrians and cyclists should wear hi-viz jackets at night, and in addition to that, everyone not in a vehicle should wear a jacket where the speed limit exceeds 50km/h.

I'm probably over-thinking this, which is not an accusation which could be levelled at the originators of the idea.

the extension of 'everyone should wear hi vis in the day' is surely that all cars need to be painted hi vis?

IF IT SAVES JUST ONE LIFE

dreamerb

And what about leg tax? All these people having the gall to use roads paid for from motor tax. I'll respect them on the roads when they pay for them like we motorists do. Numpties cycling and walking like they think they're entitled to road space, expecting drivers to pay attention.

And there should be a proper test. And insurance. What if my car gets scratched, who's going to pay for that?

/endreductioadevenabsurderamofstupididearant

arybvtcw0eolkf

Anyone know where I can pick up a hi-viz backpack cover?.

I was told they're on the RSA website but I'm damned if I can find any.

CramCycle

Frances Ugly Shopkeeper wrote: »

Anyone know where I can pick up a hi-viz backpack cover?.

I was told they're on the RSA website but I'm damned if I can find any.

They probably only have yellow ones on with dull grey striping as opposed to hi vis but here it is:
http://rsa.pmms.ie/ProductMoreInfo.aspx?ProductID=RUCKCVR