Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

ThisRegard

Might be a good opportunity to show that wearing high vis does not prevent you being mown down.

NiallBoo

^^there's just something about prescription sunglasses that completes the look.

buffalo

tomasrojo wrote: »

I feel like the prolific and world-renowned swearer who when moving house placed all his possessions in a horse-drawn cart, only to see them tumble out on a hilly ascent due to an insecurely fastened tailboard and smash on the road, whereupon he turned to the expectant onlookers and said:

"I can't do justice to this."

Was it only me who tried to work out what "LREXIT" was?

ThisRegard

buffalo wrote: »

Was it only me who tried to work out what "LREXIT" was?

French for running out of somewhere, l'rexit?

Doctor Bob

tomasrojo wrote: »

I feel like the prolific and world-renowned swearer who when moving house placed all his possessions in a horse-drawn cart, only to see them tumble out on a hilly ascent due to an insecurely fastened tailboard and smash on the road, whereupon he turned to the expectant onlookers and said:

"I can't do justice to this."

The one that left me even more bemused than usual recently was an article in the Irish Times on speed camera vans.

The inside of the high visibility Ford Transit van is like an old-fashioned photographer’s dark room – the walls and ceiling are covered in jet black cloth and black curtains block out the windows. But there is a desk where Eric sits, facing backwards, and controls the equipment.

The print version of the article had a photo (second pic in the link below) showing Eric inside his blacked-out van, apparently working alone, resplendent in his hi-viz. Go - as the man said - figure.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/keeping-a-lookout-with-a-speed-camera-operator-1.2663418

magicbastarder

Ms Woods was also criticised for not having a high visibility jacket and while she did not have any, her clothing at the time was bright, the judge said.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/teacher-injured-when-wing-mirror-struck-her-while-out-jogging-awarded-134000-34830700.html

ThisRegard

It doesn't say what time of day it was, was it dark or bright, sunny or dull? I guess daylight, and if the sun was low, wearing this magic high visibility jacket could have made her less visible. Who criticised her for not wearing it?

But I imagine it was just an excuse to try to blame her in any way possible.

HivemindXX

Since the article mentions that the van had driven on to the grass verge and did not pull back on to the road before hitting her it seems bizarre to try and blame her for running two abreast with no high-viz on.

What's the reasoning here? How are drivers supposed to know not to drive on the verge or up on the footpath if the pedestrians aren't wearing high-viz? What next? Ok, so I was speeding and texting and on the wrong side of the road going through a red light but the victim person who collided with my car wasn't wearing any high-viz AT ALL! That's like a 50 50 your honour.

At least the judge seems to have ignored this nonsense.

tomasrojo

ThisRegard wrote: »

Who criticised her for not wearing it?

Mr Tyrell Jnr or his lawyer, I expect, judging from the way they've phrased it.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

Mr Tyrell Jnr or his lawyer, I expect, judging from the way they've phrased it.

I imagine it's his lawyer looking for every possible excuse when none are available.

Sadly if he didn't say it, he probably would be accused of not defending his client properly.

galwaycyclist

tomasrojo wrote: »

Mr Tyrell Jnr or his lawyer, I expect, judging from the way they've phrased it.

Well it was the RSA who are the primary source of the criticism if you think about it.

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

I imagine it's his lawyer looking for every possible excuse when none are available.

Sadly if he didn't say it, he probably would be accused of not defending his client properly.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Well it was the RSA who are the primary source of the criticism if you think about it.

This attitude is pretty common in the UK too, in court cases as well as in public campaigns (that's the strong impression I've got anyway). Do the RSA generally just follow British "Road Safety" orthodoxy? In which case, fixing this would require a really big transnational campaign!

galwaycyclist

tomasrojo wrote: »

This attitude is pretty common in the UK too, in court cases as well as in public campaigns (that's the strong impression I've got anyway). Do the RSA generally just follow British "Road Safety" orthodoxy? In which case, fixing this would require a really big transnational campaign!

In my view there are inescapable parallels with the treatment of victims of sexual violence and the way that an issue is made of clothing, "choosing" to be in the wrong place etc etc.

MediaMan

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/south-east/driver-blames-sun-glare-after-colliding-with-cyclist-from-behind-on-nepean-highway/news-story/3b803c78a69a0fbee8f4764a3e84708d

The driver, who was not injured, told police that he couldn’t see the cyclist due to glare on the road.
Mornington police Sergeant Chris Stock urged cyclists to wear flashing red lights and bright gear while riding.
“They need to dress for night riding on days like today,” he said.
Sgt Stock said it seemed that today’s crash was an “unfortunate accident” and the driver, and his passenger, were shaken by the incident.

A car drives into a cyclist and the main point is that cyclists needs to change their behaviour. Only as an afterthought is it mentioned that motorists should "drive to the conditions".

Pinch Flat

MediaMan wrote: »

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/south-east/driver-blames-sun-glare-after-colliding-with-cyclist-from-behind-on-nepean-highway/news-story/3b803c78a69a0fbee8f4764a3e84708d



A car drives into a cyclist and the main point is that cyclists needs to change their behaviour. Only as an afterthought is it mentioned that motorists should "drive to the conditions".

The flashing rear lights I can agree with - you have some sort of chance of standing out in a glare situation. But hi-vis / bright coloured clothing? Of zero use when trying to stand out against sun glare.

Interesting though how the first recommendation is against the cyclist. Perhaps the driver should consider slowing down, or using some decent sunglasses. Just a thought.

buffalo

The story in the last few posts came to mind listening to the radio this morning: http://www.techinsider.io/report-joshua-brown-died-in-first-tesla-autopilot-crash-2016-6

"Neither Autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky, so the brake was not applied.

2RockMountain

buffalo wrote: »

The story in the last few posts came to mind listening to the radio this morning: http://www.techinsider.io/report-joshua-brown-died-in-first-tesla-autopilot-crash-2016-6

If only all cars and trucks had hi-vis?

Interesting that the other 99 people who were killed on US roads that day didn't get headline news across the world - just the Tesla guy.

magicbastarder

2RockMountain wrote: »

Interesting that the other 99 people who were killed on US roads that day didn't get headline news across the world - just the Tesla guy.

i wouldn't say interesting, i'd say entirely predictable.
he's the first ever fatality (that i'm aware of) in a car driving autonomously. that makes it newsworthy.

magicbastarder

also :
Driver who killed cyclist while ‘blinded by sun’ found not guilty
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/driver-who-killed-cyclist-while-blinded-by-sun-found-not-guilty/

Pinch Flat

magicbastarder wrote: »

also :
Driver who killed cyclist while ‘blinded by sun’ found not guilty
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/driver-who-killed-cyclist-while-blinded-by-sun-found-not-guilty/

You'd wonder how a jury could be impartial in such a case, given the prevalence of car dependency and victim blaming in this country.

tomasrojo

Pinch Flat wrote: »

The flashing rear lights I can agree with - you have some sort of chance of standing out in a glare situation. But hi-vis / bright coloured clothing? Of zero use when trying to stand out against sun glare.

Yes, I bet if you asked some people whether hi-viz clothing would help you be seen against a lime-green background they'd say "of course!". Because magic.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Perhaps the driver should consider slowing down, or using some decent sunglasses. Just a thought.

It did occur to me that people should ask with same weary concern they save for helmets and hi-viz "And was the driver wearing sunglasses?".

tomasrojo

Pinch Flat wrote: »

You'd wonder how a jury could be impartial in such a case, given the prevalence of car dependency and victim blaming in this country.

A QC in the UK wrote a blog post recently saying that he thought that these cases involving cycling fatalities should not involve juries. I don't have the link to hand. It was controversial.

Pinch Flat

tomasrojo wrote: »

A QC in the UK wrote a blog post recently saying that he thought that these cases involving cycling fatalities should not involve juries. I don't have the link to hand. It was controversial.

Myself and Mrs Pinch Flat (who's not a cyclist) constantly have these debates - she's a non-cyclist and works in a hospital, so firmly in the 'helmets and hi-vis everything' camp and that cyclists normally bring it on themselves anyway.

The odd day I'll come home, raging that some fool nearly took me out at a junction, or squeezed me in the cycling lane with fast and close pass.

"ah sure, they're probably stressed and their mind is else where", is the usually reply, which draws out one or two expletives from me!:mad:

traprunner

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Myself and Mrs Pinch Flat (who's not a cyclist) constantly have these debates - she's a non-cyclist and works in a hospital, so firmly in the 'helmets and hi-vis everything' camp and that cyclists normally bring it on themselves anyway.

The odd day I'll come home, raging that some fool nearly took me out at a junction, or squeezed me in the cycling lane with fast and close pass.

"ah sure, they're probably stressed and their mind is else where", is the usually reply, which draws out one or two expletives from me!:mad:

Sounds like you need the relationship Issues forum.

sconhome

magicbastarder wrote: »

i wouldn't say interesting, i'd say entirely predictable.
he's the first ever fatality (that i'm aware of) in a car driving autonomously. that makes it newsworthy.

Reminded me of this old story:

There was the woman who took literally the salesman's pitch that her new van equipped with cruise control would practically drive itself. Days later, the woman was cruising along a highway in the Washington, D.C., area, when her baby started crying from the back of the van. The dutiful mother momentarily left the wheel to get the baby, and a multiple-car crash (with only minor injuries) ensued. Allstate paid off that claim.

Used to be a similar one featuring a retired couple too.

tomasrojo

tomasrojo wrote: »

A QC in the UK wrote a blog post recently saying that he thought that these cases involving cycling fatalities should not involve juries. I don't have the link to hand. It was controversial.

There it is:
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.ie/2016/04/it-is-time-to-rethink-defendants-right.html

Motoring offences are far more likely than other serious crimes to invoke empathy and compassion from a jury. “There but for the grace of God go I” is not a thought likely to cross many jurors’ minds in cases of murder, rape, terrorism or knife crime. The law excludes people who have served significant prison sentences in the past 10 years from sitting on a jury. It does not exclude the significant proportion of the population who have been (fairly or unfairly in their view) subject to minor penalties for road traffic infringements. In addition we live in a motor centric society where the overwhelming majority of jurors can be expected to be drivers, many of whom will have been subject to lapses of concentration or worse whilst operating a motor vehicle. Far fewer will have similar levels of empathy to a non-motoring (and particularly a cycling) victim. Feelings of empathy with and compassion for an accused may confound justice in a hidden way that is far less likely where, as in a Magistrates’ Court, reasons for a decision are required.

endagibson

magicbastarder wrote: »

also :
Driver who killed cyclist while ‘blinded by sun’ found not guilty
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/driver-who-killed-cyclist-while-blinded-by-sun-found-not-guilty/

Blinded by the sun for at least 3 seconds.
Can't see where she's going or if it's clear.
Hits someone and kills them.
Not considered dangerous driving.
FFS.

traprunner

At a minimum it was careless/wreckless driving. Someone died when a car and bike collided. Therefore someone is responsible.

HivemindXX

We're veering off topic for the high-viz prison thread but I had read that article about getting rid of juries for dangerous driving trials and while I thought he made some good points about the jurors identifying too much with the driver in cases like this the main thing that I thought of was the dreadful track record of penalties handed out by circuit court judges here.

It seems that most people, judges included, feel that they might be distracted by their phone or that their speed was fine for the conditions when something totally unpredictable happened and they ploughed in to someone and killed them. I remember a relatively recent case were a judge was ruling on a serious incident where the driver was clearly guilty of multiple offences saying "we're not robots" to excuse the actions of the guilty party. Since I guess only a robot could be expected to obey the rules of the road at all times. I suppose there is something to be said for the fact that the judges tend to at least find them guilty. Guilty with a laughable penalty is better than not guilty.

Contrast this with cases where the driver is on drugs, when most of the jurors will not identify with the perpetrator. Run down a person while checking your phone? Sure, could happen to anyone, the poor man was probably stressed out and hasn't he suffered enough with the guilt and all. Run down a person while high? Damn vermin! Lock him up and throw away the key! Hanging's too good for him!

magicbastarder

it's the difference between culpability and responsibility.
let's say you're driving through the city centre and someone runs out in front of your car. there's not enough time for you to react, and they are killed. no-one would say you're to blame.
say you're driving through the city centre, and the circumstances are exactly the same, except you're at double the legal limit for alcohol. the incident is still one where a sober driver stands no chance of stopping in time. this time, pretty much everyone holds you responsible for the death, but your sobriety wasn't a factor.

it's that sort of mental calculation which plays into the decisions of juries like the above. someone sets out in a car, has taken all reasonable precautions, is not measurably negligent except for the couple of seconds of inattention, and things go badly wrong. and people would often feel sympathy for both the victim and the driver here.