Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Fighting Tao

This is depressing. The RSA is giving out this tat to schoolkids to get them to wear hi-vis at all times!

https://twitter.com/san_madd/status/1106273746690682885

Yellow, Green or Orange???? I really hope mine doesn't get one or she'll have a melt down over pink not being on the list of colours to choose from

rubadub

The Church of RSAs pledge, the little feckers will be looking for a card with money. Then when they hit 18 going on a dark clothes bender.

They actually do call it a pledge!

https://misshallinanculleens.weebly.com/news/category/sphe

Hi-Glo Silver
8/1/2019 0 Comments

Today we were learning about the importance of wearing hi-vis clothes when out playing, walking or cycling. We all took the Hi-Glo Silver pledge today.
When I walk or cycle, night or day,
after school or when I go to play,
I promise to make sure that I am seen,
In reflective clothing that is bright orange, yellow or green.
"Be Safe, Be Seen"
We are going to take part in the Hi-Glo Silver Competition. We are going to design a poster - the one which will be best seen in the dark will win. We will hold a class competition first and then pick one winner to represent 2nd Class in Culleens. Get designing.
You can play a game from the RSA called Snake and Hazards Game here.
Remember: Wear bright, high-visibility clothing - both day and night.
​Here we are wearing our wristbands.

the horse is "hi glo silver"


The RSA has a cowboy too, well looking at recent things in the media they have a rake of cowboys working there.



http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Newsletters/RSA%20Educational%20News%202018%20WEB%20(1).pdf

Hurrache

They may be hearing from Primus's legal team at some point.

Thanks Hurrache, now I've that song stuck in my head.

Hurrache

It's an ear-worm alright!

magicbastarder

Walkers should be fined for no high-vis vest
THE Cathaoirleach of Mayo County Council’s Roads and Transportation Strategic Policy Committee (SPC) has reiterated his call for bylaws to be introduced so that fines can be issues to pedestrians not wearing high-visibility vest in non-lit areas.
http://www.mayonews.ie/news/33435-walkers-should-be-fined-for-no-high-vis-vest

Chips Lovell

rubadub wrote: »

The RSA has a cowboy too, well looking at recent things in the media they have a rake of cowboys working there.

A high viz cowboy hat is that kind of things I'd wear, shirtless, at a rave.

BrianHenryIE

magicbastarder wrote: »

Walkers should be fined for no high-vis vest
THE Cathaoirleach of Mayo County Council’s Roads and Transportation Strategic Policy Committee (SPC) has reiterated his call for bylaws to be introduced so that fines can be issues to pedestrians not wearing high-visibility vest in non-lit areas.
http://www.mayonews.ie/news/33435-walkers-should-be-fined-for-no-high-vis-vest

He's just trying to stimulate the local economy, since the vests are made in Mayo!


https://www.linkedin.com/company/portwest/

magicbastarder

https://twitter.com/HowSoonHathTime/status/1115300738610212869

Fighting Tao

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://twitter.com/HowSoonHathTime/status/1115300738610212869

So they have wasted millions of euro of public funds? Heads should roll!

Pinch Flat

The Facinstion with hi vis has been a waste of time. Change people’s attitudes, don’t blame the victim

CramCycle

Over in the dash cam thread there is a disturbing video of someone being hit, full on, middle of the sunniest day, on an empty road with such force so as to cause the to somersault multiple times. They are wearing full council gear, orange trousers and jacket with Hi Vis trimmings and the guy beside him has the heavy Hi Vis overcoat in Bright Yellow and reflective strips. As with everything in life, if you don't look, you will never see.

tomasrojo

Like a fish out of water, hi-viz in the Netherlands:
https://twitter.com/pbergsen/status/1125824443996090370

magicbastarder

Gardaí had to cut short a checkpoint along one of Longford’s busiest roads earlier this year because of the dangers posed by a pedestrian out walking who was wearing dark clothes and who turned down the offer of wearing a high vis jacket.
...
It was alleged Mr Kenny, at around that point, ventured out walking along the busy route wearing dark trousers and a jumper but with no high vis jacket or other bright paraphernalia which would identify him as a pedestrian.

https://www.longfordleader.ie/news/home/433409/edgeworthstown-man-fined-for-refusing-to-wear-high-vis-jacket.html

CramCycle

For **** sake, Gardai should have had their hands rapped by their super, disgraceful

tomasrojo

Does the road have a footpath? Since it's a very busy road, I presume it has lighting? He doesn't seem to have broken any law at all, though I suppose if it's a narrow-laned, busy road with no lighting and no footpath they might have reason to assume his journey would be too hazardous, but then you'd have to wonder why people are allowed to design main roads like that, or why a super-dangerous road is rendered acceptably safe by the addition of a pretty modest conspicuity aid.

On the face of it, the gardaí seem to be having praise heaped on them for harassing somebody who was doing nothing illegal, or possibly all that dangerous.

tomasrojo

I guess this is the statute they were referring to:

34. A pedestrian shall exercise care and take all reasonable precautions to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1964/si/294/made/en/print

I think the reason they charged him probably had a lot to do with feeling that they'd better take him off the road for his own good (don't know the road, so maybe they're right, but if the road is that dangerous a very modest conspicuity aid isn't going to actually make it safe), which led them to drop the checkpoint they were manning, and this was all they could find to charge him with.

eeeee

Disgraceful

rubadub

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think the reason they charged him probably had a lot to do with feeling that they'd better take him off the road for his own good.

Or just pissed off that he was not taking their advice and likely seen as "talking back" to them, or "being smart" saying he did not like the colours.

magicbastarder

If he was drunk, could the Gardai have breathalysed him if he wasn't in a car?

tomasrojo

Not feeling too jazzed that a court has decided that wearing a hi-viz jacket is one of the "reasonable precautions" a pedestrian should take, and that not to do so endangers traffic and other pedestrians.

disposableFish

tomasrojo wrote: »

34. A pedestrian shall exercise care and take all reasonable precautions to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians

I wonder if this would stand up to appeal.

Can the pedestrian really be said to be the one causing danger, as they themselves haven't brought danger to the situation in the sense that harm can only be cause by the presence of a moving car, which is nothing to do with them.

GreeBo

disposableFish wrote: »

I wonder if this would stand up to appeal.

Can the pedestrian really be said to be the one causing danger, as they themselves haven't brought danger to the situation in the sense that harm can only be cause by the presence of a moving car, which is nothing to do with them.

what about inconvenience?

tomasrojo

I assumed they were invoking the image of a car swerving to avoid the dark-trousered intransigent, and smashing into something or someone.

GreeBo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Not feeling too jazzed that a court has decided that wearing a hi-viz jacket is one of the "reasonable precautions" a pedestrian should take, and that not to do so endangers traffic and other pedestrians.

It might be more that he ignored the offer of one?

tomasrojo

GreeBo wrote: »

It might be more that he ignored the offer of one?

I don't feel that's an important difference. It's not against the law not to wear one, so it's not against the law to turn down the offer of one either.

The statute they seem to be using is

A pedestrian shall exercise care and take all reasonable precautions to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians

Which is really about causing danger or inconvenience to others, not to himself. It's debatable whether he was causing much danger to himself anyway, or how much he was reducing that danger by wearing a few reflective stripes.

The mention of his dark trousers makes it sound as if he wasn't wearing all dark clothing either. Not that that's illegal either.

RobbieMD

CramCycle wrote: »

For **** sake, Gardai should have had their hands rapped by their super, disgraceful

Their Superintendent most likely directed the prosecution though.

buffalo

I don't understand why his not wearing hi-viz meant they had to close the checkpoint?

tomasrojo

I think (I'm guessing, based on one report) that they need two gardaí to staff a checkpoint, and they had to "get this lunatic off the road for his own safety" (or some such logic, or humiliate him for talking back), and there were only two of them to begin with.