Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

AndrewJRenko

tomasrojo wrote: »

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.

Would they shut down a checkpoint every time they see a driver using the phone?

tomasrojo

Yeah, it's quite weird. I assume that they really were put out by him denigrating the sacred hi-viz, or rejecting their road safety expertise. Or, were very worried for his safety. Again, I'd like to get an idea of what the road is like before I make too many assumptions.

CramCycle

Cars stop at checkpoint, Gardai warn every car coming through there are pedestrians on the road and to exercise the caution they should exercise anyway. Simples, someone on the checkpoint couldn't control their ego when the pedestrian said no to their advice. Judge should have chucked it, Super should not have let it through.

Weepsie

It's setting a dangerous precedent you'd think too for very vague interpretations of how the law should be applied

tomasrojo

The statute is from the 60s, so hi-viz wasn't among the reasonable precautions in mind when it was written. Not sure how law changes over time though. On the face of it, it looks like quite a stretch.

RobbieMD

tomasrojo wrote: »

The statute is from the 60s, so hi-viz wasn't among the reasonable precautions in mind when it was written. Not sure how law changes over time though. On the face of it, it looks like quite a stretch.

That was revoked and replaced by SI in 1997

RobbieMD

CramCycle wrote: »

Cars stop at checkpoint, Gardai warn every car coming through there are pedestrians on the road and to exercise the caution they should exercise anyway. Simples, someone on the checkpoint couldn't control their ego when the pedestrian said no to their advice. Judge should have chucked it, Super should not have let it through.

That wouldn’t be my reading at all. I don’t think ego comes into it. I’m only assuming, but I believe the reason they pulled the checkpoint was so that they could drop him to wherever he wanted to go.
I can’t see any other reason that would warrant it due to the pedestrian.

With regards warning traffic of pedestrians, what about the cars that would’ve met him walking before they encounter the checkpoint. Assuming he’s facing into oncoming traffic like pedestrians ought to.

magicbastarder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Would they shut down a checkpoint every time they see a driver using the phone?

not quite the same, they'd simply prosecute the driver, that's an offence clear and simple, specifically defined in law.
if the driver refused to get off the phone, and continued driving, you can be guaranteed the checkpoint would have been abandoned.

CramCycle

It doesn't change the fact that, barring the pedestrian being unable to walk in a straight line (no mention in the article), he was not the danger. Road is straight, clear lines of sight, a verge albeit slight, the only danger would be those driving dangerously. The defendant had received a Hi Vis the night before as mentioned in the article, the Gardai were annoyed, due to ego, that he had not followed their advice, hard to see it as anything else

RobbieMD

CramCycle wrote: »

It doesn't change the fact that, barring the pedestrian being unable to walk in a straight line (no mention in the article), he was not the danger. Road is straight, clear lines of sight, a verge albeit slight, the only danger would be those driving dangerously. The defendant had received a Hi Vis the night before as mentioned in the article, the Gardai were annoyed, due to ego, that he had not followed their advice, hard to see it as anything else

Or they didn’t want to be dealing with a fatality involving a pedestrian.

Weepsie

RobbieMD wrote: »

Or they didn’t want to be dealing with a fatality involving a pedestrian.

HiVis doesn't protect from bad drivers.

If anything, closing the checkpoint put more lives at risk

magicbastarder

RobbieMD wrote: »

Or they didn’t want to be dealing with a fatality involving a pedestrian.

Granted, but if this is the answer to road safety, we're asking the wrong questions.

RobbieMD

Weepsie wrote: »

HiVis doesn't protect from bad drivers.

If anything, closing the checkpoint put more lives at risk

But I imagine they stopped the checkpoint and brought him in their car to wherever he was going. We don’t know the full facts, only a short write up.

I’m not in favour of hi viz jackets really but in the circumstances of falling light on a wet rainy January evening I would prefer to have a hi viz on than not have one. A decent torch would’ve been of more use.

RobbieMD

magicbastarder wrote: »

Granted, but if this is the answer to road safety, we're asking the wrong questions.

Agreed. As has been said before it’s the three Es. Environment, enforcement and education. The Gardai aren’t going to solve it all.
I just think in this instance there’s nothing sinister or some ulterior motive behind it. His own solicitor seems to have agreed and I’m sure she had access to more information than the Longford leader journo

magicbastarder

FWIW, the article mentions tinnyarr, but it seems it should be tinnynarr; which is a townland right beside edgeworthstown. you would go left onto the N55 at the second roundabout (if you were longford-bound) to get to the stretch of the N55 they are talking about, i think.
for a couple of hundred metres from the roundabout, there's a footpath on the N55, but then it turns into this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.6931856,-7.6175755,3a,75y,216.28h,76.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYKeKl5TfiqwNVrd3W__SHQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

i love the way that roads can be given an N designation, with no hard shoulder or any sane provision for pedestrians.

CramCycle

RobbieMD wrote: »

Or they didn’t want to be dealing with a fatality involving a pedestrian.

But why would this be the default assumption. If that was a genuine risk it means the Gardai know that drivers are going to fast and that the speed limit for that road is inappropriate (or ignored). I grew up in rural longford, they gave him fair warning, he refused. If there was a danger, he was not the one causing it and punishing him for that choice is insane, it just reinforces the idea in rural areas that pedestrians are third class citizens who should be ignored or funnelled away. Judge should have chucked it and asked the Garda who issued it to grow up.

The stretch he was walking (either to or from home) is 2km, most of which has space to stand in walking towards traffic although he shouldn't have too, bar the one stretch in the post above. Either ban pedestrians (joke) or hammer cars with average speed cameras there, what a joke.

AndrewJRenko

magicbastarder wrote: »

not quite the same, they'd simply prosecute the driver, that's an offence clear and simple, specifically defined in law.
if the driver refused to get off the phone, and continued driving, you can be guaranteed the checkpoint would have been abandoned.

You're right in that they're not quite the same, but it's not true to say they take serious action to address drivers using the phone. I've brought video to the Gardai showing a driver using a phone five separate times over about ten minutes. I saw clearly enough to identify the brand of the phone (Blackberry, unusual in this day and age). Gardai declined to prosecute because 'it could have been any device he had in his hand'.

By contrast here, they stretch legislation to prosecute somebody, presumably because he wasn't cowed by them.

Stark

Tbh, I appreciate the valid criticism of RSA's hi-viz policies (victim-blaming approach to road safety, discouraging healthy sustainable modes of transport through unnecessary impediments) but assuming there was no footpath along the road and no lighting, then it would be reasonable in this case to insist that someone makes themselves visible. If it was a car or a cyclist, there would be requirement for working lights front and back.

Even for a careful driver, on a dark miserable night, it's very difficult to make out someone in dark clothing until the last minute. Especially for an older driver.

CramCycle

Stark wrote: »

Even for a careful driver, on a dark miserable night, it's very difficult to make out someone in dark clothing until the last minute. Especially for an older driver.

A careful driver is someone stopping in the distance they can see to be clear, on a wet and dark night, that distance is severely reduced, therefore the speed should be severely reduced but lets not kid each other, the cars will still be doing north of 80 (most over 100 on that stretch), even with the big slow sign painted on the ground. A car on the parts of that road with no siding should be topping out at 40kmph max, but they won't, they won't be done for dangerous driving or not driving to the conditions and even if they hit the pedestrian, the courts would blame him for walking rather than the car for not driving to the conditions and with due care and consideration.

Probably guilty of it myself, but I am telling you how it should be, and how it should be enforced, but just listen, despite making sense, if I posted this elsewhere (and possibly here), people will be full of annoyance at me for the suggestion, they think they are safe but they are actually entitled and nothing will change that in the current culture in Ireland and elsewhere.

magicbastarder

it's part of the culture here (and don't get me started on this, i could go on for hours) to allow people to build a house in the middle of nowhere, in a place you simply wouldn't consider walking to, and then penalise pedestrians for walking on roads which carry traffic which shouldn't be there.

tomasrojo

Stark wrote: »

Tbh, I appreciate the valid criticism of RSA's hi-viz policies (victim-blaming approach to road safety, discouraging healthy sustainable modes of transport through unnecessary impediments) but assuming there was no footpath along the road and no lighting, then it would be reasonable in this case to insist that someone makes themselves visible. If it was a car or a cyclist, there would be requirement for working lights front and back.

Even for a careful driver, on a dark miserable night, it's very difficult to make out someone in dark clothing until the last minute. Especially for an older driver.

If I were the pedestrian, after being stopped the first night, I'd have come back with a decent flashlight.

Looking at the image of the footpathless road above, I think you could walk it reasonably safely, provided it wasn't constant traffic, as you can just step into the ditch to let traffic past. They don't even have to see you, unless they're going to plunge into the ditch.

If traffic is constant, it would be perhaps impossible to walk and make any progress, but how the hell does a road with constant traffic end up looking like that?

tomasrojo

RobbieMD wrote: »

That was revoked and replaced by SI in 1997

It seems to be exactly the same wording though.

I guess appeals to reasonableness are nebulous anyway, but even in 1997, I don't think they had hi-viz in mind as one of the reasonable precautions.

It's a bit like the Living Constitution argument in the States, I suppose.

RobbieMD

CramCycle wrote: »

But why would this be the default assumption. If that was a genuine risk it means the Gardai know that drivers are going to fast and that the speed limit for that road is inappropriate (or ignored). I grew up in rural longford, they gave him fair warning, he refused. If there was a danger, he was not the one causing it and punishing him for that choice is insane, it just reinforces the idea in rural areas that pedestrians are third class citizens who should be ignored or funnelled away. Judge should have chucked it and asked the Garda who issued it to grow up.

The stretch he was walking (either to or from home) is 2km, most of which has space to stand in walking towards traffic although he shouldn't have too, bar the one stretch in the post above. Either ban pedestrians (joke) or hammer cars with average speed cameras there, what a joke.

Do you not think in the circumstances that it was a risk?

I’d have no issue with average speed cameras at all. I don’t think enforcement is strict enough and I’d happily hammer the motorist who breaks the law. Maybe the speed limit should be lower at that location. I’m not familiar with it to be honest.

Of course the judge could’ve struck it out but he didn’t. He heard all the facts of the case and the defendant went guilty. Why the judge would ask the Garda to grow up is beyond me. The Garda is enforcing what our legislators have enshrined in law. It can’t be one rule for the motorist and another for everyone else. The Garda dealing with him didn’t jump straight down the path of prosecution. They attempted, in their eyes, to mitigate the risk for him. He didn’t listen and this is where it ended up. His solicitor and the judge appear to have agreed.

Crucially, the defendant accepted he was wrong in the circumstances. And it’s ultimately all about the circumstances at that particular time. This does not mean that it’s now mandatory for pedestrians to wear a hi viz and no precedent has been set.

RobbieMD

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

By contrast here, they stretch legislation to prosecute somebody, presumably because he wasn't cowed by them.

I don’t see legislation being stretched. It’s exactly the correct piece of legislation that applies to pedestrians being utilised.

I don’t know where people are coming with him being cowed/ harassed by the Gardai. If he was taking some sort of stand then he’d have entered a bit guilty plea and contested the Gardai. He entered a guilty plea. He accepted he was wrong.

tomasrojo

RobbieMD wrote: »

Do you not think in the circumstances that it was a risk?

I don't think a few reflective stripes makes it actually safe, if it's dangerous in the first place.

RobbieMD wrote: »

The Garda is enforcing what our legislators have enshrined in law.

It's not enshrined in law though. The statue they're quoting isn't about protecting yourself. It's about protecting and not inconveniencing others.

RobbieMD wrote: »

Crucially, the defendant accepted he was wrong in the circumstances. And it’s ultimately all about the circumstances at that particular time. This does not mean that it’s now mandatory for pedestrians to wear a hi viz and no precedent has been set.

It's allowing the gardaí to make decisions for you that you're able to make for yourself. If you think it's safe enough to walk that road, taking cautions such as stepping into the ditch when a car is coming, then that's your business.

tomasrojo

RobbieMD wrote: »

I don’t see legislation being stretched. It’s exactly the correct piece of legislation that applies to pedestrians being utilised.

It doesn't seem to be the correct one at all. They used it because there isn't a law against turning down hi-viz at the roadside.

RobbieMD wrote: »

I don’t know where people are coming with him being cowed/ harassed by the Gardai. If he was taking some sort of stand then he’d have entered a bit guilty plea and contested the Gardai. He entered a guilty plea. He accepted he was wrong.

People plead guilty frequently because they just want to get out of court quickly.

RobbieMD

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's allowing the gardaí to make decisions for you that you're able to make for yourself. If you think it's safe enough to walk that road, taking cautions such as stepping into the ditch when a car is coming, then that's your business.

Should Gardai prosecute a sole adult occupant of a car driving without a seatbelt on? Is that the drivers business only?

AndrewJRenko

RobbieMD wrote: »

I don’t see legislation being stretched. It’s exactly the correct piece of legislation that applies to pedestrians being utilised.

.

There is no legislation that requires people to wear hi-vis or any special industrial clothing when walking - that's the stretch.

tomasrojo

RobbieMD wrote: »

Should Gardai prosecute a sole adult occupant of a car driving without a seatbelt on? Is that the drivers business only?

There's a specific law against that. There is not law compelling you to wear hiviz or take it from gardaí.

Seat belts are the reductio ad Hitlerum of road safety.

CramCycle

RobbieMD wrote: »

Do you not think in the circumstances that it was a risk?

Not really, I know the area, cars do speed, they shouldn't, if there is a risk, Hi Vis will not in anyway mitigate it, and bar the hump in the road, a pedestrian has ample time to step in if they need to, although they really shouldn't have too.

I’d have no issue with average speed cameras at all. I don’t think enforcement is strict enough and I’d happily hammer the motorist who breaks the law. Maybe the speed limit should be lower at that location. I’m not familiar with it to be honest.

There is a slow sign so that in the case of an accident, they can't use the limit as an excuse but once again, people forget, limits are not targets, they are arbitrary numbers to generalise widely varying road conditions. The limit is 80 there AFAIK, but despite beig s straight road with good sight lines, there are few parts of it where a driver should be doing that speed, although experience tells me that 80 is a minimum until the footpath before the roundabout.

Of course the judge could’ve struck it out but he didn’t. He heard all the facts of the case and the defendant went guilty. Why the judge would ask the Garda to grow up is beyond me. The Garda is enforcing what our legislators have enshrined in law. It can’t be one rule for the motorist and another for everyone else. The Garda dealing with him didn’t jump straight down the path of prosecution. They attempted, in their eyes, to mitigate the risk for him. He didn’t listen and this is where it ended up. His solicitor and the judge appear to have agreed.

I have seen it before where a judge has told the garda not to waste time of the courts, thats what this was. The guilty plea is a recommendation from the solicitor, maybe on a basis of the judge who was sitting, lack of experience with the loopholes, wanting it done and dusted quickly or even local knowledge that the Garda was not worth fighting on this.

Crucially, the defendant accepted he was wrong in the circumstances. And it’s ultimately all about the circumstances at that particular time. This does not mean that it’s now mandatory for pedestrians to wear a hi viz and no precedent has been set.

Entering a guilty plea in a low level case like this is not an acceptance of an error, it is typically a calculated decision and recommendation from the solicitor. maybe he does think he was wrong, but if he really did, lets not BS, he would have taken the Hi Vis on the night. It doesn't set a strong precedent because of the plea, but it could set a precedent with some Gardas behaviour. I have the utmost respect for the Gardai, it is not an easy job, I have friends, family and met randomers who are Gardai and I think they and many others, the majority do a fine job, but like every job, some people are not suited to their job, to put it politely.

RobbieMD wrote: »

I don’t see legislation being stretched. It’s exactly the correct piece of legislation that applies to pedestrians being utilised.

I don't think it is, he put no one at risk IMO