Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

RobbieMD

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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

He wasn’t prosecuted for failing to wear a hi viz. He was prosecuted for failing to exercise care and take all reasonable precautions in order to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians.

There is no specific offence for driving while applying make up. There is a general offence for driving without due care and attention.

Perhaps an Garda Síochána should stop prosecuting people for doing their make up until a specific offence is brought in.

There is such a thing as blank summary offences that cover a multitude of variables that together may constitute an offence.

RobbieMD

tomasrojo wrote: »

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.

Again, he wasn’t prosecuted for failing to wear or accept a hi viz.

magicbastarder

RobbieMD wrote: »

Again, he wasn’t prosecuted for failing to wear or accept a hi viz.

that's playing with language. that wasn't the specific offence he was prosecuted under, but it very definitely was the reason he was charged.

CramCycle

RobbieMD wrote: »

Again, he wasn’t prosecuted for failing to wear or accept a hi viz.

What did he not do that was considered to be not a reasonable precaution?

tomasrojo

RobbieMD wrote: »

There is no specific offence for driving while applying make up. There is a general offence for driving without due care and attention.

That's the exact opposite scenario though. That's someone being negligent with a risk of causing harm to others because they're operating a fast, heavy machine and not looking properly where they're going. They were arguing with him that he was risking being injured himself by people who were driving too quickly for the road conditions. It's not the same thing.

RobbieMD

magicbastarder wrote: »

that's playing with language. that wasn't the specific offence he was prosecuted under, but it very definitely was the reason he was charged.

There is no offence for failing to wear or accept a hi viz so he could never be prosecuted for that. I’ll refer you to my example above. Often offences are left vaguely worded to cover a multitude of variables.

Did he “take all reasonable precautions in order to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians”?

Did he take any reasonable precaution, excluding the hi viz even?

magicbastarder

RobbieMD wrote: »

There is no offence for failing to wear or accept a hi viz so he could never be prosecuted for that.

but that's precisely what he was prosecuted for. unless i'm reading a different story.

RobbieMD

CramCycle wrote: »

What did he not do that was considered to be not a reasonable precaution?

I’m assuming he took no reasonable precaution(s) to avoid causing a danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians.
It’s only an assumption as I wasn’t there and only have the one brief article to go on. It appears he made no effort to comply with this piece of legislation.

CramCycle

RobbieMD wrote: »

Did he take any reasonable precaution, excluding the hi viz even?

What reasonable precautions should he have taken, bar standing into the ditch, which the gardai cannot tell if he will or will not do, there is nowt. A torch might have been a fair one, but the gardai suggested a hi Vis, which doesn't even come close. Tellme what reasonable precaution he should have taken, other than the Hi Vis, which I would argue is not a precaution at all.

RobbieMD

magicbastarder wrote: »

but that's precisely what he was prosecuted for. unless i'm reading a different story.

From my reading of the article it appears he was summonsed for an offence under Section 46 of SI 182/1997

The article most likely incorrectly says charged. Unless he had committed other offences, there is no power to arrest and charge him with this offence. The dates would likely indicate a summons was issued.

tomasrojo

RobbieMD wrote: »

I’m assuming he took no reasonable precaution(s) to avoid causing a danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians.
It’s only an assumption as I wasn’t there and only have the one brief article to go on. It appears he made no effort to comply with this piece of legislation.

That's not in the article at all. "He made no effort to comply with this piece of legislation". There doesn't seem to be any attempt to make the case that he was endangering or inconveniencing others, which is all that brief statute is about.

RobbieMD

CramCycle wrote: »

What reasonable precautions should he have taken, bar standing into the ditch, which the gardai cannot tell if he will or will not do, there is nowt. A torch might have been a fair one, but the gardai suggested a hi Vis, which doesn't even come close. Tellme what reasonable precaution he should have taken, other than the Hi Vis, which I would argue is not a precaution at all.

Perhaps he was walking with the flow of traffic and not stepping into the ditch? Perhaps he requires a hearing aid and prescription glasses and wasn’t wearing them. Perhaps he was listening to music on earphones. Who knows. It’s all speculation. The article is scant on detail. Perhaps a deal was done with the prosecuting Garda so he would omit certain evidence if the defendant went guilty. We’ll never know

RobbieMD

tomasrojo wrote: »

That's not in the article at all. "He made no effort to comply with this piece of legislation". There doesn't seem to be any attempt to make the case that he was endangering or inconveniencing others, which is all that brief statute is about.

I can’t find anything in the article that suggests any effort he made to “exercise care and take all reasonable precautions in order to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians”

If he had pleaded not guilty then as required in our legal system, the prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. We will likely never know the full facts of the prosecutions case, although it’s telling that he went guilty and spared the Judge hearing the full case.

On a guilty plea the Garda only gives very brief facts of the offence(s) as the defendant is accepting guilt and accepting the states case.

tomasrojo

RobbieMD wrote: »

I can’t find anything in the article that suggests any effort he made to “exercise care and take all reasonable precautions in order to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians”

But the whole scenario is in the article, albeit a fairly bare version.

Person goes for a walk in the dark on a rural road. Gardaí see him and give him a hi-viz vest.
Person comes back the second night. Gardaí see him again and tell him he should be wearing a hi-viz vest, and didn't we already give you one. Person says he doesn't like hi-viz vests. Refuses to wear one.

Gardaí seem at this stage to have taken him away in a car and then recommended he be taken to court.

The only thing he disputed with the gardaí was about wearing a hi-viz jacket, and it's the only thing they seemed to be getting worked up about (except perhaps being disrespected by a member of the public).

At no stage is a concern about a third party mentioned or hinted at. It's basically: you'll get yourself killed, being invisible on this busy road.

It's not about harm or inconvenience to third parties.

RobbieMD

tomasrojo wrote: »

But the whole scenario is in the article, albeit a fairly bare version.

Person goes for a walk in the dark on a rural road. Gardaí see him and give him a hi-viz vest.
Person comes back the second night. Gardaí see him again and tell him he should be wearing a hi-viz vest, and didn't we already give you one. Person says he doesn't like hi-viz vests. Refuses to wear one.

Gardaí seem at this stage to have taken him away in a car and then recommended he be taken to court.

The only thing he disputed with the gardaí was about wearing a hi-viz jacket, and it's the only thing they seemed to be getting worked up about (except perhaps being disrespected by a member of the public).

At no stage is a concern about a third party mentioned or hinted at. It's basically: you'll get yourself killed, being invisible on this busy road.

It's not about harm or inconvenience to third parties.

And therein lies the problem with brief court reports. We only get a bare version of what actually happened and then our own bias will fill in the gaps. One thing I’m sure we can all agree on is that a Hi Viz vest is mostly useless and at best a cop out on the behalf of the RSA who really should know better but can say they’re at least doing something.

tomasrojo

RobbieMD wrote: »

One thing I’m sure we can all agree on is that a Hi Viz vest is mostly useless and at best a cop out on the behalf of the RSA who really should know better but can say they’re at least doing something.

Yeah, pretty over-hyped, I think. Though there are plenty of posts in this thread arguing strongly in their favour though!

CramCycle

RobbieMD wrote: »

If he had pleaded not guilty then as required in our legal system, the prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. We will likely never know the full facts of the prosecutions case, although it’s telling that he went guilty and spared the Judge hearing the full case.

I presume you have not been to many circuit court sittings. He plead guilty, he may have chosen too, his solicitor may have also explained legal costs and what would be the cheapest and easiest options. You'll be surprised to find out that many people cannot afford legal fees to stand over their point, right or wrong.

On a related note, if you have an interest in legal cases, the circuit court is often an eye opening experience into how ****ed up our legal system is. If your a d1ck like me it is very entertaining.

RobbieMD

CramCycle wrote: »

I presume you have not been to many circuit court sittings. He plead guilty, he may have chosen too, his solicitor may have also explained legal costs and what would be the cheapest and easiest options. You'll be surprised to find out that many people cannot afford legal fees to stand over their point, right or wrong.

On a related note, if you have an interest in legal cases, the circuit court is often an eye opening experience into how ****ed up our legal system is. If your a d1ck like me it is very entertaining.

I spend my working day in court. The article said he was unemployed. He most likely was given his solicitor on free legal aid unless Gardai had made serious objections. The costs would not then be borne by him.

Judge Hughes is 10yrs sitting in Longford. Most likely the solicitor knew his form for someone coming to court with no previous convictions going guilty.

tomasrojo

Just on the word "reasonable" (this is from West's Encyclopedia of American Law,since that's what came up on thefreedictionary.com):

The term reasonable is a generic and relative one and applies to that which is appropriate for a particular situation.

In the law of Negligence, the reasonable person standard is the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would observe under a given set of circumstances. An individual who subscribes to such standards can avoid liability for negligence. Similarly a reasonable act is that which might fairly and properly be required of an individual.

What seems to be happening is that law enforcement and judges see road safety increasingly from the point of a view of a driver in somewhat of a hurry, with such a person becoming the "reasonably prudent person".

On the other side of the coin, the reasonable act is (Irish law could well be different in this regard; I'm not a lawyer) not supposed to be merely "a good idea on balance"; it has to be "fairly and properly required".

CramCycle

RobbieMD wrote: »

I spend my working day in court. The article said he was unemployed. He most likely was given his solicitor on free legal aid unless Gardai had made serious objections. The costs would not then be borne by him.

Judge Hughes is 10yrs sitting in Longford. Most likely the solicitor knew his form for someone coming to court with no previous convictions going guilty.

So he was told to plead guilty by someone with a vested interest in getting it cleared quick? He would bare the cost of the penalty, which when you are unemployed could be quite crippling,all the solicitor has to say is here is the likely cost if you plead guilty, and the cost if you plead innocent and lose. The fact that the law was vague meant that a Gardas interpretation would have in most cases been enough to secure a loss for the defendant unless they had money and time to force the issue, as you undoubtedly know from all your days in the courthouse.

He plead guilty so we never got exposed to some of the potential stupidity going on in Longford Court House, it's not renowned for common sense decisions. Although I will admit the worst judge has left in recent times.

tomasrojo

I'm starting to get quite interested in the Longford legal scene. This is an unexpected turn in the Hi-viz Thread.

eeeee

CramCycle wrote: »

He plead guilty so we never got exposed to some of the potential stupidity going on in Longford Court House, it's not renowned for common sense decisions. Although I will admit the worst judge has left in recent times.

Neilan? Good riddance

CramCycle

nee wrote: »

Neilan? Good riddance

If a Channel 4 or BBc comedy came out wit some of his quotes they'd be shut down, how he got away with it for so long is a testament to how ****ed up Ireland is.

RobbieMD

CramCycle wrote: »

So he was told to plead guilty by someone with a vested interest in getting it cleared quick? He would bare the cost of the penalty, which when you are unemployed could be quite crippling,all the solicitor has to say is here is the likely cost if you plead guilty, and the cost if you plead innocent and lose. The fact that the law was vague meant that a Gardas interpretation would have in most cases been enough to secure a loss for the defendant unless they had money and time to force the issue, as you undoubtedly know from all your days in the courthouse.

He plead guilty so we never got exposed to some of the potential stupidity going on in Longford Court House, it's not renowned for common sense decisions. Although I will admit the worst judge has left in recent times.

His solicitor wouldn’t mind really whether he wanted to plead to it or contest it, they don’t really have any vested interest. Most likely the solicitor had never defended someone summonsed for that particular offence. I can’t find any case law on it, which is unusual.

A lot of solicitors on legal aid will seek a hearing date merely to bump up their number of appearances, and then on the day of the hearing will tell the prosecuting Garda their client is pleading guilty, assuming the prosecution has their witnesses etc in order. That way they will likely get a few appearance fees all paid for by Legal Aid.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'm starting to get quite interested in the Longford legal scene. This is an unexpected turn in the Hi-viz Thread.

Most circuit court sittings are quite interesting. I found my, limited, time in dublins to be more accustomed to what I would expect from rational human beings, the judge just took a machete to the stupidity in front of him and it was quite nice to watch those who thought they knew better get slaughtered. Longford was a different beast, Neilan was the king of statements that in and of themselves were illegal as part of his judgements. To this day I think he had some severe issues.

zell12

“[ESB] are delighted to be continuing our partnership with RSA to ensure that school children are visible on the roads and around school gates. Wearing a high-vis vest is so important whether you are walking, cycling or travelling on the school bus.
We encourage all schools to utilise high-visibility materials to ensure children can be safe, by being seen. Our partnership with the RSA reflects ESB Networks' ongoing commitment to promoting safety."
For the ninth year running, the RSA and ESB Networks will distribute free high visibility vests to every child starting school in September. To date, this partnership has provided 880,000 children throughout the country with high visibility vests.

WARNING: Garda appeal for vigilance and caution around school gates

murph226

Any decent non yellow or orange hi viz winter jackets out there, had a look at the usual sites and not much coming up.

murph226

murph226 wrote: »

Any decent non yellow or orange hi viz winter jackets out there, had a look at the usual sites and not much coming up.

What about something like the Proviz Reflect ones or similar? Lots of cheaper retroflective alternatives that offer same.

EDIT: Just as an FYI on these they are about as effective as wearing a grey hoodie without a light source on them but definitely better than a standard yellow or orange jacket in the dark in traffic, they seriously pop with headlights on them.

tomasrojo

By hi-viz, do you mean with reflective stripes, fluorescent fabric, or both? Or, as suggested, reflective fabric?

magicbastarder

https://twitter.com/ccferrie/status/1180933673367027715