Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

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

work

magicbastarder wrote: »

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

Their level of acceptable is so far below what is expected by others is shocking.



Just looked at their website. Nothing really on cycling on the homepage but you can find their advice to cyclists if you look, I put some points below:

• Always wear luminous clothing such as hi-vis vests, fluorscent armbands and reflective belts so that other road users can see you
• Wear a helmet
• Make sure you keep to the left.
• Respect other road users – don’t get into shouting matches with motorists; stop at pedestrian crossings; don’t cycle on the footpath

Now I am no expert but lets consider those points:

• Luminous clothing and helmet....moves responsibility to the unwanted road user the cyclist. I think there is loads of evidence this reduces cyclist numbers...mmmm I wonder what their game is?
• ...Keep to the left. Oh sure I suppose only cyclists have heard of taking the lane or road????? Vulnerable users will feel much safer in a ditch!!
• Respect other road users, Why? If someone puts me in danger I bloody well will have little respect for them and perhaps shouting will save my life.
• Don't cycle on the footpath. Cycle my kids from age 3 and 4 on the footpath every day and until their is an alternative they can stick that one. Absolute respect for pedestrians MUST be given though.

I then had a look at the board and its chairpeson, Liz O'Donnell. A recent article quoting her bought up a few points:


https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/next-road-safety-strategy-to-focus-on-cyclists-and-pedestrians-930558.html


Liz O'Donnell, Chair of the Road Safety Authority, said we need to move away from just driver safety................"Cycling and walking must ascend the pecking order in terms of priority.”


So she openly admits they have just concerned themselves with driver safety AND cycling and walking are "lower" on their priority list.
Obviously I am biased in my opinion but that is some indictment. In fairness they are saying change is needed. Why hasn't it happened and a complete change of board would help. Anyway The cycle lobby groups are gaining momentum, lets keep it up.

Stark

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/road-safety-authoritys-cycling-column/

Should tell you all you need to know about their attitude towards cyclists.

zell12

We also want to hear what you’re doing to support Irish Road Safety Week in your community, school or workplace,
so send the details to campaigns@rsa.ie and we’ll post them on this page.
We look forward to working with you to help save lives and prevent serious injuries on our roads.
https://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Irish-Road-Safety-Week-2019/

RSA say they will post your comments on road safety!

magicbastarder

chatting to a fellow cyclist in the changing rooms yesterday, he mentioned his commute includes some unlit roads. i mentioned having two rear lights on my bike, and his response was that he doesn't have rear lights because he doesn't need them - he has a good quality hi-vis jacket. and reflectors.
i kept my mouth shut, not my fight.

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

chatting to a fellow cyclist in the changing rooms yesterday, he mentioned his commute includes some unlit roads. i mentioned having two rear lights on my bike, and his response was that he doesn't have rear lights because he doesn't need them - he has a good quality hi-vis jacket. and reflectors.
i kept my mouth shut, not my fight.

Maybe tell him that legally he could be held partially responsible in the case of an accident as he is legally required to have a rear light? Make it the laws fault not yours

Mickiemcfist

magicbastarder wrote: »

chatting to a fellow cyclist in the changing rooms yesterday, he mentioned his commute includes some unlit roads. i mentioned having two rear lights on my bike, and his response was that he doesn't have rear lights because he doesn't need them - he has a good quality hi-vis jacket. and reflectors.
i kept my mouth shut, not my fight.

I always turn the argument on it's head & say "I'd just be worried about a dumba55 driver who forgot to turn on their lights because they've got DRL's, they won't see the hi vis".

Sandwell

I got told off on my spin at the weekend for not wearing a high-vis jacket. This was in broad daylight, with front and rear lights flashing and while wearing a high-vis coloured helmet. All I could do was laugh. It shows how utterly ridiculous the high-vis dogma has become.

tomasrojo

A photoshopped picture from about fifty years ago? What more evidence do you need!
https://irishcycle.com/2019/10/25/minister-ross-promotes-high-vis-with-deceptive-image-of-child-crossing-road-blacked-out/

micar

Sandwell wrote: »

I got told off on my spin at the weekend for not wearing a high-vis jacket. This was in broad daylight, with front and rear lights flashing and while wearing a high-vis coloured helmet. All I could do was laugh. It shows how utterly ridiculous the high-vis dogma has become.

I just don't get this ...... if a motorist needs you to wear high viz during the day in order to see you then that motorist should be banned from driving.

Pinch Flat

Sandwell wrote: »

I got told off on my spin at the weekend for not wearing a high-vis jacket. This was in broad daylight, with front and rear lights flashing and while wearing a high-vis coloured helmet. All I could do was laugh. It shows how utterly ridiculous the high-vis dogma has become.

Had this myself when a motorist nearly hit me in st Stephens green a while back - rainy morning and I was lit up front and rear. Indicated right into Merrion row. They somehow tried to link my lack of hi vis wit their ****ty driving - for good measure she they’re in I had “no right to be on the road”. a motorist has zero right to comment on your hi vis or lack of.

magicbastarder

much as i like to think i'm well aware of the shades of grey (pun intended) of the hi-vis debate, i'm not comfortable out in the dark, even with lights, with a dark coloured top and gloves; and that mainly centres around my hands and arms. twice on the way home this evening i just about copped that cyclists in front of me were signalling to turn, but it was very difficult to see because they were wearing dark tops and gloves. because my commute is on busy enough urban and suburban roads, all car headlights are dipped, so the illumination from that is never going to be stellar.
this evening, i was wearing the dayglo neoprene gloves aldi or lidl have had in a few times over the last year or two. they're reasonably warm and windproof, but i wouldn't like to wear them for more than an hour or so as they don't breathe at all.

a colleague was telling me that there was some recent controversy in his cycling club because the new strip is largely black, and obviously it was a bone of contention with some that there should have been more visible elements to it.

also, this evening - i'd say only about 30% of cyclists i saw - if that - were adequately illuminated.

micar

Was cycling home from work shortly after 4pm yesterday. It was darker than today because of the rain.

Anyway, two separate females (mid/late 20s) walking on the footpath both with a high viz top on.....that's the way things are now going

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

much as i like to think i'm well aware of the shades of grey (pun intended) of the hi-vis debate, i'm not comfortable out in the dark, even with lights, with a dark coloured top and gloves; and that mainly centres around my hands and arms. twice on the way home this evening i just about copped that cyclists in front of me were signalling to turn, but it was very difficult to see because they were wearing dark tops and gloves.

You know where that sort of thinking brings you ... It's a lonely place; current population: 1 (approx.)

Stark

magicbastarder wrote: »

much as i like to think i'm well aware of the shades of grey (pun intended) of the hi-vis debate, i'm not comfortable out in the dark, even with lights, with a dark coloured top and gloves; and that mainly centres around my hands and arms. twice on the way home this evening i just about copped that cyclists in front of me were signalling to turn, but it was very difficult to see because they were wearing dark tops and gloves. because my commute is on busy enough urban and suburban roads, all car headlights are dipped, so the illumination from that is never going to be stellar.
this evening, i was wearing the dayglo neoprene gloves aldi or lidl have had in a few times over the last year or two. they're reasonably warm and windproof, but i wouldn't like to wear them for more than an hour or so as they don't breathe at all.

That's reasonable imo. As responsible adults, we take what's legally mandated and then we add on whatever we think is reasonable to feel safe/comfortable. And different situations/conditions call for different levels of safety equipment. I'd feel uncomfortable myself heading out in head to toe black without any reflective bits on a rainy dark evening in busy traffic in spite of lights. In good visibility conditions or where traffic wasn't an issue, I'd feel differently.

Where it gets unreasonable is when you have people using it as excuse to harass people in the middle of the day in order to put them off cycling or you have the likes of the RSA creaming themselves because our roads are so unsafe that they can flog their ****ty branded builders vests with ease.

Or that the culture has become so pervasive that pedestrians don't even feel safe walking on lit up city streets with footpaths without them as micar pointed out. A few years ago the thought of having to wear a hi-viz to head out in the city would have been consider ludicrous.



https://twitter.com/RSAIreland/status/1144632351424688128

I mean how ****ing depressing is this photo?

tomasrojo

The RSA's recollection of VéloCity wasn't shared by many people from what I could tell. The attendees, I got the impression, were aghast at the weird priorities on view everywhere in Dublin, which definitely would include the RSA's little-visited hi-viz stall, which I think was their only contribution to the symposium?

The second photo is full of strange tensions. There's more than joyless, unspontaneous travel going on here.

Stark

They're probably being marched somewhere to have their walking helmets fitted.

Breezer

I saw a car with hi viz strips on it tonight. Not joking. Blue/grey Audi A4.

CramCycle

Stark wrote: »

They're probably being marched somewhere to have their walking helmets fitted.

My mind went to grimmer places, one of those kids ain't coming home :eek:

RobertFoster

CramCycle wrote: »

My mind went to grimmer places, one of those kids ain't coming home :eek:

At least the dumped body will be easier to spot.

Seth Brundle

Stark wrote: »

I mean how ****ing depressing is this photo?

It is a depressing photo but what's it from?