Going for walks in hi vis jackets

Dravokivich · 12-02-2019 09:38PM

retro:electro wrote: »

I never realised just how visually hard it is to see someone out walking when they’re not wearing a hi vis until I started driving. I’ve had many near misses on rural roads where you’d nearly be on top of the person walking before you see them. Our local school (rural) has asked that all parents wear hi vis jackets while dropping kids to and from school. You might think you can be seen but you can never underestimate how difficult it can be see someone out walking and you can never be too safe.

I've often nearly walked into people. There's no attention being brought to make sure people either see you, or you act in a manner, expecting everyone not to see you.

Seanieke · 12-02-2019 09:38PM

CalamariFritti wrote:

There is a bot of a safety obsession cotton wool thinking these days. The other day I saw five fellas looking into a manhole about 2 foot deep. All wearing high viz and hard hats. I bet they would have sent anyone away if they were going to look into the hole without them.

If you're not wearing it & something happens insurance mightn't pay out. Not worth the risk not wearing it.

CalamariFritti · 12-02-2019 09:39PM

Dravokivich wrote: »

We have lit paths. Trees grew into the lights though. So not much makes it down to the path.

But well lit or not. Its a drivers responsibility not to drive over footpaths and unless I'm badly mistaken drivers typically do not do that unless something crazy happens and no high viz vest is going to safe you then either.

Dravokivich · 12-02-2019 09:41PM

flatface wrote: »

Oh god, the Irish obsession with high vis is mind boggling. Sam Browne belt on walking country roads, lights on bikes and cars, all else is way OTT and takes focus off the woeful standard of driving many think is acceptable.

I'm a pedestrian, cyclist, driver and commuter, I need to be considerate of my own welfare first and foremost. Others should try that out for themselves. But everyday I see people hurtling in their cars towards a wall. So, really it's hard to argue against pedestrians, when it so easy to argue against drivers. I think that's the wrong way to direct this. Everyone needs to act with more awareness for themselves first.

CalamariFritti · 12-02-2019 09:42PM

Seanieke wrote: »

If you're not wearing it & something happens insurance mightn't pay out. Not worth the risk not wearing it.

So sod off with your cool coat or nice jacket? High vis from here on in or you're irresponsible and no insurance payout? Lads get a grip for fecks sake. That kind of sh1te is basically asking insurance companies to do just that. Thats what I meant with setting a precedent.

flatface · 12-02-2019 09:42PM

There is plenty of good reason for high visibility on country roads without paths, but that is not the topic raised. This is about paths with street lighting and we do have to draw a line on where we, if you excuse the word, dangerize non hazardous activity. If a car mounts a path and hits a pedestrian it’s not the lack of high vis to blame.

retro:electro · 12-02-2019 09:43PM

Dravokivich wrote: »

I've often nearly walked into people. There's no attention being brought to make sure people either see you, or you act in a manner, expecting everyone not to see you.

I’m sorry are you comparing aimlessly walking into someone against ploughing into someone with a 3 tonne metal weapon or am I having a seizure?

Dravokivich · 12-02-2019 09:44PM

CalamariFritti wrote: »

But well lit or not. Its a drivers responsibility not to drive over footpaths and unless I'm badly mistaken drivers typically do not do that unless something crazy happens and no high viz vest is going to safe you then either.

How often do you hear of someone run over because the driver went up the foot path?

Pedestrians come out onto the road from an obscured view point. The other day a kid walked out in front of me, in traffic from between cars that were stopped on his side. I only had a chance to see him after he walked through them because he was shorter than the cars.

Dravokivich · 12-02-2019 09:45PM

retro:electro wrote: »

I’m sorry are you comparing aimlessly walking into someone against ploughing into someone with a 3 tonne metal weapon or am I having a seizure?

I wasn't being aimless. They came out of a long stretch of shadows.

whisky_galore · 12-02-2019 09:46PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

it won't but it dangerises normal activities and they look stupid. why the f*ck should I have to wear one?

'Dangerises' - what the actual **** does that even mean?

Think you're more concerned about your catwalk standard good looks tbh.

Alrigghtythen · 12-02-2019 09:46PM

Some people walk with the head stuck in the phone, paying no attention to their surroundings

Dakotabigone · 12-02-2019 09:50PM

To all the fit women walking the Bypass earlier in hi viz and Nike Pro Cross Over Training Tights I salute ye.

CalamariFritti · 12-02-2019 09:50PM

I dont get your points folks. Yes some pedestrians are stupid, some always will be. But no high viz vest will make a difference in those cases. And everyone wearing one because of those clowns will only do one thing, we will all look stupid.

flatface · 12-02-2019 09:51PM

whisky_galore wrote: »

'Dangerises' - what the actual **** does that even mean?

Think you're more concerned about your catwalk standard good looks tbh.

Let me google it for you:

dangerisation
Noun
(plural dangerisations)

The attribution of dangerous characteristics to something not particularly dangerous.

listermint · 12-02-2019 09:51PM

This is one of those threads where the op phrases it as a question but already fully knows the answer before he hits the post button

malinheader · 12-02-2019 09:54PM

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I dont get your points folks. Yes some pedestrians are stupid, some always will be. But no high viz vest will make a difference in those cases. And everyone wearing one because of those clowns will only do one thing, we will all look stupid.

Don't understand how some people think wearing hi vis makes you look stupid. I think someone not wearing one for the reason of looks is a clown.

whisky_galore · 12-02-2019 09:55PM

flatface wrote: »

Let me google it for you:

dangerisation
Noun
(plural dangerisations)

The attribution of dangerous characteristics to something not particularly dangerous.

Oh bless, they won't be able to cop your designer togs under a beastly builders hi vis vest.

odyssey06 · 12-02-2019 09:56PM

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I dont get your points folks. Yes some pedestrians are stupid, some always will be. But no high viz vest will make a difference in those cases. And everyone wearing one because of those clowns will only do one thing, we will all look stupid.

I dont know where this idea of car mounting footpath came from. As if walkers are always on lit footpath in urban areas.

Maybe the walkers had come from a park or walkway that is unlit. And there are bikes on it.

Also Hi vis might make a difference if they have to cross junctions that dont have traffic lights. Most juctions dont.

Even if there are streetlights, trees and rain or low winter sun can affect visibility.

Pedestrian has right of way if already crossing but no harm in making sure you are seen.

CalamariFritti · 12-02-2019 10:01PM

malinheader wrote: »

Don't understand how some people think wearing hi vis makes you look stupid. I think someone not wearing one for the reason of looks is a clown.

Well and I think if someone needs a high viz vest to walk lit footpaths and cross a couple of roads they're probably better off staying in bed altogether. Cos you know, one can never be too safe...

malinheader · 12-02-2019 10:06PM

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Well and I think if someone needs a high viz vest to walk lit footpaths and cross a couple of roads they're probably better off staying in bed altogether. Cos you know, one can never be too safe...

Last six words of your quote is correct.

CalamariFritti · 12-02-2019 10:08PM

If people were ever wondering why we are becoming a nanny state, here it is. Some of us actually want to be nannied.

odyssey06 · 12-02-2019 10:08PM

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Well and I think if someone needs a high viz vest to walk lit footpaths and cross a couple of roads they're probably better off staying in bed altogether. Cos you know, one can never be too safe...

I could say the same about drivers who cant see a red light... so I worry about their ability to see a pedestrian in dark clothes on a wet night.

Cant fathom why someone would get so worked up about a voluntary clothing choice made by others that does nothing to impact you.

odyssey06 · 12-02-2019 10:10PM

CalamariFritti wrote: »

If people were ever wondering why we are becoming a nanny state, here it is. Some of us actually want to be nannied.

No that would mean we agitate for a law that compels all pedestrians to wear a hivis vest.

CalamariFritti · 12-02-2019 10:10PM

odyssey06 wrote: »

I could say the same about drivers who cant see a red light... so I worry about their ability to see a pedestrian in dark clothes on a wet night.

Cant fathom why someone would get so worked up about a voluntary clothing choice made by others that does nothing to impact you.

Not getting worked up at all. Here for the same reason as most others I would think. Found topic mildly interesting and nothing else to do.

CalamariFritti · 12-02-2019 10:12PM

odyssey06 wrote: »

No that would mean we agitate for a law that compels all pedestrians to wear a hivis vest.

Ye and my point is if people debate this the way this thread is going then we're not far away from someone actually asking for such a law.

malinheader · 12-02-2019 10:17PM

CalamariFritti wrote: »

If people were ever wondering why we are becoming a nanny state, here it is. Some of us actually want to be nannied.

Some of us actually want to be safe. No nannying in it. I do quite alot of driving and I thank anyone who wears hi vis

odyssey06 · 12-02-2019 10:28PM

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Ye and my point is if people debate this the way this thread is going then we're not far away from someone actually asking for such a law.

Im not convinced... I would totally agree with you if there was any notion of a law mandating for this.

Cookie_Monster · 12-02-2019 11:18PM

malinheader wrote: »

It's not an obsession. Its simply an awareness of safety for yourself and respecting drivers using the road by making yourself visible.

it IS an obsession, notably only in the anglophone world. you won't see it in Holland for example. Anywhere where pedestrians / cyclists are prioritised over cars it's not a thing.

Cookie_Monster · 12-02-2019 11:20PM

odyssey06 wrote: »

Cant fathom why someone would get so worked up about a voluntary clothing choice made by others that does nothing to impact you.

ok so, are you going to go and paint your car in high vis? If it makes the tiniest difference...

odyssey06 · 12-02-2019 11:23PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

ok so, are you going to go and paint your car in high vis? If it makes the tiniest difference...

No but people put lights on their cars when not legally obliged to... in some US states if its raining and you have wipers on you must put lights on. I do the same here. Go figure.

Why do emergency vehicles have hi vis marking strips?

Going for walks in hi vis jackets

Comments