Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

eeeee · 27-07-2019 09:07PM

Disgraceful

rubadub · 27-07-2019 09:08PM

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 · 27-07-2019 09:12PM

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

tomasrojo · 27-07-2019 09:45PM

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 · 27-07-2019 09:59PM

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 · 27-07-2019 10:04PM

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 · 27-07-2019 10:04PM

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

GreeBo · 27-07-2019 10:05PM

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 · 27-07-2019 10:42PM

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 · 28-07-2019 12:47AM

CramCycle wrote: »

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

Their Superintendent most likely directed the prosecution though.

buffalo · 28-07-2019 11:42AM

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

tomasrojo · 28-07-2019 12:21PM

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.

AndrewJRenko · 28-07-2019 02:00PM

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 · 28-07-2019 02:06PM

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 · 28-07-2019 02:43PM

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.

tomasrojo · 28-07-2019 03:09PM

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 · 28-07-2019 03:21PM

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 · 28-07-2019 03:27PM

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 · 28-07-2019 03:31PM

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 · 28-07-2019 04:00PM

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 · 28-07-2019 04:44PM

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.

magicbastarder · 28-07-2019 04:53PM

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 · 28-07-2019 04:56PM

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 · 28-07-2019 05:00PM

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 · 28-07-2019 05:11PM

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 · 28-07-2019 08:13PM

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 · 28-07-2019 08:49PM

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 · 28-07-2019 09:16PM

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 · 28-07-2019 09:23PM

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 · 28-07-2019 09:31PM

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.

Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Comments