Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

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?

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That was revoked and replaced by SI in 1997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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Deleted User]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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".