Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Seth Brundle · 12-05-2021 09:46AM

https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1392399370595749888

Paddigol · 12-05-2021 10:24AM

Rage, rage against the dying of the light. For 'light', read 'reason'.

It's on this basis that I'm also wary of the drive for more and more segregated bike lanes - as though simply spending cash on cycling infrastructure is de facto 'progress'. What I think this all does is actually speed up the idea that roads are for cars, pedestrians and cyclists are a nuisance and should ultimately be banned from roads, and if you're hit by a car rather than ask - what was the cause/ who was at fault? - the first reaction will be a defensive "yeah but was he/ she wearing hi-viz?".

It's all a bit pathetic really, in the original sense of the word.

zell12 · 20-06-2021 07:31AM

Indo - RSA accused of victim blaming in safety campaign
FOI of received complaints

- “All the high-vis in the world won’t stop drivers speeding, texting, parking illegally. Please stop with these campaigns. They are dangerous.”
- “A motorist swerved into the cycle path, missing me by inches,” they said. “He wasn’t paying attention to the road at all and didn’t have both hands on the wheel. I was wearing a high-vis vest and he didn’t see me.”
- Another cyclist asked if children should be wearing high-vis clothing and helmets when playing outside their homes, according to the log of complaints released under FOI.

Seth Brundle · 23-06-2021 08:49PM

Interesting jury verdict in a case against a taxi driver who hit an escooter rider clad in dark clothes on a rainy night. I didn't realise that a jury could make recommendations on the legislation.
Seems like a strange recommendation against a victim of a collision in my opinion.
Could this happen against a cyclist knocked down by a driver?

A taxi driver was cleared on the charge of careless driving causing serious bodily harm to a young man travelling on an electric scooter wearing dark clothes – and the jury called for new legislation on hi-vis jackets and insurance for people using the scooters.

The jury at Cork Circuit Criminal Court reached a unanimous not guilty verdict in the case and brought it to the attention of Judge Brian O’Callaghan that they had attached a note to the verdict. The judge invited the foreperson to read it.

“We recommend that the legislation be updated in regard to all road users to include electric scooters and the legal requirement to wear a high visibility vest and to have insurance to drive on the road. The full responsibility and due care should not fall solely on car users,” the foreperson said.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40320827.html

fat bloke · 23-06-2021 09:01PM

There, but for the grace of God, drive I.

23-06-2021 09:32PM

I'm sure all it took was one highly informed expert member of the jury on all things hi-vis and insurance preventing you getting run over for the rest to nod along.

On the scooters though I do have issue with the rear lights on the ones that actually have them, far too low to the ground even if bright enough. One girl I see wears a kind of strap / harness on her back I assume is indented for running with a bike light attacked to it. Not sure what the all round solution is for them but hers is a good diy effort.

magicbastarder · 23-06-2021 10:27PM

i'm surprised* the judge didn't tell the jury to get ****ed. they're there for one purpose, and one purpose only; to decide guilt or innocence, and not to pontificate on things they've no expertise in.

*not

Thelonious Monk · 23-06-2021 10:47PM

That is absolutely ridiculous that they read that out loud in court and it's in the papers now. I also don't understand how you struggle to see anything if you have your lights on while driving and you're paying attention, no matter what the colour of the object is whether organic or inanimate.

Oh and this appeared on my Twitter feed today

https://twitter.com/BBC_TopGear/status/1406924866683539456

Thelonious Monk · 23-06-2021 10:51PM

https://twitter.com/greenspot_fr/status/1407688642852708352

Put some high vis on this thing ffs

secman · 23-06-2021 11:40PM

So black cars are to be banned or wrapped in hiviz

Wishbone Ash · 23-06-2021 11:50PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I would actually doubt that. You can't miss seeing four people on bikes on a wide open road.

I used to have a 'nixer' in Dublin airport driving a vehicle that was 75ft long. I had numerous near misses from other drivers who used to say that they didn't see me. That being said, most normally capable motorists tend to switch their brain to 'energy saving' mode when they enter an airport.

blackwhite · 24-06-2021 01:01AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm surprised* the judge didn't tell the jury to get ****ed. they're there for one purpose, and one purpose only; to decide guilt or innocence, and not to pontificate on things they've no expertise in.

*not

Surprised there wasn’t a comment on how the Gardai had been derelict in their duties, by ignoring someone driving an illegal, non-roadworthy and uninsured mechanically propelled vehicle on the road

Duckjob · 24-06-2021 08:30AM

As credible court judgement processes go, it reminds me of this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPk43lZPkTI

Hurrache · 24-06-2021 11:09AM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Interesting jury verdict in a case against a taxi driver who hit an escooter rider clad in dark clothes on a rainy night. I didn't realise that a jury could make recommendations on the legislation.
Seems like a strange recommendation against a victim of a collision in my opinion.
Could this happen against a cyclist knocked down by a driver?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40320827.html

Jasysus. Anyway, drivers are road users, so I look forward to everyone, by law, obliged to wear high vis while in cars, vans, and not forgetting bus passengers.

BoardsMember · 24-06-2021 11:38AM

Hurrache wrote: »

Jasysus. Anyway, drivers are road users, so I look forward to everyone, by law, obliged to wear high vis while in cars, vans, and not forgetting bus passengers.

That's such a silly comment - are u fishing for thanks.The usual inane comment that follows a sequence of posts like this, that only serves to distract from previous reasonable and considered posts before.

magicbastarder · 24-06-2021 12:06PM

um, he was just pointing out the logical conclusion of what the jury recommended, using the medium of satire.

The J Stands for Jay · 24-06-2021 01:18PM

BoardsMember wrote: »

That's such a silly comment - are u fishing for thanks.The usual inane comment that follows a sequence of posts like this, that only serves to distract from previous reasonable and considered posts before.

That's exactly what the jury said.

“We recommend that the legislation be updated in regard to all road users ... and the legal requirement to wear a high visibility vest and to have insurance to drive on the road."

They want all road users to be insured and wearing hivis.

The J Stands for Jay · 24-06-2021 01:20PM

BoardsMember wrote: »

That's such a silly comment - are u fishing for thanks.The usual inane comment that follows a sequence of posts like this, that only serves to distract from previous reasonable and considered posts before.

That's exactly what the jury said.

“We recommend that the legislation be updated in regard to all road users ... and the legal requirement to wear a high visibility vest and to have insurance to drive on the road."

They want all road users to be insured and wearing hivis.

Hurrache · 24-06-2021 01:33PM

BoardsMember wrote: »

That's such a silly comment - are u fishing for thanks.The usual inane comment that follows a sequence of posts like this, that only serves to distract from previous reasonable and considered posts before.

So, it was rightly pointed out to you what exactly the jury said. Your logic implies that the jurors recommendation was inane and distracts from reasonable and serious road safety views. We're all in agreement so, hurrah.

secman · 24-06-2021 05:12PM

This morning heading out n81 towards Brittas, a van was parked on left side of road heading out, a mere bit of layby so he was blocking say 1/2 of my side of the road, i checked all was clear and moved out to pass it. There was an oncoming Truck and lo and behold a thick and dangerous bitch proceeded to overtake the truck and came on to my side of the road as i was passing the parked van. Utter dangerous and wreckless driving, she deserves her licence to be cancelled for good. There was about 6 inches of a pass, Fcukwit of a driver.

BoardsMember · 24-06-2021 05:53PM

Hurrache wrote: »

So, it was rightly pointed out to you what exactly the jury said. Your logic implies that the jurors recommendation was inane and distracts from reasonable and serious road safety views. We're all in agreement so, hurrah.

What I read was that the jury, in response to someone without lights or hi vis being hit by a car, suggested that the law should provide for them being more visible. Seems sensible to me. What doesn't seem sensible is the reaction I quoted, which suggested that the natural extension of that view is that people in cars and buses should wear high viz. Its the car or bus that needs to be seen, not the person in the car.

I understand people here have strong views on the merits, or other, of high viz. But surely its sensible to suggest that someone that is hard to see takes steps to be more visible. If that means legislating for lights on bikes and scooters, then I'm all for that.

I'm not suggesting the taxi driver does not carry responsibility here. But the reality is that sometimes it is hard to see cyclists and scooterists, walkers etc. Particularly on bad nights. I'll mention that I'm a cyclist as well as a motorist, which I'm sure someone will ridicule, along with ridiculing my post. No doubt some accusations of victim blaming etc.

I know high viz and lights etc won't save people from being hit by bad or unobservant drivers, or drivers on mobile phones. But i buy lights, high viz and anything else i can think of for those that I love on bikes, scooters to make them as visible as possible. Oh, and helmets. But again, like high viz, I know that's a bit of a can of worms around here too.

magicbastarder · 24-06-2021 05:58PM

the quote from the jury suggests that all road users should wear hi-vis. which would include drivers too.

BoardsMember · 24-06-2021 06:06PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

the quote from the jury suggests that all road users should wear hi-vis. which would include drivers too.

And do people think that's what they meant?

magicbastarder · 24-06-2021 06:15PM

well, frankly, i don't care. if they're (and i reckon this was not the jury as a whole deciding on this) going to make such statements they should put more thought into the phrasing.

magicbastarder · 24-06-2021 06:29PM

BoardsMember wrote: »

If that means legislating for lights on bikes and scooters, then I'm all for that.

also, it's worth mentioning that lights are already legally mandatory on bikes during lighting up hours.

24-06-2021 07:58PM

From the news report it mentioned the scooter had a rear light too. Assuming they were going uphill might have made the light a bit more effective?

Anyway saying the trees made it darker, I can't really pick out a point on the road where that might have been the case at night. The lights all extend out over the road and are about 15 meters apart.

I think this is the road in question https://www.google.com/maps/@51.9029378,-8.460529,3a,75y,61.11h,108.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skUpEz1PPw2g9La5M8bo_WA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DkUpEz1PPw2g9La5M8bo_WA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D239.87949%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

The taxi it's reasonable to assume would have been on dips.

standardg60 · 24-06-2021 08:31PM

BoardsMember wrote: »

What I read was that the jury, in response to someone without lights or hi vis being hit by a car, suggested that the law should provide for them being more visible. Seems sensible to me. What doesn't seem sensible is the reaction I quoted, which suggested that the natural extension of that view is that people in cars and buses should wear high viz. Its the car or bus that needs to be seen, not the person in the car.

I understand people here have strong views on the merits, or other, of high viz. But surely its sensible to suggest that someone that is hard to see takes steps to be more visible. If that means legislating for lights on bikes and scooters, then I'm all for that.

I'm not suggesting the taxi driver does not carry responsibility here. But the reality is that sometimes it is hard to see cyclists and scooterists, walkers etc. Particularly on bad nights. I'll mention that I'm a cyclist as well as a motorist, which I'm sure someone will ridicule, along with ridiculing my post. No doubt some accusations of victim blaming etc.

I know high viz and lights etc won't save people from being hit by bad or unobservant drivers, or drivers on mobile phones. But i buy lights, high viz and anything else i can think of for those that I love on bikes, scooters to make them as visible as possible. Oh, and helmets. But again, like high viz, I know that's a bit of a can of worms around here too.

I completely agree, though can understand the reaction to your previous post, was a little dismissive.
I think the decision of the DPP to actually bring a case here is telling, if they were hit from behind on a straight road visibility shouldn't really be a factor, any idiot should be able to see in front of them with lights on.
As someone said earlier it only takes one influential juror to persuade the rest, and they were probably all drawn from areas less sympathetic to non car users.

magicbastarder · 24-06-2021 08:42PM

it's a curious thing procedurally; my understanding is that the deliberations of the jury should remain confidential, but a recommendation like that could potentially violate that in revealing a rationale for the decision, and also reveal prejudices which could lead to grounds for an appeal. and my own gut feeling is that they came close to doing so here.

standardg60 · 24-06-2021 08:54PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's a curious thing procedurally; my understanding is that the deliberations of the jury should remain confidential, but a recommendation like that could potentially violate that in revealing a rationale for the decision, and also reveal prejudices which could lead to grounds for an appeal. and my own gut feeling is that they came close to doing so here.

Yep seems crazy and very prejudicial for a jury to attach a note like that, but whether the DPP follows that up is another matter.
Given if the road in question is that as posted above, it should be an open and shut case, ie guilty. I only hope the victim, clearly held responsible by the jury, makes a full recovery.

AndrewJRenko · 24-06-2021 09:17PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm surprised* the judge didn't tell the jury to get ****ed. they're there for one purpose, and one purpose only; to decide guilt or innocence, and not to pontificate on things they've no expertise in.

*not

I'd bet a fiver that if the jury pronounced on any other issue, like stab vests or audit requirements or speed vans, they absolutely would be told to get ****ed. However, the general need to 'fix' cycling and scooting and other traffic modes that don't kill people with alarming regularity is so deeply ingrained, it is just accepted that a recommendation from a bunch with no professional experience is generally acceptable, on this topic and this topic only.

standardg60 wrote: »

Yep seems crazy and very prejudicial for a jury to attach a note like that, but whether the DPP follows that up is another matter.
Given if the road in question is that as posted above, it should be an open and shut case, ie guilty. I only hope the victim, clearly held responsible by the jury, makes a full recovery.

The DPP has no role in changing traffic laws. The only body that can do this is the Oireachtas.

BoardsMember wrote: »

What I read was that the jury, in response to someone without lights or hi vis being hit by a car, suggested that the law should provide for them being more visible. Seems sensible to me. What doesn't seem sensible is the reaction I quoted, which suggested that the natural extension of that view is that people in cars and buses should wear high viz. Its the car or bus that needs to be seen, not the person in the car.

I understand people here have strong views on the merits, or other, of high viz. But surely its sensible to suggest that someone that is hard to see takes steps to be more visible. If that means legislating for lights on bikes and scooters, then I'm all for that.

I'm not suggesting the taxi driver does not carry responsibility here. But the reality is that sometimes it is hard to see cyclists and scooterists, walkers etc. Particularly on bad nights. I'll mention that I'm a cyclist as well as a motorist, which I'm sure someone will ridicule, along with ridiculing my post. No doubt some accusations of victim blaming etc.

I know high viz and lights etc won't save people from being hit by bad or unobservant drivers, or drivers on mobile phones. But i buy lights, high viz and anything else i can think of for those that I love on bikes, scooters to make them as visible as possible. Oh, and helmets. But again, like high viz, I know that's a bit of a can of worms around here too.

Do you find yourself buying hi-vis panels for those that you love in cars, to make them as visible as possible? Oh and crash helmets? Far more people get killed or injured in cars than on bikes or scooters.

Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Comments