Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

RobbieMD · 28-07-2019 10:39pm

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.

RobbieMD · 28-07-2019 10:41pm

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 · 28-07-2019 10:51pm

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.

CramCycle · 28-07-2019 11:02pm

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?

tomasrojo · 28-07-2019 11:05pm

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.

RobbieMD · 28-07-2019 11:08pm

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 · 28-07-2019 11:13pm

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.

RobbieMD · 28-07-2019 11:16pm

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.

CramCycle · 28-07-2019 11:18pm

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.

RobbieMD · 28-07-2019 11:19pm

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.

tomasrojo · 28-07-2019 11:22pm

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.

RobbieMD · 28-07-2019 11:27pm

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

RobbieMD · 28-07-2019 11:34pm

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.

tomasrojo · 28-07-2019 11:39pm

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.

RobbieMD · 28-07-2019 11:47pm

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.

tomasrojo · 28-07-2019 11:54pm

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!

CramCycle · 28-07-2019 11:55pm

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.

RobbieMD · 28-07-2019 11:59pm

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.

tomasrojo · 29-07-2019 12:00am

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".

CramCycle · 29-07-2019 12:12am

RobbieMD wrote: »

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.

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.

tomasrojo · 29-07-2019 12:14am

I'm starting to get quite interested in the Longford legal scene. This is an unexpected turn in the Hi-viz Thread.

eeeee · 29-07-2019 12:15am

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 · 29-07-2019 12:18am

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 · 29-07-2019 12:23am

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 · 29-07-2019 12:23am

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 · 03-09-2019 6:36pm

“[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 · 03-09-2019 9:33pm

Any decent non yellow or orange hi viz winter jackets out there, had a look at the usual sites and not much coming up.

03-09-2019 10:27pm

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 · 03-09-2019 10:29pm

By hi-viz, do you mean with reflective stripes, fluorescent fabric, or both? Or, as suggested, reflective fabric?

magicbastarder · 06-10-2019 9:52pm

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

work · 06-10-2019 11:15pm

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 · 06-10-2019 11:26pm

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 · 07-10-2019 9:33am

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 · 24-10-2019 9:30am

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 · 24-10-2019 9:37am

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 · 24-10-2019 9:44am

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 · 24-10-2019 10:49am

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 · 25-10-2019 7:38pm

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 · 25-10-2019 7:42pm

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 · 27-10-2019 2:17pm

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 · 14-11-2019 7:16pm

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 · 14-11-2019 9:35pm

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 · 14-11-2019 10:41pm

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 · 14-11-2019 11:12pm

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?

DEYlQQPXgAAJ2LS?format=jpg

tomasrojo · 14-11-2019 11:50pm

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 · 14-11-2019 11:58pm

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

Breezer · 15-11-2019 12:30am

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

CramCycle · 15-11-2019 12:33am

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 · 15-11-2019 12:54am

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 · 15-11-2019 12:57am

Stark wrote: »

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

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

Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Comments