Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

There is a relevant, and disturbing, article in the Fit Magazine section of the Indo today, entitled Wear high-viz gear – it's foolish and selfish not to. It’s an article by Gerry Duffy and it is aimed at runners who run at night.

I’m not opposed to people wearing hi-viz, that is entirely their choice, but I am opposed to the idea that it’s essential. Runners are a little different to cyclists in that it’s much easier to attach decent lights to a bike that to your body, so I can see why runners might favour hi-viz as a possibly more convenient option than powerful lights (not to mention the fact that runners don't necessarily run on the road). However, this article goes way beyond recommending hi-viz, it bypasses all rationality and basically pins responsibility for the safety of other road users on the runner who “refuses” (the article’s wording) to wear hi-viz. Here is where the article describes people “refusing” to wear hi-viz while on a stretch of *footpath* which the article describes as being “perhaps a third of a mile” long:

Not only is it foolish, it is selfish. It has no regard for the consequences that might occur, were any kind of a freak occurrence to happen, which happens somewhere every single day.

It has no regard for other road users or the people who might be in my car, the car behind me or anybody else in the vicinity. I have been driving for nearly 30 years and have seen or been made aware of hundreds of unexpected occurrences on our roads. An unexpected manoeuvre, a driver taking unwell, poor road conditions, to name but three. All can impact a driver's behaviour.
We have a duty of care not to be a hazard – if not to help ourselves – then surely to those around us. By slipping on a reflective vest or jacket you are as bright as an illuminated Christmas tree. Surely it's not too much to ask.

So there you go, if you don’t wear hi-viz then you are responsible should a driver “taking unwell” or carrying out “an unexpected manoeuvre” plough you down, or should their passengers be hurt, while you are running (or walking, presumably) on a footpath, according to the author. Presumably a hi-viz vest will casually bat away any car that comes hurtling towards you in such circumstances, whereas without such a vest you are somehow defenceless. It would be easy to dismiss this nonsense article on the basis that the author has inadvertently nudged his hysteria meter up to 11. I’d like to think that he’ll re-read his own article in a calmer frame of mind and wonder how he screwed up his own logic so badly, but sadly I think it’s really yet another demonstration of the hysterical mindset that has taken hold in society generally.

That mindset sees dangers everywhere and sees hi-viz as some kind of miraculous protection against those dangers. Nothing new there, unfortunately. What is more sinister in this particular case though is that the author doesn’t hesitate to blame those who “refuse” to wear hi-viz, in fact he clearly states they are responsible not just for themselves but also for the safety of passengers in cars in addition to the safety of the drivers. It seems like the barrier to blaming the victim (and in the circumstances the author describes, someone running/walking on a footpath truly is a victim here, hi-viz endowed or not) is being lowered further all the time.

The "selfish" bit is very James Cracknell as well.

"The excuse of "but I only use the footpaths" doesn't hold for three reasons. Almost certainly, at some point, you will leave the footpath, however briefly. Second, it is setting a bad example to children"

What sets a bad example to children is writing illogical bullsht in national newspapers.

Re: "The truly jaw-dropping moment in this case comes at the end, when the judge allegedly states that the jury “will be directed to ignore Highway Code [rules 93 and 237, advising drivers to] slow down or stop if dazzled [because the] Highway Code is not law” and that the defendant’s failure to adhere to such rules “could be used as evidence of without due care and attention, or could be ignored“.

I assume the judge is correct in terms of the law.

What does seem odd is the choice of language, which needs some parsing to grasp exactly what the judge is saying (at least to me). He seems to intend to say something like

The Highway code is not the law. It is only guidance - you can only make your decision on the basis of the law.

You may decide the fact that the defendent did not slow down or stop when dazzled [this does not appear to be in dispute based on my reading of the report - NMG] is evidence of failure to drive with due care and attention or you may decide it is not. It is your choice.

Whereas the actual words could be misunderstood to mean "not slowing down or stopping when dazzled is not against the law" leading to "you don't have to stop or slow down when dazzled" etc etc

I wonder did any of the jury ask the judge to clarify what he/she meant?

On 11th November last, at 11.30am, I was knocked from my bike by a driver, who drove from a minor road onto a major road. The Gardai and ambulance were called. I was completely in the right. It was a bright and sunny morning.
Two Gardai arrived at the scene. I was lying on the ground, the first question, I was asked, was "why weren't you wearing Hi-Viz.?. My long suffering wife arrived, while I was still on the ground. I told her, I wasn't in imminent danger. I asked her to get the car driver's name. She went to speak to him. She told me afterwards, that the first thing, he said to her was "he wasn't wearing a hi-viz jacket. The ambulance arrived. As I was being loaded onto it, one of the medics said to me "you should have worn HiViz.
The above is all perfectly true.
Funny thing is, I'm 6 foot one, and I was on a bright red bike.
The driver, later admitted, that he hadn't seen me.
I drove the route with my wife the following day, at the same time. At the place, where the accident happened, the sun would have been low in the sky, directly in the driver's eyes.
I have no doubt, he was dazzled by the Sun, but carried on anyway.

Back to the OP - would be more in governments line to remove VAT from Helmets and other safety equipment, they were all guns blazing 2 years ago with the RSA for motorcyclists to wear hi-vis whatnots and were met with huge resistance.

I personally do wear hi-viz but also use my lights during the day - DRL for bikes makes more sense imo

CramCycle wrote: »

I understood it as the judge saying, it's not the law to slow down when dazzled no matter what the prosecutors claim. When in fact he should have instructed them to decide whether not slowing down in the undisputed situation constituted a criminal act under whatever guise the prosecution are pressing

That's the problem with people (as in the legal profession) who have excellent command of a language that looks and sounds like spoken english but is deceptively different.

I agree with you the judge should have been crystal clear in more plain language as to what he intend to convey. In day to day parlance "ignore" tends to mean "disregard it cos it's crap", whereas his/her honour was probably trying to say "decide whether not stopping was dangerous etc." - No wonder legal costs are so high.

I once worked in the aircraft industry and many of the maintenance manuals were re-written in a simplified version of english to allow non-native speakers understand it better (english is the working language of that industry). It usually took us native speakers a few attempts to understand what it meant! Maybe the legal profession are so inured (ok ok "used to") the need for precision in their language that they find it hard to effectively communicate with regular jo(e)s.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Wearing hi-viz makes you invisible.

If you want to gain access to places you shouldn't be apparently all you need to do is wear hi-viz and carry a toolbox , chances are no one will even look at you.

Seriously we've all walked past workmen in hi-viz and not even noticed them.

wearing a suit used to do that where i used to work (pre hi viz mania) we had several laptops stolen guys just walked past the security guard - you were supposed to have a security pass - guess hi viz would do it now.

actually i've caught myself a couple of times not seeing pedestrians in hi viz its like my brain blanks it out, always see the ones with lights on though.

goslie wrote:

Sometimes I think it is the people that don't wear safety gear in general are the ones with fewer responsibilities to others, e.g. family.

Wrong. And offensively condescending to boot.

Surely silver high-viz reflective material is more effective on unlit country roads than on city streets?

I commute over 30kms per day on unlit country roads and I can see high-viz strips at driveways etc from a long way off, before the beam of my own lights hits them.