Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

BoardsMember · 24-06-2021 5:53pm

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 5:58pm

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

BoardsMember · 24-06-2021 6:06pm

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 6:15pm

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 6:29pm

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 7:58pm

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 8:31pm

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 8:42pm

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 8:54pm

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 9:17pm

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.

standardg60 · 24-06-2021 9:24pm

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

I meant in regard to appealing the decision

BoardsMember · 25-06-2021 9:22am

standardg60 wrote: »

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.

You're right, apologies @Hurrache I went over the top.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

I don't want to go over the top again. So I'll try to be neutral - Really? Is this what you have taken from what I have posted? I presume you are being pedantic or clever or something.

It seems quite simple to me - there is a category of road user that is very vulnerable and can be hard to see. I'm all for measures to address these 2 things. That does not absolve drivers of blame for not seeing people they should or could see. And I just don't see how the relative numbers of deaths in cars, versus scooters or bikes, relates.

magicbastarder · 25-06-2021 9:35am

BoardsMember wrote: »

It seems quite simple to me - there is a category of road user that is very vulnerable and can be hard to see.

yes, but do you not see how this is shifting the burden of responsibility from those creating the danger to those experiencing the danger?
if hi-vis has such an impact (and the jury is most definitely out on whether it does, not even the RSA can point to any research which shows this), why isn't there any push to make cars more visible?
the only study which ever looked at car colour *did* show a link between likelihood of being in a collision, and car colour, in subdued light.

hots · 25-06-2021 9:39am

magicbastarder wrote: »

why isn't there any push to make cars more visible?

They're quite a bit larger and more lit up than kids in dark clothing on unlit scooters tbf. If someone was driving a car with no lights turned on we'd all call them morons for the exact same reason.

magicbastarder · 25-06-2021 9:42am

yes, they also weigh 10-30 times as much as cyclists do and can travel a hell of a lot faster. but no-one has ever once commented to me on the fact that my car is black, but as a cyclist i'd often get comments about how bright my clothing is.
what i'm saying is that if hi-vis so crucial to be visible, why are we only discussing mandating it for the class of road user who only exceptionally rarely causes significant damage?

anyway, PPE is very often last on the list of considerations.

Seth Brundle · 25-06-2021 9:46am

hots wrote: »

They're quite a bit larger and more lit up than kids in dark clothing on unlit scooters tbf. If someone was driving a car with no lights turned on we'd all call them morons for the exact same reason.

...and yet there are thousands of occasions each year where one car hits another, even in daylight.
My own big red car with DRLs was killed last November when another driver performed an illegal turn into me (completely their fault). I could not have been any more obvious to them.

hots · 25-06-2021 9:56am

magicbastarder wrote: »

but no-one has ever once commented to me on the fact that my car is black, but as a cyclist i'd often get comments about how bright my clothing is.[/IMG]

because your car is very large and people have no issue seeing it.

We do mandate measures to make cars visible too, such as using your lights when appropriate.

hots · 25-06-2021 9:59am

Seth Brundle wrote: »

...and yet there are thousands of occasions each year where one car hits another, even in daylight.
My own big red car with DRLs was killed last November when another driver performed an illegal turn into me (completely their fault). I could not have been any more obvious to them.

Oh 100%, cars are obviously more dangerous and driver-error is more often than not the cause for any incident... it doesn't make the suggestion of wearing high-vis a bad one though. You lock up your bike for the same reason, no one should nick it (or drive into you because they haven't noticed you), it's still not a bad idea all the same.

BoardsMember · 25-06-2021 10:03am

magicbastarder wrote: »

yes, but do you not see how this is shifting the burden of responsibility from those creating the danger to those experiencing the danger?
if hi-vis has such an impact (and the jury is most definitely out on whether it does, not even the RSA can point to any research which shows this), why isn't there any push to make cars more visible?
the only study which ever looked at car colour *did* show a link between likelihood of being in a collision, and car colour, in subdued light.

Honestly, I don't but I can see your point how it does, or might be seen to do so. I'm not aware of any visibility issues with cars. I don't often read accident analysis, but I'd be surprised if I read that the car could not be seen or heard.

And I don't buy into the logic that you seem to be using - it feels like WhatAboutery. Am I right in saying this is the argument: scooters are hard to see so I'm suggesting high viz and lights should be mandatory; you're scooters are not the issue, it's cars are causing the deaths; so whatever applies to scooters (hi viz) should apply to cars because they are the problem.

magicbastarder wrote: »

yes, they also weigh 10-30 times as much as cyclists do and can travel a hell of a lot faster. but no-one has ever once commented to me on the fact that my car is black, but as a cyclist i'd often get comments about how bright my clothing is.
what i'm saying is that if hi-vis so crucial to be visible, why are we only discussing mandating it for the class of road user who only exceptionally rarely causes significant damage?

anyway, PPE is very often last on the list of considerations.

Again, is the visibility of cars the cause of accidents? They are many times more visibile (bigger, big bright lights) and noisier than the other more vulnerable modes. It just feeks like WhatAboutery.

If we're looking to make cars less of an issue, or drivers in cars, then there must be more relevant things to do than make them more visible, surely. This assumes that visibility of the car/bus is not a major factor in accidents - which I am assuming and don't know to be the case. For example, speed limits, speed calming, software to identify difficult to see "obstructions" etc.

Feels to me like the issue here is recognising if the solution to help reduce the vulnerability of one class of road user is necessarily applicable or the most appropriate to other classes. I don't think it is. It reads to me like Whataboutery.

magicbastarder · 25-06-2021 10:05am

hots wrote: »

We do mandate measures to make cars visible too, such as using your lights when appropriate.

same for bikes.

Seth Brundle · 25-06-2021 10:06am

hots wrote: »

Oh 100%, cars are obviously more dangerous and driver-error is more often than not the cause for any incident... it doesn't make the suggestion of wearing high-vis a bad one though. You lock up your bike for the same reason, no one should nick it (or drive into you because they haven't noticed you), it's still not a bad idea all the same.

...so why not mandate high-viz for all cars, as well as cyclists, scooterists, pedestrians, horse riders and so on?
Surely high-viz is a good thing if it shows drivers where all the cyclkists and pedestrians are?

Incidentally, why then do I have close passes when I'm out cycling even with a bright rear light and high-viz? Should I wear a number of layers of high-viz to make me even more high-viz? Or is the problem really with some drivers just not looking properly coupled with driving too fast for the conditions and using high-viz as an excuse for **** poor enforcement of driving standards?

hots · 25-06-2021 10:11am

Seth Brundle wrote: »

...so why not mandate high-viz for all cars, as well as cyclists, scooterists, pedestrians, horse riders and so on?
Surely high-viz is a good thing if it shows drivers where all the cyclkists and pedestrians are?

Incidentally, why then do I have close passes when I'm out cycling even with a bright rear light and high-viz? Should I wear a number of layers of high-viz to make me even more high-viz? Or is the problem really with some drivers just not looking properly coupled with driving too fast for the conditions and using high-viz as an excuse for **** poor enforcement of driving standards?

Jesus it's not all a tit-for-tat UsVsThem, you have close passes because some drivers are arsehles or incompetent (both). If adding a high-viz makes you 0.0001% less likely to be hit why wouldn't you wear it?

Hurrache · 25-06-2021 10:14am

hots wrote: »

Jesus it's not all a tit-for-tat UsVsThem, you have close passes because some drivers are arsehles or incompetent (both). If adding a high-viz makes you 0.0001% less likely to be hit why wouldn't you wear it?

For the most part it's an attitude problem, not a visibility one.

hots · 25-06-2021 10:15am

Seth Brundle wrote: »

...so why not mandate high-viz for all cars, as well as cyclists, scooterists, pedestrians, horse riders and so on?

One of these is not like the other (big, visible, nice and safely wrapped in metal)... I wouldn't mandate it but do I think it's a good idea for cyclists/peds/scooters/horse riders/any other vulnerable road user to make themselves more visible when they are surrounded by arsehles driving death machines? Yep.

Seth Brundle · 25-06-2021 10:17am

I'm pointing out that it does not solve the problem. The problem is that some drivers don't look properly. They then crash into other cars. They crash into cyclists. They crash into pedestrians.
However, the default response is that a cyclist should wear high-viz despite no research showing that it effectiveness.
Furthermore, those who believe that high-viz is a great thing do not believe that cars should be covered in it. Kinda hypocritical and furthers the belief that it is simply victim blaming.

hots · 25-06-2021 10:18am

Hurrache wrote: »

For the most part it's an attitude problem, not a visibility one.

No disagreement there, the close passes in this thread are insane. And the attitude in the "speed limits are too low" threads or "I hate speed vans" threads are just the same, the quality of driving in general is scarily poor.

Seth Brundle · 25-06-2021 10:19am

hots wrote: »

One of these is not like the other (big, visible, nice and safely wrapped in metal)... I wouldn't mandate it but do I think it's a good idea for cyclists/peds/scooters/horse riders/any other vulnerable road user to make themselves more visible when they are surrounded by arsehles driving death machines? Yep.

Plenty of car occupants are injured or killed by other drivers.
I don't see you calling for all cars to be dayglo orange though!

Seth Brundle · 25-06-2021 10:21am

hots wrote: »

No disagreement there, the close passes in this thread are insane. And the attitude in the "speed limits are too low" threads or "I hate speed vans" threads are just the same, the quality of driving in general is scarily poor.

The quality of driving is allowed to be scarily poor.
We have poor enforcement.
So many court decisions go in the drivers favour that there is a massive belief (with supporting evidence) out there that if you want to kill someone, you are best doing it in a car!

fat bloke · 25-06-2021 10:24am

hots wrote: »

Jesus it's not all a tit-for-tat UsVsThem, you have close passes because some drivers are arsehles or incompetent (both). If adding a high-viz makes you 0.0001% less likely to be hit why wouldn't you wear it?

Well I wouldn't for that infinitesmally insignificant improvement in my safety.

Can you give an example of any wholescale public policy that you would implement, or indeed a daily change in your own life for a 0.0001 percent safety bump?

magicbastarder · 25-06-2021 10:29am

hots wrote: »

One of these is not like the other (big, visible, nice and safely wrapped in metal)... I wouldn't mandate it but do I think it's a good idea for cyclists/peds/scooters/horse riders/any other vulnerable road user to make themselves more visible when they are surrounded by arsehles driving death machines? Yep.

just to be clear, are you in agreement with the recommendation of the jury that it should be mandatory, or are you saying it's a good idea, but don't necessarily support a legal enforcement?
because you may find you're closer than you think to agreeing with many here if it's the latter.

hots · 25-06-2021 10:30am

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'm pointing out that it does not solve the problem. The problem is that some drivers don't look properly. They then crash into other cars. They crash into cyclists. They crash into pedestrians.
However, the default response is that a cyclist should wear high-viz despite no research showing that it effectiveness.
Furthermore, those who believe that high-viz is a great thing do not believe that cars should be covered in it. Kinda hypocritical and furthers the belief that it is simply victim blaming.

I don't think anyone has suggested some high viz is going to solve world peace, but if it forces a driver (who should be paying better care but we know won't be) to notice someone a bit earlier then winner winner.

magicbastarder · 25-06-2021 10:34am

anyway, just getting back to the report that prompted this latest debate - there's no suggestion of the scooterist cutting out in front of the car, made in the report, which i assume would likely have been mentioned in a defence; if (and i stress that if) this was merely a case of the driver driving into the back of the scooter, the acquittal is bizarre. that motorist should be able to see *any* obstruction in the road in front of them.

christ, if i drove into a black bin someone had left out in the road, on a moderately lit suburban street, i'd be too embarrassed to mention it to anyone.

Seth Brundle · 25-06-2021 10:38am

hots wrote: »

I don't think anyone has suggested some high viz is going to solve world peace, but if it forces a driver (who should be paying better care but we know won't be) to notice someone a bit earlier then winner winner.

So are you in favour of making all cars high-viz to force other drivers to notice them (to use your words)? This would surely reduce crashes and therefore reduce insurance claims so a win for everyone.

Macy0161 · 25-06-2021 10:41am

hots wrote: »

If adding a high-viz makes you 0.0001% less likely to be hit why wouldn't you wear it?

If it makes cars less likely to be in accidents by being plastered in hi viz, why wouldn't we insist? Or make helmets mandatory for everyone in vehicles, just in case, given the prevalence of head injuries in vehicle accidents?

magicbastarder · 25-06-2021 10:48am

hots wrote: »

If adding a high-viz makes you 0.0001% less likely to be hit why wouldn't you wear it?

this is the thing though, people complain about whataboutery (not you i think) but why can't we apply the same logic to cars? why would you choose to drive a dark coloured car when it appears you're more likely to be involved in a crash, should this study be accurate?

Results of the analysis identified a clear statistically significant relationship between vehicle colour and crash risk

https://www.monash.edu/muarc/archive/our-publications/reports/muarc263

cletus · 25-06-2021 10:50am

hots wrote: »

because your car is very large and people have no issue seeing it.

My very large (Avensis estate) car was parked outside my house, and the driver who reversed into it seemed to have issues seeing it

magicbastarder · 25-06-2021 10:59am

i suspect a large part of the reaction of keen cyclists - assuming they've had similar experiences to me when discussing this with non-cyclists - is that on multiple occasions, i have had discussions where it's clear that my interlocutor wants cyclists to wear hi-vis because actually looking for cyclists is not something that comes naturally to them. they want to partly outsource the task of seeing cyclists to the cyclists themselves; i.e. they don't want to have to look for cyclists, they want cyclists to announce their presence.

years ago, i bought some hi-vis leggings in lidl or aldi; they're *hideous*, but i was curious about the notion that as biomechanical motion is apparently much more eyecatching, it's best to wear hi-vis on your legs. on my very first commute to work wearing them, someone nearly drove into me, because she was looking the wrong way.

Paddigol · 25-06-2021 11:31am

BoardsMember wrote: »

And do people think that's what they meant?

We all know what they really meant, but couldn't say, so dressed up in word salad instead... "f**king [scooters] / [cyclists]".

Laws should be based on solid logic, science and research. Not, "well I've spent 5 minutes thinking about something I've no experience in, and it's clear to me that the obvious answer is [X] - that should be the law". That becoming the law suddenly brings a whole load of other, unconsidered, consequences such as contributory negligence and influence on road user's behaviour.

Edit: BTW, it's good to see some reasoned discussion on the subject from both sides of the debate for a change!

07Lapierre · 25-06-2021 11:40am

hots wrote: »

One of these is not like the other (big, visible, nice and safely wrapped in metal)... I wouldn't mandate it but do I think it's a good idea for cyclists/peds/scooters/horse riders/any other vulnerable road user to make themselves more visible when they are surrounded by arsehles driving death machines? Yep.

The Best way for vulnerable road users to make themselves visible to motorists is to place themselves correctly on the road.

Don't cycle "in the gutter" and if more than one cyclist, cycle two abreast.

At night, do the same only use good lights.

Macy0161 · 25-06-2021 11:50am

I've said many times, better than my "Really Bright Stuff" jackets, my Pro Viz 360 Jacket, The various other "hi viz" gear I have, the single most effective garment I have is my "Stayin Alive at 1.5" Gillet with the large camera on the back and the "Recording my journey" text...

Hurrache · 25-06-2021 12:05pm

ProViz stuff is great, and looks good too.

hesker · 25-06-2021 12:59pm

Hurrache wrote: »

ProViz stuff is great, and looks good too.

But don’t you sweat buckets in them. Agree the reflectivity is great but the sweating thing has put me off up to now

Hurrache · 25-06-2021 1:55pm

I don't think so, my wife wears a running one and hasn't complained yet but I can't say first hand.

AndrewJRenko · 25-06-2021 4:21pm

hots wrote: »

If adding a high-viz makes you 0.0001% less likely to be hit why wouldn't you wear it?

You do have hi-viz stripes on your car, right, to make it 0.0001% less likely to be hit by another car if your lights fail or you forget to switch them on or you don't know how to operate your DRLs?

buffalo · 29-06-2021 8:18am

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

I'm trying to square up the above judgement and jury comment with the sad case in Galway of a drunk man who apparently jumped out in front of a car.

Scooter user with lights hit from behind by taxi driver, it's wasn't the driver's fault, the scooter user should have been wearing hi-viz.

Drunk pedestrian jumps onto a taxi driver's bonnet, family receives €250k.

I know they were criminal vs civil cases, but it just seems like a bizarre conflict. Does it mean if the scooter user took a civil case now, they could look forward to some compensation (depending on injuries of course) ?

cletus · 29-06-2021 9:24am

buffalo wrote: »

I'm trying to square up the above judgement and jury comment with the sad case in Galway of a drunk man who apparently jumped out in front of a car.

Scooter user with lights hit from behind by taxi driver, it's wasn't the driver's fault, the scooter user should have been wearing hi-viz.

Drunk pedestrian jumps onto a taxi driver's bonnet, family receives €250k.

I know they were criminal vs civil cases, but it just seems like a bizarre conflict. Does it mean if the scooter user took a civil case now, they could look forward to some compensation (depending on injuries of course) ?

It's possible. The burden of proof is lower in civil cases

Mc Love · 29-06-2021 12:47pm

hesker wrote: »

But don’t you sweat buckets in them. Agree the reflectivity is great but the sweating thing has put me off up to now

Even with the claimed breathability of their garments, I do find you do sweat a lot after a good ride

AndrewJRenko · 29-06-2021 2:39pm

Mc Love wrote: »

I do find you do sweat a lot after a good ride

Me too, but can we stay on the cycling topic please?

Seth Brundle · 29-06-2021 3:04pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Me too, but can we stay on the cycling topic please?

blackwhite · 30-06-2021 9:21am

buffalo wrote: »

I'm trying to square up the above judgement and jury comment with the sad case in Galway of a drunk man who apparently jumped out in front of a car.

Scooter user with lights hit from behind by taxi driver, it's wasn't the driver's fault, the scooter user should have been wearing hi-viz.

Drunk pedestrian jumps onto a taxi driver's bonnet, family receives €250k.

I know they were criminal vs civil cases, but it just seems like a bizarre conflict. Does it mean if the scooter user took a civil case now, they could look forward to some compensation (depending on injuries of course) ?

The €250k in Galway was a settlement offered by the insurance company. It never made it to trial.

There were plenty of comments from counsel and the judge that liability wasn't clear-cut if it had gone to trial

Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Comments