Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Wishbone Ash

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

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

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

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

Hurrache

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

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

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

The J Stands for Jay

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

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

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

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

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

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

BoardsMember

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hots wrote: »

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

same for bikes.