no blasted lights.

[Leodis]

Imagine everyone peds included having to dress up like a HiViz clown just so to get the attention of a driver who mentally has nodded off watching the rear lights of the car in front!!

What a world.

 

[Linford]

What a stupid thing to say. If that were true, no one would ever be convicted of hitting an unlit pedestrian.

Pedestrians are not obliged by existing laws to wear lights...whereas cyclists and other road users are.

Only an idiot would attempt to argue otherwise..

 

[ianrauk]

Imagine everyone peds included having to dress up like a HiViz clown just so to get the attention of a driver who mentally has nodded off watching the rear lights of the car in front!!

What a world.

It's happening already.
Schools in my borough have walking to school trains. All the teachers, walkers and kids are wearing hi-viz vests and jackets.

 

[Linford]

No I am not, it is now too late for that the argument was conceded long since. I think it was a mistake to concede it as it was the start of creeping transfer of responsibility from the road users who are dangerous to other to their potential victims.

I'm waiting for TMN to like this post and contradict herself

 

[Linford]

It's happening already.
Schools in my borough have walking to school trains. All the teachers, walkers and kids are wearing hi-viz vests and jackets.

That is because of the elf and safety with schools taking 'reasonable care' when outside school gates.

 

[Dan B]

Fail to meet the limit Target on your driving test, and you will also fail your test.

Driving at a speed which you can stop within the distance you can see to be safe is also applicable, but I think you would find a conviction for hitting an unlit cyclist a hard one to make stick.

It was a few years ago now, but I can remember several occasions during my driving test when I was moving at less than the legal limit and I nevertheless passed.

Had I hit an unlit cyclist at any point during the proceedings I think would probably have been a fail.

 

[Koga]

Show me the light, I am lost and it is day time !

 

[Linford]

Where exactly have I argued that? Are you saying that, because of this, no pedestrians or cyclists showing lights ever get hit by cars?

I'll thank you to not try and put words in my mouth. A cyclist using lights is a magnatude more visible day or night...especially as a lot of cars on the roads now have DRLs which tend to draw the eye a lot more than a vehicle not using them.

Cyclists are not pedestrians, pedestrians are not cyclists. If you want to claim the rights of a pedestrian, then get of and walk !

 

[Mugshot]

My figure was based on safety equipment introduced and the affect on cycling numbers, does it matter if it is helmet or hiviz? Just asking like.

It matters if you meant one thing but tried using a percentage from another, 83% of the time they are not transferable.

 

[MontyVeda]

I don't think anyone is arguing that no-one should make an effort to make themselves visible... the concern lies with transferring responsibility from the 'hitters' to the 'hittees'.

Driver hits something at night... but it's not the drivers fault because who/whatever they hit wasn't illuminated or reflective enough.

where Adrain said "an insurer has already tried to get a pedestrian's damages reduced because they were not wearing hi-viz." ... would you (@Linford) say the insurer is right in this case? If the answer is 'yes'... then the next case may well be "the pedestrian wasn't wearing enough hi-viz, and it's still partially their fault they were hit."

Like i say... we're not arguing against taking responsibility for ones own visibility... it's about shifting the blame from those with ultimate responsibility, that being the 'hitter'.

 

[Linford]

It was a few years ago now, but I can remember several occasions during my driving test when I was moving at less than the legal limit and I nevertheless passed.

Had I hit an unlit cyclist at any point during the proceedings I think would probably have been a fail.

I have a driving instructor sat 20 ft from me as I type this. I've had this conversation with him before.If you show lack of confidence or control, they will fail you. Being able to drive at a given speed when conditions permit is a demonstration of that on a test.

 

[Leodis]

It was a few years ago now, but I can remember several occasions during my driving test when I was moving at less than the legal limit and I nevertheless passed.

Had I hit an unlit cyclist at any point during the proceedings I think would probably have been a fail.

I doubt it with the attitude of most driving instructors.

 

[Mugshot]

I don't think anyone is arguing that no-one should make an effort to make themselves visible... the concern lies with transferring responsibility from the 'hitters' to the 'hittees'.

Driver hits something at night... but it's not the drivers fault because who/whatever they hit wasn't illuminated or reflective enough.

where Adrain said "an insurer has already tried to get a pedestrian's damages reduced because they were not wearing hi-viz." ... would you (@Linford) say the insurer is right in this case? If the answer is 'yes'... then the next case may well be "the pedestrian wasn't wearing enough hi-viz, and it's still partially their fault they were hit."

Like i say... we're not arguing against taking responsibility for ones own visibility... it's about shifting the blame from those with ultimate responsibility, that being the 'hitter'.

The problem is that whenever a thread like this is started we don't have a

I don't think anyone is arguing that no-one should make an effort to make themselves visible

followed by a debate on the transferance of blame, you will have something like this

you obviously saw them quite clearly.

followed by an it's everybody elses fault thread.

 

[Dan B]

Being able to drive at a given speed when conditions permit

My bold. If you can't stop from "a given speed" in time to avoid hitting an unlit cyclist (or an unlit pedestrian or an unlit sheep or an unlit tree) I would venture to suggest that conditions at the time did not, in fact, permit

 

[Linford]

I don't think anyone is arguing that no-one should make an effort to make themselves visible... the concern lies with transferring responsibility from the 'hitters' to the 'hittees'.

Driver hits something at night... but it's not the drivers fault because who/whatever they hit wasn't illuminated or reflective enough.

where Adrain said "an insurer has already tried to get a pedestrian's damages reduced because they were not wearing hi-viz." ... would you (@Linford) say the insurer is right in this case? If the answer is 'yes'... then the next case may well be "the pedestrian wasn't wearing enough hi-viz, and it's still partially their fault they were hit."

Like i say... we're not arguing against taking responsibility for ones own visibility... it's about shifting the blame from those with ultimate responsibility, that being the 'hitter'.

I would certainly not argue for a reduction in compensation because of High Viz for peds, but I do feel that we all have a responsibility to keep ourselves from harm. The notion of compensation is a sideshow when the loss of life as a consequence is so final.