Hi viz doesn’t work if a driver isn’t looking & they don’t look

[ivykaty44]

twitter.com/anthonytilghman/status/1489814943859986438?s=21

Wide street, visibility good as from a distance the driver would see the hi viz, the child approaching

Yet none of this worked and the driver failed to stop in time

It’s drivers needing to pay attention as hiviz is just a stick to beat victims with if there not wearing it Aibu

You could argue that the crossing person is also at fault. They allowed a child to cross whilst a car was driving toward them.

Yeah I'm not sure where this was in the US, but where I live the crossing guard won't let the kids enter the crosswalk until all the cars have stopped, and would have stopped the kid from doing so if they tried. The car was speeding, too, I think. The speed limit in school zones is 20 MPH.

@ivykaty44

AlDanvers not seeing anything to back up what you’ve said?

I still stand by if a driver isn’t looking no amount of high viz clothing is going to prevent a driver crashing.

As for all road users need to pay attention, the two horse riders were paying attention as was the traffic lady, but the drivers poising the most danger weren’t, surely those posing the most danger need to be paying attention the most.

He might have also survived if he had worn a helmet. He might not have, do you think that means helmets are pointless?

He might have survived if he was wearing a helmet, helmets are tested to 15mph and the driver was traveling at 20mph so how have you got to the conclusion he may have survived wearing a helmet?

It’s not a case of helmets being pointless, but they are limited in their protection

Your point isnt coherent.

In those examples, the car driver wasn't paying attention. That doesn't mean all car drivers are not paying attention and hi vis doesn't work.

Also not sure what you point is about the helmets. Helmets are tested up to 15 mile an hour, doesn't mean they don't provide some protection in crashes about that. I say he may have survived because his wife asked, the medical professionals, and was told it was possible.

Once I was driving and a bike came out of an alley straight and into the road, i didnt hit him. He fell off because he panicked when he realised he went straught into the path of car and fell off. I emergency braked. Does that mean all bike users ride are like that and there's no point cyclists or road users taking other precautions? Because some cyclists dont pay attention even for their own sake? So let's scrap it all?

Some road users don't pay attention. Some drink and are a danger. Nowhere near all. That doesn't mean and safety equipment is pointless. It's still have saved lives. It's just not saving all lives. But does that make it pointless?

@ivykaty44

If a driver is not looking there's not much anyone can do.

Whilst you accept this statement above and tell me I’m bizarre and that my argument isn’t rational

Why not stop them driving, retrain these drivers not paying attention or driving without looking and preventing them from operating dangerous machines until they do look?

This already happens.

"where are the measures to tell drivers to actually look? Where, when is on the onus on the driver to pay attention"

In the new Highway code? That has legal penalties implied for inattentive drivers. You know, the one that has a lot of drivers up in arms on Twitter & on platforms on MN, because they might have to give way at junctions -- reports of riders high-fiving & riding 3 abreast to prevent in overtaking a mere 9 hours after the new Code came in. Presumably there are entitled horse riders & pedestrians all over the roads, too.

I drove in the dark this morning. Those on the road who where well lit and in hi vis where an awful lot more visible than those who weren’t. Really strange I know!

Now I didn’t run any of them over but being able to see them earlier obviously makes things safer all around!

Cars have headlights for seeing stuff in the dark

But does that make it pointless?

I didn’t say helmets were pointless, I wrote what’s written below 👇

It’s not a case of helmets being pointless, but they are limited in their protection

I have an anecdote, I known someone who did survive a crash with the car doing 50mph and the cyclist traveling over the car and 55ft along the road, they sustained head injuries- including brain haemorrhage, but they weren’t wearing a helmet. So the medics that told your friend they could have survived I don’t doubt are correct but maybe nothing to do with wearing a helmet

Sirzy

So you saw them all regardless of what they were wearing and you were paying attention whilst driving

This already happens

There are 8800 people driving that have more than 12 points on a licence, you’re not supposed to drive with more than 12

I really don’t bet what point your trying to make here. Do you really think people shouldn’t take some personal responsibility?

Should I turn my lights off when driving because obviously being visible doesn’t matter

@ivykaty44

But does that make it pointless?

I didn’t say helmets were pointless, I wrote what’s written below 👇

It’s not a case of helmets being pointless, but they are limited in their protection

I have an anecdote, I known someone who did survive a crash with the car doing 50mph and the cyclist traveling over the car and 55ft along the road, they sustained head injuries- including brain haemorrhage, but they weren’t wearing a helmet. So the medics that told your friend they could have survived I don’t doubt are correct but maybe nothing to do with wearing a helmet

Ffs I wasn't referring to just helmets in that quote. Read the paragraph. I was talking about all safety equipment.

Motorcyclist here. You could be wearing hi viz, fluorescent helmet and have your headlights on. People still won't see you if they aren't paying attention/looking. And often when they are paying attention, they'll pull out in front of you, whilst looking directly at you, sometimes raising a hand in acknowledgment of your existence as you're trying to figure out how to take evasive action.

Drivers do need to pay attention but I believe that pedestrians and cyclists need to wear hi vis - or more accurately, something reflective at night and a bright colour in low light. It's also good if other pedestrians can see you on a dark pavement, it's not just about drivers.

Sirzy, everyone should take personal responsibility but as you're travelling in the the more dangerous vehicle, which has some very handy bright head lights on it, I'd say most of the responsibility is on you

@ivykaty44

This already happens

There are 8800 people driving that have more than 12 points on a licence, you’re not supposed to drive with more than 12

Which is a serious problem that successive governments apparently feel no compulsion to fix.

@Sirzy

I drove in the dark this morning. Those on the road who where well lit and in hi vis where an awful lot more visible than those who weren’t. Really strange I know!

Now I didn’t run any of them over but being able to see them earlier obviously makes things safer all around!

Exactly.

@ivykaty44

This already happens

There are 8800 people driving that have more than 12 points on a licence, you’re not supposed to drive with more than 12

Do you mean driving illegally or people who kept their license at the courts discretion?

Because if they are driving illegally, they have been punished and will be further if they are caught. But if they aren't caught, what would you expect to happen?

If its at the courts discretion, then they are allowed to drive. That doesn't mean there's no punsihment in place for people who drive poorly.

No one is disputing people have a responsibility to drive carefully. Some don't. Some people don't act responsibly. They are processes in place to deal with that.

But to pretend everyone else shouldn't try and make themselves as safe as possible le because a small portion of drivers are dickheads, doesn't make sense.

I'm not sure what point you are making. This "I still stand by if a driver isn’t looking no amount of high viz clothing is going to prevent a driver crashing. " is a statement of the bleeding obvious. If a driver isn't looking at the road of course they won't see someone in it, regardless of what they are wearing. I'm not sure anyone is disagreeing with that. It doesn't make hi viz pointless. It's very useful for those times when someone is looking but because of the conditions it is hard to see other road users in dull colours. I live somewhere where many local roads don't have payments. Driving home yesterday we passed two sets of walkers at twilight in green/brown/black outfits. We saw them but quite late as they were camouflaged against the hedges. When I run and cycle around those roads I wear hi viz clothing as I don't want someone seeing me too late. It's not a difficult concept. Of course if someone is not looking at the road they won't see me regardless of outfit.

If its at the courts discretion, then they are allowed to drive. That doesn't mean there's no punsihment in place for people who drive poorly.

So what is their punishment if they get to keep their licence and then reoffend, which sadly happens countless times - why is society allowing drivers with 12 chances already more chances without stopping them from driving?

I would have thought given 4 chances or 2 chances would be enough to take away a licence and get them to re take a test and have intensive training if they want to drive again

eurochick That those operating the car need to have more onus on them to be careful, retested, banned if they don’t take care and not allowed to keep driving and less focus on people already taking care on the rds and telling them how avoid being killed

@ivykaty44

If its at the courts discretion, then they are allowed to drive. That doesn't mean there's no punsihment in place for people who drive poorly.

So what is their punishment if they get to keep their licence and then reoffend, which sadly happens countless times - why is society allowing drivers with 12 chances already more chances without stopping them from driving?

I would have thought given 4 chances or 2 chances would be enough to take away a licence and get them to re take a test and have intensive training if they want to drive again

I agree. I think that's one of the things that needs changing.

However, that's a relatively small amount of drivers. My point was that they are allowed to drive.

It still doesn't make hi vis wear pointless.

There's an argument for hi viz and reflective material in poorly lit areas.
However most of the time it's drivers not looking, speeding, looking at phones.
Our lollipop lady was nearly hit last week and she is top to toe orange and yellow with a massive sign. Driver had broken a red light and swung around her.

However, that's a relatively small amount of drivers. My point was that they are allowed to drive.

you didn't answer the question though? what training do they get to retain their licence with over 12 points on their licence? what punishment do they get whilst still being able to drive?

whilst the emphasis is on hi viz rather than taking bad drivers off the roads, the problems will not diminish

a distracted driver on the phone gets 6 points, they aren't banned or retrained - they can commit the same offence a week later and still retain their licence

and those small amount of bad drivers, are left to continue driving - doesn't make sense to me

whilst the emphasis is on hi viz rather than taking bad drivers off the roads, the problems will not diminish

OP you're like a dog with a bone. Everyone is pointing out that it isn't an either/or situation. Why not just ask "AIBU to want bad drivers off the road?". We'd all agree with you, I don't like that exceptions to driving bans can be abused either. Your current suggestion that High-vis and reflective wear are useless is really bloody irritating. Are you really incapable of understanding the difference between reducing risk and preventing risk?

@ivykaty44

However, that's a relatively small amount of drivers. My point was that they are allowed to drive.

you didn't answer the question though? what training do they get to retain their licence with over 12 points on their licence? what punishment do they get whilst still being able to drive?

whilst the emphasis is on hi viz rather than taking bad drivers off the roads, the problems will not diminish

a distracted driver on the phone gets 6 points, they aren't banned or retrained - they can commit the same offence a week later and still retain their licence

and those small amount of bad drivers, are left to continue driving - doesn't make sense to me

If you have your license taken off you, you do have to do your test again.

Why are you concentrating on a small amount of drivers who haven't had their license removed?

The emphasis is not on wearing hi vis. The emphasis is on car drivers. There's also just some focus on wearing hi vis.

I think you need to look up what getting caught using your phone at the wheel, actually means. You can lose your license immediately, depending on how long you have been passed.

A small amount of people retain their license. Again, how does this impact wether hi vis is helpful or not?