Make pedestrians wear reflective clothing, says 'Mr Loophole' lawyer who defended killer driver

El Tel wrote:

I'd be surprised if most people commenting here haven't at some point, struggled to see someone in the road, on such nights, particularly if they are wearing dark clothes.

I don't know about you but on "dark winter nights" (are they darker than summer nights?) or when visibility is in any way affected, I adjust my speed accordingly.

El Tel wrote:

In Scandinavia, where they know dark evenings/nights better than most, most people wear or carry something reflective in order to make themselves more visible. This can be something like a simple armband, or even a tag carried on a handbag strap.

I wear reflective things at night on the bike. Because, to some extent, I'll clutch at what straws I can - despite the fact that research shows that particular straw to be futile, and, more importantly in this discussion, despite it not making the slightest difference to the fact that people should be driving such that they can safely stop within the distance they can see to be clear and such that they can account for "unpredictable" (really, "unpredicted") events.

And there's the rub: just because a particular measure seems, to an individual, to be a wise move does not mean it should be law. Lots of women carry rape alarms, but that does not mean it should be law for a woman to carry one. I stopped going out in large towns because I was fed up with aggressive blokes looking drunkenly for fights, but that does not mean a Saturday night curfew of town centres should be law.

There may be arguments why personal protection should be law in certain cases - seat belts and motorcycle helmets perhaps the most pertinent examples - but people's individual perceptions and straw-clutching are not such arguments. Were there conclusive evidence to show a reduction of collisions when hi-viz is used, that might - if we set aside for now the bigger issues of victim-blaming and the unsustainable arms race of personal armour - start to shift the argument. But the only credible research I've seen shows that there is no such reduction, day or night.

El Tel wrote:

I'm not excusing drivers or anyone else with these comments, but to expect perfect vision, and behaviour from road users in poor light/conditions just doesn't make sense.

There's a difference between realistically expecting it, and legally demanding it. We legally demand people drive safely. We don't reasonably expect everyone to do so, but we demand it. To make hi-viz law would, particularly in the face of the research, undermine our demand for safe driving, by saying that people can't be expected not to drive into something that isn't illuminated. And that would be A Bad Thing.

JeevesBath wrote:

If the pedestrian/cyclist is wearing hi-viz, would this make any 'accident' in future be a case of murder - as the motorist would obviously have seen them in advance but hit them anyway....

I'm sure thats exactly what happens every time a cyclist wearing hi-viz gets run down by someone who followed them for a loooooong time before deciding, "Just do it". I mean, the newspapers are just full of drivers who've killed someone being arrested and charged with murder and being banned for life and sent to prison for that.

Hi-viz seems to be used as a stick to hit cyclists ("He wasn't wearing hi-viz, so its at least partly his fault") and yet it seems never to be used conversely ("He was wearing hi-viz, so you must have seen him and we'll double your sentence").

Bez wrote:

There may be arguments why personal protection should be law in certain cases - seat belts and motorcycle helmets perhaps the most pertinent examples

You generally talk good sense Bez, but you should be aware that seatbelts cost the lives of cyclists and pedestrians.

Members of PACTS ( Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Traffic Safety) in an article in the statistical journal "Significance" have admitted this.

"A significant omission because the authors, all defenders of the seat belt law, acknowledge an effect of the law of important consequence to vulnerable road users. They say “the clear reduction in death and injury to car occupants is appreciably offset by extra deaths among pedestrians and cyclists.”"

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2013/03/24/the-biggest-lie/

Adams has a lot more to say on the effect of seat belts.

felixcat wrote:

You generally talk good sense Bez, but you should be aware that seatbelts cost the lives of cyclists and pedestrians.

Yes, indeed - sorry, what I meant was this: There are demonstrable and significant benefits to the first party in the cases of seatbelts and motorcycle helmets on both an individual and a population level - unlike hi-viz, where neither are demonstrable. That's what I was alluding to when I said "there may be arguments" in favour of legislation in such cases. It's not to say that there aren't arguments against.

But well spotted, fellow pedant

Bez wrote:

There are demonstrable and significant benefits to the first party in the cases of seatbelts and motorcycle helmets on both an individual and a population level - unlike hi-viz, where neither are demonstrable.

But well spotted, fellow pedant

You should have a good look at Adams website. He argues that there are not demonstrable benefits to the seat belt wearer. His correspondence with the head of the PACTS , Rob Gifford is worth reading. To my mind he shows that the PACTS claims on lives saved is not proved.

He also publishes the text of the Isles Report into seat belt efficacy.
When the seat belt law was passing through Parliament Isles was asked by the DoT to look at the results of seat belt compulsion in those countries which already had laws. He came to the conclusion that no benefit could be shown,
This was just before the vote on our law took place, but our legislators were not allowed to see this piece of evidence. The report was suppressed and only came to light when it was leaked to the "New Scientist" some years later.

I may well be a pedant but I don't think that my post was evidence of this.

I do not think you would want to argue for a law which costs the lives of cyclists, in any case.

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2007/01/04/seat-belt-legislation-and-the-isl...

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/09/23/open-letter-to-executive-director...

It may be common sense to wear hiviz, but rule 126 of the Highway Code is also common sense. It says

"Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. "

This does not mean, carry on unless you see something in the way, but, unless you can see there is nothing in the way within your braking distance, slow down.

Why do we see so much blather about hiviz, which is a very weak protection, but so little mention of rule 126? If drivers obeyed this rule hiviz would not be needed.

All this talk about hiviz is meant to make it safer for drivers to break rule 126. There are many reasons why ignoring this rule can lead to a crash. Some of them involve objects rather more unyielding than a cyclist or pedestrian.

Drivers are implicitly encouraged to behave as if any obstacle will be lit up or hiviz. It would be safer for all concerned if they were reminded much more often of rule 126.

How often is this rule mentioned? How often is the vulnerable road user told that it is their responsibility to take the precaution of hiviz, when all cyclists know that covering yourself with lights is not enough to keep you safe?

The assumption is that drivers will break the H.C. and that it is up to us to do what little we can to keep ourselves safe.

El Tel wrote:

I'm surprised at the comments attacking the lawyers statement about pedestrians making themselves more visible at night. I'm not commenting on the case which has brought about this comment, just the issue of being seen.
I completely agree with him, incidentally I'm a car driver, cyclist...and a pedestrian. Dark winter nights, plainly cause problems with visibility, and I'd be surprised if most people commenting here haven't at some point, struggled to see someone in the road, on such nights, particularly if they are wearing dark clothes.
In Scandinavia, where they know dark evenings/nights better than most, most people wear or carry something reflective in order to make themselves more visible. This can be something like a simple armband, or even a tag carried on a handbag strap.
It's simple good common sense.
I'm not excusing drivers or anyone else with these comments, but to expect perfect vision, and behaviour from road users in poor light/conditions just doesn't make sense.

Actually we expect drivers to follow the Highway Code - ensure that you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear. Not 'hope is clear', not 'cannot see is not clear'. Just 'can see is clear'. The driver is the done with the deadly weapon, so the driver has the responsibility. All else is just victim blaming shite.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

"Pedestrians, motorists and cyclists all share road space and in my view must assume responsibility for their kinetic energy."

Yep. You nailed it.

"Pedestrians, motorists and cyclists all share road space and in my view must assume responsibility for their kinetic energy."

Highest time to introduce presumed liability. The above definition sums it up neatly. As also Bez explains, the law must be equitable, clear and expedient and especially well balanced to protect individual liberties. Otherwise pedestrians will soon be prosecuted for not wearing high enough viz clothing, cyclists for not carrying lights that beam far enough and the roads will be cleared from all those inconvenient obstacles. No more fatal injuries. Even when speeding whilst texting. Mission accomplished.

Regarding the fatal collision, a waste of human life, a disgrace of decency , a shame of the judicial system. All my sympathy goes to the beraved family and friends of the slain rabbi.