Likes Likes:  62
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
ELITE ELITE:  0
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 38

Thread: Reflective vests and infrared touchless faucets

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,290
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve O View Post
    I cannot possibly disagree with this more. If the person walking or biking is in an expected and legal place, like a sidewalk, bike lane or crosswalk, then it is absolutely the driver's fault if they run that person over. A driver MUST be cognizant of the possibility of a vulnerable person being where they might be. If there is not enough time for the driver to react, then they are going too fast.
    Yes and no. It's legal to be in the street, but it's also required by law to have a reflector and/or lights.

  2. #12
    baiskeli's Avatar
    baiskeli is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,565
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve O View Post
    I cannot possibly disagree with this more. If the person walking or biking is in an expected and legal place, like a sidewalk, bike lane or crosswalk, then it is absolutely the driver's fault if they run that person over. A driver MUST be cognizant of the possibility of a vulnerable person being where they might be. If there is not enough time for the driver to react, then they are going too fast.
    If the person can't be seen, he can't be seen. If you go out in the street on a moonless night in all black, you could be completely invisible to drivers. It is absolutely a driver's responsibility to drive carefully and slowly and look ahead, but it is possible for a driver to not see someone, at all, until it is too late. It is the same principle as a pedestrian walking in "disregard" of traffic, i.e. not giving a driver enough space to slow down to yield.

    If someone drove a car around at night with no lights on, we'd hold it against them too.

    Again, we complain about ninjas....
    Last edited by baiskeli; 09-26-2019 at 12:18 PM.

  3. #13
    baiskeli's Avatar
    baiskeli is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,565
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jrenaut View Post
    There is a huge difference between riding around at night with no lights and being required to wear some special reflective gear to trigger some sensor we're now going to require in cars.
    Okay, but I didn't read your post as making such a distinction. I thought you were saying that a pedestrian or cyclist has no responsibility for being visible at night at all.

  4. #14
    Steve O's Avatar
    Steve O is offline I spend all day thinking about bikes and talking to people on the internet about them.
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pentagon City in Arlington VA
    Posts
    4,876
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by baiskeli View Post
    If the person can't be seen, he can't be seen. If you go out in the street on a moonless night in all black, you could be completely invisible to drivers. It is absolutely a driver's responsibility to drive carefully and slowly and look ahead, but it is possible for a driver to not see someone, at all, until it is too late. It is the same principle as a pedestrian walking in "disregard" of traffic, i.e. not giving a driver enough space to slow down to yield.
    Quote Originally Posted by jrenaut View Post
    Drivers running over cyclists riding legally is a driver problem, not a cyclist problem.
    As mentioned, a bike requires lights and reflector to be legally ridden at night, so your strawman re: bikes is not applicable. If a driver runs over a cyclist who is riding legally because she does "not have time" to see him, she is driving too fast. It is the responsibility of the party with the 3000-pound weapon to make sure she does not kill vulnerable road users.

    Quote Originally Posted by baiskeli View Post
    I thought you were saying that a pedestrian... has no responsibility for being visible at night at all.
    For a pedestrian, though, there is no legal requirement to wear any particular clothing (although clothing of some kind is required I believe). If a person is walking in a place that is legal for them to walk and a driver runs over them, I consider that the driver's fault. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know how it would play out in US courts, but in many European countries, this is true. And how it ought to be.
    Last edited by Steve O; 09-26-2019 at 02:31 PM. Reason: Actually, I do know how it would likely play out in US courts, unfortunately.

  5. Likes dasgeh, jen_stoly liked this post
  6. #15
    dasgeh's Avatar
    dasgeh is offline Queen of Family Biking & All Things Kidical
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,743
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by baiskeli View Post
    If the person can't be seen, he can't be seen. If you go out in the street on a moonless night in all black, you could be completely invisible to drivers. It is absolutely a driver's responsibility to drive carefully and slowly and look ahead, but it is possible for a driver to not see someone, at all, until it is too late.
    Nope. It's the driver's responsibility to have lights on their car, and to drive in a manner in which they can see with said lights.

    Quote Originally Posted by baiskeli View Post
    If someone drove a car around at night with no lights on, we'd hold it against them too.
    Wait, so you know this...

    Also, per ACPD's data analysis, victims in crashes (in Arlington at least) are not disproportionately wearing dark clothes at night.

  7. Likes Steve O liked this post
  8. #16
    baiskeli's Avatar
    baiskeli is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,565
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve O View Post
    As mentioned, a bike requires lights and reflector to be legally ridden at night, so your strawman re: bikes is not applicable.
    Not a strawman, just confusion. I was responding to the idea, real or imagined on my part, that someone believed that bikes should have absolutely no visibility requirements at all. If you agree that lights and reflectors are a good requirement, then we're on the same page.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve O View Post
    If a person is walking in a place that is legal for them to walk and a driver runs over them, I consider that the driver's fault. "

    I would guess that if you went out wearing an all black suit and no lights or reflective gear and you were hit by a car, and the motorist said he/she never even saw you until you were on the windshield, the court would side with the driver. I don't know what the law is though. This, I think, is similar to the principle of "disregard of traffic." If you were to get out in front of a moving car in a way that gives the driver no chance to react to avoid you, either because you are not visible or too close (and perhaps both) the driver can't be faulted (again, that's me talking, not knowing the actual law).


    Last edited by baiskeli; 09-27-2019 at 12:22 PM.

  9. #17
    lordofthemark's Avatar
    lordofthemark is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The forgotten corner of Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    3,318
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I guess in theory if someone walks out in all black, on a white striped crosswalk, a driver should notice that something is obscuring the crosswalk stripes. If not there is an issue with the driver, with the crosswalk, or both.

    Of course there are implicit crosswalks where it is legal to cross, but there is no striping. That presents a problem.

  10. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Arlington
    Posts
    665
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lordofthemark View Post
    Of course there are implicit crosswalks where it is legal to cross, but there is no striping. That presents a problem.
    Still should be the driver's fault. If you can't see in time to react to someone legally crossing a road, painted crosswalk or no, then you're out-driving your headlights.

    That said, there is a difference between where our legal standard ought to be vs. practical advice for vulnerable road users to minimize one's chance of becoming a victim in the current environment. I would bet that every single person who has commented on this thread has worn hi-viz or reflective clothing themselves at times while walking or cycling in the DC area.
    Last edited by scoot; 09-28-2019 at 12:07 PM.

  11. Likes Judd, dasgeh liked this post
  12. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    597
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I wore my PAL Ambassador reflective vest today, marshaling for Notorious ARL. Stopped into Arlington Mill, and darned if that didn't happen to me!
    Last edited by Starduster; 09-28-2019 at 07:42 PM.

  13. Likes Judd, Shep, Steve O, dasgeh liked this post
  14. #20
    baiskeli's Avatar
    baiskeli is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,565
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scoot View Post
    Still should be the driver's fault. If you can't see in time to react to someone legally crossing a road, painted crosswalk or no, then you're out-driving your headlights.
    Don't ever complain about a ninja then.

  15. Likes Sunyata liked this post

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •