Individual choices? See - It’s all the same nonsense isn’t it? Employers shouldn’t demand employees are vaccinated, nightclubs shouldn’t demand vaccine passports, people shouldn’t be forced to wear masks on trains.
Radio show on Hi-Vis.
Re: Radio show on Hi-Vis.
Individual choices? See - It’s all the same nonsense isn’t it? Employers shouldn’t demand employees are vaccinated, nightclubs shouldn’t demand vaccine passports, people shouldn’t be forced to wear masks on trains.
Re: Radio show on Hi-Vis.
Topic has been pruned. Please avoid insults, ad hominem attacks, and the helmet debate.
The bits about helmets have been moved to viewtopic.php?f=41&t=147162
The bits about helmets have been moved to viewtopic.php?f=41&t=147162
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Re: Radio show on Hi-Vis.
Labrat seem to be confused between interventions primarily for the benefit of an individual, and interventions which primarily benefit others in society. If you don't get those matters straight, you're arguing that oranges don't taste like apples.
HiViz, Helmets, etc.. fall into the first group. As does taking a Neurofen for a headache.
Vaccination is in the second group, has some benefits for individual, but its primarily about benefitting others in society.
Re: Radio show on Hi-Vis.
I may agree broadly - or not, as the case may be - with Labrat’s points but I suggest any argument which depends on describing those with different views as “loons”, “nutters” or “brigade” to make a point is essentially rather weak and unlikely to win friends or influence people.
John
Re: Radio show on Hi-Vis.
I’m more than happy to regard people who vehemently oppose mask-wearing or vaccination in the face of Covid (as with those who opposed MMR vaccination, and no doubt in the past with smallpox vaccination & BCG) as unscientific cranks, loons and nuttersOldjohnw wrote: ↑6 Aug 2021, 2:06pm I may agree broadly - or not, as the case may be - with Labrat’s points but I suggest any argument which depends on describing those with different views as “loons”, “nutters” or “brigade” to make a point is essentially rather weak and unlikely to win friends or influence people.
I’m just as happy to publicly denounce those who refuse to wear seatbelts in cars or motorbike helmets as cranks, loons and nutters as well - despite those being introduced for individual rather than community benefit.
Re: Radio show on Hi-Vis.
Quite charming. But entirely your privilege.Labrat wrote: ↑6 Aug 2021, 3:21pmI’m more than happy to regard people who vehemently oppose mask-wearing or vaccination in the face of Covid (as with those who opposed MMR vaccination, and no doubt in the past with smallpox vaccination & BCG) as unscientific cranks, loons and nuttersOldjohnw wrote: ↑6 Aug 2021, 2:06pm I may agree broadly - or not, as the case may be - with Labrat’s points but I suggest any argument which depends on describing those with different views as “loons”, “nutters” or “brigade” to make a point is essentially rather weak and unlikely to win friends or influence people.
I’m just as happy to publicly denounce those who refuse to wear seatbelts in cars or motorbike helmets as cranks, loons and nutters as well - despite those being introduced for individual rather than community benefit.
Some are, as I hope you might recognise, nervous, uncertain, ill-informed and sadly but seriously mislead.
John
Re: Radio show on Hi-Vis.
Given the above it would only be logically consistent for labrat to think pedestrians not decked out in high vis and protective gear to be loons.
Somehow though I get the impression that isn't the case...
Somehow though I get the impression that isn't the case...
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Re: Radio show on Hi-Vis.
I’d certainly thoroughly recommend pedestrians walking in the road wearing in poor visibility or at dawn/dusk/wearing high visibility clothing. In fact I reckon anyone deliberately choosing not to wear it whilst walking in the road, when they had the choice available, or choosing to walk in the road rather than on a pavement, would be an idiot.
Just as I would also say anyone not wearing a seatbelt in their car or driving their car with the lights off at night would also be an idiot.
Re: Radio show on Hi-Vis.
So that's everyone then? After all, almost every walking trip has to go into the road at some point.
And of course there are the ~40 pedestrians killed every year by motor vehicles on the pavement...
Can't say I've ever seen a pedestrian wearing high vis & protective equipment that wasn't already wearing it for another reason.
And of course there are the ~40 pedestrians killed every year by motor vehicles on the pavement...
Can't say I've ever seen a pedestrian wearing high vis & protective equipment that wasn't already wearing it for another reason.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Re: Radio show on Hi-Vis.
We sometimes put on high visbility bandoliers when walking on roads at night. And I wear a head torch.
Jonathan
Jonathan
Re: Radio show on Hi-Vis.
I live in the country and early morning dog walkers often can be seen wearing hi-vis tabards. Their dogs, too
John
- kylecycler
- Posts: 1386
- Joined: 12 Aug 2013, 4:09pm
- Location: Kyle, Ayrshire
Re: Radio show on Hi-Vis.
It took me two goes... but I was puzzled about how the wakers wore the dogs.kylecycler wrote: ↑6 Aug 2021, 8:16pmHow do the dogs... Oh right, their owners put them on... for... them...
: - )
Jonathan
Re: Radio show on Hi-Vis.
I'd recommend it too. But the issue is that hi-vis,and lights, were introduced to provide extra visibility. But what happens in reality is that the victims become idiots for not using it, and the standards expected of them go up. Meantime, it's quite natural that drivers don't see pedestrians (or cyclists) who aren't using it. So expectations of drivers go down. It doesn't seem to provide extra visibility; rather, it lowers the standards of observation required.
If it's providing extra visibility, then you'd expect drivers who hit pedestrians using it to incur extra fines, because of the extra culpability. That, roughly, is why the CTC opposed compulsory rear lights for cyclists around the end of WWII. And they were right - now, if a cyclist without a rear light is hit, the fault lies mostly with the cyclist, so the rear lights are not, as was claimed, providing extra visibility. But you should still use a rear light, obviously.
-
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Radio show on Hi-Vis.
I wonder what the forthcoming Highway Code says about this.