Slightly OT: flourescent vests

In message <[email hidden]>

DavidR said:

In the travel section of the Telegraph last Saturday they had a piece
about a new requirement in Austria to keep a fluorescent waistcoat in
the car. I think Spain has something similar.

"They must wear it in the event of a breakdown, when stopping in country
lanes, when a warning triangle is used or when visibility is poor. On
motorways and dual carriageways, they must wear it whenever leaving the
car, except in allocated parking places."

Failure to carry is a E14 fine and failure to use, a E28 fine.

That "stopping on country lanes" bit looks very ominous for walkers or
cyclists. More excuses for poor driving?

I think this is a good idea. (fx. ducks).

I think the real purpose is for use at night. e.g. the driver might
be changing a wheel, etc, and could be in the middle of the road with his
attention soley on his car.
Walkers should be at the side, or crossing the road. Cyclists
should have lights.

The Hi-vis jacket takes the place of lights on the driver who otherwise
might not be seen. It would be especially good on unlit motorways,
when other drivers do not expect peds.

Martin.

--
Typed by monkey #27662472869676 on typewriter #7552416572242
When emailing me, please include the word Banana in the subject line.

Martin Dann <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I think the real purpose is for use at night. e.g. the driver might
be changing a wheel, etc, and could be in the middle of the road with
his attention soley on his car.

Exactly as I saw this morning, somebody changing a wheel on a dual
carriageway with the car half off the road and him in the just the right
position on the road for somebody to think they can squeeze past him and
still remain in lane but possibly end up hitting him anyway (as many of
us are familiar with whilst cycling).

To be fair though, it did look like he'd stopped to help out a rather
dithery looking woman so she may have been the one who parked the car in
that position. But you'd think that rather than cowering behind the
second car so that *she* was perfectly safe, she would stand further out
where she could be seen and make sure passing vehicles gave her "knight
in shining armour" (well, shirt and tie) a wider berth.

I've got a hi-viz waistcoat in the back of my car all the time (a Lidl
purchase from a few years back I think). I've never yet had to use it
though (touch wood).

Graeme

"DavidR" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In the travel section of the Telegraph last Saturday they had a piece
about a new requirement in Austria to keep a fluorescent waistcoat in
the car. I think Spain has something similar.

I'm not sure it's that new a requirement. Everytime The Unfit Family has
driven through Europe, we've always had the reflective/fluorescent
waistcoats in the boot. In France it's a requirement that if you wear
spectacles when driving, you keep a spare pair in the car. This is an
eminently sensible requirement - one I've adhered to over here - as I have
kept the spare pair in the car ever since.

Quoted message said:

"They must wear it in the event of a breakdown, when stopping in country
lanes, when a warning triangle is used or when visibility is poor. On
motorways and dual carriageways, they must wear it whenever leaving the
car, except in allocated parking places."

Failure to carry is a E14 fine and failure to use, a E28 fine.

That "stopping on country lanes" bit looks very ominous for walkers or
cyclists. More excuses for poor driving?

Don't think so - I see it as extremely useful in the event of breakdown.
Certainly in my experience of cycling/driving in mainland Europe, the
drivers are generally a lot more courteous to cyclists than over here.

Cheers, helen s

On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:16:17 +0100, Martin Dann
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I think this is a good idea. (fx. ducks).

I think a better idea would be for people to drive within the distance
they can see to be clear. The more people expect everything at or
near the roadside to be lit up like a Christmas tree, the worse it
gets for anyone who is not.

Quoted message said:

I think the real purpose is for use at night. e.g. the driver might
be changing a wheel, etc, and could be in the middle of the road with his
attention soley on his car.

See below...

Quoted message said:

Walkers should be at the side, or crossing the road. Cyclists
should have lights.

And trees? Animals?

Quoted message said:

The Hi-vis jacket takes the place of lights on the driver who otherwise
might not be seen. It would be especially good on unlit motorways,
when other drivers do not expect peds.

And I know someone whose son was killed while changing a wheel. On
the hard shoulder of the M3 in broad daylight. It all reminds me of
the recovery vehicle operators' request to be allowed to use flashing
red lights on their vehicles because flashing orange lights and
all-over diamond grade are not visible enough.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

DavidR said:

That "stopping on country lanes" bit looks very ominous for walkers or
cyclists. More excuses for poor driving?

Why? How does a stationary car hurt a walker?

Sounds like making things more visible if you ask me - and considering
people stop on country lanes now, that seems a good idea.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
It all reminds me of

Quoted message said:

the recovery vehicle operators' request to be allowed to use flashing
red lights on their vehicles because flashing orange lights and
all-over diamond grade are not visible enough.

I was once assisting in giving first aid at a fatal motorway crash.
The scene was surrounded with three stopped police cars and a doctor's
car, all with flashing red lights. The police were allowing one car at
a time to filter past. Some dozy [censored] nearly hit me (me in a fluro
yellow top and carrying a girt big reflective bag of equipment) because
she was staring glassy-eyed at the knot of people trying to rescitate
someone. (At that point the police stopped people filtering past :-)

R.

dwb said:

DavidR said:

That "stopping on country lanes" bit looks very ominous for walkers

or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cyclists. More excuses for poor driving?

Why? How does a stationary car hurt a walker?

it is the creeping expectation that anyone on a country road and not
waering hi-viz is verging on contributory negligence if they are hit by
a vehicle. It also has the potential to deskill drivers by raising
their expectation of all obstacles being highlighted

best wishes
james

dwb said:

DavidR said:

That "stopping on country lanes" bit looks very ominous for walkers or
cyclists. More excuses for poor driving?

Why? How does a stationary car hurt a walker?

Sounds like making things more visible if you ask me - and considering
people stop on country lanes now, that seems a good idea.

The point being that it is reasonable to expect people to drive in a manner
where they do not cause danger to others. Ie being able to stop in good time
if there is an obstruction or other hazard in the road.

So if a car stopped on a country lane is deemed to need fluorescent gear,
how long before walkers etc must also have hi-vis clothing to allow the
clueless to speed.

Take this a few steps further. Soon any dairy herd must have fluorescent
bibs for road travel, and as for sheep.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility. After all, a govenrment
department that requires licensing for horse manure heaps and will not allow
gardeners to take said manure[1] is likely to do other crazy things.

...d

[1] Yes, seriously. They have categorized horse manure as hazardous waste.
To store it on site (ie for fermenting as compost) requires a license if you
have a heap bigger than 5 tons.[2] To remove the heap requires a licesned
waste disposal operator. So you cannot now legally go to your local stables
and pick up a barrow full of manure.

[2] That is about 6 months output for a single horse.

David Martin said:

[1] Yes, seriously. They have categorized horse manure as hazardous waste.

Well it is, if it gets into water courses.

Quoted message said:

To store it on site (ie for fermenting as compost) requires a license if you
have a heap bigger than 5 tons.[2] To remove the heap requires a licesned
waste disposal operator. So you cannot now legally go to your local stables
and pick up a barrow full of manure.

[2] That is about 6 months output for a single horse.

It's also a bloody big barrow. I'd expect an HVG license too :-)

James

wafflycat came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

"DavidR" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In the travel section of the Telegraph last Saturday they had a piece
about a new requirement in Austria to keep a fluorescent waistcoat in
the car. I think Spain has something similar.

I'm not sure it's that new a requirement. Everytime The Unfit Family has
driven through Europe, we've always had the reflective/fluorescent
waistcoats in the boot. In France it's a requirement that if you wear
spectacles when driving, you keep a spare pair in the car. This is an
eminently sensible requirement - one I've adhered to over here - as I have
kept the spare pair in the car ever since.

Same here, and with contacts I also keep a spare set .. 😉

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!
For Sale on Ebay
5771988658

DavidR came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

In the travel section of the Telegraph last Saturday they had a piece
about a new requirement in Austria to keep a fluorescent waistcoat in
the car. I think Spain has something similar.

Not such a bad idea, and something I do as a matter of course anyway, along
with towrope, strop, shovel, blanket, shackles and loads of other stuff.

Quoted message said:

"They must wear it in the event of a breakdown,

Understandable and probably a good idea.

Quoted message said:

when stopping in country lanes,

That bit probably needs a bit more clarification ...

Quoted message said:

when a warning triangle is used

Isn't that already covered as it's a requirement to use a warning triangle
in the event of breakdown.

Quoted message said:

or when visibility is poor. On
motorways and dual carriageways, they must wear it whenever leaving the
car, except in allocated parking places."

hmmm, again, clarification is probably needed ..

Quoted message said:

Failure to carry is a E14 fine and failure to use, a E28 fine.

No problem.

Quoted message said:

That "stopping on country lanes" bit looks very ominous for walkers or
cyclists.

Why?

Quoted message said:

More excuses for poor driving?

Why?

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!
For Sale on Ebay
5771988658

James Annan said:

David Martin said:

[1] Yes, seriously. They have categorized horse manure as hazardous waste.

Well it is, if it gets into water courses.

Obviously. But why add a restrictive bureaucratic layer on top when simple
farm inspections and licensing would do fine. And why would a collected dung
heap be any more of a hazard than the same amount of waste spread around a
field (which doesn't need licensing).

There are many other natural products that would be hazardous for the
environment if stored and managed inappropriately.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To store it on site (ie for fermenting as compost) requires a license if you
have a heap bigger than 5 tons.[2] To remove the heap requires a licesned
waste disposal operator. So you cannot now legally go to your local stables
and pick up a barrow full of manure.

[2] That is about 6 months output for a single horse.

It's also a bloody big barrow. I'd expect an HVG license too :-)

a 5 ton dung heap is actually remarkably small. I would estimate teh size of
my suppliers heap as about 15-20 tons. It is a several of years old[1] and
is the result of 2-3 horses.

[1] About perfect for gardens. The consistency of a damp bread pudding and
virtually no excess straw. It isn't so much shovelled as cut in slices like
peat.

in message <[email hidden]>, Just zis Guy,

you know? (') said:

On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:16:17 +0100, Martin Dann
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I think this is a good idea. (fx. ducks).

I think a better idea would be for people to drive within the distance
they can see to be clear. The more people expect everything at or
near the roadside to be lit up like a Christmas tree, the worse it
gets for anyone who is not.

Hear, hear. The visibility arms race is one we can't win. A light for a
light leaves everybody blind.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Age equals angst multiplied by the speed of fright squared.
;; the Worlock

David Martin said:

James Annan said:

David Martin said:

[1] Yes, seriously. They have categorized horse manure as hazardous waste.

Well it is, if it gets into water courses.

Obviously. But why add a restrictive bureaucratic layer on top when simple
farm inspections and licensing would do fine.

On what grounds do you think that licensing is justified, other than the
fact that the manure poses an environmental hazard?

Quoted message said:

And why would a collected dung
heap be any more of a hazard than the same amount of waste spread around a
field (which doesn't need licensing).

Because it is (liable to be) concentrated enough to cause real damage if
the run-off is not properly dealt with. Which, frankly, seems so obvious
that I wonder on what grounds you think you might have a basis for
informed comment.

Quoted message said:

There are many other natural products that would be hazardous for the
environment if stored and managed inappropriately.

And many of them are also regulated (and probably many more would be
regulated, if they actually were liable to be stored and managed
inappropriately).

I don't know much about horses in particular, but cow manure (um...make
that cows, pig and chicken manure) is _definitely_ something that needs
to be properly dealt with. Whether the current regulations are entirely
appropriate is a matter of debate, but the general concept is certainly
sound enough, and labelling it as "crazy" seems more than a little clueless.

James

you know? said:

On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:16:17 +0100, Martin Dann
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I think this is a good idea. (fx. ducks).

I think a better idea would be for people to drive within the distance
they can see to be clear. The more people expect everything at or
near the roadside to be lit up like a Christmas tree, the worse it
gets for anyone who is not.

That's true, but also at night "see to be clear" is not always clear,
in that perception is distorted by the unusual lighting given by
headlights. Things can seem closer of further away or larger or smaller,
because many of the visual clues we use in daylight don't work. Also,
the way shadows fall can distort perceptions.

I'm not suggesting that that's an excuse for people to run into things at
night, clearly more care is needed driving at night. Taking the
"see to be clear" argument to an extreme, thouygh, should we all drive at
10mph at night just in case there's a stealth cyclist dressed in matt black
with no lights on a black bike ahead of us? Or should we expect that
other road users, including pedestrians, take some reasonable level
of precaution for themselves? We require vehicles on the road to
be lit to certain standards at night, is it so unreasonable to expect
pedestrian road users (as distinct from pavement users and road crossers)
to do the same?

--
Trevor Barton

James Annan said:

David Martin said:

James Annan said:

David Martin wrote:

> [1] Yes, seriously. They have categorized horse manure as hazardous waste.

Well it is, if it gets into water courses.

Obviously. But why add a restrictive bureaucratic layer on top when simple
farm inspections and licensing would do fine.

On what grounds do you think that licensing is justified, other than the
fact that the manure poses an environmental hazard?

Miswrote that.. I meant inspections in lieu of licensing

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And why would a collected dung
heap be any more of a hazard than the same amount of waste spread around a
field (which doesn't need licensing).

Because it is (liable to be) concentrated enough to cause real damage if
the run-off is not properly dealt with. Which, frankly, seems so obvious
that I wonder on what grounds you think you might have a basis for
informed comment.

It is the scale at which legislation is being targetted. Any single horse
would fall into the legislative net, and I am not convinced that such a
small heap is a problem that needs special licensing. Obviously large heaps
do have significant runoff issues. It isn't the general concept but the way
it is applied.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are many other natural products that would be hazardous for the
environment if stored and managed inappropriately.

And many of them are also regulated (and probably many more would be
regulated, if they actually were liable to be stored and managed
inappropriately).

Part of the problem is scale. That seems to have evaded those who draw up
the legislation.

Quoted message said:

I don't know much about horses in particular, but cow manure (um...make
that cows, pig and chicken manure) is _definitely_ something that needs
to be properly dealt with. Whether the current regulations are entirely
appropriate is a matter of debate, but the general concept is certainly
sound enough, and labelling it as "crazy" seems more than a little clueless.

Crazy refers to the scale, not the overall idea to protect the environment.
At what point does a heap become a hazard? For how long would it be regarded
as a hazard? That all depends on how fresh it is and how much there is. A
five ton heap of fresh manure requires different treatment to a five ton
heap of essentially aged and well rotted manure.

Likewise, removal of a small load of composted manure shouldn't require a
license, but transport of large quantities should. It is the scale of the
legislation that is the issue.

Imagine having to license every car to show that the toxic waste produced is
appropriately dealt with and disposed of. An interesting issue for car fleet
owners if legislation does not explicitly exclude transport..

...d

Quoted message said:

James

On 5/5/05 10:20 am, in article [email hidden],

Trevor Barton said:

you know? said:

On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:16:17 +0100, Martin Dann
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I think this is a good idea. (fx. ducks).

I think a better idea would be for people to drive within the distance
they can see to be clear. The more people expect everything at or
near the roadside to be lit up like a Christmas tree, the worse it
gets for anyone who is not.

That's true, but also at night "see to be clear" is not always clear,
in that perception is distorted by the unusual lighting given by
headlights. Things can seem closer of further away or larger or smaller,
because many of the visual clues we use in daylight don't work. Also,
the way shadows fall can distort perceptions.

Then slow down. 'not see to be occupied' is nto the same as 'see to be not
occupied'.

Quoted message said:

I'm not suggesting that that's an excuse for people to run into things at
night, clearly more care is needed driving at night. Taking the
"see to be clear" argument to an extreme, thouygh, should we all drive at
10mph at night just in case there's a stealth cyclist dressed in matt black
with no lights on a black bike ahead of us?

They are quite easy to spot as roads are not black, nor are the verges. So a
black cyclist on a black bike does actually stand out. They are not
invisible. No more than a deer, or a fallen tree.

Quoted message said:

Or should we expect that
other road users, including pedestrians, take some reasonable level
of precaution for themselves?

We already do. They are expected to not just walk out without looking.

Quoted message said:

We require vehicles on the road to
be lit to certain standards at night, is it so unreasonable to expect
pedestrian road users (as distinct from pavement users and road crossers)
to do the same?

The prime safety reason cars have lights is so you can see them coming. and
not endanger yourself by stepping in front of them.
Lights have been used to allow cars to go faster. It is always the
responsibility of a road user to be able to stop in good time, given current
visibility. If a pedestrian can do that, why should they also have to do
observation for the other road users?

If you can see where you are going and can stop in good time then you do not
need lights. If you cannot stop in good time then you need lights so that
otheres do not inadvertently endanger themselves by moving across your
course. Lights can also be used to illuminate the road but that is a
secondary use (in safety terms) and as a safety benefit is consumed by
increased speed.

...d

David Martin said:

Crazy refers to the scale, not the overall idea to protect the environment.

Your original post simply said:

"After all, a govenrment department that requires licensing for horse
manure heaps and will not allow gardeners to take said manure[1] is
likely to do other crazy things."

Quoted message said:

Imagine having to license every car to show that the toxic waste produced is
appropriately dealt with and disposed of. An interesting issue for car fleet
owners if legislation does not explicitly exclude transport..

Um...isn't that pretty much what the MOT (in particular, emissions
testing) does?

James

James Annan said:

David Martin said:

Crazy refers to the scale, not the overall idea to protect the environment.

Your original post simply said:

"After all, a govenrment department that requires licensing for horse
manure heaps and will not allow gardeners to take said manure[1] is
likely to do other crazy things."

My apologies for being misleading and not expounding in more detail.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Imagine having to license every car to show that the toxic waste produced is
appropriately dealt with and disposed of. An interesting issue for car fleet
owners if legislation does not explicitly exclude transport..

Um...isn't that pretty much what the MOT (in particular, emissions
testing) does?

No. That just shows there is a limit to the amount of waste produced by any
one car.

...d