Posted By Sally
I'm not surprised she's been banned in that outfit. There are strict rules on HiVis stripes for a reason. She isn't going to show up very well on a dark morning in that costume.

Perhaps an approach of helping her design a suitable outfit that still had the stripes visible would have been better but we need to be careful that we don't swing too far and shy away from making any reasonable decisions on grounds of health and safety if we think they might be unpopular.

Posted By Jonathan Breeze
I think this is the clincher:

A council spokesman said: "If a crossing patrol supervisor does not wear a reflective jacket they are not insured and if hit, the motorist could not be prosecuted."

At least the council have explained exactly why.

I do agree with the suggestion of a compromise solution though.

Anyone for a bright orange santa suit with Hi-vis trim to EN 471?

Posted By Paul Duell
To add a bit of perspective - this is in my home town and the crossing this lady patrols isn't far from me. That's a horrible, badly lit crossing and the traffic speeds through - personally I wouldn't want to try to stop traffic there even WITH full hi-viz etc, never mind dressed as a golden dalek, or whatever that costume is meant to be.

As someone has already said, this is the other side of the bonkers conkers issue - where a decision is unpopular, but right, we've got to be prepared to stand by it. Parents may be criticising the decision now, but I wonder what they'd say if one of their little darlings was hurt while the lady wasn't in her correct uniform?

Posted By Ron Hunter
And having looked at the picture, if she were to fall over (and she's wearing a fairly good windsail there), she'd have to wait for someone to pick her up!

Posted By Phil Grace
Sharon,
Several people have commented that the Council seemd not to know what's what quoting insurance and not referring to issues such as what must be worn by those that seek to stop the traffic.

But Jonathon quoted the Council as saying that the lady was not insured if she didn't wear the HiVis clothing.

What a load of twaddle..!! Of course she is insured! How many employees successfully claim compensation when they have failed to wear PPE..?? Compensation may be reduced due to a successful argument of contributory negilgience. But the employer is still liable - espceially if they knew of the wearing of non-standard clothing/lack of PPE and agreed to it or turned a blind eye.

As other people have indicated this was a GOOD decision that we should support and use to knock back the "elf & safety taliban" pundits.
Phil

Posted By Robert K Lewis
And who will compensate the motorist who hits her as she frolics around unseen until the last minute on a cold winter morning? University rags and such similar stunts have a place but not among the traffic. Personally I think that the council are right for the wrong reasons. Let us not be diplomatic she had to be stopped as she was a menace to road users.

Bob

Posted By Dave Wilson
What if it was your child which was hit and injured or even killed as a result of this!

Nuff Said!!!

This not conkers bonkers and I would fully support the council on this!

Posted By mike morland
Paul

Well done. You should be commended for your thoughtfulness. My comment was meant to be seasonal. Don't get tetchy!