Hey, if we are going to rely on memory, why put any reflective material on at all?
If we are going to put reflective tape on, perhaps there is a reason to do so, and if so, perhaps the most visible of colors should be used. That would be optic green, not red.
But hey, let's just rely on memory, and the knowledge that "scanner=gate".

I've never hit a gate, and I've never come close to hitting a gate. But I have noticed that certain gates at certain times of day are hard to see.

That would have been an ideal suggestion for you to bring to the PWAC meeting this past Monday. Maybe next month.

No thanks. While it is obvious that Optic Green would be an improvement on the current red and white reflective material, the gates are, as far as I can surmise, in compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

While I may be willing to waste some of my time engaging in a conversation about the shortcomings of the current situation, and I am willing to express my disagreement with the attitude of "if you have trouble seeing the gates you should stop driving", I am definitely not willing to spend a lot of time trying to convince the bureaucracy to change something that they should already know they've screwed up, but will be unwilling to admit.

On my list of battles I'd be willing to pick, this one would be pretty far down the page.

The OP asked if others have trouble seeing the gates. It was a simple question and I gave a simple answer. No cataracts, no excuses, no bla bla bla. The gates are simply not as visible to me in daylight hours, as at night. Don’t understand why this answer would upset someone.

I don't know. Maybe someone feels that a driver who can't see a gate that they KNOW is there won't be able to see their 4 year old grandchild who pops out unexpectedly? Or is that too simple and blah, blah, blah???????

Comparing a 4 year old child and a village gate - seriously? This thread has got too weird and argumentative - signing off.

You raise a fair point. And I think most of us would agree that if you are responsible for the well being of a 4 year old, they shouldn't be running around unsupervised anywhere near where they might be struck by a car.
Also, were I responsible for a 4 year old, or a dog, or my own person, walking along the roadway in a low-light or setting sun situation, I would be using some sort of Optic-Green high visibility reflective garment to make myself, my dog, or my grandie as visible as possible.
We see this all of the time along the roads and MMPs among bicyclists, and runners, and walkers. Sometimes in the gloaming we come across someone NOT wearing this type of high visibility garment and they suddenly pop out of the mottled shade/sun lighting along the road or MMP and we think "what an idiot. They're going to get hit and blame the driver".
That seems simple to me.

And, before someone suggests it to me, I don't want to go to a meeting of any sort and try to convince lawmakers that all of this should be mandatory. It's just common sense. I'll take care of myself, and keep my eyes peeled for those who wish to tempt the fates.

YES, SERIOUSLY. What part of the analogy comparing a small child and a small gate arm as far as visibility and knowledge of their presence goes is "weird and argumentative"?. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

If the small child was strapped to the gate arm it would be much easier to see.

And hit?????

If there were no gate arms, the golf carts would have a hard time getting through or get hit.

Making the gates more visible won't hurt anyone and may help others. No big deal.

And pedestrians would have to have epic track and field skills!:1rotfl:

Or be exceptional at playing "Frogger"...

I want transparent gate arms. Take them all down to accomplish that. Get rid of the landscaping blocking the view of cross traffic. Save lots of money.