Old News

[Julian Bosley]

http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/Cyclist-died-in-39tragic-accident39.4252841.jp

Wacth out when you are cycling in to the sun...it's now OK to run you
over!....Perhaps I am being provocative, but reading this made me angry. I
am struggling to see how being blinded by low sun whilst driving makes it
"OK" to kill someone. Surely one should slow down or even stop? There must
be far more to the decision not prosecute than this, surely?

[judith]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 00:35:27 +0100, "Julian Bosley"
> wrote:

>http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/Cyclist-died-in-39tragic-accident39.4252841.jp
>
>Wacth out when you are cycling in to the sun...it's now OK to run you
>over!....Perhaps I am being provocative, but reading this made me angry. I
>am struggling to see how being blinded by low sun whilst driving makes it
>"OK" to kill someone. Surely one should slow down or even stop? There must
>be far more to the decision not prosecute than this, surely?
>
>

I can't see where it actually said it was "OK" to kill someone or
where "it's now OK to run you over"

I did see the bit where it said "It was acknowledged, however, that Mr
Peachey had been wearing dark clothing" - I wonder if a hivis would
have made him more visible? Perhaps this was seen as a contributory
factor - otherwise why would if have been mentioned?

HC 59:
Clothing. You should wear
...........
light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to
see you in daylight and poor light



--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[Squashme]

On 3 Aug, 12:56, judith > wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 00:35:27 +0100, "Julian Bosley"
>
> > wrote:
> >http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/Cyclist-died-in-39tragic-accident...
>
> >Wacth out when you are cycling in to the sun...it's now OK to run you
> >over!....Perhaps I am being provocative, but reading this made me angry. I
> >am struggling to see how being blinded by low sun whilst driving makes it
> >"OK" to kill someone. Surely one should slow down or even stop? There must
> >be far more to the decision not prosecute than this, surely?
>
> I can't see where it actually said it was "OK" to kill someone or
> where "it's now OK to run you over"
>
> I did see the bit where it said "It was acknowledged, however, that Mr
> Peachey had been wearing dark clothing" - I wonder if a hivis would
> have made him more visible? Perhaps this was seen as a contributory
> factor - otherwise why would if have been mentioned?
>
> HC 59:
> Clothing. You should wear
> ..........
> light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to
> see you in daylight and poor light
>

HC 237:

Hot weather. Keep your vehicle well ventilated to avoid drowsiness. Be
aware that the road surface may become soft or if it rains after a dry
spell it may become slippery. These conditions could affect your
steering and braking. If you are dazzled by bright sunlight, slow down
and if necessary, stop.

If you are dazzled by bright sunlight, slow down and if necessary,
stop.

HC 211

It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially
when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, at
roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through traffic. Always look
out for them before you emerge from a junction; they could be
approaching faster than you think. When turning right across a line of
slow-moving or stationary traffic, look out for cyclists or
motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing. Be
especially careful when turning, and when changing direction or lane.
Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots carefully.

It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists


HC 93

Slow down, and if necessary stop, if you are dazzled by bright
sunlight.


HC 125

The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe
to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Driving at speeds
too fast for the road and traffic conditions is dangerous. You should
always reduce your speed when

* the road layout or condition presents hazards, such as bends
* sharing the road with pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders,
particularly children, and motorcyclists
* weather conditions make it safer to do so
* driving at night as it is more difficult to see other road users

The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe
to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions.

[Zog The Undeniable]

Julian Bosley wrote:
> http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/Cyclist-died-in-39tragic-accident39.4252841.jp
>
> Wacth out when you are cycling in to the sun...it's now OK to run you
> over!....Perhaps I am being provocative, but reading this made me angry. I
> am struggling to see how being blinded by low sun whilst driving makes it
> "OK" to kill someone. Surely one should slow down or even stop? There must
> be far more to the decision not prosecute than this, surely?
>
>
>
It's something of which I am painfully aware. I try to take the PRP if
I hear something approaching behind, in the hope they can see my
silhouette. A flashing LED might also be visible, and I'll use one if
fitted.

The onus is, however, clearly on the driver not to drive too fast for
his/her stopping distance.

[burtthebike]

"Squashme" > wrote in message
...
> On 3 Aug, 12:56, judith > wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 00:35:27 +0100, "Julian Bosley"
>>

Excellent post squashme, but it's going to be totally over judith's head.
The HC means exactly what she wants it to mean and nothing else.

[burtthebike]

"Zog The Undeniable" > wrote in message
...
> Julian Bosley wrote:
>> http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/Cyclist-died-in-39tragic-accident39.4252841.jp
>>
>> Wacth out when you are cycling in to the sun...it's now OK to run you
>> over!....Perhaps I am being provocative, but reading this made me angry.
>> I am struggling to see how being blinded by low sun whilst driving makes
>> it "OK" to kill someone. Surely one should slow down or even stop? There
>> must be far more to the decision not prosecute than this, surely?
>>
>>
>>
> It's something of which I am painfully aware. I try to take the PRP if I
> hear something approaching behind, in the hope they can see my silhouette.
> A flashing LED might also be visible, and I'll use one if fitted.
>
> The onus is, however, clearly on the driver not to drive too fast for
> his/her stopping distance.

I once had a driver damn near kill me on a roundabout because he pulled out
when he couldn't see because the sun was in his eyes, but he pulled out
anyway. What was it the Douglas Adams creature the great bugblatter beast
did? If you covered your eyes it would ignore you, because if you couldn't
see it, it couldn't see you.

[naked_draughtsman[_3_]]

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 12:56:43 +0100, judith wrote:

> I did see the bit where it said "It was acknowledged, however, that Mr
> Peachey had been wearing dark clothing" - I wonder if a hivis would
> have made him more visible?

Against a bright background, I would have thought dark clothing would be
better than something fluorescent.

peter

[Danny Colyer]

On 03/08/2008 21:10, naked_draughtsman wrote:
> Against a bright background, I would have thought dark clothing would be
> better than something fluorescent.

I remember reading about 12 years ago of a case where a motorist, in
court for running over a cyclist, claimed that the cyclist was at fault
for wearing a fluorescent yellow top that had blended in with the low
sun that was shining in the motorist's eyes.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

[Martin[_2_]]

naked_draughtsman wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 12:56:43 +0100, judith wrote:
>
>> I did see the bit where it said "It was acknowledged, however, that Mr
>> Peachey had been wearing dark clothing" - I wonder if a hivis would
>> have made him more visible?
>
> Against a bright background, I would have thought dark clothing would be
> better than something fluorescent.

TBH I think if the background is bright enough to dazzle a driver, it
would not matter much what the cyclist was wearing. A cyclists best bet
would probably be to out dazzle the background, and as someone else
pointed out, a bright flashing light would work best.

[Martin[_2_]]

Julian Bosley wrote:
> http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/Cyclist-died-in-39tragic-accident39.4252841.jp
>
> Wacth out when you are cycling in to the sun...it's now OK to run you
> over!....Perhaps I am being provocative, but reading this made me angry. I
> am struggling to see how being blinded by low sun whilst driving makes it
> "OK" to kill someone. Surely one should slow down or even stop? There must
> be far more to the decision not prosecute than this, surely?

Given the injuries that caused his death, it would be interesting to
know how exactly he was attired, the article gives insufficient detail,
and I cannot see anything else on the web about this.

[Chris Malcolm]

Martin > wrote:
> naked_draughtsman wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 12:56:43 +0100, judith wrote:
>>
>>> I did see the bit where it said "It was acknowledged, however, that Mr
>>> Peachey had been wearing dark clothing" - I wonder if a hivis would
>>> have made him more visible?
>>
>> Against a bright background, I would have thought dark clothing would be
>> better than something fluorescent.

> TBH I think if the background is bright enough to dazzle a driver, it
> would not matter much what the cyclist was wearing. A cyclists best bet
> would probably be to out dazzle the background, and as someone else
> pointed out, a bright flashing light would work best.

If the background is bright enough to dazzle then a light bright
enough to out dazzle it would be thoroughly illegal and possibly
rather difficult to acquire and fit to the bicycle.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

[Colin Nelson]

"Martin" > wrote in message ...
> Julian Bosley wrote:
> > http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/Cyclist-died-in-39tragic-accident39.4252841.jp
> >
> > Wacth out when you are cycling in to the sun...it's now OK to run you
> > over!....Perhaps I am being provocative, but reading this made me angry. I
> > am struggling to see how being blinded by low sun whilst driving makes it
> > "OK" to kill someone. Surely one should slow down or even stop? There must
> > be far more to the decision not prosecute than this, surely?
>
> Given the injuries that caused his death, it would be interesting to
> know how exactly he was attired, the article gives insufficient detail,
> and I cannot see anything else on the web about this.

I doubt if any attire (regardless of what it was) could mitigate injuries such as [quote] He died from a broken neck and multiple other injuries.[quote]. Whatever clothing a cyclist (or pedestrian) is wearing when hit by a vehicle (or [quote]when he was in collision with a Volvo Estate [quote] travelling at 50-60mph is unlikely to affect the outcome much.

[judith]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 07:21:30 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> wrote:

>
>"Martin" > wrote in message ...
>> Julian Bosley wrote:
>> > http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/Cyclist-died-in-39tragic-accident39.4252841.jp
>> >
>> > Wacth out when you are cycling in to the sun...it's now OK to run you
>> > over!....Perhaps I am being provocative, but reading this made me angry. I
>> > am struggling to see how being blinded by low sun whilst driving makes it
>> > "OK" to kill someone. Surely one should slow down or even stop? There must
>> > be far more to the decision not prosecute than this, surely?
>>
>> Given the injuries that caused his death, it would be interesting to
>> know how exactly he was attired, the article gives insufficient detail,
>> and I cannot see anything else on the web about this.
>
>I doubt if any attire (regardless of what it was) could mitigate injuries such as [quote] He died from a broken neck and multiple other injuries.[quote]. Whatever clothing a cyclist (or pedestrian) is wearing when hit by a vehicle (or [quote]when he was in collision with a Volvo Estate [quote] travelling at 50-60mph is unlikely to affect the outcome much.

Very frivolous - hardly suitable in the circumstances.

Did anyone say that the clothes would have mitigated the injuries -
No.

I wonder, as PPs have, if wearing clothes eg high visibility rather
than dark colours would have reduced the possibility that he was
actually hit in the first place.


--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[[email protected]]

On 4 Aug, 09:21, judith > wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 07:21:30 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >"Martin" > wrote in ...
> >> Julian Bosley wrote:
> >> >http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/Cyclist-died-in-39tragic-accident...
>
> >> > Wacth out when you are cycling in to the sun...it's now OK to run you
> >> > over!....Perhaps I am being provocative, but reading this made me angry. I
> >> > am struggling to see how being blinded by low sun whilst driving makes it
> >> > "OK" to kill someone. Surely one should slow down or even stop? There must
> >> > be far more to the decision not prosecute than this, surely?
>
> >> Given the injuries that caused his death, it would be interesting to
> >> know how exactly he was attired, the article gives insufficient detail,
> >> and I cannot see anything else on the web about this.
>
> >I doubt if any attire (regardless of what it was) could mitigate injuries such as [quote] He died from a broken neck and multiple other injuries.[quote]. Whatever clothing a cyclist (or pedestrian) is wearing when hit by a vehicle (or [quote]when he was in collision with a Volvo Estate [quote] travelling at 50-60mph is unlikely to affect the outcome much.
>
> Very frivolous - hardly suitable in the circumstances.
>
> Did anyone say that the clothes would have mitigated the injuries -
> No.
>
> I wonder, as PPs have, if wearing clothes eg high visibility rather
> than dark colours would have reduced the possibility that he was
> actually hit in the first place.
>
> --
> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

------
5. naked_draughtsman

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 12:56:43 +0100, judith wrote:
> I did see the bit where it said "It was acknowledged, however, that Mr
> Peachey had been wearing dark clothing" - I wonder if a hivis would
> have made him more visible?

Against a bright background, I would have thought dark clothing would
be
better than something fluorescent.

-------

6. Danny Colyer

I remember reading about 12 years ago of a case where a motorist, in
court for running over a cyclist, claimed that the cyclist was at
fault
for wearing a fluorescent yellow top that had blended in with the low
sun that was shining in the motorist's eyes.

------
Logic and previous answers would appear to have already answered this
question.

Sniper8052

[Roger Thorpe[_4_]]

wrote:

> ------
> Logic and previous answers would appear to have already answered this
> question.

Yes, you can't help but wonder why it was asked can you? Hats will come
up soon I imagine.
Roger Thorpe

[Paul Boyd[_5_]]

Martin said the following on 03/08/2008 22:46:

> TBH I think if the background is bright enough to dazzle a driver, it
> would not matter much what the cyclist was wearing. A cyclists best bet
> would probably be to out dazzle the background, and as someone else
> pointed out, a bright flashing light would work best.

We should try to out-dazzle the sun???????

Although the article appears to criticise the cyclist for not wearing
hi-vis clothing, I didn't see any mention of whether or not the driver
was wearing sunglasses. Surely that, and the fact the despite not being
able to see he didn't slow down, are more than contributory.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[Colin Nelson]

"judith" > wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 07:21:30 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Martin" > wrote in message ...
> >> Julian Bosley wrote:
> >> > http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/Cyclist-died-in-39tragic-accident39.4252841.jp
> >> >
> >> > Wacth out when you are cycling in to the sun...it's now OK to run you
> >> > over!....Perhaps I am being provocative, but reading this made me angry. I
> >> > am struggling to see how being blinded by low sun whilst driving makes it
> >> > "OK" to kill someone. Surely one should slow down or even stop? There must
> >> > be far more to the decision not prosecute than this, surely?
> >>
> >> Given the injuries that caused his death, it would be interesting to
> >> know how exactly he was attired, the article gives insufficient detail,
> >> and I cannot see anything else on the web about this.
> >
> >I doubt if any attire (regardless of what it was) could mitigate injuries such as [quote] He died from a broken neck and multiple other injuries.[quote]. Whatever clothing a cyclist (or pedestrian) is wearing when hit by a vehicle (or [quote]when he was in collision with a Volvo Estate [quote] travelling at 50-60mph is unlikely to affect the outcome much.
>
> Very frivolous - hardly suitable in the circumstances.
>
> Did anyone say that the clothes would have mitigated the injuries -
> No.
>
> I wonder, as PPs have, if wearing clothes eg high visibility rather
> than dark colours would have reduced the possibility that he was
> actually hit in the first place.
>
>
> --
> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

Nothing 'frivolous' in my wording "judith". Do you have any comment on [quote] Surely one should slow down or even stop? [quote],
or on the points regarding dark/light clothing (made previously by posters)? Or perhaps you really do have a 'hidden agenda' in posting
here.

--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

[didds]

On Aug 4, 10:04*am, Roger Thorpe >
wrote:
> wrote:
> > ------
> > Logic and previous answers would appear to have already answered this
> > question.
>
> Yes, you can't help but wonder why it was asked can you? Hats will come
> up soon I imagine.
> Roger Thorpe

I can only summise that such comments are made because the accident
investigators have to list everything and anything remotely pertinent
to the vehicles/pedestrians/whatever.

Witness the accident report noted here a few weeks ago (I think it was
here - I've googled but cannot find the link now. i am sure I didn't
dream it ... ) of the cyclist that was run over from behind by a lorry
whose driver had fallen asleep (or was reading a newspaper or
somesuch). the accidrent report apparently included the fact that the
cycle's tyres were balding. I am unsure how a balding cycle tyre
could have sent the lorry driver to sleep/made him read a newspaper/
whatever he did, but such items are leapt upon by controversy seeking
jourbnos eager to spice up their copy as much as possible.

?????

didds

[judith]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 01:42:08 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On 4 Aug, 09:21, judith > wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 07:21:30 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >"Martin" > wrote in ...
>> >> Julian Bosley wrote:
>> >> >http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/Cyclist-died-in-39tragic-accident...
>>
>> >> > Wacth out when you are cycling in to the sun...it's now OK to run you
>> >> > over!....Perhaps I am being provocative, but reading this made me angry. I
>> >> > am struggling to see how being blinded by low sun whilst driving makes it
>> >> > "OK" to kill someone. Surely one should slow down or even stop? There must
>> >> > be far more to the decision not prosecute than this, surely?
>>
>> >> Given the injuries that caused his death, it would be interesting to
>> >> know how exactly he was attired, the article gives insufficient detail,
>> >> and I cannot see anything else on the web about this.
>>
>> >I doubt if any attire (regardless of what it was) could mitigate injuries such as [quote] He died from a broken neck and multiple other injuries.[quote]. Whatever clothing a cyclist (or pedestrian) is wearing when hit by a vehicle (or [quote]when he was in collision with a Volvo Estate [quote] travelling at 50-60mph is unlikely to affect the outcome much.
>>
>> Very frivolous - hardly suitable in the circumstances.
>>
>> Did anyone say that the clothes would have mitigated the injuries -
>> No.
>>
>> I wonder, as PPs have, if wearing clothes eg high visibility rather
>> than dark colours would have reduced the possibility that he was
>> actually hit in the first place.
>>
>> --
>> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
>> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)
>
>------
>5. naked_draughtsman
>
>On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 12:56:43 +0100, judith wrote:
>> I did see the bit where it said "It was acknowledged, however, that Mr
>> Peachey had been wearing dark clothing" - I wonder if a hivis would
>> have made him more visible?
>
>Against a bright background, I would have thought dark clothing would
>be
>better than something fluorescent.
>
>-------
>
>6. Danny Colyer
>
>I remember reading about 12 years ago of a case where a motorist, in
>court for running over a cyclist, claimed that the cyclist was at
>fault
>for wearing a fluorescent yellow top that had blended in with the low
>sun that was shining in the motorist's eyes.
>
>------
>Logic and previous answers would appear to have already answered this
>question.
>
>Sniper8052


Did you not read the frivolous comment that was made - "I doubt if any
attire (regardless of what it was) could mitigate injuries" - which
no-one had suggested? Any comment on that?

"I remember reading about 12 years ago......" - but I can't back this
up.

It's like someone saying "I remember reading about 5 years ago that
all cyclists were knob-heads...." - it doesn't mean that it was
actually read - or that it was true.
--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[judith]

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:04:44 +0100, Roger Thorpe
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>> ------
>> Logic and previous answers would appear to have already answered this
>> question.
>
>Yes, you can't help but wonder why it was asked can you? Hats will come
>up soon I imagine.
>Roger Thorpe


I was actually commenting on the ****wit comment that
"I doubt if any attire (regardless of what it was) could mitigate
injuries"

No-one had suggested that they would - but there could be debate about
the visibility of the cyclist in dark clothes.

Still if there is any chance of totally exonerating a cyclist and
blaming a motorist we know which way many here will opt for.
--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[judith]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:35:59 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> wrote:

>
>"judith" > wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 07:21:30 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Martin" > wrote in message ...
>> >> Julian Bosley wrote:
>> >> > http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/Cyclist-died-in-39tragic-accident39.4252841.jp
>> >> >
>> >> > Wacth out when you are cycling in to the sun...it's now OK to run you
>> >> > over!....Perhaps I am being provocative, but reading this made me angry. I
>> >> > am struggling to see how being blinded by low sun whilst driving makes it
>> >> > "OK" to kill someone. Surely one should slow down or even stop? There must
>> >> > be far more to the decision not prosecute than this, surely?
>> >>
>> >> Given the injuries that caused his death, it would be interesting to
>> >> know how exactly he was attired, the article gives insufficient detail,
>> >> and I cannot see anything else on the web about this.
>> >
>> >I doubt if any attire (regardless of what it was) could mitigate injuries such as [quote] He died from a broken neck and multiple other injuries.[quote]. Whatever clothing a cyclist (or pedestrian) is wearing when hit by a vehicle (or [quote]when he was in collision with a Volvo Estate [quote] travelling at 50-60mph is unlikely to affect the outcome much.
>>
>> Very frivolous - hardly suitable in the circumstances.
>>
>> Did anyone say that the clothes would have mitigated the injuries -
>> No.
>>
>> I wonder, as PPs have, if wearing clothes eg high visibility rather
>> than dark colours would have reduced the possibility that he was
>> actually hit in the first place.
>>
>>
>> --
>> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
>> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)
>
>Nothing 'frivolous' in my wording "judith". Do you have any comment on [quote] Surely one should slow down or even stop? [quote],
>or on the points regarding dark/light clothing (made previously by posters)? Or perhaps you really do have a 'hidden agenda' in posting
>here.


I accept some of the points made about the clothing - not all.

I am not suggesting that the motorist was not predominantly to blame.
Wearing of high visibility clothing rather than dark clothing may have
made a difference to whether the motorists saw the cyclist in
sufficient time or not - it may have made no difference.

No-one - but no-one was suggesting that once the cyclist was hit then
bright clothing may have made a difference to injuries; but you
thought it might raise a laugh.

If that was not said in a frivolous manner - then it must have been
serious - which shows that your really must be a ****wit.

I have not said that the motorist was not at fault. If he had slowed
down or stopped then he may not have hit the cyclist.
The cyclist was wearing dark clothing. The Highway Code recommends
not doing so.

The fact that many here will always totally blame the motorist if a
cyclist is hit - is the point that I was making; and you have
reiterated it admirably.







--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[[email protected]]

On 4 Aug, 11:44, judith > wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:04:44 +0100, Roger Thorpe
>
> > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >> ------
> >> Logic and previous answers would appear to have already answered this
> >> question.
>
> >Yes, you can't help but wonder why it was asked can you? Hats will come
> >up soon I imagine.
> >Roger Thorpe
>
> I was actually commenting on the ****wit comment that
> "I doubt if any attire (regardless of what it was) could mitigate
> injuries"
>
> No-one had suggested that they would - but there could be debate about
> the visibility of the cyclist in dark clothes.
>
> Still if there is any chance of totally exonerating a cyclist and
> blaming a motorist we know which way many here will opt for.
> --
> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

This represents a circle with a black dot (*) in it similar to a
cyclist in black against a light background.

This represents a circle with a light dot ( ) similar to a cyclist
wearing a light/day-glow top against a white background.

The examples clearly illustrate the visual principles at work here

The argument about wearing dark clothing would only be of any
relevance if the rider were cycling at dusk away from the setting sun
and into shadow.

Sniper8052

[Colin Reed]

"judith" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:35:59 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"judith" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 07:21:30 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"Martin" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >> Julian Bosley wrote:
>>> >> > http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/Cyclist-died-in-39tragic-accident39.4252841.jp
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Wacth out when you are cycling in to the sun...it's now OK to run
>>> >> > you
>>> >> > over!....Perhaps I am being provocative, but reading this made me
>>> >> > angry. I
>>> >> > am struggling to see how being blinded by low sun whilst driving
>>> >> > makes it
>>> >> > "OK" to kill someone. Surely one should slow down or even stop?
>>> >> > There must
>>> >> > be far more to the decision not prosecute than this, surely?
>>> >>
>>> >> Given the injuries that caused his death, it would be interesting to
>>> >> know how exactly he was attired, the article gives insufficient
>>> >> detail,
>>> >> and I cannot see anything else on the web about this.
>>> >
>>> >I doubt if any attire (regardless of what it was) could mitigate
>>> >injuries such as [quote] He died from a broken neck and multiple other
>>> >injuries.[quote]. Whatever clothing a cyclist (or pedestrian) is
>>> >wearing when hit by a vehicle (or [quote]when he was in collision with
>>> >a Volvo Estate [quote] travelling at 50-60mph is unlikely to affect the
>>> >outcome much.
>>>
>>> Very frivolous - hardly suitable in the circumstances.
>>>
>>> Did anyone say that the clothes would have mitigated the injuries -
>>> No.
>>>
>>> I wonder, as PPs have, if wearing clothes eg high visibility rather
>>> than dark colours would have reduced the possibility that he was
>>> actually hit in the first place.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
>>> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)
>>
>>Nothing 'frivolous' in my wording "judith". Do you have any comment on
>>[quote] Surely one should slow down or even stop? [quote],
>>or on the points regarding dark/light clothing (made previously by
>>posters)? Or perhaps you really do have a 'hidden agenda' in posting
>>here.
>
>
> I accept some of the points made about the clothing - not all.
>
> I am not suggesting that the motorist was not predominantly to blame.
> Wearing of high visibility clothing rather than dark clothing may have
> made a difference to whether the motorists saw the cyclist in
> sufficient time or not - it may have made no difference.
>
> No-one - but no-one was suggesting that once the cyclist was hit then
> bright clothing may have made a difference to injuries; but you
> thought it might raise a laugh.

Go back and read the thread - or improve your comprehension skills. Colin
responded to a question about how the cyclist was attired in general.
Nothing was said about hi-vis. The question could equally have been about
whether the cyclist was wearing protective clothing.

>
> If that was not said in a frivolous manner - then it must have been
> serious - which shows that your really must be a ****wit.

You are, once again, being all to ready to dish out childish insults without
comprehending what people have actually written.

>
> I have not said that the motorist was not at fault. If he had slowed
> down or stopped then he may not have hit the cyclist.
> The cyclist was wearing dark clothing. The Highway Code recommends
> not doing so.

If the driver is being dazzled then the cyclist will only appear as a dark
sillouette, no matter what colour clothes they are wearing. I drive a dark
car, but that doesn't seem to have made other drivers drive into me when
it's sunny.

[Colin Nelson]

"Colin Reed" > wrote in message ...
>
> "judith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:35:59 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"judith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 07:21:30 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >"Martin" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>> >> Julian Bosley wrote:
> >>> >> > http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/Cyclist-died-in-39tragic-accident39.4252841.jp
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Wacth out when you are cycling in to the sun...it's now OK to run
> >>> >> > you
> >>> >> > over!....Perhaps I am being provocative, but reading this made me
> >>> >> > angry. I
> >>> >> > am struggling to see how being blinded by low sun whilst driving
> >>> >> > makes it
> >>> >> > "OK" to kill someone. Surely one should slow down or even stop?
> >>> >> > There must
> >>> >> > be far more to the decision not prosecute than this, surely?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Given the injuries that caused his death, it would be interesting to
> >>> >> know how exactly he was attired, the article gives insufficient
> >>> >> detail,
> >>> >> and I cannot see anything else on the web about this.
> >>> >
> >>> >I doubt if any attire (regardless of what it was) could mitigate
> >>> >injuries such as [quote] He died from a broken neck and multiple other
> >>> >injuries.[quote]. Whatever clothing a cyclist (or pedestrian) is
> >>> >wearing when hit by a vehicle (or [quote]when he was in collision with
> >>> >a Volvo Estate [quote] travelling at 50-60mph is unlikely to affect the
> >>> >outcome much.
> >>>
> >>> Very frivolous - hardly suitable in the circumstances.
> >>>
> >>> Did anyone say that the clothes would have mitigated the injuries -
> >>> No.
> >>>
> >>> I wonder, as PPs have, if wearing clothes eg high visibility rather
> >>> than dark colours would have reduced the possibility that he was
> >>> actually hit in the first place.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
> >>> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)
> >>
> >>Nothing 'frivolous' in my wording "judith". Do you have any comment on
> >>[quote] Surely one should slow down or even stop? [quote],
> >>or on the points regarding dark/light clothing (made previously by
> >>posters)? Or perhaps you really do have a 'hidden agenda' in posting
> >>here.
> >
> >
> > I accept some of the points made about the clothing - not all.
> >
> > I am not suggesting that the motorist was not predominantly to blame.
> > Wearing of high visibility clothing rather than dark clothing may have
> > made a difference to whether the motorists saw the cyclist in
> > sufficient time or not - it may have made no difference.
> >
> > No-one - but no-one was suggesting that once the cyclist was hit then
> > bright clothing may have made a difference to injuries; but you
> > thought it might raise a laugh.
>
> Go back and read the thread - or improve your comprehension skills. Colin
> responded to a question about how the cyclist was attired in general.
> Nothing was said about hi-vis. The question could equally have been about
> whether the cyclist was wearing protective clothing.
>
> >
> > If that was not said in a frivolous manner - then it must have been
> > serious - which shows that your really must be a ****wit.
>
> You are, once again, being all to ready to dish out childish insults without
> comprehending what people have actually written.
>
> >
> > I have not said that the motorist was not at fault. If he had slowed
> > down or stopped then he may not have hit the cyclist.
> > The cyclist was wearing dark clothing. The Highway Code recommends
> > not doing so.
>
> If the driver is being dazzled then the cyclist will only appear as a dark
> sillouette, no matter what colour clothes they are wearing. I drive a dark
> car, but that doesn't seem to have made other drivers drive into me when
> it's sunny.
>
>

I was beginning to doubt my (limited/****witted) writing skills for a moment there, but ... Ah well! You can lead a horse to water ... but it's no fun 'riding an old mare' ... So that's it from me ...


--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

[Colin Reed]

"Colin Nelson" > wrote in message
...

"Colin Reed" > wrote in message
...
>
> "judith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:35:59 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"judith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 07:21:30 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >"Martin" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>> >> Julian Bosley wrote:
> >>> >> > http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/Cyclist-died-in-39tragic-accident39.4252841.jp
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Wacth out when you are cycling in to the sun...it's now OK to run
> >>> >> > you
> >>> >> > over!....Perhaps I am being provocative, but reading this made me
> >>> >> > angry. I
> >>> >> > am struggling to see how being blinded by low sun whilst driving
> >>> >> > makes it
> >>> >> > "OK" to kill someone. Surely one should slow down or even stop?
> >>> >> > There must
> >>> >> > be far more to the decision not prosecute than this, surely?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Given the injuries that caused his death, it would be interesting
> >>> >> to
> >>> >> know how exactly he was attired, the article gives insufficient
> >>> >> detail,
> >>> >> and I cannot see anything else on the web about this.
> >>> >
> >>> >I doubt if any attire (regardless of what it was) could mitigate
> >>> >injuries such as [quote] He died from a broken neck and multiple
> >>> >other
> >>> >injuries.[quote]. Whatever clothing a cyclist (or pedestrian) is
> >>> >wearing when hit by a vehicle (or [quote]when he was in collision
> >>> >with
> >>> >a Volvo Estate [quote] travelling at 50-60mph is unlikely to affect
> >>> >the
> >>> >outcome much.
> >>>
> >>> Very frivolous - hardly suitable in the circumstances.
> >>>
> >>> Did anyone say that the clothes would have mitigated the injuries -
> >>> No.
> >>>
> >>> I wonder, as PPs have, if wearing clothes eg high visibility rather
> >>> than dark colours would have reduced the possibility that he was
> >>> actually hit in the first place.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
> >>> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)
> >>
> >>Nothing 'frivolous' in my wording "judith". Do you have any comment on
> >>[quote] Surely one should slow down or even stop? [quote],
> >>or on the points regarding dark/light clothing (made previously by
> >>posters)? Or perhaps you really do have a 'hidden agenda' in posting
> >>here.
> >
> >
> > I accept some of the points made about the clothing - not all.
> >
> > I am not suggesting that the motorist was not predominantly to blame.
> > Wearing of high visibility clothing rather than dark clothing may have
> > made a difference to whether the motorists saw the cyclist in
> > sufficient time or not - it may have made no difference.
> >
> > No-one - but no-one was suggesting that once the cyclist was hit then
> > bright clothing may have made a difference to injuries; but you
> > thought it might raise a laugh.
>
> Go back and read the thread - or improve your comprehension skills. Colin
> responded to a question about how the cyclist was attired in general.
> Nothing was said about hi-vis. The question could equally have been about
> whether the cyclist was wearing protective clothing.
>
> >
> > If that was not said in a frivolous manner - then it must have been
> > serious - which shows that your really must be a ****wit.
>
> You are, once again, being all to ready to dish out childish insults
> without
> comprehending what people have actually written.
>
> >
> > I have not said that the motorist was not at fault. If he had slowed
> > down or stopped then he may not have hit the cyclist.
> > The cyclist was wearing dark clothing. The Highway Code recommends
> > not doing so.
>
> If the driver is being dazzled then the cyclist will only appear as a dark
> sillouette, no matter what colour clothes they are wearing. I drive a
> dark
> car, but that doesn't seem to have made other drivers drive into me when
> it's sunny.
>
>

>I was beginning to doubt my (limited/****witted) writing skills for a
>moment there, but ... Ah well! You can lead a horse to water ... but it's
>no fun 'riding an old >mare' ... So that's it from me ...
>
>
>--
>Colin N.
>
>Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

I was thinking more "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her
think!"

BTW, which part of Lincs are you in? I'm looking for some good longer but
flattish cycle routes as my GF is still having knee trouble if we get to
steep hills (saddle needs to be higher but she's not confident sitting that
high on a bike yet). We're in Newark, so around 15 miles from Lincoln.

Colin R.

[Dave Larrington]

In ,
naked_draughtsman > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:

> Against a bright background, I would have thought dark clothing would
> be better than something fluorescent.

ISTR an older edition of Richard's Bicycle Book recommending this, but even
if it's not in the copy that fell in the bath, it's at home and I'm not.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Life - loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it.

[judith]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:18:50 +0100, "Colin Reed"
> wrote:

>
>"judith" > wrote in message


<snip>

>> No-one - but no-one was suggesting that once the cyclist was hit then
>> bright clothing may have made a difference to injuries; but you
>> thought it might raise a laugh.
>
>Go back and read the thread - or improve your comprehension skills. Colin
>responded to a question about how the cyclist was attired in general.
>Nothing was said about hi-vis. The question could equally have been about
>whether the cyclist was wearing protective clothing.
>


I have.
It could have been about protective clothing but it wasn't.
There was comment in the quoted article that the cyclist was wearing
dark clothing. By implication this may have contributed to the fact
that the motorist did not see him. There was no indication in the
article or the thread that his clothing contributed to his injuries.

As I said:
>> No-one - but no-one was suggesting that once the cyclist was hit then
>> bright clothing may have made a difference to injuries; but you
>> thought it might raise a laugh.
>

A very cheap laugh at that.

>> If that was not said in a frivolous manner - then it must have been
>> serious - which shows that your really must be a ****wit.
>
>You are, once again, being all to ready to dish out childish insults without
>comprehending what people have actually written.

The comment was clearly aimed at saying that his dark clothing would
not have prevented his injuries. This is correct - but he may have
been more visible if he had not been wearing them.

(Can you follow that - not too hard?)


>> I have not said that the motorist was not at fault. If he had slowed
>> down or stopped then he may not have hit the cyclist.
>> The cyclist was wearing dark clothing. The Highway Code recommends
>> not doing so.
>
>If the driver is being dazzled then the cyclist will only appear as a dark
>sillouette, no matter what colour clothes they are wearing. I drive a dark
>car, but that doesn't seem to have made other drivers drive into me when
>it's sunny.
>

Why does the Highway Code recommend not wearing dark clothing?
--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[Clive George]

"judith" > wrote in message
...

> Why does the Highway Code recommend not wearing dark clothing?

Because in many cases it improves visibility. However in the case in
question, it almost certainly would have made no difference. Why do you have
such difficulty understanding this simple point?

[Colin Nelson]

"Colin Reed" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Colin Nelson" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> "Colin Reed" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "judith" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:35:59 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>"judith" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 07:21:30 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> > >>> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> >
> > >>> >"Martin" > wrote in message
> > >>> ...
> > >>> >> Julian Bosley wrote:
> > >>> >> > http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/Cyclist-died-in-39tragic-accident39.4252841.jp
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> > Wacth out when you are cycling in to the sun...it's now OK to run
> > >>> >> > you
> > >>> >> > over!....Perhaps I am being provocative, but reading this made me
> > >>> >> > angry. I
> > >>> >> > am struggling to see how being blinded by low sun whilst driving
> > >>> >> > makes it
> > >>> >> > "OK" to kill someone. Surely one should slow down or even stop?
> > >>> >> > There must
> > >>> >> > be far more to the decision not prosecute than this, surely?
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Given the injuries that caused his death, it would be interesting
> > >>> >> to
> > >>> >> know how exactly he was attired, the article gives insufficient
> > >>> >> detail,
> > >>> >> and I cannot see anything else on the web about this.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >I doubt if any attire (regardless of what it was) could mitigate
> > >>> >injuries such as [quote] He died from a broken neck and multiple
> > >>> >other
> > >>> >injuries.[quote]. Whatever clothing a cyclist (or pedestrian) is
> > >>> >wearing when hit by a vehicle (or [quote]when he was in collision
> > >>> >with
> > >>> >a Volvo Estate [quote] travelling at 50-60mph is unlikely to affect
> > >>> >the
> > >>> >outcome much.
> > >>>
> > >>> Very frivolous - hardly suitable in the circumstances.
> > >>>
> > >>> Did anyone say that the clothes would have mitigated the injuries -
> > >>> No.
> > >>>
> > >>> I wonder, as PPs have, if wearing clothes eg high visibility rather
> > >>> than dark colours would have reduced the possibility that he was
> > >>> actually hit in the first place.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
> > >>> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)
> > >>
> > >>Nothing 'frivolous' in my wording "judith". Do you have any comment on
> > >>[quote] Surely one should slow down or even stop? [quote],
> > >>or on the points regarding dark/light clothing (made previously by
> > >>posters)? Or perhaps you really do have a 'hidden agenda' in posting
> > >>here.
> > >
> > >
> > > I accept some of the points made about the clothing - not all.
> > >
> > > I am not suggesting that the motorist was not predominantly to blame.
> > > Wearing of high visibility clothing rather than dark clothing may have
> > > made a difference to whether the motorists saw the cyclist in
> > > sufficient time or not - it may have made no difference.
> > >
> > > No-one - but no-one was suggesting that once the cyclist was hit then
> > > bright clothing may have made a difference to injuries; but you
> > > thought it might raise a laugh.
> >
> > Go back and read the thread - or improve your comprehension skills. Colin
> > responded to a question about how the cyclist was attired in general.
> > Nothing was said about hi-vis. The question could equally have been about
> > whether the cyclist was wearing protective clothing.
> >
> > >
> > > If that was not said in a frivolous manner - then it must have been
> > > serious - which shows that your really must be a ****wit.
> >
> > You are, once again, being all to ready to dish out childish insults
> > without
> > comprehending what people have actually written.
> >
> > >
> > > I have not said that the motorist was not at fault. If he had slowed
> > > down or stopped then he may not have hit the cyclist.
> > > The cyclist was wearing dark clothing. The Highway Code recommends
> > > not doing so.
> >
> > If the driver is being dazzled then the cyclist will only appear as a dark
> > sillouette, no matter what colour clothes they are wearing. I drive a
> > dark
> > car, but that doesn't seem to have made other drivers drive into me when
> > it's sunny.
> >
> >
>
> >I was beginning to doubt my (limited/****witted) writing skills for a
> >moment there, but ... Ah well! You can lead a horse to water ... but it's
> >no fun 'riding an old >mare' ... So that's it from me ...
> >
> >
> >--
> >Colin N.
> >
> >Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face
>
> I was thinking more "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her
> think!"

<grin>

>
> BTW, which part of Lincs are you in? I'm looking for some good longer but
> flattish cycle routes as my GF is still having knee trouble if we get to
> steep hills (saddle needs to be higher but she's not confident sitting that
> high on a bike yet). We're in Newark, so around 15 miles from Lincoln.
>
> Colin R.
>
>

I'm in North Hykeham Colin. Plenty of 'flatland' around here, suits a rather debilitating lung condition that I have (+ I'm well past the 1st and 2nd flushes of youth). The only proper hill around here (I'm from Yorkshire, living in Lincolnshire for about 11 years, so ...) is the one where they built the castle and the big church (though there's another hill known as the Lincoln Cliff with RAF Waddington perched on top). Some pics of a couple of local easy rides here :-
http://www.freewebs.com/yorkshireman1/


--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

[[email protected]]

On 4 Aug, 13:46, judith > wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:18:50 +0100, "Colin Reed"
>
> > wrote:
>
> >"judith" > wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> >> No-one - but no-one was suggesting that once the cyclist was hit then
> >> bright clothing may have made a difference to injuries; but you
> >> thought it might raise a laugh.
>
> >Go back and read the thread - or improve your comprehension skills. Colin
> >responded to a question about how the cyclist was attired in general.
> >Nothing was said about hi-vis. The question could equally have been about
> >whether the cyclist was wearing protective clothing.
>
> I have.
> It could have been about protective clothing but it wasn't.
> There was comment in the quoted article that the cyclist was wearing
> dark clothing. By implication this may have contributed to the fact
> that the motorist did not see him. There was no indication in the
> article or the thread that his clothing contributed to his injuries.
>
> As I said:
>
> >> No-one - but no-one was suggesting that once the cyclist was hit then
> >> bright clothing may have made a difference to injuries; but you
> >> thought it might raise a laugh.
>
> A very cheap laugh at that.
>
> >> If that was not said in a frivolous manner - then it must have been
> >> serious - which shows that your really must be a ****wit.
>
> >You are, once again, being all to ready to dish out childish insults without
> >comprehending what people have actually written.
>
> The comment was clearly aimed at saying that his dark clothing would
> not have prevented his injuries. This is correct - but he may have
> been more visible if he had not been wearing them.
>
> (Can you follow that - not too hard?)
>
> >> I have not said that the motorist was not at fault. If he had slowed
> >> down or stopped then he may not have hit the cyclist.
> >> The cyclist was wearing dark clothing. The Highway Code recommends
> >> not doing so.
>
> >If the driver is being dazzled then the cyclist will only appear as a dark
> >sillouette, no matter what colour clothes they are wearing. I drive a dark
> >car, but that doesn't seem to have made other drivers drive into me when
> >it's sunny.
>
> Why does the Highway Code recommend not wearing dark clothing?
> --
> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

Are you really this confrontational? You make yourself appear foolish
by consistently arguing what should be apparent to yourself with a
modicum of thought and reflection.

Sniper8052

[Colin Reed]

"judith" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:18:50 +0100, "Colin Reed"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"judith" > wrote in message
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> No-one - but no-one was suggesting that once the cyclist was hit then
>>> bright clothing may have made a difference to injuries; but you
>>> thought it might raise a laugh.
>>
>>Go back and read the thread - or improve your comprehension skills. Colin
>>responded to a question about how the cyclist was attired in general.
>>Nothing was said about hi-vis. The question could equally have been about
>>whether the cyclist was wearing protective clothing.
>>
>
>
> I have.
> It could have been about protective clothing but it wasn't.
> There was comment in the quoted article that the cyclist was wearing
> dark clothing. By implication this may have contributed to the fact
> that the motorist did not see him. There was no indication in the
> article or the thread that his clothing contributed to his injuries.

Colin may not have been responding to the article. In fact, his post was a
response to one that contained this:
"Given the injuries that caused his death, it would be interesting to
know how exactly he was attired, the article gives insufficient detail,
and I cannot see anything else on the web about this."

No mention of visibility, but a query about how he was attired "given the
injuries". It is perfectly easy to read this as a question about protective
clothing.
>
> As I said:
>>> No-one - but no-one was suggesting that once the cyclist was hit then
>>> bright clothing may have made a difference to injuries; but you
>>> thought it might raise a laugh.
>>
>
> A very cheap laugh at that.
>
>>> If that was not said in a frivolous manner - then it must have been
>>> serious - which shows that your really must be a ****wit.
>>
>>You are, once again, being all to ready to dish out childish insults
>>without
>>comprehending what people have actually written.
>
> The comment was clearly aimed at saying that his dark clothing would
> not have prevented his injuries. This is correct - but he may have
> been more visible if he had not been wearing them.
>
> (Can you follow that - not too hard?)

No it wasn't - you are simply inferring whatever fits your prejudice. His
comment was that no clothing could have prevented the broken neck - whether
it be helmet, body armour or whatever.

>
>
>>> I have not said that the motorist was not at fault. If he had slowed
>>> down or stopped then he may not have hit the cyclist.
>>> The cyclist was wearing dark clothing. The Highway Code recommends
>>> not doing so.
>>
>>If the driver is being dazzled then the cyclist will only appear as a dark
>>sillouette, no matter what colour clothes they are wearing. I drive a
>>dark
>>car, but that doesn't seem to have made other drivers drive into me when
>>it's sunny.
>>
>
> Why does the Highway Code recommend not wearing dark clothing?

It doesn't recommend not wearing dark clothing. It recommends wearing light
clothing. There's a difference. Regardless, the HC is merely a relatively
short summary of some of the important aspects of being on the highway in a
variety of modes of transport. It is not (and does not claim to be)
entirely comprehensive and cannot cover every possible scenario for cyclists
on the road. It is fairly clear about what motorists should do when they
are dazzled by bright light though.

[judith]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:52:14 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> wrote:

<snip>

>I was beginning to doubt my (limited/****witted) writing skills for a moment there, but ... Ah well! You can lead a horse to water ... but it's no fun 'riding an old mare' ... So that's it from me ...


Would you like to say why you commented on whether the clothing would
have saved his injuries when no-one else had suggested it in the posts
re colour of clothing/dark/hi-vis in the twenty previous hours since
the original post.

Come on - if it was a cheap jibe then just say so - otherwise an
explanation would be good.



--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[judith]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 06:01:02 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

<snip>

>Are you really this confrontational? You make yourself appear foolish
>by consistently arguing what should be apparent to yourself with a
>modicum of thought and reflection.
>
>Sniper8052


Why thank you.

Any comment on the cheap jibe that: "There was no indication in the
article or the thread that his clothing contributed to his injuries."
--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[[email protected]]

On 4 Aug, 14:11, judith > wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:52:14 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
>
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >I was beginning to doubt my (limited/****witted) writing skills for a moment there, but ... Ah well! You can lead a horse to water ... but it's no fun 'riding an old mare' ... So that's it from me ...
>
> Would you like to say why you commented on whether the clothing would
> have saved his injuries when no-one else had suggested it in the posts
> re colour of clothing/dark/hi-vis in the twenty previous hours since
> the original post.
>
> Come on - if it was a cheap jibe then just say so - otherwise an
> explanation would be good.
>
> --
> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)


Colin Wrote: [To the effect]

I doubt if any attire (regardless of what it was) could mitigate
injuries such as

'[...] a broken neck and multiple other injuries.'

Whatever clothing a cyclist (or pedestrian) is wearing when hit by a
vehicle

or

'when [...] in collision with a Volvo Estate ...travelling at
50-60mph'

[it] is unlikely to affect the outcome much.

----

How you come to represent this in such a controversial manner quite
escapes me.

Sniper8052

[Roger Thorpe[_4_]]

judith wrote:

> Any comment on the cheap jibe that: "There was no indication in the
> article or the thread that his clothing contributed to his injuries."

Why do you care so much? You think it's a cheap jibe, I think it was a
restrained use of irony in the face of a suggestion that a man's
wardrobe choice was a significant contribution to his killing by an what
seems to be an inattentive driver.
It does not matter in the least what you or I think about that comment.
If it did matter then so would the insulting posts that you throw
around, and we'd all need an apology for those.
Roger (****-for-brains) Thorpe

[Julian Bosley]

A member of Didcot Phoenix CC was hit by a car driving West in to the sun on
the A417 close to Upton. The driver's excuse was that he was too brightly
dressed.


>>
>>6. Danny Colyer
>>
>>I remember reading about 12 years ago of a case where a motorist, in
>>court for running over a cyclist, claimed that the cyclist was at
>>fault
>>for wearing a fluorescent yellow top that had blended in with the low
>>sun that was shining in the motorist's eyes.
not read the frivolous comment that was made - "I doubt if any
> attire (regardless of what it was) could mitigate injuries" - which
> no-one had suggested? Any comment on that?
>
> "I remember reading about 12 years ago......" - but I can't back this
> up.
>
> It's like someone saying "I remember reading about 5 years ago that
> all cyclists were knob-heads...." - it doesn't mean that it was
> actually read - or that it was true.
> --
> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[judith]

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:36:26 +0100, Roger Thorpe
> wrote:

>judith wrote:
>
>> Any comment on the cheap jibe that: "There was no indication in the
>> article or the thread that his clothing contributed to his injuries."
>
>Why do you care so much? You think it's a cheap jibe, I think it was a
>restrained use of irony in the face of a suggestion that a man's
>wardrobe choice was a significant contribution to his killing by an what
>seems to be an inattentive driver.


Well I must at least thank you for your honesty - you at least saw it
as "restrained irony" which is fair enough.

I have made it quite clear that I suspect that it was the driver's
fault.

The problem in this group - is that any criticism of the cyclist -
however slight, must be rebutted at all costs.

The fact that he was wearing dark clothing *was* made - so it is not
something that can be totally dismissed out of hand - even if it is
later found to have made no significant contribution to the accident
whatsoever.



--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[DaveSmith]

Colin Reed wrote:
<snip>


>> Why does the Highway Code recommend not wearing dark clothing?
>
> It doesn't recommend not wearing dark clothing. It recommends wearing light
> clothing. There's a difference.


I can now see why people struggle with urc regulars - and why "f-wit"
and "s-f-b" becomes de rigeur

[Peter Clinch]

DaveSmith wrote:
> Colin Reed wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
>>> Why does the Highway Code recommend not wearing dark clothing?
>>
>> It doesn't recommend not wearing dark clothing. It recommends wearing
>> light clothing. There's a difference.
>
>
> I can now see why people struggle with urc regulars - and why "f-wit"
> and "s-f-b" becomes de rigeur

If it said "you should not wear dark clothing" that would mean that even
if I was wearing a dayglo jacket I should still not wear dark trousers,
because I have been expressly told I shouldn't. OTOH, if it says
something like "you should wear bright clothing" then my trousers are
irrelevant because I have the bright jacket on.

In other words there is a difference between an error of omission and
one of commission, and the "common sense" interpretation is actually
quite wrong.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Colin Reed]

"DaveSmith" > wrote in message
...
> Colin Reed wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
>>> Why does the Highway Code recommend not wearing dark clothing?
>>
>> It doesn't recommend not wearing dark clothing. It recommends wearing
>> light clothing. There's a difference.
>
>
> I can now see why people struggle with urc regulars - and why "f-wit" and
> "s-f-b" becomes de rigeur

uk.rec.driving removed

When someone with a particular history of demanding that certain phrases
being used match exactly with those written in the Highway Code makes an
error it is usually worth clarifying. If you think I'm merely taking the
**** out of said poster, then you may be half right!

This is pretty much irrevelent to uk.rec.driving, so I've removed it to
avoid any regulars there "struggling" with posters to uk.rec.cycling.

Glad to be of service.

[Colin Reed]

>>
>> BTW, which part of Lincs are you in? I'm looking for some good longer
>> but
>> flattish cycle routes as my GF is still having knee trouble if we get to
>> steep hills (saddle needs to be higher but she's not confident sitting
>> that
>> high on a bike yet). We're in Newark, so around 15 miles from Lincoln.
>>
>> Colin R.
>>
>>
>
>I'm in North Hykeham Colin. Plenty of 'flatland' around here, suits a
>rather debilitating lung condition that I have (+ I'm well past the 1st and
>2nd flushes of youth). >The only proper hill around here (I'm from
>Yorkshire, living in Lincolnshire for about 11 years, so ...) is the one
>where they built the castle and the big church
>(though there's another hill known as the Lincoln Cliff with RAF Waddington
>perched on top). Some pics of a couple of local easy rides here :-
>http://www.freewebs.com/yorkshireman1/

Strangely enough, I'm originally from Yorkshire and moved to the area 11
years ago (Aug 1997 in fact). I also have a lung condition, but it's not
particularly debilitating (yet).
I drove past the Pyewipe Inn entrance on my way back from a client in
S****horpe this afternoon. How's the beer there? I think I should be on
the lookout for more decent places to stop for lunches on some of my cycle
routes. My usual route towards Lincoln is a bit further East than the
Lincoln - Harby route. I usually head through Stapleford, Carlton, Norton
Disney, etc. Haven't yet been struck by any particularly inviting
hostelries!

Colin R.

[DaveSmith]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> DaveSmith wrote:
>> Colin Reed wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>>> Why does the Highway Code recommend not wearing dark clothing?
>>> It doesn't recommend not wearing dark clothing. It recommends wearing
>>> light clothing. There's a difference.
>>
>> I can now see why people struggle with urc regulars - and why "f-wit"
>> and "s-f-b" becomes de rigeur
>
> If it said "you should not wear dark clothing" that would mean that even
> if I was wearing a dayglo jacket I should still not wear dark trousers,
> because I have been expressly told I shouldn't. OTOH, if it says
> something like "you should wear bright clothing" then my trousers are
> irrelevant because I have the bright jacket on.
>
> In other words there is a difference between an error of omission and
> one of commission, and the "common sense" interpretation is actually
> quite wrong.
>
> Pete.

You've demonstrated very well - the point I was making:

I despair - I see that the original poster has now said that he was
taking the pee - you however, must prove a point.


I can now see why people struggle with urc regulars - and why "f-wit"
and "s-f-b" becomes de rigeur. QED

[Colin Nelson]

"Colin Reed" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> >>
> >> BTW, which part of Lincs are you in? I'm looking for some good longer
> >> but
> >> flattish cycle routes as my GF is still having knee trouble if we get to
> >> steep hills (saddle needs to be higher but she's not confident sitting
> >> that
> >> high on a bike yet). We're in Newark, so around 15 miles from Lincoln.
> >>
> >> Colin R.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I'm in North Hykeham Colin. Plenty of 'flatland' around here, suits a
> >rather debilitating lung condition that I have (+ I'm well past the 1st and
> >2nd flushes of youth). >The only proper hill around here (I'm from
> >Yorkshire, living in Lincolnshire for about 11 years, so ...) is the one
> >where they built the castle and the big church
> >(though there's another hill known as the Lincoln Cliff with RAF Waddington
> >perched on top). Some pics of a couple of local easy rides here :-
> >http://www.freewebs.com/yorkshireman1/
>
> Strangely enough, I'm originally from Yorkshire and moved to the area 11
> years ago (Aug 1997 in fact). I also have a lung condition, but it's not
> particularly debilitating (yet).
> I drove past the Pyewipe Inn entrance on my way back from a client in
> S****horpe this afternoon. How's the beer there? I think I should be on
> the lookout for more decent places to stop for lunches on some of my cycle
> routes. My usual route towards Lincoln is a bit further East than the
> Lincoln - Harby route. I usually head through Stapleford, Carlton, Norton
> Disney, etc. Haven't yet been struck by any particularly inviting
> hostelries!
>
> Colin R.
>
>
>

Small world eh! Wife and I have 'dined' at the Pyewipe a few times ... Not overly impressed with food/service/beer (wine in wife's case) they seem a bit 'up their own arse (I'm not really competent to judge beers as I prefer shandy now) and I've never found them particularly 'welcoming' when I've dropped in when cycling past (wife reckons it's 'cos I'm 'common'). I've called at the Halfway House (A46 near Swinderby) on my way back from Newark a few times and that's been OK (we've enjoyed a few decent evening meals there as well, fairly basic menu - but well cooked etc). Considering that Lincolnshire is good, easy (mostly) cycling country I'm surprised at the lack of suitable watering holes for cyclists (unless I've just not found 'em yet).


--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

[Colin Reed]

"DaveSmith" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> DaveSmith wrote:
>>> Colin Reed wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Why does the Highway Code recommend not wearing dark clothing?
>>>> It doesn't recommend not wearing dark clothing. It recommends wearing
>>>> light clothing. There's a difference.
>>>
>>> I can now see why people struggle with urc regulars - and why "f-wit"
>>> and "s-f-b" becomes de rigeur
>>
>> If it said "you should not wear dark clothing" that would mean that even
>> if I was wearing a dayglo jacket I should still not wear dark trousers,
>> because I have been expressly told I shouldn't. OTOH, if it says
>> something like "you should wear bright clothing" then my trousers are
>> irrelevant because I have the bright jacket on.
>>
>> In other words there is a difference between an error of omission and
>> one of commission, and the "common sense" interpretation is actually
>> quite wrong.
>>
>> Pete.
>
> You've demonstrated very well - the point I was making:
>
> I despair - I see that the original poster has now said that he was taking
> the pee - you however, must prove a point.

I said I may have been half taking the ****. It had to be with this
particular poster though, as exact phrases and matching precisely what is
written in the HC is one of their particular "points scoring" methods. Plus,
since I don't cross-post to other groups, then the only reason people would
"struggle" with what I write is if they come to URC looking for it.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 4, 7:14 pm, "Colin Reed" >
wrote:
> "DaveSmith" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Peter Clinch wrote:
> >> DaveSmith wrote:
> >>> Colin Reed wrote:
> >>> <snip>
>
> >>>>> Why does the Highway Code recommend not wearing dark clothing?
> >>>> It doesn't recommend not wearing dark clothing. It recommends wearing
> >>>> light clothing. There's a difference.
>
> >>> I can now see why people struggle with urc regulars - and why "f-wit"
> >>> and "s-f-b" becomes de rigeur
>
> >> If it said "you should not wear dark clothing" that would mean that even
> >> if I was wearing a dayglo jacket I should still not wear dark trousers,
> >> because I have been expressly told I shouldn't. OTOH, if it says
> >> something like "you should wear bright clothing" then my trousers are
> >> irrelevant because I have the bright jacket on.
>
> >> In other words there is a difference between an error of omission and
> >> one of commission, and the "common sense" interpretation is actually
> >> quite wrong.
>
> >> Pete.
>
> > You've demonstrated very well - the point I was making:
>
> > I despair - I see that the original poster has now said that he was taking
> > the pee - you however, must prove a point.
>
> I said I may have been half taking the ****. It had to be with this
> particular poster though, as exact phrases and matching precisely what is
> written in the HC is one of their particular "points scoring" methods. Plus,
> since I don't cross-post to other groups, then the only reason people would
> "struggle" with what I write is if they come to URC looking for it.

I can't see anything even remotely challenging in that which you have
written. I am of the opinion that either,

a) We are of superior intellectual capabilities or

b) That others understand perfectly what has been said but wish to
cause controversy by expressing an opinion that what has been said has
been conveyed in such a manner that the recipient feels their own
intellect has been called into question.

Of course such an opinion may be erroneous, they may truly feel that
they do not understand in which event they may need to ask for
clarifications that we find incredible.

Clearly repeated requests for clarification of the simplest forms of
grammatical, logical or legal phrases or functions must raise doubts
about the veracity of the enquirer and thus their subsequent
assignment to a sub culture unworthy of normal description in which
they may define some less complex admonishment of their dubious
requests is wholly understandable where the simplicity of language
cannot be broken down further to make the concept distinguishable to
that sub culture.

I hope that's clear to all.

Sniper8052

[judith]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:06:36 +0100, "Colin Reed"
> wrote:

<snip>

>It doesn't recommend not wearing dark clothing. It recommends wearing light
>clothing. There's a difference.

No **** - Sherlock.

Come on, astound us.

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[Colin Reed[_3_]]

"judith" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:06:36 +0100, "Colin Reed"
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>It doesn't recommend not wearing dark clothing. It recommends wearing
>>light
>>clothing. There's a difference.
>
> No **** - Sherlock.
>
> Come on, astound us.
>

I could astound everyone by pointing out that you have, yet again, snipped
out the actual point of the previous post and decided to take it off on a
minor tangent. However, that's not really astounding - in fact it's fairly
typical of your bandwidth wasting arseing about!

[judith]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 04:23:29 +0100, Phil W Lee
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:

" > considered Mon, 4
>Aug 2008 06:01:02 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>>Are you really this confrontational? You make yourself appear foolish
>>by consistently arguing what should be apparent to yourself with a
>>modicum of thought and reflection.
>>
>I fear that in any circumstance requiring the above, "judith" is sadly
>underequipped.

Now Phil - don't waste you posts with throw away lines.

Tell us why you favour:

No one should be permitted to drive a car unless they have spent at
least a year riding a bicycle every day. Followed by a year each on
mopeds, small motorcycles, and large ones.

What about licensing cyclists, or tests for them - any views?


--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[Mark W]

"DaveSmith" > wrote in message
...
> Colin Reed wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
>>> Why does the Highway Code recommend not wearing dark clothing?
>>
>> It doesn't recommend not wearing dark clothing. It recommends wearing
>> light clothing. There's a difference.
>
>
> I can now see why people struggle with urc regulars - and why "f-wit" and
> "s-f-b" becomes de rigeur


Damn the Highway Code's imprecise drafting! I just threw away all my black
underpants and socks.

[Martin[_2_]]

Mark W wrote:
> "DaveSmith" > wrote in message

(cross posting removed).

> ...
>> Colin Reed wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>>> Why does the Highway Code recommend not wearing dark clothing?
>>> It doesn't recommend not wearing dark clothing. It recommends wearing
>>> light clothing. There's a difference.
>>
>> I can now see why people struggle with urc regulars - and why "f-wit" and
>> "s-f-b" becomes de rigeur
>
>
> Damn the Highway Code's imprecise drafting! I just threw away all my black
> underpants and socks.

Dang. Both my pairs of cycling shoes are black. Looks like I will have
to start cycling barefoot with my SPDs. Also the bloke on page 21 of the
HC, in the picture where he is wearing the silly hat, he is also wearing
a dark top and blue jeans.

Martin.

[Colin Nelson]

"judith" > wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:52:14 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >I was beginning to doubt my (limited/****witted) writing skills for a moment there, but ... Ah well! You can lead a horse to water ... but it's no fun 'riding an old mare' ... So that's it from me ...
>
>
> Would you like to say why you commented on whether the clothing would
> have saved his injuries when no-one else had suggested it in the posts
> re colour of clothing/dark/hi-vis in the twenty previous hours since
> the original post.
>
> Come on - if it was a cheap jibe then just say so -
No jibe (cheap or otherwise).

>otherwise an explanation would be good.

Others seem to understand without explanation ... Why is it beyond you?
>
>
>
> --
> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[judith]

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:00:09 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> wrote:

>
>
>"judith" > wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:52:14 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >I was beginning to doubt my (limited/****witted) writing skills for a moment there, but ... Ah well! You can lead a horse to water ... but it's no fun 'riding an old mare' ... So that's it from me ...
>>
>>
>> Would you like to say why you commented on whether the clothing would
>> have saved his injuries when no-one else had suggested it in the posts
>> re colour of clothing/dark/hi-vis in the twenty previous hours since
>> the original post.
>>
>> Come on - if it was a cheap jibe then just say so -
>No jibe (cheap or otherwise).
>
>>otherwise an explanation would be good.
>
>Others seem to understand without explanation ... Why is it beyond you?


Explanation? - you haven't given one.

Perhaps because you haven't answered the following:

Would you like to say why you commented on whether the clothing would
have saved his injuries when no-one else had suggested it in the posts
re colour of clothing/dark/hi-vis in the twenty previous hours since
the original post.
--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[Colin Nelson]

"judith" > wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:00:09 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"judith" > wrote in message ...
> >> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:52:14 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >I was beginning to doubt my (limited/****witted) writing skills for a moment there, but ... Ah well! You can lead a horse to water ... but it's no fun 'riding an old mare' ... So that's it from me ...
> >>
> >>
> >> Would you like to say why you commented on whether the clothing would
> >> have saved his injuries when no-one else had suggested it in the posts
> >> re colour of clothing/dark/hi-vis in the twenty previous hours since
> >> the original post.
> >>
> >> Come on - if it was a cheap jibe then just say so -
> >No jibe (cheap or otherwise).
> >
> >>otherwise an explanation would be good.
> >
> >Others seem to understand without explanation ... Why is it beyond you?
>
>
> Explanation? - you haven't given one.

No ... and why do you alone seem to need one.
>
> Perhaps because you haven't answered the following:
>
> Would you like to say why you commented on whether the clothing would
> have saved his injuries when no-one else had suggested it in the posts
> re colour of clothing/dark/hi-vis in the twenty previous hours since
> the original post.

As others (who seemed to understand my post) have 'explained' to you in more than one reply I see no point in bothering, unless there's some rule that obliges me to
reply to posts only on your terms/conditions (I hope you're not doing that silly selective reading/replying trick).
> --
> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)


--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

[Peter Hucker]

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:17:29 +0100, Peter Clinch > wrote:

> DaveSmith wrote:
>> Colin Reed wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>>> Why does the Highway Code recommend not wearing dark clothing?
>>>
>>> It doesn't recommend not wearing dark clothing. It recommends wearing
>>> light clothing. There's a difference.
>>
>>
>> I can now see why people struggle with urc regulars - and why "f-wit"
>> and "s-f-b" becomes de rigeur
>
> If it said "you should not wear dark clothing" that would mean that even
> if I was wearing a dayglo jacket I should still not wear dark trousers,
> because I have been expressly told I shouldn't. OTOH, if it says
> something like "you should wear bright clothing" then my trousers are
> irrelevant because I have the bright jacket on.
>
> In other words there is a difference between an error of omission and
> one of commission, and the "common sense" interpretation is actually
> quite wrong.

The other difference is one recommendation lets you be naked.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Gordon Brown is an escaped mental patient.
VOTE BNP!!!! STOP THE NONSENSE NOW!

[NewRiderPS]

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 22:35:00 +0100, Danny Colyer
> wrote:

>On 03/08/2008 21:10, naked_draughtsman wrote:
>> Against a bright background, I would have thought dark clothing would be
>> better than something fluorescent.
>
>I remember reading about 12 years ago of a case where a motorist, in
>court for running over a cyclist, claimed that the cyclist was at fault
>for wearing a fluorescent yellow top that had blended in with the low
>sun that was shining in the motorist's eyes.

Thing is, unless you have a video, and even then, it is going to be
very hard to prove intent or even carelessness.

For Ex, this hypohetical:
'I was driving along in low sun and saw something and steered towards
it to see what it was and before I could react, saw that it was a
cyclist and ran him over, accidentally'

Example Verdict - no charge, poor visibility.

What are you gonna do?

Sucks, really.