No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
 

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:36:08 +0100, "TMS320" wrote:


"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
Not too surprising that he is dead, really.

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/ne...pton-1-6359774

Well, obviously the person on the bike suffered mainly because he had no
plan B for this possibility. Streetlights, a light and hi-viz offer
negligible protection.

From the description, he would have been illuminated by the van headlights
for some time before the turn. It wasn't a matter of requiring the driver to
become alert to something in peripheral vision. So this was at least 33%
driver error. And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC
rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra).


Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule
176. They simply choose to ignore it

No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
 

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 03:22:26 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote:

snip


Of course, you wouldn't expect the van driver to notice the dark patch
caused by the missing street lights and take additional care while
manoeuvring, would you?


And of course the easy solution would have been for the cyclist to have
followed the advice of the Highway Code: lights on his bike, bright reflective
clothing and a helmet.

Much to easy: unless he was wanting to commit suicide of course.

No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
 

"Cassandra"
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:36:08 +0100, "TMS320" wrote:

And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC
rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra).

Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule
176. They simply choose to ignore it

There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and
cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two.

No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
 

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2014 12:41, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 18/10/2014 12:36, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
Not too surprising that he is dead, really.

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/ne...pton-1-6359774


Well, obviously the person on the bike suffered mainly because he had no
plan B for this possibility. Streetlights, a light and hi-viz offer
negligible protection.

From the description, he would have been illuminated by the van
headlights
for some time before the turn. It wasn't a matter of requiring the
driver to
become alert to something in peripheral vision. So this was at least 33%
driver error. And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue
about HC
rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra).

Alternatively, the driver was dazzled by vehicles (which is perfectly
normal
these days; I don't know why modern vehicle lighting is considered
acceptable) behind the cyclist when even a Christmas tree becomes
invisible
invisible. Unless a cyclist carries something several magnitudes
better than
Poundland lamp, a lamp is of no practical use in this situation, apart
from
lip service to the rules and stopping people from saying "the cyclist
had no
lamp, tut".

The cyclist could have braked.

Is this is not part of a plan B?

the cyclist could have followed rules: 72, 59, and 60

Perhaps. Does it come with a guarantee?

You reply to my post repeating things you have already said but make no
response to my opinion about whether these things are effective in a number
of circumstances. Let's try again. Would fitting a Poundland lamp attract
attention or just perform lip service?

but of course The Highway Code is optional for cyclists, isn't it?

And in general, who is going to be the victim of such omission? For
instance, I really don't give a stuff if some drivers don't obey rule 99. Or
agree about taking cars off the road because of an airbag warning light.

No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
 

On 18/10/2014 23:02, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2014 12:41, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 18/10/2014 12:36, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
Not too surprising that he is dead, really.

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/ne...pton-1-6359774


Well, obviously the person on the bike suffered mainly because he had no
plan B for this possibility. Streetlights, a light and hi-viz offer
negligible protection.

From the description, he would have been illuminated by the van
headlights
for some time before the turn. It wasn't a matter of requiring the
driver to
become alert to something in peripheral vision. So this was at least 33%
driver error. And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue
about HC
rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra).

Alternatively, the driver was dazzled by vehicles (which is perfectly
normal
these days; I don't know why modern vehicle lighting is considered
acceptable) behind the cyclist when even a Christmas tree becomes
invisible
invisible. Unless a cyclist carries something several magnitudes
better than
Poundland lamp, a lamp is of no practical use in this situation, apart
from
lip service to the rules and stopping people from saying "the cyclist
had no
lamp, tut".

The cyclist could have braked.

Is this is not part of a plan B?

the cyclist could have followed rules: 72, 59, and 60

Perhaps. Does it come with a guarantee?

You reply to my post repeating things you have already said but make no
response to my opinion about whether these things are effective in a number
of circumstances. Let's try again. Would fitting a Poundland lamp attract
attention or just perform lip service?

but of course The Highway Code is optional for cyclists, isn't it?

And in general, who is going to be the victim of such omission? For
instance, I really don't give a stuff if some drivers don't obey rule 99. Or
agree about taking cars off the road because of an airbag warning light.



If the bicycle had been fitted with lights and reflectors there is more
chance of the oncoming vehicle seeing the cycle and if the rider had on
hi viz then there is even more chance to be seen.

Shining headlights at a small matt black object on a dark night will not
reflect back a lot to see will it?

No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
 

On 18/10/2014 22:58, TMS320 wrote:
"Cassandra"
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:36:08 +0100, "TMS320" wrote:

And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC
rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra).

Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule
176. They simply choose to ignore it

There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and
cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two.



Anyone disobeying the rules is likely to cause some danger or
inconvenience to someone, it is why the rules were formulated. If
everyone followed the rules there would be far fewer crashes and deaths.

No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
 

On 18/10/2014 22:58, TMS320 wrote:
"Cassandra"
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:36:08 +0100, "TMS320" wrote:

And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC
rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra).

Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule
176. They simply choose to ignore it

There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and
cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two.

Cycling through a red traffic light isn't causing danger to others?

No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
 

On 19/10/2014 01:45, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2014 22:58, TMS320 wrote:
"Cassandra"
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:36:08 +0100, "TMS320" wrote:

And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC
rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra).

Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule
176. They simply choose to ignore it

There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and
cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two.

Cycling through a red traffic light isn't causing danger to others?

Of course not, the pedestrians crossing on the 'green man' will form up
and make an orderly corridor for the cyclist, and will cheer him as he
passes them.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
 

"JNugent" wrote
On 18/10/2014 22:58, TMS320 wrote:
"Cassandra"
"TMS320" wrote:

And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC
rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra).

Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule
176. They simply choose to ignore it

There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and
cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two.

Cycling through a red traffic light isn't causing danger to others?

It might. Depends on how it is done. But not in my experience as driver and
pedestrian onlooker. There are much bigger sharks in the sea to worry about.

(BTW, I know you struggle with sort of thing so I shall point out here that
the last sentence is a metaphor not a change of subject.)

No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
 

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2014 23:02, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2014 12:41, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 18/10/2014 12:36, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
Not too surprising that he is dead, really.

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/ne...pton-1-6359774


Well, obviously the person on the bike suffered mainly because he had
no
plan B for this possibility. Streetlights, a light and hi-viz offer
negligible protection.

From the description, he would have been illuminated by the van
headlights
for some time before the turn. It wasn't a matter of requiring the
driver to
become alert to something in peripheral vision. So this was at least
33%
driver error. And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue
about HC
rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra).

Alternatively, the driver was dazzled by vehicles (which is perfectly
normal
these days; I don't know why modern vehicle lighting is considered
acceptable) behind the cyclist when even a Christmas tree becomes
invisible
invisible. Unless a cyclist carries something several magnitudes
better than
Poundland lamp, a lamp is of no practical use in this situation, apart
from
lip service to the rules and stopping people from saying "the cyclist
had no
lamp, tut".

The cyclist could have braked.

Is this is not part of a plan B?

the cyclist could have followed rules: 72, 59, and 60

Perhaps. Does it come with a guarantee?

You reply to my post repeating things you have already said but make no
response to my opinion about whether these things are effective in a
number
of circumstances. Let's try again. Would fitting a Poundland lamp attract
attention or just perform lip service?

but of course The Highway Code is optional for cyclists, isn't it?

And in general, who is going to be the victim of such omission? For
instance, I really don't give a stuff if some drivers don't obey rule 99.
Or
agree about taking cars off the road because of an airbag warning light.

If the bicycle had been fitted with lights and reflectors there is more
chance of the oncoming vehicle seeing the cycle and if the rider had on hi
viz then there is even more chance to be seen.

You haven't answered my questions. Other than giving a weasel politician's
response. There were two question marks above.

Shining headlights at a small matt black object on a dark night will not
reflect back a lot to see will it?

Without other lights shining in the driver's face, enough at the distance
required. Certainly, in this circumstance (and only this one), distance
could have been extended by reflectives.