CycleBanter.com

CycleBanter.com (http://www.cyclebanter.com/index.php)
-   UK (http://www.cyclebanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video) (http://www.cyclebanter.com/showthread.php?t=256441)

JNugent[_10_] October 21st 18 04:39 PM

Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
 
On 20/10/2018 23:15, TMS320 wrote:

...I don't know how much is mandatory or voluntary.


That is as one might have suspected.

It didn't stop you offering comment on it.

TMS320 October 21st 18 07:17 PM

Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
 
On 21/10/18 16:39, JNugent wrote:
On 20/10/2018 23:15, TMS320 wrote:

...I don't know how much is mandatory or voluntary.


That is as one might have suspected.

It didn't stop you offering comment on it.


No reason why not. Why does knowledge of the proportions matter?

JNugent[_10_] October 22nd 18 12:38 AM

Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
 
On 21/10/2018 19:17, TMS320 wrote:

On 21/10/18 16:39, JNugent wrote:
On 20/10/2018 23:15, TMS320 wrote:

...I don't know how much is mandatory or voluntary.


That is as one might have suspected.
It didn't stop you offering comment on it.


No reason why not. Why does knowledge of the proportions matter?


For most purposes, it doesn't.

But it matters when one says that "the authorities" require the use of
hi-viz.


JNugent[_10_] October 22nd 18 10:35 AM

Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
 
On 20/10/2018 23:15, TMS320 wrote:

On 20/10/18 14:42, JNugent wrote:
On 20/10/2018 12:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/10/18 22:34, JNugent wrote:
On 19/09/18 12:04, JNugent wrote:

[JN]
Which "authorities" would that be?

You're the best person to know what you had in mind when you first
mentioned "the authorities" a month and 5 replies ago.


[JN] Easy.
The authorities for the purposes of researching the benefits of easier
visibility for cyclists are the Department of Transport (and the road
research laboratory).


[T3]
You're only replying to yourself.


Er... no.

I was replying to *your* "You're the best person to know what you had in
mind when you first mentioned "the authorities" a month and 5 replies ago".

It's all there, still. Just above.

Though you made the classic mistake of mentioning "easier visibility".
Is visibilty the objective or a means to something else?


It is, of course, both. Visibility in the first instance, and that in
its turn in order to aid road safety.

Even now, the Highway Code only suggests "light-coloured or fluorescent
clothing". The picture shows a rider in jeans and dark t-shirt.


Why would you think the HC suggests "light-coloured or fluorescent
clothing" for cyclists?

Are its writers and custodians just being awkward?

Or is the HC something whose inconvenient bits are to be ignored (eg, by
cyclist fashion victims) when circumstances demand it?

TMS320 October 22nd 18 09:45 PM

Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
 
On 22/10/18 00:38, JNugent wrote:
On 21/10/2018 19:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/10/18 16:39, JNugent wrote:
On 20/10/2018 23:15, TMS320 wrote:

...I don't know how much is mandatory or voluntary.

That is as one might have suspected.
It didn't stop you offering comment on it.


No reason why not. Why does knowledge of the proportions matter?


For most purposes, it doesn't.

But it matters when one says that "the authorities" require the use of
hi-viz.


Good god. You mentioned "authorities" on 19/09/18 12:04. And then on
19/10/18 22:34 asked what these "authorities" were.

Get your attributions right.

Government entities. Who gives a **** other than you?

JNugent[_10_] October 22nd 18 10:42 PM

Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
 
On 22/10/2018 21:45, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/10/18 00:38, JNugent wrote:
On 21/10/2018 19:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/10/18 16:39, JNugent wrote:
On 20/10/2018 23:15, TMS320 wrote:

...I don't know how much is mandatory or voluntary.

That is as one might have suspected.
It didn't stop you offering comment on it.

No reason why not. Why does knowledge of the proportions matter?


For most purposes, it doesn't.

But it matters when one says that "the authorities" require the use of
hi-viz.


Good god. You mentioned "authorities" on 19/09/18 12:04. And then on
19/10/18 22:34 asked what these "authorities" were.


The "authorities" can be different entities in different contexts.

It may be that you think that there is only one set of them.

Get your attributions right.


What are you talking about?

There's no real need to answer that. It's clear that you don't know.

Government entities. Who gives a **** other than you?


When it comes to little things like obeying the law, not cyclists,
that's for certain.


TMS320 October 22nd 18 11:57 PM

Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
 
On 22/10/18 22:42, JNugent wrote:
On 22/10/2018 21:45, TMS320 wrote:


Get your attributions right.


What are you talking about?


Exactly what it says.


JNugent[_10_] October 23rd 18 12:15 AM

Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
 
On 22/10/2018 23:57, TMS320 wrote:

On 22/10/18 22:42, JNugent wrote:
On 22/10/2018 21:45, TMS320 wrote:


Get your attributions right.


What are you talking about?


Exactly what it says.


Care to elucidate?

Or will you hide behind your usual imprecise but snide insinuation(s)?

TMS320 October 23rd 18 08:12 AM

Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
 
On 23/10/18 00:15, JNugent wrote:
On 22/10/2018 23:57, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/10/18 22:42, JNugent wrote:
On 22/10/2018 21:45, TMS320 wrote:


Get your attributions right.

What are you talking about?


Exactly what it says.


Care to elucidate?

Or will you hide behind your usual imprecise but snide insinuation(s)?


There is nothing imprecise about the facts. I have already told you twice.

JNugent[_10_] October 23rd 18 11:23 AM

Australian drivers carve up cyclists (short video)
 
On 23/10/2018 08:12, TMS320 wrote:

On 23/10/18 00:15, JNugent wrote:
On 22/10/2018 23:57, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/10/18 22:42, JNugent wrote:
On 22/10/2018 21:45, TMS320 wrote:

Get your attributions right.

What are you talking about?

Exactly what it says.


Care to elucidate?
Or will you hide behind your usual imprecise but snide insinuation(s)?


There is nothing imprecise about the facts. I have already told you twice.


You haven't "told me" even once.

But you are now in your usual cryptic "Look it up on Google" mode. You
imagine that it makes your "argument" look sound.



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:08 PM.
Home - Home - Home - Home - Home

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com