|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
On 2 Dec, 12:30, Roger Thorpe wrote:
Doug wrote: On 2 Dec, 12:19, Roger Thorpe wrote: Doug wrote: On 2 Dec, 10:15, Roger Thorpe wrote: Doug wrote: The irony is that by not having lights he was putting himself far more at risk of death from being hit by a driver than by being a danger to anyone else, unlike say a car with no lights. Well, Doug. Having very nearly ridden into an unlit cyclist a few times, I'd think it fair to say that the risk to others, including pedestrians is considerable. Roger Thorpe Well, Roger. Having been run down and injured by a driver who even failed to see my lights the risk to me was considerable and to no one else. That makes it alright then. As I said, the cyclist with no lights is more a danger to themself than to anyone else, unlike a motorist with no lights who is a danger to all, given the large mass and velocity difference. I'm sorry what is your point? That because an unlit car is more dangerous than a bike the unlit cyclist should be ignored? Roger Thorpe Doug justifies all dangerous behavior on bikes on the grounds that cars are more dangerous. Its a bit like saying Hitler killed more people than car drives so that excuses all car car drivers... Fod |
Ads |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
Colin Reed wrote:
Well whoop-de-bloody-doo. Next you'll be telling us that crumble isn't made from fruit, only from apples. On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:59:12 +0000, Tom Wright wrote: mode type="facetious" Well actually, it's made from flour, sugar and butter. /mode Tim Hall wrote: Have you tried it with porridge oats and oil instead? More crumbly, IYSWIM. No but I will now, thanks! -- I'm at CAMbridge, not SPAMbridge |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
Fod gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying: Its a bit like saying Hitler killed more people than car drives so that excuses all car car drivers... Duhg'll probably claim that Hitler was a mere amateur compared to you and me. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008, JNugent wrote:
Ian Smith wrote: JNugent wrote: Ian Smith wrote: JNugent wrote: He was under an obligation to give his name and address - if requested - under road traffic legislation. Which clause of what road traffic legislation? "Clause"? Acts don't have clauses; they have sections. I take that as an admission that actually no road traffic legislation requires it. That, in fact, your assertion was wrong. Actually, you seem to have forgotten what you read. Here it is again: STARTQUOTE: He was under an obligation to give his name and address - if requested - under road traffic legislation. Subject to the weird and wonderful separate-but-effectively-the-same-as-here legal system in Scotland, he didn't give his name and address when lawfully required to, the police would have been within their rights to arrest him (which oddly enough, seems to have been their view too). If it were otherwise, how could cycling law ever be enforced? ENDQUOTE See what you did there? Err, yes. What I did there was question the accuracy of a statement you presented as fact. That statement was that there is some obligation under road traffic legislation for a cyclist being questioned by police to provide a name and address. I believe that statement is utter ********. I am trying to determine if it is me that is wrong or you that is wrong. On the basis of the evidence offered, it seems that it is you that is wrong. Thank you for clearing that up. But this is not what you were claiming. You thought that Acts of Parliament are divided into clauses I was using the term in the general sense, and used it correctly (I could make a reasonably confident bet as to *why* you thought that too) Because I speak (and type) English so used the common English language meaning of a common English language word to ask the question? What other possible reason could there be? Clauses (the grammatical concept) are very obviously not readily identifiable by being indexed; it is ludicrous to suggest that you were asking for a particular grammaical clause to be identified. You were asking for a section and you called it a clause. I was not using it in the sense of the grammatical construct. I did not quote the meaning from the dictionary that deals with the grammatical construct. I did not ask you to identify the entire section that contains the requirement. It may not be an entire section that is relevant. I wanted the most specific identification possible. What I wanted, in fact, was for you to identify precisely the particular stipulation of the relevant act that mandates what you claim. Then I thought - hang on! there's a term for "particular stipulation of a formal document" so I decided to use the word. I really don't know why you're banging on about the fact that I used a word in accordance with the normal English usage of that word. Well, actually I do, obviously. You're trying to deflect attention from the fact that you were talking rubbish. You were wrong, and you'd rather did a deeper hole for yourself than admit it. Carry on. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
In article , Mortimer
says... True. However it is possible for a battery to go flat or a bulb to fail during the journey. How often is one supposed to stop and re-check a light *during* a journey to make sure that it is *still* correctly lit? Usually you can tell as you're cycling down the road by the light reflected off objects as you pass. I was surprised how difficult it was to tell, under street lighting, that one of my headlight bulbs had failed: it wasn't until I came up behind a car in front that I saw that only one side of his rear end was lit by my lights. DING! -- Conor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
In article 814234d3-cb57-486f-8867-0af4def03b50
@y18g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, Doug says... Well, Roger. Having been run down and injured by a driver who even failed to see my lights the risk to me was considerable and to no one else. Those stupid LED things you have on the front of your bicycle aren't really lights, Doug. -- Conor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 Tim Hall wrote: Have you tried it with porridge oats and oil instead? More crumbly, IYSWIM. Overlap to shedspace! - -- Guy May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk ================================================== ===================== ** Please see http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Troll_code ** ================================================== ===================== GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJNVoSHBDrsD+jvN4RAoC9AJ9RSHydqCR99P5atvmkfn tCacg2CgCeIt8R FGR5jUSxXhvb0tobwFchO4I= =WObI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
"Conor" wrote in message
... In article 814234d3-cb57-486f-8867-0af4def03b50 @y18g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, Doug says... Well, Roger. Having been run down and injured by a driver who even failed to see my lights the risk to me was considerable and to no one else. Those stupid LED things you have on the front of your bicycle aren't really lights, Doug. Actually a flashing LED light, whether at the front or the back, is *much* easier to see and to distinguish from all other lights, reflections of lights off shiny objects etc. That is true no matter whether you are a motorist, a pedestrian or another cyclist trying to see the cyclist's lights. The best combination is a bright tungsten headlight to see by and a dimmer (*) flashing LED to be seen by. And also a flashing red LED light at the back - that only needs to be a "be seen by" light and doesn;t need to illuminate the road. (*) LED technology doesn't seem to have progressed yet to the stage that you can get a cost-effective LED light that illuminates the road as well as a tungsten light. When that situation changes, the tungsten light becomes superfluous as long as some of the LEDs can still be made to flash to be eye-catching. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
Doug wrote:
On 2 Dec, 10:15, Roger Thorpe wrote: Doug wrote: The irony is that by not having lights he was putting himself far more at risk of death from being hit by a driver than by being a danger to anyone else, unlike say a car with no lights. Well, Doug. Having very nearly ridden into an unlit cyclist a few times, I'd think it fair to say that the risk to others, including pedestrians is considerable. Roger Thorpe Well, Roger. Having been run down and injured by a driver who even failed to see my lights the risk to me was considerable and to no one else. -- Carfree Cities http://www.carfree.com/ Promoting practical alternatives to car dependence - walking, cycling and public transport. Did you live? -- Moving things in still pictures! |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
"Mortimer" wrote in message
... The best combination is a bright tungsten headlight to see by and a dimmer (*) flashing LED to be seen by. .... (*) LED technology doesn't seem to have progressed yet to the stage that you can get a cost-effective LED light that illuminates the road as well as a tungsten light. You're a couple of years behind the times. LED lamps are better than filaments now. Not sure about HID, but they're not included in 'cost-effective'. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mystery Cyclist turns themselves over to Police... | Gemma_k | Australia | 5 | June 15th 06 11:56 AM |
BBC - Cyclist Chased & Hit by Police car | Adrian Boliston | UK | 39 | September 20th 05 12:41 PM |
Police officer injures cyclist | David Hansen | UK | 5 | June 4th 05 08:59 PM |
Police kill cyclist | MSeries | UK | 22 | July 14th 04 01:27 PM |
Chatting to a Police Cyclist Today | [Not Responding] | UK | 14 | June 19th 04 12:08 AM |