Lies about coach driver caused by ubdertaking cyclist

On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 17:01:04 GMT, Simon Jester
wrote:

On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 5:52:42 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 10:40:43 AM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
TMS320 wrote:
On 07/10/2019 07:32, MrCheerful wrote:
Video evidence came to the skilled coach driver's rescue, but no
proper apology for the slurs, perhaps the driver can get compo.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/04/olymp...ses-video-prov
es-driver-accused-not-endanger-cyclist-10865262/

If the driver hooted at the cyclist for undertaking the driver
was in the wrong.

A horn is a warning device, the bimbo was undertaking, the bimbo
was being warned.

The horn is to alert others road users to your presence and I am
sure the cyclist was aware of the coach.

Come along, group clown;

I prefer 'Official Scapegoat'

did you actually read the report?

Yes.

What a fool you really are.

There is no way you can possibly understand how little I care what you
think.

Thinking is hard for him. One "rational thought" and he's worn out.



--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

TMS320 wrote:
On 07/10/2019 16:38, Simon Jester wrote:

The horn is to alert others road users to your presence and I am
sure the cyclist was aware of the coach.

A horn has almost no use as a warning and most of the time is used for
intimidation or to show displeasure.

I think we should get rid of motor vehicle horns. As you say they are rarely used correctly.
Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on lit 30mph roads would also help safety.

I agree about getting rid of motor horns and have said so on a number of
occasions.

As for banning the use of headlights, I have rarely heard a more obtuse
suggestion.

Do you not know what headlights are for?

On 16/10/2019 12:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on lit
30mph roads would also help safety.

As for banning the use of headlights, I have rarely heard a more obtuse
suggestion.

Do you not know what headlights are for?

This might ellp:

Requir'n 4+ wheeled mowti vehicles ter use side lights only ed lit 30mph
roads would also ellp safety.

Translation provided by http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp

On 16/10/2019 12:32, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/10/2019 12:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on lit
30mph roads would also help safety.

As for banning the use of headlights, I have rarely heard a more
obtuse suggestion.

Do you not know what headlights are for?

This might ellp:

Requir'n 4+ wheeled mowti vehicles ter use side lights only ed lit 30mph
roads would also ellp safety.

Translation provided by http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp

You too don't like the idea of other people being able to see where
they're going (plus dark-clad pedestrians, cyclists without lights,
etc), then?

My approach to this issue is very straightforward. If it's dark enough
for the law to require the use of side-lights, it's certainly dark
enough for the use of headlights to be an invaluable safety move. I
never drive on just side lights. There are all sorts of things you need
to be able to see in advance, including rain puddles (espoecially near
pedestrians), craters and pot-holes as well as pedestrians and cyclists,
some of whom sem to be doing their best to be invisible in the murk.

AAMOF, I'd rather see the use of headlights made compulsory everywhere
when in motion (or when the engine is running) and the use of sidelights
restricted only to marking the position of a stationary (ie, parked)
vehicle. Upgrading the requirements for cycle lights (requiring a
car-like floodlighting of the whole area for some yards in front of the
vehicle and for the whole width of the traffic lane) would be a good
idea too.

On 16/10/2019 13:40, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:32, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/10/2019 12:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on
lit 30mph roads would also help safety.

As for banning the use of headlights, I have rarely heard a more
obtuse suggestion.

Do you not know what headlights are for?

This might ellp:

Requir'n 4+ wheeled mowti vehicles ter use side lights only ed lit
30mph roads would also ellp safety.

Translation provided by http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp

You too don't like the idea of other people being able to see where
they're going (plus dark-clad pedestrians, cyclists without lights,
etc), then?

Yes, it's a good for people to seeing their surroundings. Streetlights
are pretty good with that. Our night vision is far better than we
realise. Except we keep shining unshaded lights in our faces and never
give it a chance.

My approach to this issue is very straightforward. If it's dark
enough for the law to require the use of side-lights, it's certainly
dark enough for the use of headlights to be an invaluable safety
move. I never drive on just side lights. There are all sorts of
things you need to be able to see in advance, including rain puddles
(espoecially near pedestrians), craters and pot-holes as well as
pedestrians and cyclists, some of whom sem to be doing their best to
be invisible in the murk.

When we had yellow streetlamps, black provided extremely good contrast,
able to highlight things several hundred yards away.

Streetlamps would give you this ability if your vision wasn't
obliterated by oncoming headlamps.

AAMOF, I'd rather see the use of headlights made compulsory
everywhere when in motion (or when the engine is running) and the use
of sidelights restricted only to marking the position of a stationary
(ie, parked) vehicle. Upgrading the requirements for cycle lights
(requiring a car-like floodlighting of the whole area for some yards
in front of the vehicle and for the whole width of the traffic lane)
would be a good idea too.

That's the religion that produced those stupid fairy lights. I would
disconnect them if it was legal to do so.

When some countries mandated headlamp use in 1998 (give or take a couple
of years), casualties went up. Austria recognised their folly after just
a year. The other countries were unable to shake off the religion.

On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 2:33:47 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/10/2019 13:40, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:32, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/10/2019 12:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on
lit 30mph roads would also help safety.

As for banning the use of headlights, I have rarely heard a more
obtuse suggestion.

Do you not know what headlights are for?

This might ellp:

Requir'n 4+ wheeled mowti vehicles ter use side lights only ed lit
30mph roads would also ellp safety.

Translation provided by http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp

You too don't like the idea of other people being able to see where
they're going (plus dark-clad pedestrians, cyclists without lights,
etc), then?

Yes, it's a good for people to seeing their surroundings. Streetlights
are pretty good with that. Our night vision is far better than we
realise. Except we keep shining unshaded lights in our faces and never
give it a chance.

My approach to this issue is very straightforward. If it's dark
enough for the law to require the use of side-lights, it's certainly
dark enough for the use of headlights to be an invaluable safety
move. I never drive on just side lights. There are all sorts of
things you need to be able to see in advance, including rain puddles
(espoecially near pedestrians), craters and pot-holes as well as
pedestrians and cyclists, some of whom sem to be doing their best to
be invisible in the murk.

When we had yellow streetlamps, black provided extremely good contrast,
able to highlight things several hundred yards away.

Streetlamps would give you this ability if your vision wasn't
obliterated by oncoming headlamps.

AAMOF, I'd rather see the use of headlights made compulsory
everywhere when in motion (or when the engine is running) and the use
of sidelights restricted only to marking the position of a stationary
(ie, parked) vehicle. Upgrading the requirements for cycle lights
(requiring a car-like floodlighting of the whole area for some yards
in front of the vehicle and for the whole width of the traffic lane)
would be a good idea too.

That's the religion that produced those stupid fairy lights. I would
disconnect them if it was legal to do so.

When some countries mandated headlamp use in 1998 (give or take a couple
of years), casualties went up. Austria recognised their folly after just
a year. The other countries were unable to shake off the religion.

Exactly. Making motorists feel safer just leads to them taking more risks and those who use the roads as a matter of right rather than under licence suffer the consequences.
Dipped headlights do nothing on street lit roads other than obfuscate primary road users.

On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 8:14:36 PM UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 2:33:47 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/10/2019 13:40, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:32, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/10/2019 12:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on
lit 30mph roads would also help safety.

As for banning the use of headlights, I have rarely heard a more
obtuse suggestion.

Do you not know what headlights are for?

This might ellp:

Requir'n 4+ wheeled mowti vehicles ter use side lights only ed lit
30mph roads would also ellp safety.

Translation provided by http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp

You too don't like the idea of other people being able to see where
they're going (plus dark-clad pedestrians, cyclists without lights,
etc), then?

Yes, it's a good for people to seeing their surroundings. Streetlights
are pretty good with that. Our night vision is far better than we
realise. Except we keep shining unshaded lights in our faces and never
give it a chance.

My approach to this issue is very straightforward. If it's dark
enough for the law to require the use of side-lights, it's certainly
dark enough for the use of headlights to be an invaluable safety
move. I never drive on just side lights. There are all sorts of
things you need to be able to see in advance, including rain puddles
(espoecially near pedestrians), craters and pot-holes as well as
pedestrians and cyclists, some of whom sem to be doing their best to
be invisible in the murk.

When we had yellow streetlamps, black provided extremely good contrast,
able to highlight things several hundred yards away.

Streetlamps would give you this ability if your vision wasn't
obliterated by oncoming headlamps.

AAMOF, I'd rather see the use of headlights made compulsory
everywhere when in motion (or when the engine is running) and the use
of sidelights restricted only to marking the position of a stationary
(ie, parked) vehicle. Upgrading the requirements for cycle lights
(requiring a car-like floodlighting of the whole area for some yards
in front of the vehicle and for the whole width of the traffic lane)
would be a good idea too.

That's the religion that produced those stupid fairy lights. I would
disconnect them if it was legal to do so.

When some countries mandated headlamp use in 1998 (give or take a couple
of years), casualties went up. Austria recognised their folly after just
a year. The other countries were unable to shake off the religion.

Exactly. Making motorists feel safer just leads to them taking more risks and those who use the roads as a matter of right rather than under licence suffer the consequences.
Dipped headlights do nothing on street lit roads other than obfuscate primary road users.

And the extra fuel consumed powering the lights.

On 16/10/2019 20:55, Simon Jester wrote:

Exactly. Making motorists feel safer just leads to them taking more
risks and those who use the roads as a matter of right rather than
under licence suffer the consequences. Dipped headlights do nothing
on street lit roads other than obfuscate primary road users.

The irony is, the followers of the religion think it makes them safer.

On 16/10/2019 14:33, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/10/2019 13:40, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on
lit 30mph roads would also help safety.

As for banning the use of headlights, I have rarely heard a more
Â*obtuse suggestion.

Do you not know what headlights are for?

This might ellp:

Requir'n 4+ wheeled mowti vehicles ter use side lights only ed lit
Â*30mph roads would also ellp safety.

Translation provided by http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp

You too don't like the idea of other people being able to see where
they're going (plus dark-clad pedestrians, cyclists without lights,
etc), then?

Yes, it's a good for people to seeing their surroundings.

Try that sentence again?

Streetlights
are pretty good with that. Our night vision is far better than we
realise. Except we keep shining unshaded lights in our faces and never
give it a chance.

Streetlights are - sometimes - good enough for travellers moving at
walking pace or a bit faster. They are rarely good enough for traffic
moving at up to 40mph in an environment where pedestrians and cyclists
share the space.

My approach to this issue is very straightforward. If it's dark
enough for the law to require the use of side-lights, it's certainly
dark enough for the use of headlights to be an invaluable safety
move. I never drive on just side lights. There are all sorts of
things you need to be able to see in advance, including rain puddles
(espoecially near pedestrians), craters and pot-holes as well as
pedestrians and cyclists, some of whom sem to be doing their best to
be invisible in the murk.

When we had yellow streetlamps, black provided extremely good contrast,
able to highlight things several hundred yards away.

Whenever that was, that was then. This is now. Headlights were always
advisable (and in my view should always have been compulsory) in any case.

Streetlamps would give you this ability if your vision wasn't
obliterated by oncoming headlamps.

Headlights don't "obliterate" (or even obscure) my vision.

You seem to have a particular street in mind. Wherever it is (and
assuming it isn't only inside your head), not all streets are lit to a
standard that will allow traffic to proceed without the use of headlights.

AAMOF, I'd rather see the use of headlights made compulsory
everywhere when in motion (or when the engine is running) and the use
of sidelights restricted only to marking the position of a stationary
(ie, parked) vehicle. Upgrading the requirements for cycle lights
(requiring a car-like floodlighting of the whole area for some yards
in front of the vehicle and for the whole width of the traffic lane)
would be a good idea too.

That's the religion that produced those stupid fairy lights. I would
disconnect them if it was legal to do so.

What are you on about?

When some countries mandated headlamp use in 1998 (give or take a couple
of years), casualties went up. Austria recognised their folly after just
a year. The other countries were unable to shake off the religion.

Much light is far better than a little light, and immeasurable better
then the total lack of light *some* road-users seem to "think" is OK.

On 16/10/2019 20:14, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 2:33:47 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/10/2019 13:40, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:32, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/10/2019 12:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on
lit 30mph roads would also help safety.

As for banning the use of headlights, I have rarely heard a more
obtuse suggestion.

Do you not know what headlights are for?

This might ellp:

Requir'n 4+ wheeled mowti vehicles ter use side lights only ed lit
30mph roads would also ellp safety.

Translation provided by http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp

You too don't like the idea of other people being able to see where
they're going (plus dark-clad pedestrians, cyclists without lights,
etc), then?

Yes, it's a good for people to seeing their surroundings. Streetlights
are pretty good with that. Our night vision is far better than we
realise. Except we keep shining unshaded lights in our faces and never
give it a chance.

My approach to this issue is very straightforward. If it's dark
enough for the law to require the use of side-lights, it's certainly
dark enough for the use of headlights to be an invaluable safety
move. I never drive on just side lights. There are all sorts of
things you need to be able to see in advance, including rain puddles
(espoecially near pedestrians), craters and pot-holes as well as
pedestrians and cyclists, some of whom sem to be doing their best to
be invisible in the murk.

When we had yellow streetlamps, black provided extremely good contrast,
able to highlight things several hundred yards away.

Streetlamps would give you this ability if your vision wasn't
obliterated by oncoming headlamps.

AAMOF, I'd rather see the use of headlights made compulsory
everywhere when in motion (or when the engine is running) and the use
of sidelights restricted only to marking the position of a stationary
(ie, parked) vehicle. Upgrading the requirements for cycle lights
(requiring a car-like floodlighting of the whole area for some yards
in front of the vehicle and for the whole width of the traffic lane)
would be a good idea too.

That's the religion that produced those stupid fairy lights. I would
disconnect them if it was legal to do so.

When some countries mandated headlamp use in 1998 (give or take a couple
of years), casualties went up. Austria recognised their folly after just
a year. The other countries were unable to shake off the religion.

Exactly. Making motorists feel safer just leads to them taking more risks and those who use the roads as a matter of right rather than under licence suffer the consequences.
Dipped headlights do nothing on street lit roads other than obfuscate primary road users.

"Obliterate"

"Obfuscate"

Some of you need a dictionary.