Bikers perform citizen’s arrest after spotting pickpocket steal war hero’s wallet

On 15/11/2019 14:08, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:50, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:45, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:30, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:19, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:15, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:00, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:53, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 06:32, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 01:48, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2019 18:46, Bod wrote:
On 14/11/2019 18:04, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Bod wrote:
On 14/11/2019 17:34, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 10:06:15 AM UTC, Bod
wrote:
This is the moment a would-be thief was tackled by a
group of
bikers after trying to steal a war veteran's wallet as
he sold
poppies over the weekend.


https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/13/biker...8/?ito=cbshare

--
Bod

Did m/cyclists steal the SMIDSY acronym from cyclists, or
was it
vice versa?

Wot does SMIDSY meen?


The acronym is used by motorcyclists and cyclists in
reference to
traffic collisions in which the driver of a car or larger
vehicle
claims not to have noticed a two-wheel biker. It is usually
derogatory, in that the claim is often that the driver was
not at
fault (when he/she patently was).

'Sorry Mate I Didn't See You'.

First time I've ever seen it. But, I'm not a cyclist.

If you were a cyclist, you would definitely find out quickly.


Â* All cyclists and motorcyclists know it full well from
experience.
Many car drivers just seem to be blind to two wheeled vehicles.
I've had many instance myself when cycling, from cars just
pulling out of side roads and obviously totally oblivious to
my presence.

You should wear pink hi-viz.

People would notice you in that.
Â*
Â* I understand that your gay community would like cyclists to
wear rainbow colours, but pink has been proven to not be a very
effective colour compared to the tried and tested colours
already available.

Pink hi-viz is available. If it were limited (legally) to use in
public places only by cyclists, it would be an invaluable and
colour-coded aid to their safety.

Perhaps you aren't as in favour of safety aids as you sometimes
say.
Â*
Â* I've never mentioned safety aids before. I never wear hi viz,
just smething light coloured.

Safety and aids to safety are somewhat related, wouldn't you agree?

If road-users had a ready way of identifying cyclists in the
distance (and of easily distinguishing them from other road-user
classes at a glance), particularly when picked out in headlights,
that would act as a valuable alert.
Â*
Â* Strange that when I'm driving my car, I have no problem
observing cyclists clearly.

Half a mile away, in the dark, on dipped headlights?

You'd certainly notice an on-foot police traffic officer (and his
car) at that distance. Well, unless you are one of those who is
opposed to the use of headlights.

Perhaps you should pay a visit to Specsavers.

Why?

Â* A wild guess....to test your hearing?

My hearing is very acute. So is my sight (properly corrected). But I
still couldn't see a cyclist in conditions of darkness, half a mile
away, without good lighting and something for the light to reflect off
and preferably something immediately identifiable as a cyclist.

I still recommend that you attend an eye test.

I have one every now and then. It is necessary.

I myself have been
driving vehicles on the roads for over 55 years and never had an
accident. I also have never failed to see a cyclist.

I don't see (no pun intended) how you can know that.

I don't see how anyone could know that.

On 16/11/2019 03:45, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:08, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:50, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:45, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:30, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:19, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:15, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:00, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:53, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 06:32, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 01:48, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2019 18:46, Bod wrote:
On 14/11/2019 18:04, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Bod wrote:
On 14/11/2019 17:34, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 10:06:15 AM UTC, Bod
wrote:
This is the moment a would-be thief was tackled by a
group of
bikers after trying to steal a war veteran's wallet as
he sold
poppies over the weekend.


https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/13/biker...8/?ito=cbshare

--Â*
Bod

Did m/cyclists steal the SMIDSY acronym from cyclists,
or was it
vice versa?

Wot does SMIDSY meen?


The acronym is used by motorcyclists and cyclists in
reference to
traffic collisions in which the driver of a car or larger
vehicle
claims not to have noticed a two-wheel biker. It is usually
derogatory, in that the claim is often that the driver was
not at
fault (when he/she patently was).

'Sorry Mate I Didn't See You'.

First time I've ever seen it. But, I'm not a cyclist.

If you were a cyclist, you would definitely find out quickly.


Â* All cyclists and motorcyclists know it full well from
experience.
Many car drivers just seem to be blind to two wheeled vehicles.
I've had many instance myself when cycling, from cars just
pulling out of side roads and obviously totally oblivious to
my presence.

You should wear pink hi-viz.

People would notice you in that.
Â*
Â* I understand that your gay community would like cyclists to
wear rainbow colours, but pink has been proven to not be a
very effective colour compared to the tried and tested colours
already available.

Pink hi-viz is available. If it were limited (legally) to use
in public places only by cyclists, it would be an invaluable
and colour-coded aid to their safety.

Perhaps you aren't as in favour of safety aids as you sometimes
say.
Â*
Â* I've never mentioned safety aids before. I never wear hi viz,
just smething light coloured.

Safety and aids to safety are somewhat related, wouldn't you agree?

If road-users had a ready way of identifying cyclists in the
distance (and of easily distinguishing them from other road-user
classes at a glance), particularly when picked out in headlights,
that would act as a valuable alert.
Â*
Â* Strange that when I'm driving my car, I have no problem
observing cyclists clearly.

Half a mile away, in the dark, on dipped headlights?

You'd certainly notice an on-foot police traffic officer (and his
car) at that distance. Well, unless you are one of those who is
opposed to the use of headlights.

Perhaps you should pay a visit to Specsavers.

Why?

Â* A wild guess....to test your hearing?

My hearing is very acute. So is my sight (properly corrected). But I
still couldn't see a cyclist in conditions of darkness, half a mile
away, without good lighting and something for the light to reflect
off and preferably something immediately identifiable as a cyclist.
Â*
Â* I still recommend that you attend an eye test.

I have one every now and then. It is necessary.

I myself have been driving vehicles on the roads for over 55 years and
never had an accident. I also have never failed to see a cyclist.

I don't see (no pun intended) how you can know that.

I don't see how anyone could know that.

Yes I suppose you cannot know what you don't see or are not otherwise
aware off.

On 15/11/2019 13:30, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:19, Bod wrote:

Strange that when I'm driving my car, I have no problem observing
cyclists clearly.

Half a mile away, in the dark, on dipped headlights?

When cycling it provides no benefit, and I have no requirement or
expectation to be seen from half a mile away.

When driving on the type of roads that cyclists typically use, speed
limits and sightlines do not require me to see them from half a mile away.

You'd certainly notice an on-foot police traffic officer (and his car)
at that distance. Well, unless you are one of those who is opposed to
the use of headlights.

Perhaps you should pay a visit to Specsavers.

In Nugent's case, the problems go much deeper than eyesight.

On 15/11/2019 12:53, JNugent wrote:

Pink hi-viz is available. If it were limited (legally) to use in public
places only by cyclists, it would be an invaluable and colour-coded aid
to their safety.

Perhaps you aren't as in favour of safety aids as you sometimes say.

A crucifix is often as effective as many "safety aids". For many ideas
about safety are completely indistingiushable from religion.

On 16/11/2019 11:19, TMS320 wrote:

On 15/11/2019 13:30, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:19, Bod wrote:

Strange that when I'm driving my car, I have no problem observing
cyclists clearly.

Half a mile away, in the dark, on dipped headlights?

When cycling it provides no benefit, and I have no requirement or
expectation to be seen from half a mile away.

Not even at night, on a road where speeds of 60 or 70 mph are the norm?

When driving on the type of roads that cyclists typically use, speed
limits and sightlines do not require me to see them from half a mile away.

You cannot know that.

I would refer you, though, to the case of a (female) cyclist killed on
the A23 a few years ago, cycling straight across a grade-separated
interchange by following the demarcation line between the nearside
through lane and the deceleration line leading to a slip road. Or it
might have been the line between the acceleration and nearside lanes on
the far side of the junction. Being ultra-visible in such a situation is
crucial - *even* during daylight hours and hi-viz kelps even on a sunny day.

You'd certainly notice an on-foot police traffic officer (and his car)
at that distance. Well, unless you are one of those who is opposed to
the use of headlights.

Perhaps you should pay a visit to Specsavers.

In Nugent's case, the problems go much deeper than eyesight.

Oh dear... TMS has run out of witty things to say. Some time ago, of course.

On 16/11/2019 11:21, TMS320 wrote:

On 15/11/2019 12:53, JNugent wrote:

Pink hi-viz is available. If it were limited (legally) to use in
public places only by cyclists, it would be an invaluable and
colour-coded aid to their safety.

Perhaps you aren't as in favour of safety aids as you sometimes say.

A crucifix is often as effective as many "safety aids". For many ideas
about safety are completely indistingiushable from religion.

Let me guess...

Anything that cyclists are required or urged to do in the pursuance of
safety (whether their own or anyone else's) is a pointless and
oppressive imposition whilst the requirements, proscriptions and
prescriptions for other road-user classes are totally inadequate?

You are transparent.

On 16/11/2019 11:46, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2019 11:21, TMS320 wrote:

On 15/11/2019 12:53, JNugent wrote:

Pink hi-viz is available. If it were limited (legally) to use in
public places only by cyclists, it would be an invaluable and
colour-coded aid to their safety.

Perhaps you aren't as in favour of safety aids as you sometimes say.

A crucifix is often as effective as many "safety aids". For many ideas
about safety are completely indistingiushable from religion.

Let me guess...

Don't bother, just read.

On 16/11/2019 11:43, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2019 11:19, TMS320 wrote:

On 15/11/2019 13:30, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:19, Bod wrote:

Strange that when I'm driving my car, I have no problem observing
cyclists clearly.

Half a mile away, in the dark, on dipped headlights?

When cycling it provides no benefit, and I have no requirement or
expectation to be seen from half a mile away.

Not even at night, on a road where speeds of 60 or 70 mph are the norm?

I don't cycle on 60/70mph roads.

When driving on the type of roads that cyclists typically use, speed
limits and sightlines do not require me to see them from half a mile
away.

You cannot know that.

I do know that.

I would refer you, though, to the case of a (female) cyclist killed on
the A23 a few years ago, cycling straight across a grade-separated
interchange by following the demarcation line between the nearside
through lane and the deceleration line leading to a slip road. Or it
might have been the line between the acceleration and nearside lanes on
the far side of the junction. Being ultra-visible in such a situation is
crucial - *even* during daylight hours and hi-viz kelps even on a sunny
day.

A fascinating anecdote but I have no idea what it is meant to demonstrate.

On 16/11/2019 13:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/11/2019 11:43, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2019 11:19, TMS320 wrote:

On 15/11/2019 13:30, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:19, Bod wrote:

Strange that when I'm driving my car, I have no problem observing
cyclists clearly.

Half a mile away, in the dark, on dipped headlights?

When cycling it provides no benefit, and I have no requirement or
expectation to be seen from half a mile away.

Not even at night, on a road where speeds of 60 or 70 mph are the norm?

I don't cycle on 60/70mph roads.

Right, and that applies to every cyclist in the world, does it?

I had no idea that you had such power as an "influencer".

When driving on the type of roads that cyclists typically use, speed
limits and sightlines do not require me to see them from half a mile
away.

You cannot know that.

I do know that.

You cannot, so do not.

I would refer you, though, to the case of a (female) cyclist killed on
the A23 a few years ago, cycling straight across a grade-separated
interchange by following the demarcation line between the nearside
through lane and the deceleration line leading to a slip road. Or it
might have been the line between the acceleration and nearside lanes
on the far side of the junction. Being ultra-visible in such a
situation is crucial - *even* during daylight hours and hi-viz kelps
even on a sunny day.

A fascinating anecdote but I have no idea what it is meant to demonstrate.

It means that there are circumstances where being visible from as great
a distance as is physically possible is not only desirable but imperative.

On 16/11/2019 14:21, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2019 13:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/11/2019 11:43, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2019 11:19, TMS320 wrote:

On 15/11/2019 13:30, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:19, Bod wrote:

Strange that when I'm driving my car, I have no problem
observing cyclists clearly.

Half a mile away, in the dark, on dipped headlights?

When cycling it provides no benefit, and I have no requirement
or expectation to be seen from half a mile away.

Not even at night, on a road where speeds of 60 or 70 mph are the
norm?

I don't cycle on 60/70mph roads.

Right, and that applies to every cyclist in the world, does it?

I had no idea that you had such power as an "influencer".

You're the one telling me what I should wear.

When driving on the type of roads that cyclists typically use,
speed limits and sightlines do not require me to see them from
half a mile away.

You cannot know that.

I do know that.

You cannot, so do not.

If you have that much trouble, please return your driving licence before
you harm somebody.

I would refer you, though, to the case of a (female) cyclist
killed on the A23 a few years ago, cycling straight across a
grade-separated interchange by following the demarcation line
between the nearside through lane and the deceleration line
leading to a slip road. Or it might have been the line between
the acceleration and nearside lanes on the far side of the
junction. Being ultra-visible in such a situation is crucial -
*even* during daylight hours and hi-viz kelps even on a sunny
day.

A fascinating anecdote but I have no idea what it is meant to
demonstrate.

It means that there are circumstances where being visible from as
great a distance as is physically possible is not only desirable but
imperative.

You have no idea whatsoever whether visibility was the issue.