why do cyclists think that they don't need lights at night?

On Dec 9, 11:41*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:
On 09/12/2010 09:11, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 09/12/2010 08:56, Doug wrote:
Do you approve of cycling without lights

Why is it not simple?

You either think that cyclists should obey the law about lights at
night or not.

Do you approve of cycling without lights?

Just to make it a bit clearer, Do you approve of cycling without
lights, during the hours of darkness, on a public highway/

FXtumble weed, cricket sounds, wind whistle, creaking sound from old pub
sign *time passes, people die, the next ice age begins..............

And then Doug, will either go silent, answer the post but not answer
the question, will attempt to move the goalposts, ignore the question
by asking a non related question, accuse the poster of something that
has nothing to do with the question.

On 07/12/2010 21:57, Mrcheerful wrote:
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new...ithout_lights/



I had one of those 'Nu-Twit' cyclists* overtake me yesterday evening. No
lights, dark paint; I only heard the idiot because she was driving a
car. I shouted at her "lights, lights" as she passed, but to no avail.

Luckily I was travelling along a well lit urban road and I had my eyes
open so it wasn't very difficult to see her.


*'Nu Twit' cyclists are the ones who are soooooo stupid that they think
they're riding a bike even when they're driving a car - so jumping red
lights, ditto zebra crossings, pulling into ASLs - all second nature to
them. I believe a significant number of 'Nu Twit' cyclists are also
driving cars without Insurance or a License - but of course, nobody in
authority gives a damn. These bloody 'Nu Twit' cyclists think they own
the road.

"OG" wrote in message
...
On 07/12/2010 21:57, Mrcheerful wrote:
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new...ithout_lights/



I had one of those 'Nu-Twit' cyclists* overtake me yesterday evening. No
lights, dark paint; I only heard the idiot because she was driving a car.
I shouted at her "lights, lights" as she passed, but to no avail.

Luckily I was travelling along a well lit urban road and I had my eyes
open so it wasn't very difficult to see her.


*'Nu Twit' cyclists are the ones who are soooooo stupid that they think
they're riding a bike even when they're driving a car - so jumping red
lights, ditto zebra crossings, pulling into ASLs - all second nature to
them. I believe a significant number of 'Nu Twit' cyclists are also
driving cars without Insurance or a License - but of course, nobody in
authority gives a damn. These bloody 'Nu Twit' cyclists think they own the
road.

uninsured and unlicensed car drivers are stopped by the anpr systems and
have their cars taken away, so they don't stay on the road for long.

On Dec 8, 9:15*am, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 08/12/2010 06:57, Doug wrote:

On Dec 8, 1:08 am, *wrote:
On 07/12/2010 21:57, Mrcheerful wrote:

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new...lice_launch_cr....

Unconscious humour?

"POLICE have launched a crackdown on cyclists who are putting their lives at
risk by riding without lights during terrible conditions at the darkest time
of the year.

"Officers stopped 33 riders in two hours at Bournemouth s Cemetery Junction...".

Maybe the cyclists think it won't make much difference anyway to half-
blind killer drivers.

So you are saying that these cyclists are stupid because they do not
care about themselves or anybody else.

Is that what you are saying then? What I am saying is that cyclists
know it will make little difference to their safety when confronted by
dangerous drivers.

When I was rammed I was using lights and the
motorist admitted he didn't even see me.

Anecdotal.

Pity the police can't pull
over drivers to test their night vision.

Have you had your eyes tested for night vision?

Why would I need to? Have you as a driver? Or do you prefer to remain
as a serious threat to cyclists at night?

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On 10/12/2010 08:16, Doug wrote:
On Dec 8, 9:15 am, Tony wrote:
On 08/12/2010 06:57, Doug wrote:

On Dec 8, 1:08 am, wrote:
On 07/12/2010 21:57, Mrcheerful wrote:

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new...lice_launch_cr...

Unconscious humour?

"POLICE have launched a crackdown on cyclists who are putting their lives at
risk by riding without lights during terrible conditions at the darkest time
of the year.

"Officers stopped 33 riders in two hours at Bournemouth s Cemetery Junction...".

Maybe the cyclists think it won't make much difference anyway to half-
blind killer drivers.

So you are saying that these cyclists are stupid because they do not
care about themselves or anybody else.

Is that what you are saying then? What I am saying is that cyclists
know it will make little difference to their safety when confronted by
dangerous drivers.

What about if they are confronted by non dangerous drivers?
What about the effect they may have on others safety.
After all you tell us that because a motorist might break one law, it
means that he has the mindset to break other laws.
Surely the same applies to cyclists?


When I was rammed I was using lights and the
motorist admitted he didn't even see me.

Anecdotal.

Pity the police can't pull
over drivers to test their night vision.

Have you had your eyes tested for night vision?

Why would I need to? Have you as a driver? Or do you prefer to remain
as a serious threat to cyclists at night?

Not for a number of years.


-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.


--
Tony Dragon

On 8 Dec, 18:57, Tony Dragon wrote:

You are surely not suggesting that some cyclists are to thick or tight
to buy lights

Given that "cyclists" are human beings, we must accept that there will
be thick ones and tight ones, in addition to the intelligent ones who
are so generous as to contribute their wisdom to this forum.

If the motorists who post on here were half as clever, they'd be
quietly grateful that the thick and tight ones are harmlessly riding
unlit bicycles rather than driving uninsured cars.

On 10/12/2010 11:08, CJ wrote:
On 8 Dec, 18:57, Tony wrote:

You are surely not suggesting that some cyclists are to thick or tight
to buy lights

Given that "cyclists" are human beings, we must accept that there will
be thick ones and tight ones,

Very true.

in addition to the intelligent ones who
are so generous as to contribute their wisdom to this forum.

Would that be all who post here, some of who post here or just you? ;-)


If the motorists who post on here were half as clever,

I'm sure you mean 'some' of the motorists who post here.

they'd be
quietly grateful that the thick and tight ones are harmlessly riding
unlit bicycles rather than driving uninsured cars.

They could easily be both.


--
Tony Dragon

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09/12/2010 04:35, Derek C wrote:
That's actually quite funny, coming from somebody who can't tell the
difference between the nineteenth century and the twentieth century,
or between a doorway and a footway!

That's actually quite funny coming from someone who makes grammatically
incorrect grammar flames and incorrectly spelled spelling flames.

By the way, how's the simple physics diagram coming along?

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNAibnAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/uQUIAI7LqouLb/6o7NSokzjOuBQN
3omLmAAOiq3wBfa5PWSUF/72CMUarpDcMJp57oecqOMzWzh43WarETS7dRHQ3ZHk
/Ezq1sGNrbBs+lO0TjrC+RGRMJfWFYLTq7Oz2KDyMeLbH0ucB3b lw0FanuJ8KZOU
MXGJmJDf57/3iZDUAwbNw0vgdS/knFFrEQME8gZxsyuwQuxKT59EidGdARFWotim
Ltc4V9WO65BBLw3K/Pb+skqgasOv7yrK73F6p64R0l3fLRzlAn1C+maQg5BfjaQ+
sOosAlaPjX0mJ1S8rjwRa/FuQbJ69Ld44is9uF86glbLOZ9OrQy5oV0QElObJTM=
=uGvX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 10/12/2010 11:08, CJ wrote:

Tony wrote:

You are surely not suggesting that some cyclists are to thick or tight
to buy lights

Given that "cyclists" are human beings, we must accept that there will
be thick ones and tight ones, in addition to the intelligent ones who
are so generous as to contribute their wisdom to this forum.

If the motorists who post on here were half as clever, they'd be
quietly grateful that the thick and tight ones are harmlessly riding
unlit bicycles rather than driving uninsured cars.

Are those the only two options available?

On 10/12/2010 07:51, Mrcheerful wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 07/12/2010 21:57, Mrcheerful wrote:
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new...ithout_lights/



I had one of those 'Nu-Twit' cyclists* overtake me yesterday evening. No
lights, dark paint; I only heard the idiot because she was driving a car.
I shouted at her "lights, lights" as she passed, but to no avail.

Luckily I was travelling along a well lit urban road and I had my eyes
open so it wasn't very difficult to see her.


*'Nu Twit' cyclists are the ones who are soooooo stupid that they think
they're riding a bike even when they're driving a car - so jumping red
lights, ditto zebra crossings, pulling into ASLs - all second nature to
them. I believe a significant number of 'Nu Twit' cyclists are also
driving cars without Insurance or a License - but of course, nobody in
authority gives a damn. These bloody 'Nu Twit' cyclists think they own the
road.

uninsured and unlicensed car drivers are stopped by the anpr systems and
have their cars taken away, so they don't stay on the road for long.


Very clever these ANPR systems that they can look inside the car, see
who is driving, recognise them by name, check against the MID to
identify the insurer of the car, then access the insurer's own database
and read off the named drivers for the car.

Or maybe you're talking ******** again.