Brighton Cyclist 900 quid down

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
DavidR wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote
DavidR wrote:

I have a front light for unlit roads that cost £80 and I usually
carry a
spare that cost £30.

Then you can have the satisfaction of knowing that you are one in a
thousand at most. What you may or may not do is hardly representative
of
"cyclists",

So which bit of the message made you think that I was suggesting that my
lights were in any way representative?

Which bit of my message made you think that I thought that you were
representative?

The fact that you told me I wasn't representative.

I'm pointing out that you're not.

If you didn't think that I thought that I was representative why did you
bother to send a message pointing out the bleedin' obvious?

On 12 Oct, 22:00, "DavidR" wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote

"DavidR" wrote

An answer containing "there is a law..." is never an answer to a techical
question.

lights are required so that the vehicle may be seen when it is used after
dark. *Whether it is visible at any particular moment due to fortuitous
conditions is irrelevant.

Which is why so many people claim to see unlit cyclists. Hmm.

After all, weather conditions such as fog and rain can descend at a
moments notice

No it doesn't!

Aye, You're thinking of the weather pigeon which drops you a little
mmessage twenty minutes before it rains. Registration at £29.98PA.
Amazing how the Meteorological Office manage it, especially for the
price, Guess that'll be pulled soon.

rendering the previously visible unlit cycle practically invisible.
Lights on a bicycle are such a trifle in cost and weight terms that there
can be no excuse not to have them.

Plastic bodied battery lamps are genuinely not easy maintenance items and I

Huh????

can understand many people might start with good intention until the sod it
factor intervenes. Besides, amongst the stupidly bright lights on motor
vehicles such lamps are invisible anyway. So often I am perfectly aware
there's a cyclist ahead long before the lights on the bicycle add any useful
information.

As I said, I have good lighting (though the primary purpose is to cast a
beam on otherwise unlit road surfaces) but I find the fuss made over unlit
cyclists is mostly ...just a fuss of the "ooh, look at that lawbreaker"
kind.

Pratt. There are good lighting conditions where a cyclist
'disappears' because the bike does not have the recognised marker
lamps.

On 12 Oct, 05:56, Derek C wrote:
On Oct 12, 12:10*am, "DavidR" wrote:

would have been very difficult to see on an unlit road on a dark night.

On 12 Oct, 22:01, "DavidR" wrote:
"Derek C" wrote in
On Oct 12, 12:10 am, "DavidR" wrote:

would have been very difficult to see on an unlit road on a dark
night.

Most cyclists don't go on unlit roads on dark nights.
They do in my area, semi-rural Hertfordshire! Often totally without
lights, reflectors or high viz clothings. I very nearly collided with
one such lemming at a roundabout last year, when I didn't see him
until the very last second as he entered the area illuminated by my
car headlights.

Someone is bound to find exceptions but most roundabouts are probably
covered by streetlamps. Irrespective of the legal situation, a lack of
opportunity to see doesn't seem particularly credible.

Then your an idiot as well as a fool.


Had you had run into him (or might he have run into you?), the best thing
the cyclist could have done, knowing he didn't have lights, was just to let
you through. I would criticise him more for failing to be defensive
than for failing to have lights.

My point gathers credence.


If I had have knocked him off his bike and killed or
injured him, according to Doug it would have been my fault, because
the cyclist was the more vulnerable! A lifetime driving ban, a million
pound fine, and a long period in The Tower should have followed on the
'Doug' principle!

You're ranting.

Ha ha.

DavidR wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
DavidR wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote
DavidR wrote:

I have a front light for unlit roads that cost £80 and I usually
carry a
spare that cost £30.

Then you can have the satisfaction of knowing that you are one in a
thousand at most. What you may or may not do is hardly representative
of
"cyclists",

So which bit of the message made you think that I was suggesting that my
lights were in any way representative?

Which bit of my message made you think that I thought that you were
representative?

The fact that you told me I wasn't representative.

Is your relation to Lewis CarrolL through the spear or distaff side of
the family? Or perhaps it's Edward Lear that you are related to?

I'm pointing out that you're not.

If you didn't think that I thought that I was representative why did you
bother to send a message pointing out the bleedin' obvious?

Because you appear to ahve missed the bleedin' obvious as you did on
this occasion.

On 12 Oct, 23:45, "The Medway Handyman" davidno-spam-
wrote:
DavidR wrote:
"Derek C" wrote

Why are psycholists so averse to carrying lights at night? They ride
bikes costing hundreds of pounds but won't spend a tenner on a couple
of lights that weight very little. It's for their own safety and the
safety of others such as pedestrians.

I have a front light for unlit roads that cost £80 and *I usually
carry a spare that cost £30. (These are probably stingy compared to
the stuff some posters you insult are carrying).

I have a van equipped with loads of lights which costs me less than that a
month to drive.




--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

thirty-six wrote:

I'd just ;like to highlight that roundabout use is certainly an area
where a cyclist NEEDS to have large bright marker lights.

It's also an area where a cyclist NEEDS to obey the law. That also
applies to traffic lights, pavement cycling, use of one-way streets,
STOP lines, Give Way markings and many other features of modern day road
use that cyclists choose to ignore.

Then they complain when they end up injured or their families whine if
they die.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
thirty-six wrote:

I'd just ;like to highlight that roundabout use is certainly an area
where a cyclist NEEDS to have large bright marker lights.

It's also an area where a cyclist NEEDS to obey the law. That also
applies to traffic lights, pavement cycling, use of one-way streets,
STOP lines, Give Way markings and many other features of modern day road
use that cyclists choose to ignore.

Then they complain when they end up injured or their families whine if
they die.

yawn

This really does not justify the ****-poor driving standards we see on our
roads Steve.

I thought you were against this pathetic type of point scoring, not an
advocate of it.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/s...s.html#you_too

mileburner wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
thirty-six wrote:

I'd just ;like to highlight that roundabout use is certainly an area
where a cyclist NEEDS to have large bright marker lights.

It's also an area where a cyclist NEEDS to obey the law. That also
applies to traffic lights, pavement cycling, use of one-way streets,
STOP lines, Give Way markings and many other features of modern day road
use that cyclists choose to ignore.

Then they complain when they end up injured or their families whine if
they die.

yawn

This really does not justify the ****-poor driving standards we see on our
roads Steve.

No one said it did. Your reply is yet another cyclist's "tu quoque". It
seems that you don't even know when you are doing it.

I thought you were against this pathetic type of point scoring, not an
advocate of it.

The reply I made to your post was not "tu quoque", nor was it point
scoring. I mentioned only cyclists and did not make odious comparisons
with other road users. It is you that introduced "tu quoque" with your
comment about excusing ****-poor driving standards (which I had not
done).

I was pointing out the fallacy or deficiency in your argument. Not only
do cyclists need to be seen, but cyclists need to obey the law because
if they don't they are acting in an unpredictable manner that makes them
more vulnerable.

At present there is a militant and somewhat stupid faction among
cyclists who think that if they fit large, unapproved lights and attempt
to dazzle other road users that this wil make them safer and in some way
endear them to other road users. This PoV is fallacious. It's also
stupid since these advocates of being seen at any cost do not then go on
to ride in a safe manner. Risk compensation sets in and they ride like
loonies, assuming better visibility makes it OK to take bigger risks.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
mileburner wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
thirty-six wrote:

I'd just ;like to highlight that roundabout use is certainly an area
where a cyclist NEEDS to have large bright marker lights.

It's also an area where a cyclist NEEDS to obey the law. That also
applies to traffic lights, pavement cycling, use of one-way streets,
STOP lines, Give Way markings and many other features of modern day
road
use that cyclists choose to ignore.

Then they complain when they end up injured or their families whine if
they die.

yawn

This really does not justify the ****-poor driving standards we see on
our
roads Steve.

No one said it did. Your reply is yet another cyclist's "tu quoque". It
seems that you don't even know when you are doing it.

Everyone *needs* to obey the law, however you seem to have it hardwired into
your brain that car drivers *do* obey the law and that cyclists do not. You
also fail to observe (quite conveniently) that drivers pose a very real risk
to all other road users where cylists pose a comparatively small risk.

I was pointing out the fallacy or deficiency in your argument. Not only
do cyclists need to be seen, but cyclists need to obey the law because
if they don't they are acting in an unpredictable manner that makes them
more vulnerable.

I think they call that "blaming the victim".