How stippid can some cyclists be?

"Deux" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 14:25:11 +0000, alan.holmes wrote:

I was driving along a very dark narrow road, when I suddenly saw a
cyclist in front of me, about 2 yards away, the fool had no lights or
anything reflective, and was dressed it very dark material, so I only
just managed to avoid hitting him.

I think if you only just managed to avoid hitting him then you should
have a think about whether you should be driving.

Cars have headlights so you should be able to see any hazard regardless
of whether it has a light attached to it.

What if it were an animal or a pedestrian? Presumably you would have
nearly hit them as well?

If they were totally dressed in black, the light would NOT have reflected
from them!

I would have thought that was fairly simple to understand!

Alan

"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
On Dec 4, 3:44 pm, The Revd wrote:
On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 14:25:11 -0000, "alan.holmes"

wrote:

I was driving along a very dark narrow road, when I suddenly saw a
cyclist
in front of me, about 2 yards away, the fool had no lights or anything
reflective, and was dressed it very dark material, so I only just managed
to
avoid hitting him.

Why do some behave so stupidly?

Alan

The stupidity is a given. The government encourages them.

More to the point - WHY did you avoid hitting him?

On reflection I should have!

Hit him that is!(:-)

Alan



Maybe because he was not as "stippid" (sic) as he makes out he is.

--
Simon Mason

On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 17:07:28 -0000, "Mr. Benn" wrote:

No comment on the cyclist riding without lights dressed in dark clothing?
Not worth commenting on?

It is covered by the generic urc response to reports of POB behaviour.

Guy
--
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.

On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 07:52:24 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
wrote:

On Dec 4, 3:44*pm, The Revd wrote:
On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 14:25:11 -0000, "alan.holmes"

wrote:

I was driving along a very dark narrow road, when I suddenly saw a cyclist
in front of me, about 2 yards away, the fool had no lights or anything
reflective, and was dressed it very dark material, so I only just managed to
avoid hitting him.

Why do some behave so stupidly?

Alan

The stupidity is a given. *The government encourages them.

More to the point - WHY did you avoid hitting him?

Maybe because he was not as "stippid" (sic) as he makes out he is.

An opportunity for a Darwin award was missed there!

On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 17:41:28 -0000, "alan.holmes"
wrote:


"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
On Dec 4, 3:44 pm, The Revd wrote:
On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 14:25:11 -0000, "alan.holmes"

wrote:

I was driving along a very dark narrow road, when I suddenly saw a
cyclist
in front of me, about 2 yards away, the fool had no lights or anything
reflective, and was dressed it very dark material, so I only just managed
to
avoid hitting him.

Why do some behave so stupidly?

Alan

The stupidity is a given. The government encourages them.

More to the point - WHY did you avoid hitting him?

On reflection I should have!

Hit him that is!(:-)

He'd have got hit sooner or later anyway. Best to get it over and
done with.

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 16:47:27 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:



If they are stupid enough to ride a push bike


Thank God I am stupid by the vorephilic dave's definition.



--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 11:04:48 -0600, Deux wrote:



Cars have headlights so you should be able to see any hazard regardless
of whether it has a light attached to it.

Have you had any experience of how invisible a black unlit cow is on a
dark night, even with good headlights (on the car, not the cow)?
The visibility of a black unlit bicycle with black unlit bicyclist would
be similarly rather dubious.






--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

On 04/12/2011 17:18, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 04/12/2011 17:07, Mr. Benn wrote:
"Deux" wrote in message
m...

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 14:25:11 +0000, alan.holmes wrote:

I was driving along a very dark narrow road, when I suddenly saw a
cyclist in front of me, about 2 yards away, the fool had no lights or
anything reflective, and was dressed it very dark material, so I only
just managed to avoid hitting him.

I think if you only just managed to avoid hitting him then you should
have a think about whether you should be driving.

Cars have headlights so you should be able to see any hazard regardless
of whether it has a light attached to it.

What if it were an animal or a pedestrian? Presumably you would have
nearly hit them as well?
==========================================

No comment on the cyclist riding without lights dressed in dark
clothing? Not worth commenting on?

Not really no. This is not unusual nor newsworthy.

Most posters in this thread seem to think it was pretty stupid.

And animals and pedestrians *do* get hit like this. It is a sign of poor
driving. I fess up to killing a rabbit once :-(

Bunny Killer.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

"Simon Weaseltemper" wrote in message
...
On 04/12/2011 17:07, Mr. Benn wrote:
"Deux" wrote in message
m...

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 14:25:11 +0000, alan.holmes wrote:

I was driving along a very dark narrow road, when I suddenly saw a
cyclist in front of me, about 2 yards away, the fool had no lights or
anything reflective, and was dressed it very dark material, so I only
just managed to avoid hitting him.

I think if you only just managed to avoid hitting him then you should
have a think about whether you should be driving.

Cars have headlights so you should be able to see any hazard regardless
of whether it has a light attached to it.

What if it were an animal or a pedestrian? Presumably you would have
nearly hit them as well?
==========================================

No comment on the cyclist riding without lights dressed in dark
clothing? Not worth commenting on?

Not really no. This is not unusual nor newsworthy.

Why is cycling without lights not unusual? It should be and is worth
addressing.

On 05/12/2011 13:08, Mr Benn wrote:
"Simon Weaseltemper" wrote in message
...
On 04/12/2011 17:07, Mr. Benn wrote:
"Deux" wrote in message
m...

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 14:25:11 +0000, alan.holmes wrote:

I was driving along a very dark narrow road, when I suddenly saw a
cyclist in front of me, about 2 yards away, the fool had no lights or
anything reflective, and was dressed it very dark material, so I only
just managed to avoid hitting him.

I think if you only just managed to avoid hitting him then you should
have a think about whether you should be driving.

Cars have headlights so you should be able to see any hazard regardless
of whether it has a light attached to it.

What if it were an animal or a pedestrian? Presumably you would have
nearly hit them as well?
==========================================

No comment on the cyclist riding without lights dressed in dark
clothing? Not worth commenting on?

Not really no. This is not unusual nor newsworthy.

Why is cycling without lights not unusual? It should be and is worth
addressing.

I reported a few weeks back that I spotted 6 cyclists after dark and
only one had lights. A cyclist without lights is about as newsworthy as
a car driver exceeding the speed limit. It is just not unusual.

Yes it should be addressed, as should all forms of illegal road use, but
bleating in a newsgroup seems to me to be pointless. Especially since
the vast majority of cyclists here claim to ride with lights anyway (I
use 2 rear and two front).


--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.