Police pick on cyclist

On 2 Dec, 12:30, Roger Thorpe wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 2 Dec, 12:19, Roger Thorpe wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 2 Dec, 10:15, Roger Thorpe wrote:
Doug wrote:
The irony is that by not having lights he was putting himself far more
at risk of death from being hit by a driver than by being a danger to
anyone else, unlike say a car with no lights.
Well, Doug. Having very nearly ridden into an unlit cyclist a few times,
I'd think it fair to say that the risk to others, including pedestrians
is considerable.
Roger Thorpe
Well, Roger. Having been run down and injured by a driver who even
failed to see my lights the risk to me was considerable and to no one
else.
That makes it alright then.

As I said, the cyclist with no lights is more a danger to themself
than to anyone else, unlike a motorist with no lights who is a danger
to all, given the large mass and velocity difference.

I'm sorry what is your point? That because an unlit car is more
dangerous than a bike the unlit cyclist should be ignored?
Roger Thorpe

Doug justifies all dangerous behavior on bikes on the grounds that
cars are more dangerous.

Its a bit like saying Hitler killed more people than car drives so
that excuses all car car drivers...

Fod

Colin Reed wrote:
Well whoop-de-bloody-doo. Next you'll be telling us that crumble isn't
made from fruit, only from apples.

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:59:12 +0000, Tom Wright
wrote:
mode type="facetious"
Well actually, it's made from flour, sugar and butter.
/mode

Tim Hall wrote:
Have you tried it with porridge oats and oil instead? More crumbly,
IYSWIM.

No but I will now, thanks!

--
I'm at CAMbridge, not SPAMbridge

Fod gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Its a bit like saying Hitler killed more people than car drives so that
excuses all car car drivers...

Duhg'll probably claim that Hitler was a mere amateur compared to you and
me.

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008, JNugent wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:

He was under an obligation to give his name and address - if
requested - under road traffic legislation.

Which clause of what road traffic legislation?

"Clause"?
Acts don't have clauses; they have sections.

I take that as an admission that actually no road traffic legislation
requires it. That, in fact, your assertion was wrong.

Actually, you seem to have forgotten what you read.

Here it is again:

STARTQUOTE:
He was under an obligation to give his name and address - if requested -
under road traffic legislation.

Subject to the weird and wonderful separate-but-effectively-the-same-as-here
legal system in Scotland, he didn't give his name and address when lawfully
required to, the police would have been within their rights to arrest him
(which oddly enough, seems to have been their view too). If it were
otherwise, how could cycling law ever be enforced?
ENDQUOTE

See what you did there?

Err, yes. What I did there was question the accuracy of a statement
you presented as fact. That statement was that there is some
obligation under road traffic legislation for a cyclist being
questioned by police to provide a name and address.

I believe that statement is utter ********. I am trying to determine
if it is me that is wrong or you that is wrong. On the basis of the
evidence offered, it seems that it is you that is wrong.

Thank you for clearing that up.

But this is not what you were claiming. You thought that Acts of
Parliament are divided into clauses

I was using the term in the general sense, and used it correctly

(I could make a reasonably confident bet as to *why* you thought
that too)

Because I speak (and type) English so used the common English language
meaning of a common English language word to ask the question? What
other possible reason could there be?

Clauses (the grammatical concept) are very obviously not readily
identifiable by being indexed; it is ludicrous to suggest that you
were asking for a particular grammaical clause to be identified.
You were asking for a section and you called it a clause.

I was not using it in the sense of the grammatical construct. I did
not quote the meaning from the dictionary that deals with the
grammatical construct.

I did not ask you to identify the entire section that contains the
requirement. It may not be an entire section that is relevant. I
wanted the most specific identification possible. What I wanted, in
fact, was for you to identify precisely the particular stipulation of
the relevant act that mandates what you claim. Then I thought - hang
on! there's a term for "particular stipulation of a formal document"
so I decided to use the word. I really don't know why you're banging
on about the fact that I used a word in accordance with the normal
English usage of that word.

Well, actually I do, obviously. You're trying to deflect attention
from the fact that you were talking rubbish. You were wrong, and
you'd rather did a deeper hole for yourself than admit it.

Carry on.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

In article , Mortimer
says...

True. However it is possible for a battery to go flat or a bulb to fail
during the journey. How often is one supposed to stop and re-check a light
*during* a journey to make sure that it is *still* correctly lit?

Usually you can tell as you're cycling down the road by the light
reflected off objects as you pass.

I was surprised how difficult it was to tell, under street lighting, that
one of my headlight bulbs had failed: it wasn't until I came up behind a car
in front that I saw that only one side of his rear end was lit by my lights.

DING!


--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article 814234d3-cb57-486f-8867-0af4def03b50
@y18g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, Doug says...

Well, Roger. Having been run down and injured by a driver who even
failed to see my lights the risk to me was considerable and to no one
else.

Those stupid LED things you have on the front of your bicycle aren't
really lights, Doug.


--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

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

Tim Hall wrote:

Have you tried it with porridge oats and oil instead? More crumbly,
IYSWIM.

Overlap to shedspace!

- --
Guy

May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
================================================== =====================
** Please see http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Troll_code **
================================================== =====================
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJNVoSHBDrsD+jvN4RAoC9AJ9RSHydqCR99P5atvmkfn tCacg2CgCeIt8R
FGR5jUSxXhvb0tobwFchO4I=
=WObI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Conor" wrote in message
...
In article 814234d3-cb57-486f-8867-0af4def03b50
@y18g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, Doug says...

Well, Roger. Having been run down and injured by a driver who even
failed to see my lights the risk to me was considerable and to no one
else.

Those stupid LED things you have on the front of your bicycle aren't
really lights, Doug.

Actually a flashing LED light, whether at the front or the back, is *much*
easier to see and to distinguish from all other lights, reflections of
lights off shiny objects etc. That is true no matter whether you are a
motorist, a pedestrian or another cyclist trying to see the cyclist's
lights.

The best combination is a bright tungsten headlight to see by and a dimmer
(*) flashing LED to be seen by. And also a flashing red LED light at the
back - that only needs to be a "be seen by" light and doesn;t need to
illuminate the road.


(*) LED technology doesn't seem to have progressed yet to the stage that you
can get a cost-effective LED light that illuminates the road as well as a
tungsten light. When that situation changes, the tungsten light becomes
superfluous as long as some of the LEDs can still be made to flash to be
eye-catching.

Doug wrote:
On 2 Dec, 10:15, Roger Thorpe wrote:
Doug wrote:
The irony is that by not having lights he was putting himself far more
at risk of death from being hit by a driver than by being a danger to
anyone else, unlike say a car with no lights.
Well, Doug. Having very nearly ridden into an unlit cyclist a few times,
I'd think it fair to say that the risk to others, including pedestrians
is considerable.
Roger Thorpe

Well, Roger. Having been run down and injured by a driver who even
failed to see my lights the risk to me was considerable and to no one
else.

--
Carfree Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Promoting practical alternatives to car dependence - walking, cycling
and public transport.

Did you live?

--
Moving things in still pictures!

"Mortimer" wrote in message
...

The best combination is a bright tungsten headlight to see by and a dimmer
(*) flashing LED to be seen by.
....
(*) LED technology doesn't seem to have progressed yet to the stage that
you can get a cost-effective LED light that illuminates the road as well
as a tungsten light.

You're a couple of years behind the times. LED lamps are better than
filaments now. Not sure about HID, but they're not included in
'cost-effective'.