|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
Mrcheerful wrote:
Not too surprising that he is dead, really. http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/ne...pton-1-6359774 This is basically a report of an idiot on a bicycle who had the misfortune to encounter an idiot in a van. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:32:45 +0100, "Tarcap" wrote:
"Phil W Lee" wrote in message .. . "Tarcap" considered Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:21:09 +0100 the perfect time to write: "Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... Not too surprising that he is dead, really. http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/ne...pton-1-6359774 The sad thing is that they expect others (i.e. motorists, lorry drivers, councils, etc.) to jump through hoops "in the interests of safety", but they are too bloody mean to spend a few quid to provide even the most basic safety equipment. Darwin at work yet again. Presumably you would also be defending the van driver if he'd run down a pedestrian crossing the road into which he was turning, despite the pedestrian having the right-of-way and no obligation to use any lights at all, or even wear anything other than ordinary clothing. I'm struggling to get any useful meaning out of your post. Did you not realise that it's compulsory for cyclists to have lights, which is not the case for pedestrians? Why have you introduced pedestrian crossings into the scenario, when there was no mention of such in the article? Other than in a futile attempt to divert blame away from the cyclist, of course. Methinks you are up to your usual trick of employing Bovine Scatology to further the psycholist cause. Now look here. M'Lud the barista is an expert on legal matters - and if he says what could happen with a pedestrian is relevant, then it is a statement of legal fact. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:32:45 +0100, Tarcap wrote:
****wit Thanks for that! Now just for you I would love to be a gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 03:22:26 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote: "Tarcap" considered Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:32:45 +0100 the perfect time to write: "Phil W Lee" wrote in message . .. "Tarcap" considered Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:21:09 +0100 the perfect time to write: "Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... Not too surprising that he is dead, really. http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/ne...pton-1-6359774 The sad thing is that they expect others (i.e. motorists, lorry drivers, councils, etc.) to jump through hoops "in the interests of safety", but they are too bloody mean to spend a few quid to provide even the most basic safety equipment. Darwin at work yet again. Presumably you would also be defending the van driver if he'd run down a pedestrian crossing the road into which he was turning, despite the pedestrian having the right-of-way and no obligation to use any lights at all, or even wear anything other than ordinary clothing. I'm struggling to get any useful meaning out of your post. Remedial reading lessons are available in most areas - try getting a competent adult to take you to the local library to enquire. Did you not realise that it's compulsory for cyclists to have lights, which is not the case for pedestrians? If he was incapable of seeing the cyclist, he'd have been equally incapable of seeing any pedestrian who could have been crossing perfectly legally and with right-of-way. In another thread, a one pound cycle light was looked upon with incredible distain by psycholists despite being brighter that any pedestrian who wasn't on fire. Makes you wonder why psycholists need 125 quid cycle lights doesn't it ? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 03:22:26 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote: "Tarcap" considered Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:32:45 +0100 the perfect time to write: "Phil W Lee" wrote in message . .. "Tarcap" considered Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:21:09 +0100 the perfect time to write: "Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... Not too surprising that he is dead, really. http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/ne...pton-1-6359774 The sad thing is that they expect others (i.e. motorists, lorry drivers, councils, etc.) to jump through hoops "in the interests of safety", but they are too bloody mean to spend a few quid to provide even the most basic safety equipment. Darwin at work yet again. Presumably you would also be defending the van driver if he'd run down a pedestrian crossing the road into which he was turning, despite the pedestrian having the right-of-way and no obligation to use any lights at all, or even wear anything other than ordinary clothing. Pedestrians only have right of way if they make sure the road is clear before stepping onto it. Somewhat different to cycling without lights and expecting other people to miss you. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
"Cassandra" wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 03:22:26 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote: "Tarcap" considered Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:32:45 +0100 the perfect time to write: "Phil W Lee" wrote in message . .. "Tarcap" considered Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:21:09 +0100 the perfect time to write: "Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... Not too surprising that he is dead, really. http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/ne...pton-1-6359774 The sad thing is that they expect others (i.e. motorists, lorry drivers, councils, etc.) to jump through hoops "in the interests of safety", but they are too bloody mean to spend a few quid to provide even the most basic safety equipment. Darwin at work yet again. Presumably you would also be defending the van driver if he'd run down a pedestrian crossing the road into which he was turning, despite the pedestrian having the right-of-way and no obligation to use any lights at all, or even wear anything other than ordinary clothing. I'm struggling to get any useful meaning out of your post. Remedial reading lessons are available in most areas - try getting a competent adult to take you to the local library to enquire. Who would you suggest for a competent adult - obviously not you, of course. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... Not too surprising that he is dead, really. http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/ne...pton-1-6359774 Well, obviously the person on the bike suffered mainly because he had no plan B for this possibility. Streetlights, a light and hi-viz offer negligible protection. From the description, he would have been illuminated by the van headlights for some time before the turn. It wasn't a matter of requiring the driver to become alert to something in peripheral vision. So this was at least 33% driver error. And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra). Alternatively, the driver was dazzled by vehicles (which is perfectly normal these days; I don't know why modern vehicle lighting is considered acceptable) behind the cyclist when even a Christmas tree becomes invisible invisible. Unless a cyclist carries something several magnitudes better than Poundland lamp, a lamp is of no practical use in this situation, apart from lip service to the rules and stopping people from saying "the cyclist had no lamp, tut". |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ... "Tarcap" considered Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:32:45 +0100 the perfect time to write: "Phil W Lee" wrote in message .. . "Tarcap" considered Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:21:09 +0100 the perfect time to write: "Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... Not too surprising that he is dead, really. http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/ne...pton-1-6359774 The sad thing is that they expect others (i.e. motorists, lorry drivers, councils, etc.) to jump through hoops "in the interests of safety", but they are too bloody mean to spend a few quid to provide even the most basic safety equipment. Darwin at work yet again. Presumably you would also be defending the van driver if he'd run down a pedestrian crossing the road into which he was turning, despite the pedestrian having the right-of-way and no obligation to use any lights at all, or even wear anything other than ordinary clothing. I'm struggling to get any useful meaning out of your post. Remedial reading lessons are available in most areas - try getting a competent adult to take you to the local library to enquire. Did you not realise that it's compulsory for cyclists to have lights, which is not the case for pedestrians? If he was incapable of seeing the cyclist, he'd have been equally incapable of seeing any pedestrian who could have been crossing perfectly legally and with right-of-way. Why have you introduced pedestrian crossings into the scenario, when there was no mention of such in the article? Because it's relevant. Why? It's just about as relevant as if I decided to randomly introduce a train into the scenario. It too doesn't exist, just like the phantom pedestrian crossing. Other than in a futile attempt to divert blame away from the cyclist, of course. Methinks you are up to your usual trick of employing Bovine Scatology to further the psycholist cause. Like the way you ignored the reports of the street lights being broken, and that it was agreed that their absence was a contributing factor? Perhaps in the same way you continue to ignore the fact that the cyclist (illegally) had no lights. I would advise not to keep burying your head in the sand, as you appear to be inhaling too much, which is stopping the flow of oxygen to your already struggling brain. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On 18/10/2014 12:36, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... Not too surprising that he is dead, really. http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/ne...pton-1-6359774 Well, obviously the person on the bike suffered mainly because he had no plan B for this possibility. Streetlights, a light and hi-viz offer negligible protection. From the description, he would have been illuminated by the van headlights for some time before the turn. It wasn't a matter of requiring the driver to become alert to something in peripheral vision. So this was at least 33% driver error. And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra). Alternatively, the driver was dazzled by vehicles (which is perfectly normal these days; I don't know why modern vehicle lighting is considered acceptable) behind the cyclist when even a Christmas tree becomes invisible invisible. Unless a cyclist carries something several magnitudes better than Poundland lamp, a lamp is of no practical use in this situation, apart from lip service to the rules and stopping people from saying "the cyclist had no lamp, tut". The cyclist could have braked. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On 18/10/2014 12:41, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 18/10/2014 12:36, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... Not too surprising that he is dead, really. http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/ne...pton-1-6359774 Well, obviously the person on the bike suffered mainly because he had no plan B for this possibility. Streetlights, a light and hi-viz offer negligible protection. From the description, he would have been illuminated by the van headlights for some time before the turn. It wasn't a matter of requiring the driver to become alert to something in peripheral vision. So this was at least 33% driver error. And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra). Alternatively, the driver was dazzled by vehicles (which is perfectly normal these days; I don't know why modern vehicle lighting is considered acceptable) behind the cyclist when even a Christmas tree becomes invisible invisible. Unless a cyclist carries something several magnitudes better than Poundland lamp, a lamp is of no practical use in this situation, apart from lip service to the rules and stopping people from saying "the cyclist had no lamp, tut". The cyclist could have braked. the cyclist could have followed rules: 72, 59, and 60 but of course The Highway Code is optional for cyclists, isn't it? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
No lights, no reflectors, dark clothing, thick fog, no helmet. Whydo cyclists have a death wish? | Mrcheerful | UK | 16 | February 1st 14 09:20 AM |
No lights, no Hi-Viz, Dark clothing, oh, and on the M1 | Mrcheerful | UK | 58 | October 21st 13 09:02 AM |
No lights, dark clothing, you know what comes next | Mrcheerful[_3_] | UK | 1 | July 11th 13 11:12 PM |
Bicycles need lights when it is dark. | Mrcheerful[_3_] | UK | 122 | July 3rd 12 08:28 AM |
Dark blue lights | Meeba | Australia | 3 | May 11th 04 10:38 AM |