|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:36:08 +0100, "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). Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule 176. They simply choose to ignore it |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 03:22:26 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote:
snip Of course, you wouldn't expect the van driver to notice the dark patch caused by the missing street lights and take additional care while manoeuvring, would you? And of course the easy solution would have been for the cyclist to have followed the advice of the Highway Code: lights on his bike, bright reflective clothing and a helmet. Much to easy: unless he was wanting to commit suicide of course. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
"Cassandra" On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:36:08 +0100, "TMS320" wrote: And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra). Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule 176. They simply choose to ignore it There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... 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. Is this is not part of a plan B? the cyclist could have followed rules: 72, 59, and 60 Perhaps. Does it come with a guarantee? You reply to my post repeating things you have already said but make no response to my opinion about whether these things are effective in a number of circumstances. Let's try again. Would fitting a Poundland lamp attract attention or just perform lip service? but of course The Highway Code is optional for cyclists, isn't it? And in general, who is going to be the victim of such omission? For instance, I really don't give a stuff if some drivers don't obey rule 99. Or agree about taking cars off the road because of an airbag warning light. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On 18/10/2014 23:02, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... 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. Is this is not part of a plan B? the cyclist could have followed rules: 72, 59, and 60 Perhaps. Does it come with a guarantee? You reply to my post repeating things you have already said but make no response to my opinion about whether these things are effective in a number of circumstances. Let's try again. Would fitting a Poundland lamp attract attention or just perform lip service? but of course The Highway Code is optional for cyclists, isn't it? And in general, who is going to be the victim of such omission? For instance, I really don't give a stuff if some drivers don't obey rule 99. Or agree about taking cars off the road because of an airbag warning light. If the bicycle had been fitted with lights and reflectors there is more chance of the oncoming vehicle seeing the cycle and if the rider had on hi viz then there is even more chance to be seen. Shining headlights at a small matt black object on a dark night will not reflect back a lot to see will it? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On 18/10/2014 22:58, TMS320 wrote:
"Cassandra" On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:36:08 +0100, "TMS320" wrote: And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra). Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule 176. They simply choose to ignore it There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two. Anyone disobeying the rules is likely to cause some danger or inconvenience to someone, it is why the rules were formulated. If everyone followed the rules there would be far fewer crashes and deaths. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On 18/10/2014 22:58, TMS320 wrote:
"Cassandra" On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:36:08 +0100, "TMS320" wrote: And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra). Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule 176. They simply choose to ignore it There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two. Cycling through a red traffic light isn't causing danger to others? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On 19/10/2014 01:45, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2014 22:58, TMS320 wrote: "Cassandra" On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:36:08 +0100, "TMS320" wrote: And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra). Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule 176. They simply choose to ignore it There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two. Cycling through a red traffic light isn't causing danger to others? Of course not, the pedestrians crossing on the 'green man' will form up and make an orderly corridor for the cyclist, and will cheer him as he passes them. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
"JNugent" wrote On 18/10/2014 22:58, TMS320 wrote: "Cassandra" "TMS320" wrote: And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra). Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule 176. They simply choose to ignore it There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two. Cycling through a red traffic light isn't causing danger to others? It might. Depends on how it is done. But not in my experience as driver and pedestrian onlooker. There are much bigger sharks in the sea to worry about. (BTW, I know you struggle with sort of thing so I shall point out here that the last sentence is a metaphor not a change of subject.) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... On 18/10/2014 23:02, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... 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. Is this is not part of a plan B? the cyclist could have followed rules: 72, 59, and 60 Perhaps. Does it come with a guarantee? You reply to my post repeating things you have already said but make no response to my opinion about whether these things are effective in a number of circumstances. Let's try again. Would fitting a Poundland lamp attract attention or just perform lip service? but of course The Highway Code is optional for cyclists, isn't it? And in general, who is going to be the victim of such omission? For instance, I really don't give a stuff if some drivers don't obey rule 99. Or agree about taking cars off the road because of an airbag warning light. If the bicycle had been fitted with lights and reflectors there is more chance of the oncoming vehicle seeing the cycle and if the rider had on hi viz then there is even more chance to be seen. You haven't answered my questions. Other than giving a weasel politician's response. There were two question marks above. Shining headlights at a small matt black object on a dark night will not reflect back a lot to see will it? Without other lights shining in the driver's face, enough at the distance required. Certainly, in this circumstance (and only this one), distance could have been extended by reflectives. |
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 |