No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.

"Mrcheerful" wrote
On 19/10/2014 09:44, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

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.

You blather so much it becomes hard to see what is a question.

I am sorry if you can only cope with two words at a time. Why do you
not break up messages and reply in sections, like most people do, instead of
adding a bit on the end? The original message you failed to answer had three
clearly separated sections.

You could also trim messages.

However, I spotted one:
Poundland lamps would have been better than nothing.

Well done, an opinion, not regurgitating from a script. I don't agree with
you.

The City of Tucson's Dept. of Cycling was passing out free lights to cyclists about 10 years ago. They even had a free box lunch for anyone who took the cycling safety course. From what I understood the box lunch was worse than getting run over by a truck.

But bike lights don't require gummint funding like a tokamak. Anyone who afford to motor can go to Euro Store or Quid Tree and buy a few LED lights along with 12 cheap carbon batteries in a blister pack. Keep them in the front seat.

If you see a cyclist at night w/o lights offer him one.


Bret Cahill

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 00:47:27 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote:


But you keep ignoring the fact that the van driver was (illegally)
driving without care or consideration, at best, or dangerously, more
realistically.


Morning M'Lud - I see it's the early hours - have you perhaps been to the Bar
earlier on?

I hadn't seen a report of the court case where the van driver was found guilty
of an offence - were you perhaps representing the cyclist?

Do you have a copy of the court report for us?

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:02:57 +0100, "TMS320" wrote:

"Cassandra" wrote

snip


So in summary if you hit a cyclist jumping a red light its the drivers
fault for not looking properly.

You appear to be trying to suggest that all road crashes occur as a result
of red light infringements and there is no other cause.



Oh no - there are other infringements:

Mother left brain dead after being hit by cyclist who yelled ‘Get out of the
way’ on pedestrian crossing.


http://metro.co.uk/2014/09/19/mother...ssing-4875186/

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 21:51:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


But bike lights don't require gummint funding like a tokamak.

That's just what I was going to say.

On 19/10/2014 23:03, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
On 19/10/2014 09:44, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

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.

You blather so much it becomes hard to see what is a question.

I am sorry if you can only cope with two words at a time. Why do you
not break up messages and reply in sections, like most people do, instead of
adding a bit on the end? The original message you failed to answer had three
clearly separated sections.

You could also trim messages.

However, I spotted one:
Poundland lamps would have been better than nothing.

Well done, an opinion, not regurgitating from a script. I don't agree with
you.



So you believe that a bicycle, in the dark, is not made more visible by
having a light on it ? You are either a blind person or stupid.

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...

"Tarcap" considered Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:39:45
+0100 the perfect time to write:



"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.

But you keep ignoring the fact that the van driver was (illegally)
driving without care or consideration, at best, or dangerously, more
realistically.


Could we have a cite on that, please? I can see no evidence of any pending
charges.

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.

I'm not the one who admitted to failing to understand written English.

I have absolutely no problem with written English, it's what you have
written I'm having problems with. I know you hot-shot barristers tend to
speak in a mixture of legalese and Latin whenever you can,
but you appeared to have cobbled together some unconnected facts which don't
make any sense at all.
All of a sudden you have introduced a van "running down a pedestrian
crossing" ( none present, and it didn't happen), a "pedestrian" (none
present so irrelevant), "no obligation for a pedestrian to wear lights"
(correct but completely irrelevant) and "no obligation to wear other than
ordinary clothing" (correct but completely irrelevant).
You appear to be relying completely on red herrings to obscure what actually
happened - I'm sure if you tried that on with one of your High Court judges,
you'd end up getting a bollocking.


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

"TMS320" wrote in message ...

"Mrcheerful" wrote
On 19/10/2014 09:44, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

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.

You blather so much it becomes hard to see what is a question.

I am sorry if you can only cope with two words at a time. Why do you
not break up messages and reply in sections, like most people do, instead of
adding a bit on the end? The original message you failed to answer had three
clearly separated sections.

You could also trim messages.

However, I spotted one:
Poundland lamps would have been better than nothing.

Well done, an opinion, not regurgitating from a script. I don't agree with
you.

You appear to be saying that no lights at all would be better than
functioning lights which happen to cost £1.
Could you please confirm that?


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:02:14 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
On 19/10/2014 09:43, TMS320 wrote:
"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.)

So you firmly believe that there are no safety implications for anyone
else if cyclists break every road safety law in the book, especially
the ones about traffic lights?

Another example of you making something up out of nothing. You really
don't understand metaphors.

Pardon? What does a metaphor have to do with the danger of bicycling
through traffic lights?

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 16:41:29 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 19/10/2014 16:31, Judith wrote:

"TMS320" wrote:
"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.

A Bournemouth cyclist has been jailed for 12 months following an
incident in which he rode through a red traffic light and collided with
a nine-year-old girl, leaving her with a fractured skull and bleeding
on the brain

Nah... that can't be correct. Going through a red light causes no real
danger, you see.

It can't have been the cyclist's fault.

Obviously the Beak did not believe that.