|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On 20/10/2014 13:01, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 20/10/2014 12:58, Bod wrote: On 20/10/2014 12:54, Mrcheerful wrote: On 20/10/2014 12:23, TMS320 wrote: "Judith" wrote "TMS320" wrote: "JNugent" wrote 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 It's a shame it occurred and it is probably a fair punishment for a very rare consequence. I don't image it provides any comfort to the 2 (at least) people *a day* that are routinely KSI'd on the roads (and hardly ever reported on) while trying to get about on foot. You mean the ones mown down by cyclists. Cite? They are not reported apparently. Well here they a Motor vehicles kill five times more pedestrians than cyclists, but figures show risk of serious injury is similar relative to distance travelled. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3986796.ece |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On 20/10/2014 13:21, Bod wrote:
On 20/10/2014 13:01, Mrcheerful wrote: On 20/10/2014 12:58, Bod wrote: On 20/10/2014 12:54, Mrcheerful wrote: On 20/10/2014 12:23, TMS320 wrote: "Judith" wrote "TMS320" wrote: "JNugent" wrote 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 It's a shame it occurred and it is probably a fair punishment for a very rare consequence. I don't image it provides any comfort to the 2 (at least) people *a day* that are routinely KSI'd on the roads (and hardly ever reported on) while trying to get about on foot. You mean the ones mown down by cyclists. Cite? They are not reported apparently. Well here they a Motor vehicles kill five times more pedestrians than cyclists, but figures show risk of serious injury is similar relative to distance travelled. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3986796.ece And to put things in perspective (from the same article): "Analysis of the past ten years of road casualty data by CTC showed that cyclists killed 23 pedestrians in the decade to 2012 and seriously injured 585. In the same period, 3,330 pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles and 46,081 were seriously injured. Research by the City of Westminster Council last year found that, in collisions between pedestrians and cyclists, 60 per cent of the crashes were caused by the pedestrian." |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
"TMS320" wrote in message ... "Tarcap" wrote in message 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? When it is said that something is no better than nothing, then it does not necessarily mean that nothing is better than something. Such a distortion of logic suggests to me that you are desperately short of some basic intelligence. Could you please confirm that? You have to bear in mind that when we go to this group we have to lower our standards to be able to communicate with you psycholists. But. however, to go back to the point which you conveniently snipped, and I quote: 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 don't agree that Poundland lamps would have been better than nothing. How is this a distortion of logic???? When in a hole, stop digging. And better still, don't question the intelligence of others when you are clearly in no position to do so. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... On 20/10/2014 12:01, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... On 19/10/2014 23:03, TMS320 wrote: 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 ? Let me remind you that Poundland lamps (or similar) are the matter of discussion. Not merely 'a light' You are either a blind person or stupid. No. It is being practical. Are you trying to say that cheap lights do not give any light output? I think that's exactly what he tried to say, but is now desperately back tracking. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 08:23:03 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller
wrote: On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 09:04:28 +0000, Cassandra wrote: On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 01:45:43 +0100, 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? Don't worry, all liability is removed from the cyclist provided they shout "I'm not stopping, get out of the ****ing way" Please, take me to this "****ing way" As a cyclist you'll spend most of your time in it |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:02:57 +0100, "TMS320" wrote:
"Cassandra" wrote On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 22:58:59 +0100, "TMS320" "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. 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. No, I'm suggesting jumping red lights is dangerous both to psycolists, innocent pedestrains and qualified road users. Although poor comprehension skills would explain why psycholists interpret the Highway Code in a manner that suggests English or common sense isn't their first language |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On 20/10/2014 13:32, Bod wrote:
On 20/10/2014 13:21, Bod wrote: On 20/10/2014 13:01, Mrcheerful wrote: On 20/10/2014 12:58, Bod wrote: On 20/10/2014 12:54, Mrcheerful wrote: On 20/10/2014 12:23, TMS320 wrote: "Judith" wrote "TMS320" wrote: "JNugent" wrote 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 It's a shame it occurred and it is probably a fair punishment for a very rare consequence. I don't image it provides any comfort to the 2 (at least) people *a day* that are routinely KSI'd on the roads (and hardly ever reported on) while trying to get about on foot. You mean the ones mown down by cyclists. Cite? They are not reported apparently. Well here they a Motor vehicles kill five times more pedestrians than cyclists, but figures show risk of serious injury is similar relative to distance travelled. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3986796.ece And to put things in perspective (from the same article): "Analysis of the past ten years of road casualty data by CTC showed that cyclists killed 23 pedestrians in the decade to 2012 and seriously injured 585. In the same period, 3,330 pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles and 46,081 were seriously injured. Research by the City of Westminster Council last year found that, in collisions between pedestrians and cyclists, 60 per cent of the crashes were caused by the pedestrian." Hmm! No comment from Mrcheerful then? He's gone very quiet. I wonder why. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On 20/10/2014 19:56, Bod wrote:
On 20/10/2014 13:32, Bod wrote: On 20/10/2014 13:21, Bod wrote: On 20/10/2014 13:01, Mrcheerful wrote: On 20/10/2014 12:58, Bod wrote: On 20/10/2014 12:54, Mrcheerful wrote: On 20/10/2014 12:23, TMS320 wrote: "Judith" wrote "TMS320" wrote: "JNugent" wrote 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 It's a shame it occurred and it is probably a fair punishment for a very rare consequence. I don't image it provides any comfort to the 2 (at least) people *a day* that are routinely KSI'd on the roads (and hardly ever reported on) while trying to get about on foot. You mean the ones mown down by cyclists. Cite? They are not reported apparently. Well here they a Motor vehicles kill five times more pedestrians than cyclists, but figures show risk of serious injury is similar relative to distance travelled. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3986796.ece And to put things in perspective (from the same article): "Analysis of the past ten years of road casualty data by CTC showed that cyclists killed 23 pedestrians in the decade to 2012 and seriously injured 585. In the same period, 3,330 pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles and 46,081 were seriously injured. Research by the City of Westminster Council last year found that, in collisions between pedestrians and cyclists, 60 per cent of the crashes were caused by the pedestrian." Hmm! No comment from Mrcheerful then? He's gone very quiet. I wonder why. comment on what exactly? |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.
On 20/10/2014 12:40, TMS320 wrote:
"Peter Keller" wrote in message ... 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? I would have thought that you, of anyone, might realise. It is a metaphor concerning the total set of hazards one has to cope with on the roads. The hazard of a cyclist going through a red light? It's deep in the noise. So it's not dangerous? And not illegal? |
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 |