alerting drivers to rear light failures

"Bod" wrote in message
...
Simon Mason wrote:

"Bod" wrote in message
...
Simon Mason wrote:

"Adam Lea" wrote in message
...
If you are cycling along and notice a car which has a rear light/brake
light failed is it reasonable to politely alert the driver to it if
safe and practical to do so, or would this be more likely than not to
annoy them?

I am always pointing out cars having front fog lights on and just get
two fingers, so probably not.

He said 'rear lights', not front fogs.

The principle is the same. Pointing out that drivers are breaking the law
gets short shrift usually.


Rear lights are the priority (safety wise).
Why would you worry about front fogs?

Improper use is illegal, so I'm only trying to help my fellow road user lest
plod gets involved. ;-)


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

On Jul 13, 10:46*am, "Mr Benn" %%%@%.%% wrote:
"Nuxx Bar" wrote in message

...

If it *did* annoy them, it would no doubt be because they had a view
of cyclists as car-hating dickheads,

crap snipped

You're depriving a village somewhere of an idiot. *Go back to your village
you obsessed moron! *You are in the same league as spindrift.

Listen, if you want to pretend that there are no car-hating ****wits,
and that politicians never lie, and that there's no such thing as
burglars, and live some kind of absurdly naive life where you pretend
that any bad things just don't exist, then that's up to you. (Maybe
that's why you name yourself after a kids' programme: because you're
some kind of retard.) Just stop being a self-righteous **** and
telling me what to post just because I dare to mention such things.

As the evidence clearly shows, this group *is* full of car-hating
dickheads who constantly try to **** off motorists when they're out
and about, and I'll mention that if I damn well please. I expect them
to be unhappy about it, but I don't expect to see pompous crap from
self-elected "moderators" who are nothing to do with it and with whom
I would have no quarrel if they would just STFU and stop lecturing
me. You don't like my posts, you don't have to read them. I'm
certainly wondering whether it's worthwhile reading yours.

And I am not like ****ing Spindrift in any way, shape or form. I'm
honest about my real aims, I'm right about speed cameras, I don't make
threats which get workplaces evacuated and I don't conduct obsessive,
deranged, constantly dishonest campaigns against people who have died,
to name but a few glaring differences.

Simon Mason wrote:

"Bod" wrote in message
...
Simon Mason wrote:

"Adam Lea" wrote in message
...
If you are cycling along and notice a car which has a rear
light/brake light failed is it reasonable to politely alert the
driver to it if safe and practical to do so, or would this be more
likely than not to annoy them?

I am always pointing out cars having front fog lights on and just get
two fingers, so probably not.

He said 'rear lights', not front fogs.

The principle is the same. Pointing out that drivers are breaking the
law gets short shrift usually.


Until you say "Nah mate, it's just that some ******* might pull you for
it, you know what they're like"
Then you are something incomprehensible - a helpful cyclist ;-)

--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Simon Mason wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
Simon Mason wrote:

"Adam Lea" wrote in message
...
If you are cycling along and notice a car which has a rear
light/brake light failed is it reasonable to politely alert the
driver to it if safe and practical to do so, or would this be more
likely than not to annoy them?

I am always pointing out cars having front fog lights on and just
get two fingers, so probably not.

He said 'rear lights', not front fogs.

The principle is the same. Pointing out that drivers are breaking the
law gets short shrift usually.

Drivers can see if they have their front fogs on, and are likely to have
done so deliberately. Rear light failures happen without the drivers
knowledge. Big difference.

Simon Mason wrote:

"Bod" wrote in message
...
Simon Mason wrote:

"Adam Lea" wrote in message
...
If you are cycling along and notice a car which has a rear
light/brake light failed is it reasonable to politely alert the
driver to it if safe and practical to do so, or would this be more
likely than not to annoy them?

I am always pointing out cars having front fog lights on and just get
two fingers, so probably not.

He said 'rear lights', not front fogs.

The principle is the same. Pointing out that drivers are breaking the
law gets short shrift usually.

When the "pointing out" comes from a member of a group well-disposed towards
laura norder when it doesn't suit them to be, is that really surprising?

JNugent wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:

"Bod" wrote in message
...
Simon Mason wrote:

"Adam Lea" wrote in message
...
If you are cycling along and notice a car which has a rear
light/brake light failed is it reasonable to politely alert the
driver to it if safe and practical to do so, or would this be more
likely than not to annoy them?

I am always pointing out cars having front fog lights on and just
get two fingers, so probably not.

He said 'rear lights', not front fogs.

The principle is the same. Pointing out that drivers are breaking the
law gets short shrift usually.

When the "pointing out" comes from a member of a group well-disposed
towards laura norder when it doesn't suit them to be, is that really
surprising?

Hmmm...

Should have been a "not" in that last bit, somewhere...

On 2009-07-13, Adam Lea wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
Simon Mason wrote:

"Adam Lea" wrote in message
...
If you are cycling along and notice a car which has a rear
light/brake light failed is it reasonable to politely alert the
driver to it if safe and practical to do so, or would this be more
likely than not to annoy them?

I am always pointing out cars having front fog lights on and just
get two fingers, so probably not.

He said 'rear lights', not front fogs.

The principle is the same. Pointing out that drivers are breaking the
law gets short shrift usually.

Drivers can see if they have their front fogs on, and are likely to have
done so deliberately. Rear light failures happen without the drivers
knowledge. Big difference.

Would you point out to a cyclist that he didn't have a rear light? I
probably wouldn't. But if he had one and it was really dim because the
batteries were flat, I might, because he might not know.

So I think it is a question of, don't interfere if it's a deliberate
decision.

What if you ride up behind someone with the rear QR done up improperly?
I would mention that because it's a safety issue. But if they're riding
a Halfords BSO with a back wheel with four broken spokes shaped like a
potato chip and the brake noodle undone so that it can still rotate
after a fashion, I would say nothing, because they obviously know about
it.

What if you come across a bike in a bike shed next to yours and notice
the QR is done up improperly? Do you just fix it there and then?

On Jul 12, 2:59 pm, "mileburner" wrote:
Bod wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me if you said "Get your effing light sorted,you
tosser" :-)

I actually *always* start off quite polite. I would have said something like
"s'cuse me mate, do you realise one of your tail lights are out?". Fact is,
when you raise anything with car drivers, be it about the state their car is
in or their **** poor parking or driving habits, the majority will become
defensive and possibly aggressive.

Yet again you make ridiculous statements about "the majority" of
motorists which are purely the result of prejudice and hatred rather
than anything remotely to do with reality.

Please be honest: just why do you have such a problem with car
drivers? I'm genuinely fascinated to know, because like so many here,
you're clearly pretty determined and passionate about it. Do you
resent the freedom that motoring gives people? Do you think that no-
one (except you) should be put in charge of a ton of metal: would you
prefer to see people being controlled all the time? Do you not like
the idea of people being so free to move around wherever (and
whenever) they want without the state being able to keep tabs on
them? Would you prefer it if people's movement was extensively
restricted and monitored "for their own good"? D'you think that's the
way to better society?

Just what is it that so frustrates you about seeing someone being
given the freedom to accelerate safely on the open road without any
other cars or anything else to hold them up? What is it that makes
you so desperate to impede them with obstacles, cameras, low speed
limits, other vehicles, etc? What is so bad about someone being able
to make progress and get to their destination in timely fashion and
without frustration? Why do you so detest that idea? (Don't bother
with the "safety" excuse: what's the *real* reason? Are you a
socialist, or a control freak, or don't you think anyone can be
trusted, or what? Please tell us; I'm dying to know.)

I am just glad I am not a traffic cop or traffic warden. They have to put up
with this type of **** *all* the time.

Sadly, I think you'd very much enjoy being either of them, especially
a council-employed parking attendant who was encouraged to give out as
many tickets as possible (and just think, you could sneak around doing
it without actually having to face the drivers as well, though I'm
sure you'd like to hide out of sight and watch with glee as people
came back to £120 tickets for technical infringements where they
weren't harming anyone).

On Jul 13, 3:37*pm, Mike P wrote:
On 12 July, 14:59, "mileburner" wrote:

Bod wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me if you said "Get your effing light sorted,you
tosser" *:-)

I actually *always* start off quite polite. I would have said something like
"s'cuse me mate, do you realise one of your tail lights are out?". Fact is,
when you raise anything with car drivers, be it about the state their car is
in or their **** poor parking or driving habits, the majority will become
defensive and possibly aggressive

If the majority become aggressive with you, maybe you should look at
the manner in which you are dealing with them.

Quite. If you're not telling them for the right reasons (as in the
case of mileburner), it's actually quite hard to disguise that fact.
People usually realise to one extent or another when someone's not
being entirely sincere with them.

On Jul 14, 12:08*am, JNugent wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:

"Bod" wrote in message
...
Simon Mason wrote:

"Adam Lea" wrote in message
...
If you are cycling along and notice a car which has a rear
light/brake light failed is it reasonable to politely alert the
driver to it if safe and practical to do so, or would this be more
likely than not to annoy them?

I am always pointing out cars having front fog lights on and just
get two fingers, so probably not.

He said 'rear lights', not front fogs.

The principle is the same. Pointing out that drivers are breaking the
law gets short shrift usually.

When the "pointing out" comes from a member of a group well-disposed
towards laura norder when it doesn't suit them to be, is that really
surprising?

Hmmm...

Should have been a "not" in that last bit, somewhere...

As ever, a very succinct - and accurate - way of describing so many
here.