Is black clothing compulsory?

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 01:29:00 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 30/01/2019 22:39, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 8:19:21 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 10:37:05 PM UTC, Rob Morley wrote:

In reality it is 'conflict points' that kill cyclists where
motor vehicles and cyclists cross paths.

So *stop* when the lights show red ior amber and red, and
otherwise when the signage says or means either "Stop" or "Give
Way". The danger then disappears.

Follow the rules.

Then there will be no conflicts which you cause.

The problem is not attributable solely to conflicts caused by
cyclists.

The conflict does not disappear if all cyclists instantly become
perfect, despite your silly assurance that it will.

The last time I was knocked off my bicycle, for example, was when I
stopped at a give way line, and the car behind decided not to, and
just drove straight into me (and partly over my bicycle).

The previous two contacts (though I was not knocked off) were both a
'left hook' - a car pulled alongside me, then decided to turn left
through me (one at a T-juction, one on a roundabout). _I_ was
following the rules.

I've also had cars pull out of junctions immediately ahead of me
('SMIDSY') and side-swipe me when they decided to overtake on the
approach to a traffic island.

In all these cases I was following the rules - so why didn't the
danger disappear? You said it would if I stop at traffic lights or at
other signage. I do.

--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 31/01/2019 16:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/01/2019 13:27, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 10:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/01/2019 01:27, JNugent wrote:
On 30/01/2019 21:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/01/2019 20:19, JNugent wrote:
On 30/01/2019 11:30, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 10:37:05 PM UTC, Rob Morley
wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:03:42 +0000 GB
wrote:

There are loads of drivers who are worse than me, and
in 2016 3500 ** cyclists were killed or seriously
injured. I cycle occasionally, and I take all possible
precautions. Is that victim blaming or simply common
sense?

Be careful with "common sense" - turns out it's not very
common, and sometimes not as sensible as it seems.Â* Did
you know, for example, that cyclists who wear helmets can
be at greater risk than those who don't?

'Common sense' says I should use the road through town
rather than the bypass. This is because most people think
the biggest danger to cyclists is being hit from behind by
a large vehicle. In reality it is 'conflict points' that
kill cyclists where motor vehicles and cyclists cross
paths.

So *stop* when the lights show red ior amber and red, and
otherwise when the signage says or means either "Stop" or
"Give Way". The danger then disappears.

90% of junctions don't have lights. What then?

Now come on... which bit of "...and otherwise when the signage
says or *means* either "Stop" or "Give Way"..." was at all
unclear? [ my emphasis this time]

At most junctions encountered on a journey the stop or give way
requirement applies to the other road user.

You never approach a Stop or Give Way sign?

The word I used was "most". (It is notable how often you have trouble
with words that express a non-binary concept.)

Your statement is nonsense. Unless you only ever travel on main roads
(those uppermost uppermost within the network) a good half of the
junctions you approach must require you to stop or give way.

The only alternative is convoluted journeys contrived to avoid Give Way
or Stop signs. Perhaps you also try to avoid stepping on paving-stone
cracks when on foot.

Your joyneys must be very convoluted to achieve that.

On the contrary, following main roads tends to make a journey more
direct. Curious you think otherwise.

So you never turn off onto a side street or minor road (and
consequentlky never have to re-emerge from one onto a major route).

How long have you had that phobia?

Junctions not controlled by traffic lights are still provided
with markings which make it clear which traffic on which part of
the road, travelling in which direction(s), has priority.

Obey traffic lights and thpse signs and the "danger" of collision
due to traffic conflict all but disappears.

It works for me and has done so for nearly fifty years (and even
Â*before tht when I was cycling regularly, including journeys to
work).
It works, and not just for cyclists.

The skills learnt over the 90% are easily transferable to the
10%.

I assume you are trying to say that it isn't necessary for
cyclists to stop at red lights.

Other than the law saying they should, it is, in fact, not always
necessary.

That's the attitude of too many chav cyclists.

Don't be stupid. It was an answer to your question as written, not to a
question you didn't write.

Your reply was a an assertion that it isn't necessary to obey traffic
lights whilst accepting that they have the force of law.

You can substitute "scofflaw" for "chav" if it makes you feel better. It
shouldn't.

You cannot expect to be taken seriously, especially not when you
have just whinged about all the danger arising at "conflict
points".

You cannot be taken seriously when you appear to believe that the
"danger then disappears" at conflict points.

Obey the rules. It's all any of us can do.

You "think" you don't have to. Perhaps you "think" you're better than
everyone else.

Thinking makes it possible to realise that even when the rules are being
followed, the traffic situation does not necessarily demand it.

Obedience and blind obedience are not the same thing. Do not try to
suggest otherwise.

There is no difference between obedeance and blind obedience when it
somes to traffic lights. Blind obedience is required by law.

On 31/01/2019 17:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/01/2019 14:19, JNugent wrote:

Now, how about answering the question which you snipped because you
were unable to answer it?

I'll give you a précis:

Does the use of a motor vehicle with the lamps switched on use up more
fuel (motor fuel, usually provided in the form of petrol or diesel)
than its use with the lights switched off?

Yes.

I think they are usually 5W each which means your engine has to consume
30W in fuel, which is roughly 1 gallon per 1000 hours.

Now... demonstrate that the alternator is not producing, and not capable
of producing, at least that in addition to the small part of its
constant output required by charging of the battery.

Did the last car you had still have a generator rather than an alternator?

You seem to have a peculiar view of the electrical efficiencies involved.

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 5:48:23 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 16:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/01/2019 13:27, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 10:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/01/2019 01:27, JNugent wrote:
On 30/01/2019 21:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/01/2019 20:19, JNugent wrote:
On 30/01/2019 11:30, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 10:37:05 PM UTC, Rob Morley
wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:03:42 +0000 GB
wrote:

There are loads of drivers who are worse than me, and
in 2016 3500 ** cyclists were killed or seriously
injured. I cycle occasionally, and I take all possible
precautions. Is that victim blaming or simply common
sense?

Be careful with "common sense" - turns out it's not very
common, and sometimes not as sensible as it seems.Â* Did
you know, for example, that cyclists who wear helmets can
be at greater risk than those who don't?

'Common sense' says I should use the road through town
rather than the bypass. This is because most people think
the biggest danger to cyclists is being hit from behind by
a large vehicle. In reality it is 'conflict points' that
kill cyclists where motor vehicles and cyclists cross
paths.

So *stop* when the lights show red ior amber and red, and
otherwise when the signage says or means either "Stop" or
"Give Way". The danger then disappears.

90% of junctions don't have lights. What then?

Now come on... which bit of "...and otherwise when the signage
says or *means* either "Stop" or "Give Way"..." was at all
unclear? [ my emphasis this time]

At most junctions encountered on a journey the stop or give way
requirement applies to the other road user.

You never approach a Stop or Give Way sign?

The word I used was "most". (It is notable how often you have trouble
with words that express a non-binary concept.)

Your statement is nonsense. Unless you only ever travel on main roads
(those uppermost uppermost within the network) a good half of the
junctions you approach must require you to stop or give way.

The only alternative is convoluted journeys contrived to avoid Give Way
or Stop signs. Perhaps you also try to avoid stepping on paving-stone
cracks when on foot.

Your joyneys must be very convoluted to achieve that.

On the contrary, following main roads tends to make a journey more
direct. Curious you think otherwise.

So you never turn off onto a side street or minor road (and
consequentlky never have to re-emerge from one onto a major route).

How long have you had that phobia?

Junctions not controlled by traffic lights are still provided
with markings which make it clear which traffic on which part of
the road, travelling in which direction(s), has priority.

Obey traffic lights and thpse signs and the "danger" of collision
due to traffic conflict all but disappears.

It works for me and has done so for nearly fifty years (and even
Â*before tht when I was cycling regularly, including journeys to
work).
It works, and not just for cyclists.

The skills learnt over the 90% are easily transferable to the
10%.

I assume you are trying to say that it isn't necessary for
cyclists to stop at red lights.

Other than the law saying they should, it is, in fact, not always
necessary.

That's the attitude of too many chav cyclists.

Don't be stupid. It was an answer to your question as written, not to a
question you didn't write.

Your reply was a an assertion that it isn't necessary to obey traffic
lights whilst accepting that they have the force of law.

You can substitute "scofflaw" for "chav" if it makes you feel better. It
shouldn't.

You cannot expect to be taken seriously, especially not when you
have just whinged about all the danger arising at "conflict
points".

You cannot be taken seriously when you appear to believe that the
"danger then disappears" at conflict points.

Obey the rules. It's all any of us can do.

You "think" you don't have to. Perhaps you "think" you're better than
everyone else.

Thinking makes it possible to realise that even when the rules are being
followed, the traffic situation does not necessarily demand it.

Obedience and blind obedience are not the same thing. Do not try to
suggest otherwise.

There is no difference between obedeance and blind obedience when it
somes to traffic lights. Blind obedience is required by law.

I assume you have never driven even 1mph above the speed limit.

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 5:51:04 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 17:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/01/2019 14:19, JNugent wrote:

Now, how about answering the question which you snipped because you
were unable to answer it?

I'll give you a précis:

Does the use of a motor vehicle with the lamps switched on use up more
fuel (motor fuel, usually provided in the form of petrol or diesel)
than its use with the lights switched off?

Yes.

I think they are usually 5W each which means your engine has to consume
30W in fuel, which is roughly 1 gallon per 1000 hours.

Now... demonstrate that the alternator is not producing, and not capable
of producing, at least that in addition to the small part of its
constant output required by charging of the battery.

Did the last car you had still have a generator rather than an alternator?

You seem to have a peculiar view of the electrical efficiencies involved.

You are the one who thinks alternators can produce any amount of electrical output with no torque input.
Or maybe you think the torque input is the same for a 1W load as a 1KW load..
Bear in mind car alternators are 3 phase star connected but only 2 phases are used under normal conditions. Turning on high electrical loads uses the 3rd phase.

JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 10:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/01/2019 01:29, JNugent wrote:

Then there will be no conflicts which you cause.

It's also very convenient to have such mobile goalposts.

Obey (all) the rules.

They apply to you, even though you "think" they don't.

Think and cycling does not compute.

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 6:32:42 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 10:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/01/2019 01:29, JNugent wrote:

Then there will be no conflicts which you cause.

It's also very convenient to have such mobile goalposts.

Obey (all) the rules.

They apply to you, even though you "think" they don't.

Think and cycling does not compute.

As I said, get a job and stop sponging off the taxpayers then you can buy a real computer.

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 6:09:56 PM UTC, Simon Jester wrote:
Or maybe you think the torque input is the same for a 1W load as a 1KW load.
Bear in mind car alternators are 3 phase star connected but only 2 phases are used under normal conditions. Turning on high electrical loads uses the 3rd phase.

There is a Top Gear episode where they WANT to run out of fuel before they arrive at Chernobyl. One of their strategies to increase their fuel consumption is to turn on as many electrical devices as possible to burn more fuel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YtVV1VJ4f8

On 31/01/2019 17:48, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 16:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/01/2019 13:27, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 10:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/01/2019 01:27, JNugent wrote:
On 30/01/2019 21:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/01/2019 20:19, JNugent wrote:
On 30/01/2019 11:30, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 10:37:05 PM UTC, Rob Morley
wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:03:42 +0000 GB
wrote:

There are loads of drivers who are worse than me, and
in 2016 3500 ** cyclists were killed or seriously
injured. I cycle occasionally, and I take all possible
precautions. Is that victim blaming or simply common
sense?

Be careful with "common sense" - turns out it's not very
common, and sometimes not as sensible as it seems.Â* Did
you know, for example, that cyclists who wear helmets can
be at greater risk than those who don't?

'Common sense' says I should use the road through town
rather than the bypass. This is because most people think
the biggest danger to cyclists is being hit from behind by
a large vehicle. In reality it is 'conflict points' that
kill cyclists where motor vehicles and cyclists cross
paths.

So *stop* when the lights show red ior amber and red, and
otherwise when the signage says or means either "Stop" or
"Give Way". The danger then disappears.

90% of junctions don't have lights. What then?

Now come on... which bit of "...and otherwise when the signage
says or *means* either "Stop" or "Give Way"..." was at all
unclear? [ my emphasis this time]

At most junctions encountered on a journey the stop or give way
requirement applies to the other road user.

You never approach a Stop or Give Way sign?

The word I used was "most". (It is notable how often you have trouble
with words that express a non-binary concept.)

Your statement is nonsense. Unless you only ever travel on main roads
(those uppermost uppermost within the network) a good half of the
junctions you approach must require you to stop or give way.

The only alternative is convoluted journeys contrived to avoid Give Way
or Stop signs. Perhaps you also try to avoid stepping on paving-stone
cracks when on foot.

Your joyneys must be very convoluted to achieve that.

On the contrary, following main roads tends to make a journey more
direct. Curious you think otherwise.

So you never turn off onto a side street or minor road (and
consequentlky never have to re-emerge from one onto a major route).

What happens when that minor road has roads joining it? It becomes a
main road.

How long have you had that phobia?

Shrug.

Junctions not controlled by traffic lights are still provided
with markings which make it clear which traffic on which part of
the road, travelling in which direction(s), has priority.

Obey traffic lights and thpse signs and the "danger" of collision
due to traffic conflict all but disappears.

It works for me and has done so for nearly fifty years (and even
Â*before tht when I was cycling regularly, including journeys to
work).
It works, and not just for cyclists.

The skills learnt over the 90% are easily transferable to the
10%.

I assume you are trying to say that it isn't necessary for
cyclists to stop at red lights.

Other than the law saying they should, it is, in fact, not always
necessary.

That's the attitude of too many chav cyclists.

Don't be stupid. It was an answer to your question as written, not to a
question you didn't write.

Your reply was a an assertion that it isn't necessary to obey traffic
lights whilst accepting that they have the force of law.

Necessity and requirement are different things.

You can substitute "scofflaw" for "chav" if it makes you feel better. It
shouldn't.

You cannot expect to be taken seriously, especially not when you
have just whinged about all the danger arising at "conflict
points".

You cannot be taken seriously when you appear to believe that the
"danger then disappears" at conflict points.

Obey the rules. It's all any of us can do.

You "think" you don't have to. Perhaps you "think" you're better than
everyone else.

Thinking makes it possible to realise that even when the rules are being
followed, the traffic situation does not necessarily demand it.

Obedience and blind obedience are not the same thing. Do not try to
suggest otherwise.

There is no difference between obedeance and blind obedience when it
somes to traffic lights. Blind obedience is required by law.

Then you cannot explain the purpose of the law. Human laws must justify
their existence.

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:22:25 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2019 07:09, Ian Smith wrote:
JNugent previously wrote:

So *stop* when the lights show red ior amber and red, and
otherwise when the signage says or means either "Stop" or "Give
Way". The danger then disappears.

The last time I was knocked off my bicycle, for example, was when
I stopped at a give way line, and the car behind decided not to,
and just drove straight into me (and partly over my bicycle).

There's nothing you could have done about that, other than ride on the
footway. It is not addressed in my remarks because it cannot be.

So you agree that your assurance that if someone stops when light or
signs require it then the danger disappears was rubbish, then. You
agree that obeying the rules cannot make the danger disappear.

The previous two contacts (though I was not knocked off) were both
a 'left hook' - a car pulled alongside me, then decided to turn
left through me (one at a T-juction, one on a roundabout). _I_
was following the rules.

You have a lot of accidents, don't you?

I've been commuting five days a week by bicycle in commuter-belt
Surrey for nearly 30 years. There are a lot of incompetent,
distracted, half-asleep and downright idiotic motorists in
commuter-belt Surrey.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|