why do cyclists think that they don't need lights at night?

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
"Mrcheerful" considered Thu, 9 Dec 2010
11:41:49 -0000 the perfect time to write:

Tony Dragon wrote:
On 09/12/2010 09:11, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 09/12/2010 08:56, Doug wrote:
Do you approve of cycling without lights

Why is it not simple?

You either think that cyclists should obey the law about lights at
night or not.


Do you approve of cycling without lights?


Just to make it a bit clearer, Do you approve of cycling without
lights, during the hours of darkness, on a public highway/

FXtumble weed, cricket sounds, wind whistle, creaking sound from old pub
sign time passes, people die, the next ice age begins..............

And Cheerless still hasn't found a reasonably priced second hand clue.


Take your troll wrestling back to urcm.

You are boring and a mission cyclist!
--
From
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

Phil W Lee wrote:

And Cheerless still hasn't found a reasonably priced second hand clue.

He'd have to learn what one looked like before he stood a chance of
finding one. I don't hold out hope.

Tony

On Dec 10, 9:03*am, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 10/12/2010 08:16, Doug wrote:



On Dec 8, 9:15 am, Tony *wrote:
On 08/12/2010 06:57, Doug wrote:

On Dec 8, 1:08 am, * *wrote:
On 07/12/2010 21:57, Mrcheerful wrote:

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new...lice_launch_cr...

Unconscious humour?

"POLICE have launched a crackdown on cyclists who are putting their lives at
risk by riding without lights during terrible conditions at the darkest time
of the year.

"Officers stopped 33 riders in two hours at Bournemouth s Cemetery Junction...".

Maybe the cyclists think it won't make much difference anyway to half-
blind killer drivers.

So you are saying that these cyclists are stupid because they do not
care about themselves or anybody else.

Is that what you are saying then? What I am saying is that cyclists
know it will make little difference to their safety when confronted by
dangerous drivers.

What about if they are confronted by non dangerous drivers?

All drivers are potentially dangerous, mainly due to the weight and
speed of their chosen mode of transport as well as the possibility of
human error.

What about the effect they may have on others safety.
After all you tell us that because a motorist might break one law, it
means that he has the mindset to break other laws.
Surely the same applies to cyclists?

Cyclists are much less dangerous than drivers and can't kill drivers,
though drivers can kill them.


When I was rammed I was using lights and the
motorist admitted he didn't even see me.

Anecdotal.

Pity the police can't pull
over drivers to test their night vision.

Have you had your eyes tested for night vision?

Why would I need to? Have you as a driver? Or do you prefer to remain
as a serious threat to cyclists at night?

Not for a number of years.

Then maybe you should right now.


-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
*http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On 12/12/2010 07:45, Doug wrote:
On Dec 10, 9:03 am, Tony wrote:
On 10/12/2010 08:16, Doug wrote:



On Dec 8, 9:15 am, Tony wrote:
On 08/12/2010 06:57, Doug wrote:

On Dec 8, 1:08 am, wrote:
On 07/12/2010 21:57, Mrcheerful wrote:

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new...lice_launch_cr...

Unconscious humour?

"POLICE have launched a crackdown on cyclists who are putting their lives at
risk by riding without lights during terrible conditions at the darkest time
of the year.

"Officers stopped 33 riders in two hours at Bournemouth s Cemetery Junction...".

Maybe the cyclists think it won't make much difference anyway to half-
blind killer drivers.

So you are saying that these cyclists are stupid because they do not
care about themselves or anybody else.

Is that what you are saying then? What I am saying is that cyclists
know it will make little difference to their safety when confronted by
dangerous drivers.

What about if they are confronted by non dangerous drivers?

All drivers are potentially dangerous, mainly due to the weight and
speed of their chosen mode of transport as well as the possibility of
human error.

Lack of credible answer noted.


What about the effect they may have on others safety.
After all you tell us that because a motorist might break one law, it
means that he has the mindset to break other laws.
Surely the same applies to cyclists?

Cyclists are much less dangerous than drivers and can't kill drivers,
though drivers can kill them.

Lack of credible answer noted.



When I was rammed I was using lights and the
motorist admitted he didn't even see me.

Anecdotal.

Pity the police can't pull
over drivers to test their night vision.

Have you had your eyes tested for night vision?

Why would I need to? Have you as a driver? Or do you prefer to remain
as a serious threat to cyclists at night?

Not for a number of years.

Then maybe you should right now.


Maybe I should, maybe we all should, when did you last have such a test?



-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.





--
Tony Dragon

wow so much animosity between driver and cyclist! Completely ridiculous of course - cyclists need lights and fluorescent clothing, and drivers need to be alert at all times. Simple as that.

On Dec 9, 8:56*am, Doug wrote:
On Dec 8, 10:01*pm, webreader wrote:

On Dec 8, 10:56*am, Doug wrote:

On Dec 8, 9:18*am, Tony Dragon wrote:

On 08/12/2010 07:22, Doug wrote:

On Dec 8, 7:04 am, *wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Dec 8, 1:08 am, *wrote:
On 07/12/2010 21:57, Mrcheerful wrote:

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new...lice_launch_cr...

Unconscious humour?

"POLICE have launched a crackdown on cyclists who are putting their
lives at risk by riding without lights during terrible conditions at
the darkest time
of the year.

"Officers stopped 33 riders in two hours at Bournemouth s Cemetery
Junction...".

Maybe the cyclists think it won't make much difference anyway to half-
blind killer drivers. When I was rammed I was using lights and the
motorist admitted he didn't even see me. Pity the police can't pull
over drivers to test their night vision.

were you killed then or is then

I was injured as luckily it happened at slow speed. I could easily
have been killed.

Anecdotal.

any mention of a lit cyclist being killed?
if not then why change the thread title yet again?

Because it is deliberately biased against cyclists on a cycling
newsgroup and originates from a motorist.

Doug

Are, you mean, because the post mentioned about some cyclists.
Do you approve of cycling without lights, a simple yes or no will do as
an answer.

No it won't. Why do you always try to simplify everything to the point
of absurdity? Is it because you have difficulty understanding these
issues?

I have dificulty understanding why you can't answer simple questions.

Maybe they are too simple?



Again! Cycle lights are no protection against dangerous drivers and
neither are pavements, high-viz vests or helmets.

Nothing to do with the question.

Related.

What is needed is
some way of getting rid of dangerous drivers instead of punishing
vulnerable cyclists instead.

Doug.

Answer the question asked

Why don't you answer some questions for a change? Here's one. Do you
think its OK for motorists to kill or injure cyclists who have no
lights? Yes or no?

"Do you approve of cycling without lights, a simple yes or no will do
as
*an answer?"

Or are you scared to answer?

Again! It is not that simple. Why should I reduce myself to your
simplistic level?

Doug.

You useless idiot, the question was very simple.

Well to make it easy for you why don't you answer it in a complicated
way, then everybody will be able to tear your answer to pieces.

On Dec 13, 9:16*pm, eric wrote:
On Dec 9, 8:56*am, Doug wrote:
lights? Yes or no?

"Do you approve of cycling without lights, a simple yes or no will do
as
*an answer?"

Or are you scared to answer?

Again! It is not that simple. Why should I reduce myself to your
simplistic level?

Doug.

You useless idiot, the question was very simple.

Well to make it easy for you why don't you answer it in a complicated
way, then everybody will be able to tear your answer to pieces.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In DougWorld(TM) cyclists are always innocent victims who never do
anything wrong or illegal!

On 13/12/2010 21:29, Derek C wrote:
On Dec 13, 9:16 pm, wrote:
On Dec 9, 8:56 am, wrote:
lights? Yes or no?

"Do you approve of cycling without lights, a simple yes or no will do
as
an answer?"

Or are you scared to answer?

Again! It is not that simple. Why should I reduce myself to your
simplistic level?

Doug.

You useless idiot, the question was very simple.

Well to make it easy for you why don't you answer it in a complicated
way, then everybody will be able to tear your answer to pieces.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In DougWorld(TM) cyclists are always innocent victims who never do
anything wrong or illegal!

In fact he is scared to give an answer, because it would show him up as
the bigot he is.
Proof would be his post about Mercs new lighting system, otherwise known
as clutching at straws.

--
Tony Dragon

On Dec 13, 10:34*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 13/12/2010 21:29, Derek C wrote:



On Dec 13, 9:16 pm, *wrote:
On Dec 9, 8:56 am, *wrote:
lights? Yes or no?

"Do you approve of cycling without lights, a simple yes or no will do
as
* an answer?"

Or are you scared to answer?

Again! It is not that simple. Why should I reduce myself to your
simplistic level?

Doug.

You useless idiot, the question was very simple.

Well to make it easy for you why don't you answer it in a complicated
way, then everybody will be able to tear your answer to pieces.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In DougWorld(TM) cyclists are always innocent victims who never do
anything wrong or illegal!

In fact he is scared to give an answer, because it would show him up as
the bigot he is.
Proof would be his post about Mercs new lighting system, otherwise known
as clutching at straws.

--
Tony Dragon

It looks like you are right, he has ceased his waffleing .