Rear LED light effectiveness.

In article , (Tony
Raven) wrote:

Terry wrote:

Do you often encounter cars on the stairs? Suddenly emerging from a
side door perhaps, maybe piloted by someone distracted by an
important call on their handheld mobile even.


Nope but doesn't stop climbing or descending stairs causing far more
injuries than cycling ever does.

Let's assume that this is fact. As it happens, I have no reason to believe
that it isn't.

So what? No amount of people falling on, down, or even up stairs can
mitigate the folly of the action I witnessed.

Your point is just completely irrelevant. A side-issue. A distraction.

I repeat, cycling is an extremely safe activity despite what the meedya
would have you believe.

Why do you assume that a) I think cycling is not safe, b) that I am
influenced by the media in that opinion, and c) that there is even the
slightest grounds to infer either from my single report of an act of
criminal stupidity?

If it helps, I commute approx. 18 miles daily through central London
traffic in fine weather and foul, rain or sleet, hot or cold, morning,
lunchtime, and evening, and I don't leave the bicycle at home because it's
a bit cold or wet. I don't do this because I'm, like, a real man... man,
but because I enjoy cycling. I don't read newspapers, at least not any in
which lies about cycling are published. And I'm tired of having my motives
impugned for petty partisan purposes.

In article ,
(Mark
Thompson) wrote:

I would imagine that carrying a child down the stairs would be
considerably more "dangerous".

Do you often encounter cars on the stairs? Suddenly emerging from a
side door perhaps, maybe piloted by someone distracted by an important
call on their handheld mobile even.

Now who's being facile?


So you dislike it, huh? I guess we can agree that it's best avoided.

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:06 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Terry) wrote:

Why don't you think about it and figure it out for yourself? The last time
I expressed an opinion you ignored it and accused me or racism in so many
words. Take some time. Think it through. It's not a race. We have all the
time in the world to do this properly.

I didn't ignore it - I simply challenged your opinion by giving an
example of where a child riding on the handlebars of an unlit bike at
night would be the norm. You claimed it wasn't a fair comparrison,
and I expressed the view that it only wouldn't be a fair comparrison
if you value the safety of different peoples differently. It was a
fair challenge, but you are welcome to refute my argument by giving a
different reason for it not being a fair comparrison.

You're right, we weren't there. But you posted a safety critisism in
an open forum - something at which people wouldn't bat an eyelid in a
great many countries around the World.

Am I not allowed to think? May I not hold opinions that differ from those
people?

It seems to me that you are the one getting in a huff when your views
are challenged.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

In article ,
e (Tom Crispin) wrote:

It seems to me that you are the one getting in a huff when your views
are challenged.

Says the person who contrived a false accusation of racism when their
views were challenged...

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:12 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Terry) wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Crispin) wrote:

It seems to me that you are the one getting in a huff when your views
are challenged.

Says the person who contrived a false accusation of racism when their
views were challenged...

I note that you still haven't explained why the safety comparrison of
London cyclists and Sanya cyclists is "apples and oranges".
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

In article ,
e (Tom Crispin) wrote:

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:12 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Terry) wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Crispin) wrote:

It seems to me that you are the one getting in a huff when your views
are challenged.

Says the person who contrived a false accusation of racism when their
views were challenged...

I note that you still haven't explained why the safety comparrison of
London cyclists and Sanya cyclists is "apples and oranges".

Have you noticed how you constantly ignore the substantive point and shift
your ground in order to fire off yet another round? You don't appear to be
seeking honest debate. That's why I suggested that you "think about it and
figure it out for yourself [because] the last time I expressed an opinion
you ignored it and accused me of racism".

It's an open offer. Tell me why you think that road conditions in China
and London are comparable, leaving the personal stuff out, and we'll take
it from there.

It's an open offer. Tell me why you think that road conditions in
China and London are comparable, leaving the personal stuff out, and
we'll take it from there.

Is it because, despite the roads in China being more dangerous, the Chinese
still trundle about 2 up on a bike and no one bats an eyelid. In the UK
with very safe roads, going 2 up on a bike makes Terry have a hernia?

in message .com,
') wrote:

oops sorry. Deleted it from google groups.

Without wishing to be hostile, that does what good, precisely? Usenet is
a several-tens-of-million node store and forward network, of which
Google is just one (albeit significant) node.

Sorry if that's slightly tetchy. I do get irritated with people thinking
that the way /they/ access Usenet is the 'only' way, and that what works
on their client should work for everyone else.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; All in all you're just another nick in the ball
-- Think Droid

Simon Brooke wrote:
') wrote:

oops sorry. Deleted it from google groups.

Without wishing to be hostile, that does what good, precisely? Usenet is
a several-tens-of-million node store and forward network, of which
Google is just one (albeit significant) node.

Since approximately none of those several-tens-of-million nodes
honour routine cancels these days, it's probably all he can do,
however limited it might be.

(For those less familiar than Simon with Usenet, a cancel message
is a special sort of post that asks Usenet servers to ignore an
earlier message with a specified message id. There is no digital
signature involved, and the messages are easily forged, and there
was a time when forged cancels were very common, so most sites now
ignore them.
_Sometimes_, you can send a cancel message to your local server
immediately and get it to not pass on a post you just made
(accidentally sent twice, or before finished editting, or just
spotted a stupid mistake). But once it's got beyond your local
server, it's too late.)

Without wishing to be hostile, that does what good, precisely? Usenet is
a several-tens-of-million node store and forward network, of which
Google is just one (albeit significant) node.

As google keeps the posts forever, it'll remove it from the (only?) eternal
archive of flamewars and spam.

Sorry if that's slightly tetchy. I do get irritated with people thinking
that the way /they/ access Usenet is the 'only' way

Yes, everyone knows there are *two* ways to access this forum: Google
Groups and Cycling Forums ;-)