Lies about coach driver caused by ubdertaking cyclist

On 16/10/2019 20:55, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 8:14:36 PM UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 2:33:47 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/10/2019 13:40, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:32, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/10/2019 12:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on
lit 30mph roads would also help safety.

As for banning the use of headlights, I have rarely heard a more
obtuse suggestion.

Do you not know what headlights are for?

This might ellp:

Requir'n 4+ wheeled mowti vehicles ter use side lights only ed lit
30mph roads would also ellp safety.

Translation provided by http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp

You too don't like the idea of other people being able to see where
they're going (plus dark-clad pedestrians, cyclists without lights,
etc), then?

Yes, it's a good for people to seeing their surroundings. Streetlights
are pretty good with that. Our night vision is far better than we
realise. Except we keep shining unshaded lights in our faces and never
give it a chance.

My approach to this issue is very straightforward. If it's dark
enough for the law to require the use of side-lights, it's certainly
dark enough for the use of headlights to be an invaluable safety
move. I never drive on just side lights. There are all sorts of
things you need to be able to see in advance, including rain puddles
(espoecially near pedestrians), craters and pot-holes as well as
pedestrians and cyclists, some of whom sem to be doing their best to
be invisible in the murk.

When we had yellow streetlamps, black provided extremely good contrast,
able to highlight things several hundred yards away.

Streetlamps would give you this ability if your vision wasn't
obliterated by oncoming headlamps.

AAMOF, I'd rather see the use of headlights made compulsory
everywhere when in motion (or when the engine is running) and the use
of sidelights restricted only to marking the position of a stationary
(ie, parked) vehicle. Upgrading the requirements for cycle lights
(requiring a car-like floodlighting of the whole area for some yards
in front of the vehicle and for the whole width of the traffic lane)
would be a good idea too.

That's the religion that produced those stupid fairy lights. I would
disconnect them if it was legal to do so.

When some countries mandated headlamp use in 1998 (give or take a couple
of years), casualties went up. Austria recognised their folly after just
a year. The other countries were unable to shake off the religion.

Exactly. Making motorists feel safer just leads to them taking more risks and those who use the roads as a matter of right rather than under licence suffer the consequences.
Dipped headlights do nothing on street lit roads other than obfuscate primary road users.

And the extra fuel consumed powering the lights.

Ah, yes... Common Fallacy #261.

On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 12:52:40 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 20:55, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 8:14:36 PM UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 2:33:47 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/10/2019 13:40, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:32, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/10/2019 12:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on
lit 30mph roads would also help safety.

As for banning the use of headlights, I have rarely heard a more
obtuse suggestion.

Do you not know what headlights are for?

This might ellp:

Requir'n 4+ wheeled mowti vehicles ter use side lights only ed lit
30mph roads would also ellp safety.

Translation provided by http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp

You too don't like the idea of other people being able to see where
they're going (plus dark-clad pedestrians, cyclists without lights,
etc), then?

Yes, it's a good for people to seeing their surroundings. Streetlights
are pretty good with that. Our night vision is far better than we
realise. Except we keep shining unshaded lights in our faces and never
give it a chance.

My approach to this issue is very straightforward. If it's dark
enough for the law to require the use of side-lights, it's certainly
dark enough for the use of headlights to be an invaluable safety
move. I never drive on just side lights. There are all sorts of
things you need to be able to see in advance, including rain puddles
(espoecially near pedestrians), craters and pot-holes as well as
pedestrians and cyclists, some of whom sem to be doing their best to
be invisible in the murk.

When we had yellow streetlamps, black provided extremely good contrast,
able to highlight things several hundred yards away.

Streetlamps would give you this ability if your vision wasn't
obliterated by oncoming headlamps.

AAMOF, I'd rather see the use of headlights made compulsory
everywhere when in motion (or when the engine is running) and the use
of sidelights restricted only to marking the position of a stationary
(ie, parked) vehicle. Upgrading the requirements for cycle lights
(requiring a car-like floodlighting of the whole area for some yards
in front of the vehicle and for the whole width of the traffic lane)
would be a good idea too.

That's the religion that produced those stupid fairy lights. I would
disconnect them if it was legal to do so.

When some countries mandated headlamp use in 1998 (give or take a couple
of years), casualties went up. Austria recognised their folly after just
a year. The other countries were unable to shake off the religion.

Exactly. Making motorists feel safer just leads to them taking more risks and those who use the roads as a matter of right rather than under licence suffer the consequences.
Dipped headlights do nothing on street lit roads other than obfuscate primary road users.

And the extra fuel consumed powering the lights.

Ah, yes... Common Fallacy #261.


Where does the energy to power the headlights come from?

On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 12:51:18 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 14:33, TMS320 wrote:


Streetlights
are pretty good with that. Our night vision is far better than we
realise. Except we keep shining unshaded lights in our faces and never
give it a chance.

Streetlights are - sometimes - good enough for travellers moving at
walking pace or a bit faster. They are rarely good enough for traffic
moving at up to 40mph in an environment where pedestrians and cyclists
share the space.


So you agree we should reduce the motor vehicle speed limit in built up areas.
5 mph would seem appropriate since, according to you, motorists can't cope with more than that.
BTW we were talking about 30mph roads.

On 18/10/2019 02:10, Simon Jester wrote:
On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 12:52:40 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 20:55, Simon Jester wrote:

And the extra fuel consumed powering the lights.

Ah, yes... Common Fallacy #261.


Where does the energy to power the headlights come from?

In a previous thread Nugent said it came from the alternator.

On 18/10/2019 00:51, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 14:33, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/10/2019 13:40, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on
lit 30mph roads would also help safety.

As for banning the use of headlights, I have rarely heard a more
Â*obtuse suggestion.

Do you not know what headlights are for?

This might ellp:

Requir'n 4+ wheeled mowti vehicles ter use side lights only ed lit
Â*30mph roads would also ellp safety.

Translation provided by http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp

You too don't like the idea of other people being able to see where
they're going (plus dark-clad pedestrians, cyclists without lights,
etc), then?

Yes, it's a good for people to seeing their surroundings.

Try that sentence again?

No worse than some of your typos.

Streetlights
are pretty good with that. Our night vision is far better than we
realise. Except we keep shining unshaded lights in our faces and never
give it a chance.

Streetlights are - sometimes - good enough for travellers moving at
walking pace or a bit faster. They are rarely good enough for traffic
moving at up to 40mph in an environment where pedestrians and cyclists
share the space.

I guess the car must warp the light.

My approach to this issue is very straightforward. If it's dark
enough for the law to require the use of side-lights, it's certainly
dark enough for the use of headlights to be an invaluable safety
move. I never drive on just side lights. There are all sorts of
things you need to be able to see in advance, including rain puddles
(espoecially near pedestrians), craters and pot-holes as well as
pedestrians and cyclists, some of whom sem to be doing their best to
be invisible in the murk.

When we had yellow streetlamps, black provided extremely good
contrast, able to highlight things several hundred yards away.

Whenever that was, that was then. This is now. Headlights were always
advisable

You don't remember?

(and in my view should always have been compulsory) in any case.

You're confusing the two functions of lighting.

I will leave you to work out the difference.

Streetlamps would give you this ability if your vision wasn't
obliterated by oncoming headlamps.

Headlights don't "obliterate" (or even obscure) my vision.

You're either lucky or not observant. Given the pattern of the things
you say in your posts over the years, I don't think it is luck.

You seem to have a particular street in mind. Wherever it is (and
assuming it isn't only inside your head), not all streets are lit to a
standard that will allow traffic to proceed without the use of headlights.

If you don't feel safe you could slow down a bit.

AAMOF, I'd rather see the use of headlights made compulsory
everywhere when in motion (or when the engine is running) and the use
of sidelights restricted only to marking the position of a stationary
(ie, parked) vehicle. Upgrading the requirements for cycle lights
(requiring a car-like floodlighting of the whole area for some yards
in front of the vehicle and for the whole width of the traffic lane)
would be a good idea too.

That's the religion that produced those stupid fairy lights. I would
disconnect them if it was legal to do so.

What are you on about?

When was the last time your carer let you out?

When some countries mandated headlamp use in 1998 (give or take a couple
of years), casualties went up. Austria recognised their folly after just
a year. The other countries were unable to shake off the religion.

Much light is far better than a little light, and immeasurable better
then the total lack of light *some* road-users seem to "think" is OK.

Wow, look at those goal posts move.

On 18/10/2019 02:10, Simon Jester wrote:
On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 12:52:40 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 20:55, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 8:14:36 PM UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 2:33:47 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/10/2019 13:40, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:32, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/10/2019 12:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on
lit 30mph roads would also help safety.

As for banning the use of headlights, I have rarely heard a more
obtuse suggestion.

Do you not know what headlights are for?

This might ellp:

Requir'n 4+ wheeled mowti vehicles ter use side lights only ed lit
30mph roads would also ellp safety.

Translation provided by http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp

You too don't like the idea of other people being able to see where
they're going (plus dark-clad pedestrians, cyclists without lights,
etc), then?

Yes, it's a good for people to seeing their surroundings. Streetlights
are pretty good with that. Our night vision is far better than we
realise. Except we keep shining unshaded lights in our faces and never
give it a chance.

My approach to this issue is very straightforward. If it's dark
enough for the law to require the use of side-lights, it's certainly
dark enough for the use of headlights to be an invaluable safety
move. I never drive on just side lights. There are all sorts of
things you need to be able to see in advance, including rain puddles
(espoecially near pedestrians), craters and pot-holes as well as
pedestrians and cyclists, some of whom sem to be doing their best to
be invisible in the murk.

When we had yellow streetlamps, black provided extremely good contrast,
able to highlight things several hundred yards away.

Streetlamps would give you this ability if your vision wasn't
obliterated by oncoming headlamps.

AAMOF, I'd rather see the use of headlights made compulsory
everywhere when in motion (or when the engine is running) and the use
of sidelights restricted only to marking the position of a stationary
(ie, parked) vehicle. Upgrading the requirements for cycle lights
(requiring a car-like floodlighting of the whole area for some yards
in front of the vehicle and for the whole width of the traffic lane)
would be a good idea too.

That's the religion that produced those stupid fairy lights. I would
disconnect them if it was legal to do so.

When some countries mandated headlamp use in 1998 (give or take a couple
of years), casualties went up. Austria recognised their folly after just
a year. The other countries were unable to shake off the religion.

Exactly. Making motorists feel safer just leads to them taking more risks and those who use the roads as a matter of right rather than under licence suffer the consequences.
Dipped headlights do nothing on street lit roads other than obfuscate primary road users.

And the extra fuel consumed powering the lights.

Ah, yes... Common Fallacy #261.


Where does the energy to power the headlights come from?

From the vehicle's alternator, of course, as buffered by the battery.
Did you not know that?

On 18/10/2019 02:59, Simon Jester wrote:
On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 12:51:18 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 14:33, TMS320 wrote:


Streetlights
are pretty good with that. Our night vision is far better than we
realise. Except we keep shining unshaded lights in our faces and never
give it a chance.

Streetlights are - sometimes - good enough for travellers moving at
walking pace or a bit faster. They are rarely good enough for traffic
moving at up to 40mph in an environment where pedestrians and cyclists
share the space.


So you agree we should reduce the motor vehicle speed limit in built up areas.

Only a fool could conclude that from what I wrote.

You concluded it.

5 mph would seem appropriate since, according to you, motorists can't cope with more than that.
BTW we were talking about 30mph roads.

What nobody in or on a road vehicle can cope with is not being able to
see far enough ahead for the speed at which they are travelling.

On 18/10/2019 08:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/2019 02:10, Simon Jester wrote:
On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 12:52:40 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 20:55, Simon Jester wrote:

And the extra fuel consumed powering the lights.

Ah, yes... Common Fallacy #261.


Where does the energy to power the headlights come from?

In a previous thread Nugent said it came from the alternator.

Do you say it doesn't?

On 18/10/2019 08:34, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/2019 00:51, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 14:33, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/10/2019 13:40, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on
lit 30mph roads would also help safety.

As for banning the use of headlights, I have rarely heard a more
Â*obtuse suggestion.

Do you not know what headlights are for?

This might ellp:

Requir'n 4+ wheeled mowti vehicles ter use side lights only ed lit
Â*30mph roads would also ellp safety.

Translation provided by http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp

You too don't like the idea of other people being able to see where
they're going (plus dark-clad pedestrians, cyclists without lights,
etc), then?

Yes, it's a good for people to seeing their surroundings.

Try that sentence again?

No worse than some of your typos.

If it's a typo, there is more than one there, within ten words. It isn't
possible to discern your meaning (if any).

Streetlights
are pretty good with that. Our night vision is far better than we
realise. Except we keep shining unshaded lights in our faces and
never give it a chance.

Streetlights are - sometimes - good enough for travellers moving at
walking pace or a bit faster. They are rarely good enough for traffic
moving at up to 40mph in an environment where pedestrians and cyclists
share the space.

I guess the car must warp the light.

Guessing is all very well, but there's no substitute for knowledge.

My approach to this issue is very straightforward. If it's dark
enough for the law to require the use of side-lights, it's certainly
dark enough for the use of headlights to be an invaluable safety
move. I never drive on just side lights. There are all sorts of
things you need to be able to see in advance, including rain puddles
(espoecially near pedestrians), craters and pot-holes as well as
pedestrians and cyclists, some of whom sem to be doing their best to
be invisible in the murk.

When we had yellow streetlamps, black provided extremely good
contrast, able to highlight things several hundred yards away.

Whenever that was, that was then. This is now. Headlights were always
advisable

You don't remember?

I do remember sodium lights. They weren't used everywhere (as you may
not remember).

(and in my view should always have been compulsory) in any case.

You're confusing the two functions of lighting.

Not at all.

I will leave you to work out the difference.

Streetlamps would give you this ability if your vision wasn't
obliterated by oncoming headlamps.

Headlights don't "obliterate" (or even obscure) my vision.

You're either lucky or not observant. Given the pattern of the things
you say in your posts over the years, I don't think it is luck.

You seem to have a particular street in mind. Wherever it is (and
assuming it isn't only inside your head), not all streets are lit to a
standard that will allow traffic to proceed without the use of
headlights.

If you don't feel safe you could slow down a bit.

Or use headlights, which fix the problem (as required by law - not that
law means much to cyclists).

AAMOF, I'd rather see the use of headlights made compulsory
everywhere when in motion (or when the engine is running) and the use
of sidelights restricted only to marking the position of a stationary
(ie, parked) vehicle. Upgrading the requirements for cycle lights
(requiring a car-like floodlighting of the whole area for some yards
in front of the vehicle and for the whole width of the traffic lane)
would be a good idea too.

That's the religion that produced those stupid fairy lights. I would
disconnect them if it was legal to do so.

What are you on about?

When was the last time your carer let you out?

What are you on about?

Do you actually know what you're on about?

When some countries mandated headlamp use in 1998 (give or take a couple
of years), casualties went up. Austria recognised their folly after just
a year. The other countries were unable to shake off the religion.

Much light is far better than a little light, and immeasurable better
then the total lack of light *some* road-users seem to "think" is OK.

Wow, look at those goal posts move.

A lot of light = best
Less light = not as good
No light (cyclist default) = bad.

On 18/10/2019 10:44, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 02:10, Simon Jester wrote:
On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 12:52:40 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 20:55, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 8:14:36 PM UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 2:33:47 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/10/2019 13:40, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:32, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/10/2019 12:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on
lit 30mph roads would also help safety.

As for banning the use of headlights, I have rarely heard a more
Â*Â* obtuse suggestion.

Do you not know what headlights are for?

This might ellp:

Requir'n 4+ wheeled mowti vehicles ter use side lights only ed lit
Â*Â* 30mph roads would also ellp safety.

Translation provided by http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp

You too don't like the idea of other people being able to see where
they're going (plus dark-clad pedestrians, cyclists without lights,
etc), then?

Yes, it's a good for people to seeing their surroundings.
Streetlights
are pretty good with that. Our night vision is far better than we
realise. Except we keep shining unshaded lights in our faces and
never
give it a chance.

My approach to this issue is very straightforward. If it's dark
enough for the law to require the use of side-lights, it's certainly
dark enough for the use of headlights to be an invaluable safety
move. I never drive on just side lights. There are all sorts of
things you need to be able to see in advance, including rain puddles
(espoecially near pedestrians), craters and pot-holes as well as
pedestrians and cyclists, some of whom sem to be doing their best to
be invisible in the murk.

When we had yellow streetlamps, black provided extremely good
contrast,
able to highlight things several hundred yards away.

Streetlamps would give you this ability if your vision wasn't
obliterated by oncoming headlamps.

AAMOF, I'd rather see the use of headlights made compulsory
everywhere when in motion (or when the engine is running) and the
use
of sidelights restricted only to marking the position of a
stationary
(ie, parked) vehicle. Upgrading the requirements for cycle lights
(requiring a car-like floodlighting of the whole area for some yards
in front of the vehicle and for the whole width of the traffic lane)
would be a good idea too.

That's the religion that produced those stupid fairy lights. I would
disconnect them if it was legal to do so.

When some countries mandated headlamp use in 1998 (give or take a
couple
of years), casualties went up. Austria recognised their folly
after just
a year. The other countries were unable to shake off the religion.

Exactly. Making motorists feel safer just leads to them taking more
risks and those who use the roads as a matter of right rather than
under licence suffer the consequences.
Dipped headlights do nothing on street lit roads other than
obfuscate primary road users.

And the extra fuel consumed powering the lights.

Ah, yes... Common Fallacy #261.


Where does the energy to power the headlights come from?

From the vehicle's alternator, of course, as buffered by the battery.
Did you not know that?

Which ultimately comes from the car's engine having to work harder to
produce the extra energy for any lights etc.
This results in higher fuel consumption.

--
Bod