No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.

On 19/10/2014 09:44, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2014 23:02, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2014 12:41, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 18/10/2014 12:36, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
Not too surprising that he is dead, really.

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/ne...pton-1-6359774


Well, obviously the person on the bike suffered mainly because he had
no
plan B for this possibility. Streetlights, a light and hi-viz offer
negligible protection.

From the description, he would have been illuminated by the van
headlights
for some time before the turn. It wasn't a matter of requiring the
driver to
become alert to something in peripheral vision. So this was at least
33%
driver error. And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue
about HC
rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra).

Alternatively, the driver was dazzled by vehicles (which is perfectly
normal
these days; I don't know why modern vehicle lighting is considered
acceptable) behind the cyclist when even a Christmas tree becomes
invisible
invisible. Unless a cyclist carries something several magnitudes
better than
Poundland lamp, a lamp is of no practical use in this situation, apart
from
lip service to the rules and stopping people from saying "the cyclist
had no
lamp, tut".

The cyclist could have braked.

Is this is not part of a plan B?

the cyclist could have followed rules: 72, 59, and 60

Perhaps. Does it come with a guarantee?

You reply to my post repeating things you have already said but make no
response to my opinion about whether these things are effective in a
number
of circumstances. Let's try again. Would fitting a Poundland lamp attract
attention or just perform lip service?

but of course The Highway Code is optional for cyclists, isn't it?

And in general, who is going to be the victim of such omission? For
instance, I really don't give a stuff if some drivers don't obey rule 99.
Or
agree about taking cars off the road because of an airbag warning light.

If the bicycle had been fitted with lights and reflectors there is more
chance of the oncoming vehicle seeing the cycle and if the rider had on hi
viz then there is even more chance to be seen.

You haven't answered my questions. Other than giving a weasel politician's
response. There were two question marks above.

Shining headlights at a small matt black object on a dark night will not
reflect back a lot to see will it?

Without other lights shining in the driver's face, enough at the distance
required. Certainly, in this circumstance (and only this one), distance
could have been extended by reflectives.



You blather so much it becomes hard to see what is a question. However,
I spotted one:
Poundland lamps would have been better than nothing. I would like to
see compulsory good quality lights on bicycles (that are in use in the
dark or reduced visibility) that perform at least as well as an old
moped light, ie you can see enough of the road even in the dark to allow
a reasonable rate of travel, that is quite easily achieved using modern
LED lighting.

On 19/10/2014 09:43, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 18/10/2014 22:58, TMS320 wrote:
"Cassandra"
"TMS320" wrote:

And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC
rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra).

Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule
176. They simply choose to ignore it

There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and
cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two.

Cycling through a red traffic light isn't causing danger to others?

It might. Depends on how it is done. But not in my experience as driver and
pedestrian onlooker. There are much bigger sharks in the sea to worry about.

(BTW, I know you struggle with sort of thing so I shall point out here that
the last sentence is a metaphor not a change of subject.)



Cyclists could lead by (good) example.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 22:58:59 +0100, "TMS320" wrote:


"Cassandra"
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:36:08 +0100, "TMS320" wrote:

And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC
rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra).

Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule
176. They simply choose to ignore it

There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and
cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two.

So in summary if you hit a cyclist jumping a red light its the drivers
fault for not looking properly.

Its a real shame there aren't more railway crossings.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 01:45:43 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/10/2014 22:58, TMS320 wrote:
"Cassandra"
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:36:08 +0100, "TMS320" wrote:

And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC
rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra).

Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule
176. They simply choose to ignore it

There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and
cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two.

Cycling through a red traffic light isn't causing danger to others?

Don't worry, all liability is removed from the cyclist provided they
shout "I'm not stopping, get out of the ****ing way"

On 19/10/2014 09:43, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 18/10/2014 22:58, TMS320 wrote:
"Cassandra"
"TMS320" wrote:

And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC
rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra).

Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule
176. They simply choose to ignore it

There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and
cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two.

Cycling through a red traffic light isn't causing danger to others?

It might. Depends on how it is done. But not in my experience as driver and
pedestrian onlooker. There are much bigger sharks in the sea to worry about.

(BTW, I know you struggle with sort of thing so I shall point out here that
the last sentence is a metaphor not a change of subject.)


So you firmly believe that there are no safety implications for anyone
else if cyclists break every road safety law in the book, especially the
ones about traffic lights?

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 09:43:38 +0100, "TMS320" wrote:


"JNugent" wrote
On 18/10/2014 22:58, TMS320 wrote:
"Cassandra"
"TMS320" wrote:

And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC
rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra).

Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule
176. They simply choose to ignore it

There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and
cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two.

Cycling through a red traffic light isn't causing danger to others?

It might. Depends on how it is done. But not in my experience as driver and
pedestrian onlooker. There are much bigger sharks in the sea to worry about.


A Bournemouth cyclist has been jailed for 12 months following an incident in
which he rode through a red traffic light and collided with a nine-year-old
girl, leaving her with a fractured skull and bleeding on the brain

HTH

On 19/10/2014 16:31, Judith wrote:

"TMS320" wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 18/10/2014 22:58, TMS320 wrote:
"Cassandra"
"TMS320" wrote:

And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC
rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra).

Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule
176. They simply choose to ignore it

There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and
cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two.

Cycling through a red traffic light isn't causing danger to others?

It might. Depends on how it is done. But not in my experience as driver and
pedestrian onlooker. There are much bigger sharks in the sea to worry about.

A Bournemouth cyclist has been jailed for 12 months following an incident in
which he rode through a red traffic light and collided with a nine-year-old
girl, leaving her with a fractured skull and bleeding on the brain

Nah... that can't be correct. Going through a red light causes no real
danger, you see.

It can't have been the cyclist's fault.

On 19/10/2014 16:41, JNugent wrote:
On 19/10/2014 16:31, Judith wrote:

"TMS320" wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 18/10/2014 22:58, TMS320 wrote:
"Cassandra"
"TMS320" wrote:

And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC
rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra).

Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule
176. They simply choose to ignore it

There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and
cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two.

Cycling through a red traffic light isn't causing danger to others?

It might. Depends on how it is done. But not in my experience as
driver and
pedestrian onlooker. There are much bigger sharks in the sea to worry
about.

A Bournemouth cyclist has been jailed for 12 months following an
incident in
which he rode through a red traffic light and collided with a
nine-year-old
girl, leaving her with a fractured skull and bleeding on the brain

Nah... that can't be correct. Going through a red light causes no real
danger, you see.

It can't have been the cyclist's fault.

It was the road's fault, it went downhill. Which is why he didn't hang
around afterwards.

"JNugent" wrote in message
On 19/10/2014 09:43, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 18/10/2014 22:58, TMS320 wrote:
"Cassandra"
"TMS320" wrote:

And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC
rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra).

Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule
176. They simply choose to ignore it

There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and
cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two.

Cycling through a red traffic light isn't causing danger to others?

It might. Depends on how it is done. But not in my experience as driver
and
pedestrian onlooker. There are much bigger sharks in the sea to worry
about.

(BTW, I know you struggle with sort of thing so I shall point out here
that
the last sentence is a metaphor not a change of subject.)

So you firmly believe that there are no safety implications for anyone
else if cyclists break every road safety law in the book, especially the
ones about traffic lights?

Another example of you making something up out of nothing. You
really don't understand metaphors.

"Cassandra" wrote
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 22:58:59 +0100, "TMS320"
"Cassandra"
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:36:08 +0100, "TMS320" wrote:

And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC
rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra).

Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of Rule
176. They simply choose to ignore it

There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others and
cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two.

So in summary if you hit a cyclist jumping a red light its the drivers
fault for not looking properly.

You appear to be trying to suggest that all road crashes occur as a result
of red light infringements and there is no other cause.