A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 17th 14, 12:39 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Malory Towers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.

Mrcheerful wrote:

Not too surprising that he is dead, really.

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


This is basically a report of an idiot on a bicycle who had the
misfortune to encounter an idiot in a van.
Ads
  #12  
Old October 17th 14, 09:10 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Judith[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,000
Default No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:32:45 +0100, "Tarcap" wrote:



"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
.. .

"Tarcap" considered Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:21:09
+0100 the perfect time to write:



"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

Not too surprising that he is dead, really.

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


The sad thing is that they expect others (i.e. motorists, lorry drivers,
councils, etc.) to jump through hoops "in the interests of safety", but
they
are too bloody mean to spend a few quid to provide even the most basic
safety equipment.

Darwin at work yet again.

Presumably you would also be defending the van driver if he'd run down
a pedestrian crossing the road into which he was turning, despite the
pedestrian having the right-of-way and no obligation to use any lights
at all, or even wear anything other than ordinary clothing.

I'm struggling to get any useful meaning out of your post.
Did you not realise that it's compulsory for cyclists to have lights, which
is not the case for pedestrians?
Why have you introduced pedestrian crossings into the scenario, when there
was no mention of such in the article?
Other than in a futile attempt to divert blame away from the cyclist, of
course.
Methinks you are up to your usual trick of employing Bovine Scatology to
further the psycholist cause.



Now look here. M'Lud the barista is an expert on legal matters - and if he
says what could happen with a pedestrian is relevant, then it is a statement of
legal fact.

  #13  
Old October 18th 14, 09:37 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peter Keller[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,736
Default No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:32:45 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

****wit


Thanks for that!
Now just for you I would love to be a gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed
coxcomb.

  #14  
Old October 18th 14, 10:05 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Cassandra[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 350
Default No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 03:22:26 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

"Tarcap" considered Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:32:45
+0100 the perfect time to write:



"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
. ..

"Tarcap" considered Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:21:09
+0100 the perfect time to write:



"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

Not too surprising that he is dead, really.

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


The sad thing is that they expect others (i.e. motorists, lorry drivers,
councils, etc.) to jump through hoops "in the interests of safety", but
they
are too bloody mean to spend a few quid to provide even the most basic
safety equipment.

Darwin at work yet again.

Presumably you would also be defending the van driver if he'd run down
a pedestrian crossing the road into which he was turning, despite the
pedestrian having the right-of-way and no obligation to use any lights
at all, or even wear anything other than ordinary clothing.

I'm struggling to get any useful meaning out of your post.


Remedial reading lessons are available in most areas - try getting a
competent adult to take you to the local library to enquire.

Did you not realise that it's compulsory for cyclists to have lights, which
is not the case for pedestrians?


If he was incapable of seeing the cyclist, he'd have been equally
incapable of seeing any pedestrian who could have been crossing
perfectly legally and with right-of-way.


In another thread, a one pound cycle light was looked upon with
incredible distain by psycholists despite being brighter that any
pedestrian who wasn't on fire.

Makes you wonder why psycholists need 125 quid cycle lights doesn't it
?





  #15  
Old October 18th 14, 10:09 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Cassandra[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 350
Default No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 03:22:26 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

"Tarcap" considered Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:32:45
+0100 the perfect time to write:



"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
. ..

"Tarcap" considered Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:21:09
+0100 the perfect time to write:



"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

Not too surprising that he is dead, really.

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


The sad thing is that they expect others (i.e. motorists, lorry drivers,
councils, etc.) to jump through hoops "in the interests of safety", but
they
are too bloody mean to spend a few quid to provide even the most basic
safety equipment.

Darwin at work yet again.

Presumably you would also be defending the van driver if he'd run down
a pedestrian crossing the road into which he was turning, despite the
pedestrian having the right-of-way and no obligation to use any lights
at all, or even wear anything other than ordinary clothing.



Pedestrians only have right of way if they make sure the road is clear
before stepping onto it.

Somewhat different to cycling without lights and expecting other
people to miss you.


  #16  
Old October 18th 14, 10:10 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tarcap
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,950
Default No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.



"Cassandra" wrote in message ...

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 03:22:26 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

"Tarcap" considered Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:32:45
+0100 the perfect time to write:



"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
. ..

"Tarcap" considered Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:21:09
+0100 the perfect time to write:



"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

Not too surprising that he is dead, really.

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


The sad thing is that they expect others (i.e. motorists, lorry drivers,
councils, etc.) to jump through hoops "in the interests of safety", but
they
are too bloody mean to spend a few quid to provide even the most basic
safety equipment.

Darwin at work yet again.

Presumably you would also be defending the van driver if he'd run down
a pedestrian crossing the road into which he was turning, despite the
pedestrian having the right-of-way and no obligation to use any lights
at all, or even wear anything other than ordinary clothing.

I'm struggling to get any useful meaning out of your post.


Remedial reading lessons are available in most areas - try getting a
competent adult to take you to the local library to enquire.


Who would you suggest for a competent adult - obviously not you, of course.


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

  #17  
Old October 18th 14, 12:36 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.


"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".


  #18  
Old October 18th 14, 12:39 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tarcap
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,950
Default No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.



"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...

"Tarcap" considered Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:32:45
+0100 the perfect time to write:



"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
.. .

"Tarcap" considered Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:21:09
+0100 the perfect time to write:



"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

Not too surprising that he is dead, really.

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


The sad thing is that they expect others (i.e. motorists, lorry drivers,
councils, etc.) to jump through hoops "in the interests of safety", but
they
are too bloody mean to spend a few quid to provide even the most basic
safety equipment.

Darwin at work yet again.

Presumably you would also be defending the van driver if he'd run down
a pedestrian crossing the road into which he was turning, despite the
pedestrian having the right-of-way and no obligation to use any lights
at all, or even wear anything other than ordinary clothing.

I'm struggling to get any useful meaning out of your post.


Remedial reading lessons are available in most areas - try getting a
competent adult to take you to the local library to enquire.

Did you not realise that it's compulsory for cyclists to have lights, which
is not the case for pedestrians?


If he was incapable of seeing the cyclist, he'd have been equally
incapable of seeing any pedestrian who could have been crossing
perfectly legally and with right-of-way.

Why have you introduced pedestrian crossings into the scenario, when there
was no mention of such in the article?


Because it's relevant.

Why? It's just about as relevant as if I decided to randomly introduce a
train into the scenario. It too doesn't exist, just like the phantom
pedestrian crossing.


Other than in a futile attempt to divert blame away from the cyclist, of
course.
Methinks you are up to your usual trick of employing Bovine Scatology to
further the psycholist cause.

Like the way you ignored the reports of the street lights being
broken, and that it was agreed that their absence was a contributing
factor?

Perhaps in the same way you continue to ignore the fact that the cyclist
(illegally) had no lights.
I would advise not to keep burying your head in the sand, as you appear to
be inhaling too much, which is stopping the flow of oxygen to your already
struggling brain.


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

  #19  
Old October 18th 14, 12:41 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,757
Default No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.

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.
  #20  
Old October 18th 14, 12:58 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,757
Default No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights.

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.


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

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




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No lights, no reflectors, dark clothing, thick fog, no helmet. Whydo cyclists have a death wish? Mrcheerful UK 16 February 1st 14 10:20 AM
No lights, no Hi-Viz, Dark clothing, oh, and on the M1 Mrcheerful UK 58 October 21st 13 09:02 AM
No lights, dark clothing, you know what comes next Mrcheerful[_3_] UK 1 July 11th 13 11:12 PM
Bicycles need lights when it is dark. Mrcheerful[_3_] UK 122 July 3rd 12 08:28 AM
Dark blue lights Meeba Australia 3 May 11th 04 10:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.