|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Lies about coach driver caused by ubdertaking cyclist
On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 17:01:04 GMT, Simon Jester
wrote: On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 5:52:42 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 10:40:43 AM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: TMS320 wrote: On 07/10/2019 07:32, MrCheerful wrote: Video evidence came to the skilled coach driver's rescue, but no proper apology for the slurs, perhaps the driver can get compo. https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/04/olymp...ses-video-prov es-driver-accused-not-endanger-cyclist-10865262/ If the driver hooted at the cyclist for undertaking the driver was in the wrong. A horn is a warning device, the bimbo was undertaking, the bimbo was being warned. The horn is to alert others road users to your presence and I am sure the cyclist was aware of the coach. Come along, group clown; I prefer 'Official Scapegoat' did you actually read the report? Yes. What a fool you really are. There is no way you can possibly understand how little I care what you think. Thinking is hard for him. One "rational thought" and he's worn out. -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Lies about coach driver caused by ubdertaking cyclist
On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:
TMS320 wrote: On 07/10/2019 16:38, Simon Jester wrote: The horn is to alert others road users to your presence and I am sure the cyclist was aware of the coach. A horn has almost no use as a warning and most of the time is used for intimidation or to show displeasure. I think we should get rid of motor vehicle horns. As you say they are rarely used correctly. Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on lit 30mph roads would also help safety. I agree about getting rid of motor horns and have said so on a number of occasions. As for banning the use of headlights, I have rarely heard a more obtuse suggestion. Do you not know what headlights are for? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Lies about coach driver caused by ubdertaking cyclist
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Lies about coach driver caused by ubdertaking cyclist
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? 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. 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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Lies about coach driver caused by ubdertaking cyclist
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Lies about coach driver caused by ubdertaking cyclist
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Lies about coach driver caused by ubdertaking cyclist
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Lies about coach driver caused by ubdertaking cyclist
On 16/10/2019 20:55, Simon Jester wrote:
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. The irony is, the followers of the religion think it makes them safer. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Lies about coach driver caused by ubdertaking cyclist
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? 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. 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 (and in my view should always have been compulsory) in any case. 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 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. 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 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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Lies about coach driver caused by ubdertaking cyclist
On 16/10/2019 20:14, 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. "Obliterate" "Obfuscate" Some of you need a dictionary. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Drugs caused cyclist's death | MrCheerful | UK | 1 | March 20th 16 02:53 PM |
Cyclist lies to court | Mrcheerful | UK | 3 | January 7th 15 09:55 PM |
Cyclist sought after coach comes off worst | Simon Mason | UK | 43 | May 27th 12 09:05 AM |
Two cyclists killed, coach driver arrested. | Tony Raven[_3_] | UK | 1 | December 6th 10 09:45 AM |
The John and Chris Show, LIES, LIES, LIES | Johnny NoCom | Recumbent Biking | 3 | December 3rd 04 06:13 AM |