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

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 00:05:10 +0100, "TMS320" wrote:

"Cassandra" wrote
"TMS320" wrote:
"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.

No, I'm suggesting jumping red lights is dangerous both to psycolists,
innocent pedestrains and qualified road users.

Although poor comprehension skills would explain why psycholists
interpret the Highway Code in a manner that suggests English or common
sense isn't their first language

Someone that doesn't understand HC170 and has an illegal exhaust on a
motorbike is hardly in a position to criticise. What other rules do you
consider voluntary when you go for a ride?

I also own several pencils, a televison, a tin of paint and aren't
very good at organic chemistry.

Those aren't relevant to the safety of red light jumping either.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 21:45:26 +0100, "Tarcap"
wrote:



"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
.. .

"TMS320" considered Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:02:57 +0100
the perfect time to write:

"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.

Rather a strange area to focus on for a confirmed anti-cycling maniac,
as research has shown that cyclists are more likely to be the victims
of a red light jumping motorist than they are to be injured as a
result of red light jumping themselves.

Care to cite exactly which research, or did you just make that up?

Hes seen hundreds of motorists successfully brake to avoid a red light
jumping cyclists, but read about a cyclist being killed in the
newspaper once.

On 22/10/2014 00:04, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
On 21/10/2014 20:54, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
On 20/10/2014 12:23, TMS320 wrote:


It's a shame it occurred and it is probably a fair punishment for a
very
rare consequence. I don't image it provides any comfort to the 2 (at
least)
people *a day* that are routinely KSI'd on the roads (and hardly ever
reported on) while trying to get about on foot.

You mean the ones mown down by cyclists.

No. Have another guess.

As they are hardly ever reported how would anyone know?

Actually, looking at the official stats, my "2 a day" turns out to be a
massive underestimate. The records for 2013 for pedestrians show 398 Ks,
4998 SIs and 19K minors. Taking a rough rule of thumb that minors are 10x
SI and SI are 10x K, perhaps at least half of minors are not officially
recorded. (I know of one involving a hospital stay that was not recorded;
there is no question the driver was at fault.)

All so routine, of course they're hardly ever reported. Oh, but when a
cyclist is involved, wow, headline news with all the wailing and gnashing of
teeth about how terrible it is. Some people should get a sense of
proportion.

(Sorry that the numbers are greater than the number of fingers you have. Get
an adult to help you through.)



So are these cycling figures? If not, please try to stay on topic, this
is a cycling group, I realise you may have come here in error, but it is
best to stick with the charter for the group (you will have to contact
Mason to find out what that is, since he keeps it to himself)

On 22/10/2014 00:28, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
On 20/10/2014 12:01, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
On 19/10/2014 23:03, TMS320 wrote:


However, I spotted one:
Poundland lamps would have been better than nothing.

Well done, an opinion, not regurgitating from a script. I don't agree
with you.

So you believe that a bicycle, in the dark, is not made more visible by
having a light on it ?

Let me remind you that Poundland lamps (or similar) are the matter of
discussion. Not merely 'a light'

You are either a blind person or stupid.

No. It is being practical.

Are you trying to say that cheap lights do not give any light output?

Oh good, we've moved back discussing to cheap lights.

No, I am not suggesting that. (Something that does not give any light can't
be a "light".) Try again.



So you are trying to say that some light is NOT better than no light?

"TMS320" wrote in message ...


"Tarcap" wrote i
"TMS320" wrote in message ...
"Tarcap" wrote in message

You appear to be saying that no lights at all would be better than
functioning lights which happen to cost £1.
Could you please confirm that?

When it is said that something is no better than nothing, then it does not
necessarily mean that nothing is better than something.

Such a distortion of logic suggests to me that you are desperately short
of
some basic intelligence. Could you please confirm that?

You have to bear in mind that when we go to this group we have to lower
our standards to be able to communicate with you psycholists.

But. however, to go back to the point which you conveniently snipped, and
I quote:

However, I spotted one:
Poundland lamps would have been better than nothing.

Well done, an opinion, not regurgitating from a script. I don't agree with
you.

So you don't agree that Poundland lamps would have been better than
nothing.

Yes.

How is this a distortion of logic????

That isn't.

When in a hole, stop digging. And better still, don't question the
intelligence of others when you are clearly in no position to do so.

You seriously overestimate yourself if you really think that
what you said first time is the same as what you said second time.

I was merely quoting your words. If you find your own words confusing and
contradictive, it proves my point that you shouldn't be judging the
intelligence of others, when you are quite clearly lacking in that
department yourself.

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

On 22/10/2014 00:04, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
On 21/10/2014 20:54, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
On 20/10/2014 12:23, TMS320 wrote:


It's a shame it occurred and it is probably a fair punishment for a
very
rare consequence. I don't image it provides any comfort to the 2 (at
least)
people *a day* that are routinely KSI'd on the roads (and hardly ever
reported on) while trying to get about on foot.

You mean the ones mown down by cyclists.

No. Have another guess.

As they are hardly ever reported how would anyone know?

Actually, looking at the official stats, my "2 a day" turns out to be a
massive underestimate. The records for 2013 for pedestrians show 398 Ks,
4998 SIs and 19K minors. Taking a rough rule of thumb that minors are 10x
SI and SI are 10x K, perhaps at least half of minors are not officially
recorded. (I know of one involving a hospital stay that was not recorded;
there is no question the driver was at fault.)

All so routine, of course they're hardly ever reported. Oh, but when a
cyclist is involved, wow, headline news with all the wailing and gnashing
of
teeth about how terrible it is. Some people should get a sense of
proportion.

(Sorry that the numbers are greater than the number of fingers you have.
Get
an adult to help you through.)



So are these cycling figures? If not, please try to stay on topic, this
is a cycling group, I realise you may have come here in error, but it is
best to stick with the charter for the group (you will have to contact
Mason to find out what that is, since he keeps it to himself)

His slippery and evasive form of arguing makes me wonder if he is actually
Mason in some sort of alter-ego.

On 22/10/2014 11:21, Tarcap wrote:


"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

On 22/10/2014 00:04, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
On 21/10/2014 20:54, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
On 20/10/2014 12:23, TMS320 wrote:


It's a shame it occurred and it is probably a fair punishment for a
very
rare consequence. I don't image it provides any comfort to the 2 (at
least)
people *a day* that are routinely KSI'd on the roads (and hardly ever
reported on) while trying to get about on foot.

You mean the ones mown down by cyclists.

No. Have another guess.

As they are hardly ever reported how would anyone know?

Actually, looking at the official stats, my "2 a day" turns out to be a
massive underestimate. The records for 2013 for pedestrians show 398 Ks,
4998 SIs and 19K minors. Taking a rough rule of thumb that minors are
10x
SI and SI are 10x K, perhaps at least half of minors are not officially
recorded. (I know of one involving a hospital stay that was not recorded;
there is no question the driver was at fault.)

All so routine, of course they're hardly ever reported. Oh, but when a
cyclist is involved, wow, headline news with all the wailing and
gnashing of
teeth about how terrible it is. Some people should get a sense of
proportion.

(Sorry that the numbers are greater than the number of fingers you
have. Get
an adult to help you through.)



So are these cycling figures? If not, please try to stay on topic, this
is a cycling group, I realise you may have come here in error, but it is
best to stick with the charter for the group (you will have to contact
Mason to find out what that is, since he keeps it to himself)

His slippery and evasive form of arguing makes me wonder if he is
actually Mason in some sort of alter-ego.

or Crispin, or Doug, not Doug, Bollen.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 19:25:25 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote:

"Tarcap" considered Mon, 20 Oct 2014 09:00:08
snip

Could we have a cite on that, please? I can see no evidence of any pending
charges.

Read the RTA.
It was obvious to me that his driving fell far below the standard
expected of a competent and careful driver.
That is all that is required in law for him to be guilty.
The failure of the police of CPS to actually use the laws that
parliament has passed is an entirely different matter, although I
believe that if they showed more willingness to use those laws, the
driving standards would improve.

You seem to be saying that the fact that it was "obvious to you (me)" that the
driving fell below the standard expected is all that is required in law for him
to be guilty.

Why does what appears to be "obvious to you" have specific legal standing?

Is that also written in to law?

M'Lud Barista Anchor Lee thinks that the person broke the law: therefore he
did.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 19:34:55 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote:

snip


Rather a strange area to focus on for a confirmed anti-cycling maniac,
as research has shown that cyclists are more likely to be the victims
of a red light jumping motorist than they are to be injured as a
result of red light jumping themselves.


Was this "research" from your own observation - or was it published somewhere?

On 21/10/2014 21:45, Tarcap wrote:


"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...

"TMS320" considered Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:02:57 +0100
the perfect time to write:

"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.

Rather a strange area to focus on for a confirmed anti-cycling maniac,
as research has shown that cyclists are more likely to be the victims
of a red light jumping motorist than they are to be injured as a
result of red light jumping themselves.

Care to cite exactly which research, or did you just make that up?

Nail on the head.

It's a fantasy.