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

"Tarcap" wrote
"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.

You did not quote my words. These are the words:-

(Cheerful) Poundland lamps would have been better than nothing.
(Me) ...I don't agree with you.

The meaning is perfectly clear and it bears no relationship to the words
you collected together to make up the sentence at the top. I have no problem
about making a judgement about your intelligence.

"Mrcheerful" wrote
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,

Aww, I'm sorry if the reality is upsetting for you. If you want to use the
roads you have to cope with the big problems, not go round worrying about
the little ones.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 11:08:04 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

"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.

When you insult or criticize someone else, it may say more about how you
are feeling about yourself than the other person.

"TMS320" wrote in message ...

"Tarcap" wrote
"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.

You did not quote my words. These are the words:-

(Cheerful) Poundland lamps would have been better than nothing.
(Me) ...I don't agree with you.

The meaning is perfectly clear and it bears no relationship to the words
you collected together to make up the sentence at the top. I have no problem
about making a judgement about your intelligence.

It's only perfectly clear in you dream world. If you disagree with the
statement that Poundland lamps would have been better than nothing, then,
you must think that they are either the same as or less than nothing at all.
Is that what you are trying to say, or can we expect a spectacular wriggle
here?

By the way, it's not your intelligence that I am questioning, it's your
sanity.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 09:08:12 +0100, "TMS320" wrote:


"Mrcheerful" wrote
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,

Aww, I'm sorry if the reality is upsetting for you. If you want to use the
roads you have to cope with the big problems, not go round worrying about
the little ones.




perhaps you can share with us why you think that no lights at all are better
than using poundland ones.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 04:09:21 +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.

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


It was a TfL study from a few years back.


Oh - so it was not for the UK as a whole - but just for London (if we even
believe that)

I would have thought you would have been familiar with the term "The truth, the
*whole* truth, and nothing but the truth"


A little more milk please.

On 24/10/2014 04:09, Phil W Lee wrote:
"Tarcap" considered Tue, 21 Oct 2014 21:45:26
+0100 the perfect time to write:



"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?


It was a TfL study from a few years back.
I'm sure that the kind of google-fu that can find every minor scratch
caused by a cyclist in the last 25 years and over all counties in the
world where English is used will have no trouble in locating it.

TRANSLATION:

"Yes, it was made up".

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...

"Tarcap" considered Tue, 21 Oct 2014 21:45:26
+0100 the perfect time to write:



"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?


It was a TfL study from a few years back.
I'm sure that the kind of google-fu that can find every minor scratch
caused by a cyclist in the last 25 years and over all counties in the
world where English is used will have no trouble in locating it.


So you can't provide a cite, then?
(As we all thought)

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

You did not quote my words. These are the words:-

(Cheerful) Poundland lamps would have been better than nothing.
(Me) ...I don't agree with you.

The meaning is perfectly clear and it bears no relationship to the words
you collected together to make up the sentence at the top. I have no
problem
about making a judgement about your intelligence.

It's only perfectly clear in you dream world. If you disagree with the
statement that Poundland lamps would have been better than nothing, then,
you must think that they are either the same as or less than nothing at
all.
Is that what you are trying to say, or can we expect a spectacular wriggle
here?

By the way, it's not your intelligence that I am questioning, it's your
sanity.

Try this:- I disagree that 2 apples is a greater number of fruit than 2
oranges.
The wriggling is all yours.

"TMS320" wrote in message ...


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

You did not quote my words. These are the words:-

(Cheerful) Poundland lamps would have been better than nothing.
(Me) ...I don't agree with you.

The meaning is perfectly clear and it bears no relationship to the words
you collected together to make up the sentence at the top. I have no
problem
about making a judgement about your intelligence.

It's only perfectly clear in you dream world. If you disagree with the
statement that Poundland lamps would have been better than nothing, then,
you must think that they are either the same as or less than nothing at
all.
Is that what you are trying to say, or can we expect a spectacular wriggle
here?

By the way, it's not your intelligence that I am questioning, it's your
sanity.

Try this:- I disagree that 2 apples is a greater number of fruit than 2
oranges.
The wriggling is all yours.

Once again, you have poorly attempted to confuse the argument by introducing
irrelevances - we are talking about cycle lamps here, and whether they are
effective or not.
If they do work, and the Poundlamp lamps do, then they are *obviously*
better than nothing. No matter what wriggling you might try ( and I'll give
you 10/10 for effort), you are not going to disguise the gross stupidity
what you have said.
By your continuing to attempt to dig yourself out of a hole, you are making
yourself look even sillier than most of the past wrigglers on here - if
there were an Olympic medal for wriggling, you would undoubtedly win gold
every time.