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

On 20/10/2014 13:01, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 20/10/2014 12:58, Bod wrote:
On 20/10/2014 12:54, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 20/10/2014 12:23, TMS320 wrote:
"Judith" wrote
"TMS320" wrote:
"JNugent" wrote


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

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.

Cite?

They are not reported apparently.

Well here they a

Motor vehicles kill five times more pedestrians than cyclists, but
figures show risk of serious injury is similar relative to distance
travelled.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3986796.ece

On 20/10/2014 13:21, Bod wrote:
On 20/10/2014 13:01, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 20/10/2014 12:58, Bod wrote:
On 20/10/2014 12:54, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 20/10/2014 12:23, TMS320 wrote:
"Judith" wrote
"TMS320" wrote:
"JNugent" wrote


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

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.

Cite?

They are not reported apparently.

Well here they a

Motor vehicles kill five times more pedestrians than cyclists, but
figures show risk of serious injury is similar relative to distance
travelled.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3986796.ece

And to put things in perspective (from the same article):

"Analysis of the past ten years of road casualty data by CTC showed that
cyclists killed 23 pedestrians in the decade to 2012 and seriously
injured 585.

In the same period, 3,330 pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles and
46,081 were seriously injured.
Research by the City of Westminster Council last year found that, in
collisions between pedestrians and cyclists, 60 per cent of the crashes
were caused by the pedestrian."

"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.
How is this a distortion of logic????

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.


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

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

On 20/10/2014 12:01, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
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?

I think that's exactly what he tried to say, but is now desperately back
tracking.


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

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 08:23:03 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 09:04:28 +0000, Cassandra wrote:

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"

Please, take me to this "****ing way"

As a cyclist you'll spend most of your time in it

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:02:57 +0100, "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

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 21:51:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

The City of Tucson's Dept. of Cycling was passing out free lights to cyclis=
ts about 10 years ago. They even had a free box lunch for anyone who took =
the cycling safety course. From what I understood the box lunch was worse =
than getting run over by a truck.

But bike lights don't require gummint funding like a tokamak. Anyone who a=
fford to motor can go to Euro Store or Quid Tree and buy a few LED lights a=
long with 12 cheap carbon batteries in a blister pack. Keep them in the fr=
ont seat.

If you see a cyclist at night w/o lights offer him one.

That should of course read

When you can't see a cyclist at night w/o lights offer him one.

On 20/10/2014 13:32, Bod wrote:
On 20/10/2014 13:21, Bod wrote:
On 20/10/2014 13:01, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 20/10/2014 12:58, Bod wrote:
On 20/10/2014 12:54, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 20/10/2014 12:23, TMS320 wrote:
"Judith" wrote
"TMS320" wrote:
"JNugent" wrote


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

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.

Cite?

They are not reported apparently.

Well here they a

Motor vehicles kill five times more pedestrians than cyclists, but
figures show risk of serious injury is similar relative to distance
travelled.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3986796.ece

And to put things in perspective (from the same article):

"Analysis of the past ten years of road casualty data by CTC showed that
cyclists killed 23 pedestrians in the decade to 2012 and seriously
injured 585.

In the same period, 3,330 pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles and
46,081 were seriously injured.
Research by the City of Westminster Council last year found that, in
collisions between pedestrians and cyclists, 60 per cent of the crashes
were caused by the pedestrian."

Hmm! No comment from Mrcheerful then? He's gone very quiet. I wonder why.

On 20/10/2014 19:56, Bod wrote:
On 20/10/2014 13:32, Bod wrote:
On 20/10/2014 13:21, Bod wrote:
On 20/10/2014 13:01, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 20/10/2014 12:58, Bod wrote:
On 20/10/2014 12:54, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 20/10/2014 12:23, TMS320 wrote:
"Judith" wrote
"TMS320" wrote:
"JNugent" wrote


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

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.

Cite?

They are not reported apparently.

Well here they a

Motor vehicles kill five times more pedestrians than cyclists, but
figures show risk of serious injury is similar relative to distance
travelled.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3986796.ece

And to put things in perspective (from the same article):

"Analysis of the past ten years of road casualty data by CTC showed that
cyclists killed 23 pedestrians in the decade to 2012 and seriously
injured 585.

In the same period, 3,330 pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles and
46,081 were seriously injured.
Research by the City of Westminster Council last year found that, in
collisions between pedestrians and cyclists, 60 per cent of the crashes
were caused by the pedestrian."

Hmm! No comment from Mrcheerful then? He's gone very quiet. I wonder why.


comment on what exactly?

On 20/10/2014 12:40, TMS320 wrote:
"Peter Keller" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:02:14 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

"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.

Pardon? What does a metaphor have to do with the danger of bicycling
through traffic lights?

I would have thought that you, of anyone, might realise. It is a metaphor
concerning the total set of hazards one has to cope with on the roads. The
hazard of a cyclist going through a red light? It's deep in the
noise.

So it's not dangerous?

And not illegal?