Lights Don't Make Cycling Any Safer

Lights don't make cycling any safer, even at night, because:

1. If a cyclist has lights then they "feel" safer and take more risks
as a result.

2. If a cyclist has lights then other road users think they're safer
and take more risks around them as a result.

3. Adding lights to a bicycle makes the bicycle larger, meaning that
it's more likely to hit other objects, and heavier, meaning that it'll
fall harder.

4. There is no evidence (that I'll accept) at the population level
that shows that lights make cycling any safer.

Also making lights compulsory discourages take-up of cycling. You can
either promote cycling or lights; the two are incompatible. Therefore
it's obvious to me that we should immediately remove the law
compelling cyclists to use lights at night.

On Jan 30, 4:40*am, Nuxx Bar wrote:
Lights don't make cycling any safer, even at night, because:

1. If a cyclist has lights then they "feel" safer and take more risks
as a result.

2. If a cyclist has lights then other road users think they're safer
and take more risks around them as a result.

3. Adding lights to a bicycle makes the bicycle larger, meaning that
it's more likely to hit other objects, and heavier, meaning that it'll
fall harder.

4. There is no evidence (that I'll accept) at the population level
that shows that lights make cycling any safer.

Also making lights compulsory discourages take-up of cycling. *You can
either promote cycling or lights; the two are incompatible. *Therefore
it's obvious to me that we should immediately remove the law
compelling cyclists to use lights at night.

Additionally, if we are to continue to make cyclists use lights at
night then we should also make pedestrians use them, as well as people
going up the stairs in the dark in their own houses, etc.

On Jan 30, 4:40*am, Nuxx Bar wrote:
Lights don't make cycling any safer, even at night, because:

1. If a cyclist has lights then they "feel" safer and take more risks
as a result.

2. If a cyclist has lights then other road users think they're safer
and take more risks around them as a result.

3. Adding lights to a bicycle makes the bicycle larger, meaning that
it's more likely to hit other objects, and heavier, meaning that it'll
fall harder.

4. There is no evidence (that I'll accept) at the population level
that shows that lights make cycling any safer.

Also making lights compulsory discourages take-up of cycling. *You can
either promote cycling or lights; the two are incompatible. *Therefore
it's obvious to me that we should immediately remove the law
compelling cyclists to use lights at night.

What rubbish, lights make it easier for pedestrians to see cyclists
who are on the pavement.

francis wrote:
On Jan 30, 4:40 am, Nuxx Bar wrote:
Lights don't make cycling any safer, even at night, because:

1. If a cyclist has lights then they "feel" safer and take more risks
as a result.

2. If a cyclist has lights then other road users think they're safer
and take more risks around them as a result.

3. Adding lights to a bicycle makes the bicycle larger, meaning that
it's more likely to hit other objects, and heavier, meaning that
it'll fall harder.

4. There is no evidence (that I'll accept) at the population level
that shows that lights make cycling any safer.

Also making lights compulsory discourages take-up of cycling. You can
either promote cycling or lights; the two are incompatible. Therefore
it's obvious to me that we should immediately remove the law
compelling cyclists to use lights at night.

What rubbish, lights make it easier for pedestrians to see cyclists
who are on the pavement.

that applies to much less than one per cent of pavement cyclists.

I don't quite understand why 'cyclists' are so frightened by safety gear
such as lights and protective clothing, as a motorcyclist they are absolute
essentials for safer road riding and since cyclists are even more vulnerable
then it is just common sense to use safety aids where possible. Not to
mention the legal aspects of using unlit cycles at night or even in the day
when the weather is bad.

On Jan 30, 4:40*am, Nuxx Bar wrote:

Summary response: you are an utter pillock and a troll.

More considered response...
Lights don't make cycling any safer, even at night, because:

1. If a cyclist has lights then they "feel" safer and take more risks
as a result.

Evidence? I don't believe that at all.

2. If a cyclist has lights then other road users think they're safer
and take more risks around them as a result.

See #1.

3. Adding lights to a bicycle makes the bicycle larger, meaning that
it's more likely to hit other objects, and heavier, meaning that it'll
fall harder.

Laughable in the extreme - you really are clutching at straws. I
assume you're not being serious.

4. There is no evidence (that I'll accept) at the population level
that shows that lights make cycling any safer.

Oh, so it's a case that you will disregard any evidence produced that
will disprove your daft theory.

Also making lights compulsory discourages take-up of cycling. *You can
either promote cycling or lights; the two are incompatible. *Therefore
it's obvious to me that we should immediately remove the law
compelling cyclists to use lights at night.

Ha ha, you're so funny - not.

On Jan 30, 4:43*am, Nuxx Bar wrote:
On Jan 30, 4:40*am, Nuxx Bar wrote:





Lights don't make cycling any safer, even at night, because:

1. If a cyclist has lights then they "feel" safer and take more risks
as a result.

2. If a cyclist has lights then other road users think they're safer
and take more risks around them as a result.

3. Adding lights to a bicycle makes the bicycle larger, meaning that
it's more likely to hit other objects, and heavier, meaning that it'll
fall harder.

4. There is no evidence (that I'll accept) at the population level
that shows that lights make cycling any safer.

Also making lights compulsory discourages take-up of cycling. *You can
either promote cycling or lights; the two are incompatible. *Therefore
it's obvious to me that we should immediately remove the law
compelling cyclists to use lights at night.

Additionally, if we are to continue to make cyclists use lights at
night then we should also make pedestrians use them, as well as people
going up the stairs in the dark in their own houses, etc

Comparing apples with oranges. Idiot!

On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 20:40:09 -0800 (PST)
Nuxx Bar wrote:

Lights don't make cycling any safer, even at night, because:

1. If a cyclist has lights then they "feel" safer and take more risks
as a result.

2. If a cyclist has lights then other road users think they're safer
and take more risks around them as a result.

3. Adding lights to a bicycle makes the bicycle larger, meaning that
it's more likely to hit other objects, and heavier, meaning that it'll
fall harder.

4. There is no evidence (that I'll accept) at the population level
that shows that lights make cycling any safer.

Also making lights compulsory discourages take-up of cycling. You can
either promote cycling or lights; the two are incompatible. Therefore
it's obvious to me that we should immediately remove the law
compelling cyclists to use lights at night.


Excellent - well done Nuxxy :-)

On 30/01/2011 04:43, Nuxx Bar wrote:
On Jan 30, 4:40 am, Nuxx wrote:
Lights don't make cycling any safer, even at night, because:

1. If a cyclist has lights then they "feel" safer and take more risks
as a result.

2. If a cyclist has lights then other road users think they're safer
and take more risks around them as a result.

3. Adding lights to a bicycle makes the bicycle larger, meaning that
it's more likely to hit other objects, and heavier, meaning that it'll
fall harder.

4. There is no evidence (that I'll accept) at the population level
that shows that lights make cycling any safer.

Also making lights compulsory discourages take-up of cycling. You can
either promote cycling or lights; the two are incompatible. Therefore
it's obvious to me that we should immediately remove the law
compelling cyclists to use lights at night.

Additionally, if we are to continue to make cyclists use lights at
night then we should also make pedestrians use them, as well as people
going up the stairs in the dark in their own houses, etc.

Brilliant! LOL!
--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 30/01/2011 13:44, FrengaX wrote:
On Jan 30, 4:40 am, Nuxx wrote:

Summary response: you are an utter pillock and a troll.

Summary response: you don't like someone taking the **** out of your
ridiculous cyclo**** arguments.


More considered response...
Lights don't make cycling any safer, even at night, because:

1. If a cyclist has lights then they "feel" safer and take more risks
as a result.

Evidence? I don't believe that at all.

2. If a cyclist has lights then other road users think they're safer
and take more risks around them as a result.

See #1.

3. Adding lights to a bicycle makes the bicycle larger, meaning that
it's more likely to hit other objects, and heavier, meaning that it'll
fall harder.

Laughable in the extreme - you really are clutching at straws. I
assume you're not being serious.

You would assume that - you are a thick cyclist ****.

4. There is no evidence (that I'll accept) at the population level
that shows that lights make cycling any safer.

Oh, so it's a case that you will disregard any evidence produced that
will disprove your daft theory.

Cyclo****s do that all the time. What was that 'whooshing' noise?

Also making lights compulsory discourages take-up of cycling. You can
either promote cycling or lights; the two are incompatible. Therefore
it's obvious to me that we should immediately remove the law
compelling cyclists to use lights at night.

Ha ha, you're so funny - not.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Jan 30, 3:07*pm, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 30/01/2011 13:44, FrengaX wrote:

On Jan 30, 4:40 am, Nuxx *wrote:

Summary response: you are an utter pillock and a troll.

Summary response: you don't like someone taking the **** out of your
ridiculous cyclo**** arguments.

Oh dear. If you've been paying any attention at all, you will know
that I am equally intolerant of the ridiculous ****s on both sides of
the argument, and that includes you as well as Doug.

More considered response...
Lights don't make cycling any safer, even at night, because:

1. If a cyclist has lights then they "feel" safer and take more risks
as a result.

Evidence? I don't believe that at all.

2. If a cyclist has lights then other road users think they're safer
and take more risks around them as a result.

See #1.

3. Adding lights to a bicycle makes the bicycle larger, meaning that
it's more likely to hit other objects, and heavier, meaning that it'll
fall harder.

Laughable in the extreme - you really are clutching at straws. I
assume you're not being serious.

You would assume that - you are a thick cyclist ****.

That's so funny, as you have made no effort at all to put your own
brain in gear, otherwise you'd know the truth is very much otherwise.

What makes it funnier, is that while Nuxxy knows he's taking the ****,
I have sneaky suspicion that you actually believe the bilge you post.