Cyclists still not getting the message

Tilt

Captain_Flack. wrote: »

Find your own facts to back up your rather weak argument. You said cannot I've given you an example of can now you want more.

I don't need to find anything... your'e the one who seems to be getting into a deep hole. Frankly you are going way off topic and making silly comparisons in an attempt to prove me wrong.

The fact of the matter is that no police officer would allow a car driver to carry on at night if the car had no tail lights at all. That is a fact and was the argument which Cycrow bought into play. At the same time, I doubt very much that a police officer would equally allow a cyclist to ride 10 miles in the dark with no tail light, even though the cyclist is saying "he has no choice." The consequences would be dire if the cyclist was involved in an accident had the police allowed him/her to continue.

Now look, as much as I enjoy putting you right (and would continue until the cows come home if you wish), I have to get my son his dinner. Fell free to post more if you wish, I will be most likely back for further amusement later. :beer:

mgdavid

whenever I read 'the fact of the matter is...' I'm instantly alerted that the writer is usually flying a kite and is standing on thin ice.

Also way off topic and irrelevant.
Barrack-room lawyers...

custardy

__drivers_still_not_getting_the_message wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-23970047


One witness said visibility had been very poor at the time of the crash but drivers were approaching the crossing with no lights.

These drivers eh?
Should make them have number plates and pass a test. That would sort all that out

silverwhistle

Last night was our first week's training under floodlights due to the shortening evenings and I had to drive into town to do so. I've been abroad for a number of years and two things that I noticed were the number of cyclists and just how improved front lights are these days, and how well lit they all were. I have memories of lights being dim and faliing all the time, bouncing off when you encounter a pot-hole etc etc.

At least the OP gave good warning in the title: "Cyclists", so you just knew what the whole tone was going to be, and so it proved. We'd all have agreed wholeheartedly if they'd said "some" cyclists. To be honest, from the observation of one or two last night - the unlit with hoody brigade - I'd far rather that they stuck to cycling than got a car.

The irrefutable proof is there that (generally) young idiots are much more dangerous behind a wheel and kill other people whereas on two wheels it's themselves.

But as to the question why no lights, I can think of lots of reasons and most have been mentioned in the thread. To be honest if I'm out on a planned trip I'd have belts and braces (little clip on leds), but we've all been caught out.

Once I was out riding and got caught out in the gloaming with a friend on a country road. Luckily we were on an ex-pacer and ex-trotter, so we just went as fast as we could along the dangerous bit of road to get out of the area of danger as quickly as possible. If I'd been on a bike I'd have done the same: pushing it along that road would still have been a danger, and far better to get the heck out.

fivetide

custardy wrote: »

4 lights,waterproofs,lock(s),food,tools,work clothes,shoes,contact lenses,cycling glasses,layers in cold weather,water
just stuff off the top of my head for my average commute
plus pannier rack & bike bin/pannier bag
It all starts to add up

I get it, you ride bikes.

However, the point specifically was that batteries weigh a lot when the don't.

Plus with those bags, you've solved the other issue of where to store them

custardy

fivetide wrote: »

I get it, you ride bikes.

However, the point specifically was that batteries weigh a lot when the don't.

Plus with those bags, you've solved the other issue of where to store them

Store? what about when you are and lock up?

fivetide

custardy wrote: »

Store? what about when you are and lock up?

ok, firstly that doesn't make sense.

Secondly, stop arguing for the sake of it. Have another look at the post I was originally quoting and replying to and it should all make sense

:beer:

custardy

fivetide wrote: »

ok, firstly that doesn't make sense.

Secondly, stop arguing for the sake of it. Have another look at the post I was originally quoting and replying to and it should all make sense

:beer:

You seem to have missed it
once you get to your destination and lock up
where does all the 'stuff' go?
which leads right back to the OP as to possible reasons why someone may not have a rear light showing

mgdavid

custardy wrote: »

You seem to have missed it
once you get to your destination and lock up
where does all the 'stuff' go?
which leads right back to the OP as to possible reasons why someone may not have a rear light showing

you're the one that apparently carries all the 'stuff' (junk) and brought the entire irrelevancy into the thread. A battery is the item being discussed, how about a pocket?

Johno100

custardy wrote: »

You seem to have missed it
once you get to your destination and lock up
where does all the 'stuff' go?
which leads right back to the OP as to possible reasons why someone may not have a rear light showing

Excuses, excuses, excuses does the hypocrisy of the militant cycling brigade never end.