onewheeldave

No, as your own quote clearly shows, and, as was established several pages back, lights may be red if within 1 meter of the rear. Which is why I kept mentioning the 1 meter rule when suggesting people use pound shop lights. Of course, now we know it's illegal due to the master switch issue, I won't be suggesting people put pound shop lights on the rear 1 meter of their trailers- not cos of the colour, but cos they can't be master switched. You want an apology? Why? I've admitted I was wrong.

However, I think I'll have to admit defeat on the master switch issue. That would seem to exclude pound shop lights. I'm always happy to bow down before actual evidence ---------- Post added 03-01-2015 at 17:53 ---------- You're very cynical, as is clear from the time stamps, we're posting within minutes of each other here- while I'm busy composing you're posting new stuff. I'm very willing and happy to admit when I'm wrong- that's how we progress.

We've known about that for several pages (that red lights must be within 1 meter of the rear)- I mentioned it myself in my last few posts, e.g. (#189)

Fair enough. Just to be clear, cos this seems to be what you're saying- you can't post a link to anything showing that pound shop lights on the side of a trailer (obviously within 1 meter of the rear) are illegal? Or actual links to anything substantiating the stuff you say above?

No, I've got been given a link showing the law concerning the issue under discussion- it's not in there!

For the 8th time, I'll point out that I've never said you should spend money on lights (or anything else) dude. It's entirely your choice, and, given that you've ripped the last set off your trailer, it would seem unlikely that you'd go to the trouble off putting more on. Incidently, just out of curiosity, why did you take the last set off? ---------- Post added 03-01-2015 at 17:26 ---------- You can easily end this by just quoting the relevant part of the document and its section number. I've also just done a page search using the word 'master', and, got 'no results'.

No, if you recall no-one found anything in that link that said pound shop side lights (or any side lights) were illegal. Someone did post another link that said sidelights would be illegal down the entire side, but were OK if within 1 meter of the rear.

If a cyclist runs into you when you're stationary at the lights, it's their fault, and, not a single person on this thread has said, or implied otherwise. It might be interesting for you to ask yourself why you're so fixated on such nonsense examples/scenarios, whilst seemingly either unaware, or uninterested, in the fact that every year, many cyclists who ride very responsibly, are killed or maimed on the roads, through no fault of their own. ---------- Post added 03-01-2015 at 16:23 ---------- Could you post a link to the evidence for this, as it's not cropped up on any of the legal links posted thus far. If you can, I'll happily retract my advice. (bear in mind the 1m rule though)

You've missed the fact that my advice was directed to trailer owners who wished to make their trailers more visible. It's in the power of trailer owners who wished to make their trailers more visible to put some £shop lights on their trailers. It's not in the power of trailer owners who wished to make their trailers more visible to make all cyclists stop at all red lights.

You're right, cyclists should sort out their failings. Fortunately, the consequences of a cyclists failings tend to not be that serious for anyone else- in contrast, the failings of our road policies and failings of irresponsible drivers, are, frequently, fatal for cyclists. They also put people off cycling who, in the roads were safe, would be inclined to cycle way more- as previously explained, this makes the roads even less safe for existing cyclists, as well as adding to the obesity epidemic. (though, bear in mind that when all relevant factors are taken into account, i.e. the health benefits of cycling, the risks of cycling are more than compensated for by the health benefits and increased longevity) Info here-

What we're back to is the fact that the road system is biased heavily against the cyclist. This despite the fact that maximising cycling and minimising motoring is way better for both the world/environment (zero emmisions) and public health (motoring causes obesity (and therefore diabetes/heart disease and other chronic diseases that are rife in our civilisation), while cycling cures it). Yet cyclists face death on a daily basis, with that % of motorists who routinely pass too close (risking killing a cyclist), intimidate with their horn pipping, and, occasionaly just plough into the back of a cyclist cos they're using their mobiles etc. When car and cycle meet, it is sometimes the drivers fault, and, sometimes the cyclists fault, either way, it is almost always the cyclist who dies/gets maimed/injured. If the driver was negligent, rarely will they receive a punishment in any way proportionate to the consequences of their negligence. It would help if motorists didn't lump all drivers into the same group, and instead heavily condemned that % of drivers who actively put cyclists in danger (by passing too close, by intimidation etc). While there are a % of cyclists who are irresponsible and put themselves at risk, the consequences of their irresponsibility are simply not on the same scale when it comes to consequences. So it ain't, as many seem to think, a 50/50 thing. For anyone interested in seeing what is possible when sanity prevails, here's a short documentary, on both youtube and vimeo (Groningen: The World's Cycling City)

They can see red lights- they sometimes ignore them, but, as you well know, they can see them fine. Pound shop lights are cheap and easy to attach I'd suggest you reign your temper in. I'll happily debate with you, but, if, as it seems may be the case, you can't do so using actual arguments to defend your case, and fall into trolling and name calling, them you will be taking it up with a mod (name calling is specifically against the forum rules).

Bikes are not a dangerous way to travel cause they're 'flimsy'- the danger comes from a) a gross excess of cars that has taken the road system well beyond breaking point b) a total disregard for cyclist safety by the govt. Bikes are the most efficient means of transport ever invented- Cars contribute massively and directly to the world energy crisis, and our public health crisis (obesity, heart disease & diabetes), whereas bicycles cure both those crisises (or would, if the roads were made compatible with cycling safety). When it comes to transport, the only sane future is a bike-based one. That's going to take bold strategies to implement. In the meantime, it's vital that cycling number rise, rather than fall, as, the more cycles on the road, the safer cyclists are on them. And, despite the dangers from uncaring/inept motorists to cyclists, statistics clearly show, that when all relevant factors are taken into account, cyclist is safer than car driving, due to the benefits cycling confers with respect to health and longevity.

:thumbsup:

In this case it was a dogmatic statement that a solution to the problem was 'people not running red lights' and, that this was simpler than attaching lights to a trailer. So I went on to point out that a) it wasn't a solution (as it's not possible to bring about the state of people not running reds, and b) that even if it were a solution, it was not a simple one, and certainly not 'the simple solution' as mine was considerably simpler. As the proposed solution was being put forward as being 'better' than the one I suggested, when it clearly wasn't, I believe that would constitute either a criticism, or, a misunderstanding.

Yes- it's a definition of insanity But, in this case, that's not what I'm doing, as I really have no expectations of NTs changing their ways, or, putting a bit of effort into listening to what I'm actually saying.

No it isn't. as I have explained (around 7 times now, I beieve ) As you're not inclined to actually provide quotes of me doing what you claim, let me assist you. First page, my first post- & Now, admittedly a misunderstanding arose here with the 'from memory' part, which I've held my hands up to. But, my re-posting of my idea occurred because, as I said at the time, a reflective strip isn't visible in the absence of a headlight (which bikes don't have), and, because I was pointing out to obelix that running lights need to be visible from the sides. Other repostings happened when other posters claimed, incorrectly, that putting lights on the side was illegal.

As I explained already, it got rementioned when other posters either wrongly critisised the idea, or, misunderstood it. I much prefer to just say things once, however, NTs seem to have a habit of misunderstanding/misinterpreting/reinterpreting things so they fit their preconceived views better (whether intentionaly or unintentionally). Rather than let my words go misunderstood, I prefer to just restate what I'm actually saying, perhaps slightly reworded, so there's a chance they may realise that what they took me to be saying, wasn't actually accurate. Clearly that can end up involving a lot of repetition. Like I say, not my first choice, but, to me, preferable to letting people think they've understood what I was saying, when, in reality, they haven't. That's not true actually- what i did say is that, in some circumstances, it's safer for a cyclist to go through a red light. I stand by that, my reasons for claiming it were given in that thread- I'm far from the only experienced cyclist to acknowledge that basic fact. Given that I did state it so clearly, and, did repeat it, I'm curious as to why you claimed that, in your own words- Can you genuinely not see the difference between that and what I did say? Or, do you think that it's a trivial and meaningless ommision to mention that I went to lengths to emphasise that I consider it safe to go through reds only in certain situations? Cos this is what I'm talking about when I say that, as an aspergic, I choose my words very carefully and aim to speak with precision. Because it is time consuming having to constantly restate very simple points because people think it's fine to rephrase/reinterpret them to fit what they want them to fit. NTs can get away with imprecise language in their face to face interactions (usually) as they compensate with body language and facial expressions. If you've not noticed, those are not available in online discussion, hence the woefull state of most threads on these forums that involve anything remotely controversial- usually degenerating into flaming/trolling/insults. I put forward the view that it's mainly due to misunderstandings resulting from imprecise language use, as seen on this thread. Hopefully that clears up a few things. Being aspergic is not, as some NTS seem to assume, a trivial difference along with a communication problem. It's a completely different mindset with far-reaching consequences. Like many aspergics, I'm high-functioning and highly intelligent (logical intelligence that is, anything involving general/social/contingent knowledge I am usually very weak at). I cannot read body language or facial expressions very well, so, in face-to-face group communication I am effectively disabled quite badly. But when it comes to written language online, and presenting concepts precisely and clearly, I am far more capable than the majority of NTs, who, in my experience, are generally not able to a set of words for what they actually are.

Yep, checked posts #118 & #141- nothing there to indicate that I've said oblelix should increase his trailer visiblity (what I think is not the subject being discussed here- obelix is claiming I've said/stated that he/others should add lights.) If you disagree, please post the exact extract from from I've actually said, right here, and prove me wrong. If you can't do it suggests that I've not actually stated what you seem to think I did. Other threads? to work out my innermost true beliefs? Like I said, I'm aspergic and that explains why I post very precisely- people, if they genuinely want to know what I'm actually saying (as opposed to what they think/want me to be saying, need only to read my very precise statements. If, in contrast, they want to roam off into other threads and misinterpret what I've said there (on often a completely different subject) then that's not my problem, it's theirs.

What is the problem....!!! I don't know you dude. There are plenty of people out there who think they're aspergic when they've had no assessment by a professional. I'm NOT saying you're one of them- just asking you if you've been properly diagnosed. I have, in July this year- took 3 hrs to be assessed. It doesn't offend me to say that. It's weird that an aspergic person would take such offense to simple factual requests for usefull information- I don't understand why you take everything as an attack on you.

Did I? It seems like I didn't say put them all the way down. Then someone posted, as I requested, several times, the actual law i.e. that it has to be within a meter of the rear. From that point on, having taken that on board, I made it clear that lights can only go on the rear 1m. I'm not trying/intending to offend anyone. I've welcomed actual quotes showing that I've said something offensive/wrong, and, IMO, not got anything usefull back. If, when I speak plain facts/truths, people do take offence, then, if they can't provide any evidence I've said something that's actually offensive, then it ain't my problem, it's theirs. If they twist and/or misinterpret perfectly innocent comments of mine, then it ain't my problem, it's theirs. And that's unfortunate, but, having many problems of my own to address, I'm not going to take on other peoples. ---------- Post added 02-01-2015 at 14:29 ---------- You been officially diagnosed? To be honest, if you have, I'm a little surprised that you're having difficulties with the stuff I've said about the lights. I know that NTs have a big tendency to misinterpret plain language and take offence where none was intended, but I'm surprised that an aspergic would. Oh...and I don't use aspergia as an excuse or crutch. Again, if you disagree, post evidence please.

Let me clarify, you asked a question that included the word "trailer" and "lights". Bad move dude. Obelix and pals take any conjuction of those 2 words, regardless of the actual meaning content of the phrase including them, as- 1. a direct personal insult 2. an accusation of obelix being responsible for the fact a cyclist ran into his trailer 3. as saying obelix should, by moral obligation, light his trailer up like a christmas tree. Obelix is so offended by the words 'lights' and 'trailer' being used in close proximity to each other, that he's physically ripped the lights off the side of his trailer From now on he's riding his landrover/trailer combo bareback through the night. ....and- IT'S YOUR FAULT!! (and mine, and anyone else who had the balls to suggest that people who want their trailers to be seen, might consider putting lights on them.

Dude- I am aspergic and I do tell the truth and I do speak very precisely. I'm telling you that not one of the quoted statements tells anyone what they should do in terms of their lighting. For example- "A solution directed clearly towards owners of flatbed trailers who are interested in making them more visible" does in no way say they should make them more visible, just that if they do wish to increase visibility then here's what to do. If you can't see the difference between telling someone how to deal with something, and, telling them they should do so, then I can only refer you to things like a dictionary. You move on dude. In contrast, if you wish to continue accusing me of telling people what they should do (in terms of lighting their trailer), them at least have the decency to flag up some actual evidence. ---------- Post added 02-01-2015 at 14:01 ---------- :thumbsup: ---------- Post added 02-01-2015 at 14:06 ---------- Not a card I could play, as there's nothing 'poor' about being apsergic. This aspergic is aware of the negatives of it (primarily soley do not to aspergia, but due to having to cope with a world of NTs who can't seem to hold any semblence of a rational thought process in their befuddled heads) and the positives, such as being able to use logic and language properly. Just look at the world around you dude- set up by,run by, and, for, NTs. It's a mess.

No. I mentioned more than once purely cos several people critisised the idea itself e.g. some claiming it was illegal to have side lighting (wrongly); others belieiving (wrongly) that I was saying drivers should light the sides of their trailers, which prompted me to clarify by repeating what I'd actually said. ---------- Post added 02-01-2015 at 10:44 ---------- Absolutely- neurotypicals do use language very differently to aspergics: aspergics use language literally and precisely, which, in the context of written discussion (i.e. not face to face where the neuortypicals extra skills with body language and expressions are relevant) is entirely appropriate. Neurotypicals use language very imprecisley- they get away with it in face to face interactions by compensating with the information they pass/receive via facial expressions/body language (invisible to many aspergics). This doesn't work with online (written) discussions, hence the level of misunderstandings and flamiing/trolling that occurs whenever NTs try to discussion controversies online. In contrast, I say exactly what I mean, usually very precisley. ---------- Post added 02-01-2015 at 10:45 ---------- So- which of the above, in your eyes, equates to me saying anyone should put extra lights on their trailer?

You're talking rubbish dude- like I've now suggested several times, if you're under the impression I said you, or anyone else, should make your trailers more visible, then prove it by quoting it.