onewheeldave

A quick google showing a list of incidents in which a thrown snowball caused cars to run into other cars, or pedestrians. Driving is quite a complex affair, requiring, at times, great focus (hence why mobile phone conversations are banned)- of course a snowball can cause a crash. https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=snowball%20thrown%20car%20crash

Why do you keep repeating that? No-one's disagreeing with it. It's been clearly stated several times that the OP did nothing wrong, and, that the cyclist was riding foolishly. Yet people keep repeating "The OP was in the right. The cyclist was wrong." as if, there's some disagreement. Who do you think is disagreeing?

No one accused, or implied, that the op was in any way at fault, at any point throughout this thread.

Links here- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/schedule/9/made it appears to refer to trailers, but, like most legal documents the language is pretty convoluted, so, have a look.

Then you'll realise how common it is for misunderstandings to arise due to imprecise language? I've made no claims whatsoever about how people should spend their money. Simply pointed out to those who would be interested in making their trailers more visible, that there's a cheap easy way to do so. It's up to them if they wish to or not. And, cyclists do have the sh**ty end of the stick on our roads- they're at constant risk of being mown down by motorists on mobiles, or motorists who overtake dangerously- and, if a cyclist is killed, the motorist generally gets away with it. Consequences of a bike/car collision invariably leave the cyclist far, far more badly hurt than the motor vehicle driver. It doesn't have to be this way- places like the Netherlands have shown what is possible, if there is a recognition of the vast inequality, and, the will to puts things right. In the UK, the gross inequality is so entrenched that it's simply not acknowleged or recognised by the majority. Down the entire side, yes. Put them within 1 meter of the rear, and it's totally legal.

Thanks, that does clarify things- always good if people provide actual evidence when they make claims about what's legal/illegal Though, as you point out, red lights are legal if within 1m of the rear- so that does allow the placing of the pound shop lights, as long as they're on the back 1m of the trailer. (worth pointing out that, to those of you on the thread who claimed that 'red lights on the side are illegal', you were wrong- perhaps a lesson to be learned there about the value of actually looking up the law, rather than relying on heresay etc. I have observed that neurotypicals are very prone to making dogmatic claims that often, when checked, turn out to be false). I'll make clear that that's not directed to Bodie, who, to my knowledge made no claims about lights being illegal, but simply posted a link claryfying the law- I say this cos I've noticed that neurotypicals frequently get offended or wrongly assume that I'm being critical of them when I'm not. Also, I noticed the first line of the link says 'Requirements relating to obligatory side marker lamps and to optional side marker lamps to the extent specified in part ii' Which seems to imply that, for some vehicles in some circumstances, side lights are obligatory. I don't know the details,and currently don't have the energy to trawl through more legalise, but, to any flat bed trailer owners who don't currently have any lights on the sides, might be in your best interests to follow it up?

No-ones saying otherwise than the cyclist was responsible- I've pointed that out several times already- I agree with you that the cyclist was in error. You may be correct in saying that having a red light on the side of a trailer is in breach of the highway code- quickest way to settle it is for you, or someone else, to just post a link proving that to be the case. They actually said 'from memory visible from the sides', which implies a lack of certainty, and, to my knowledge, have not posted that they've checked to verify that they are visible from the sides. ---------- Post added 01-01-2015 at 11:49 ---------- There is a legal requirement for lights on cycles. Helmets are optional, and the majority of cycle advocacy organisations want it kept that way, due to the absence of evidence that helmets are usefull, and, cold hard statistics showing that every country that has enacted compulsory helmet laws, has seen an increase in cycling injuries and fatalities. The main theory as to why being that compulsory helmet laws lead to a reduction in the numbers of cyclists on the roads, and, it has been established that the more cyclists are on the roads, the safer it is to cycle. In places like the netherlands, where cycle numbers are very high, and there is exceptional provision for, and encouragement of, cycling, most cyclists do not wear helmets.

That seems to cover lights to the front and rear, I can't see anything in there about lights at the sides. I am aspergic, and do have difficulties sometimes finding details in large blocks of text, could you perhaps indictate where it covers lights on the side please?

Is it? There seems to be some debate about the legality of it. Could you post a link to the relevant law/act?

Brilliant idea, let's run it out fully, why have any lights whatsoever, if everyone looks where they're going why bother wasting resources making things look more visible?. Let's scrap headlights, they're only to stop the lazy bumping into things, if everyone just looks where they're going we won't need any whatsoever. However, for any flatbed trailer owners who do have a rudimentary ability to think, and, who give a s*it about making their difficult-to-spot-in-the-dark-sideways-on trailers a tad more visible to any pedestrians/cyclists who may otherwise, through stupidity, laziness, or, in the odd case, genuine mishap, I'll re-mention that the pound shop does stock red bike lights, which could be attached down the sides of said flatbed trailer, thus making it much more visible. They cost a quid each. Apologies to anyone who, for whatever bizarre reasons, finds it offensive when someone suggests cheap and easy ways of making whatever you're dragging behind your vehicles more visible. Happy new year everyone, hopefully 2015 will see us continuing in the rich spirit of community, friendship and co-operation displayed so clearly in threads such as this :) bonan novjaron

I posted here soley for the reason of putting out a decent safety idea that flatbed trailer owners could, if concerned about their trailers low visibility, easily make it more visible. not to argue about going through reds- said debate and reasons are readable, and arguable with, on this thread- http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10824919&posted=1#post10824919 and that stands, cos, putting aside all the b*llox and b*llsh*t, safety and illumination do go well together, and, if it saves someones life, even if that person was being an idiot, most would agree it's a good thing.

A solution directed clearly towards owners of flatbed trailers who are interested in making them more visible- if you're not in that category then it wasn't directed at you, so not sure why you're getting so wound up. Yes, I do believe that it some circumstances it is safer to go through reds- clearly not the circumstances described in your OP though. Now you've brought it up, perhaps I should post a link to the actual thread where I discussed, and defended, that belief- http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10824919&posted=1#post10824919 (in the interests of not taking your thread off topic, though I will point put in advance that,,if that does happen, it was you, not I, that raised the issue here.)

WTF!!! At no point have I criticised you, and, I've explicity stated the cyclist was at fault. Read my posts dude- find the part where you think I've said you were even remotely to blame and post it here so I can see it. All I've done is post a simple solution for those who are interested in making their trailers more visible, and, then done a bit of a logical dissection of the some of the posts you made which were critical of that proposed solution. ---------- Post added 31-12-2014 at 13:15 ---------- As above- I agree, and, have not suggested otherwise.

Here we go Ironic you're accusing him of trolling. And, apparently, he has got at least one friend (you seem to think he's your mate)

Thumbs up to this

Might be worth checking that, if you are interested in being visible. I was proposing the bike lights idea for those who were concerned about their trailer not being that visible from the side. Putting flashing bike lights on it would actually completely solve that issue, and, being simple, would constitute a simple solution. Your 'people not running red lights...', in contrast, relies on large numbers of other human beings suddenly changing their behaviour. History shows that this just doesn't happen. And, the lack of a proposed causal connection between 1. the decision made by the trailer owner to tackle the issue, and, 2. the minds of all those other human beings involved, in your 'solution' is a huge problem. That problem could only be addressed by some form of communication e.g. a mass media information broadcast, which, would also be weak as a solution, due to the inevitable less than 100% uptake, and, even if it looked feasible, would certainly not be 'simple'. So, for those reasons, I'm actually going to quibble strongly with your statement and say that the simple solution is to put some pound shop lights down the side (as opposed to trying to make people stop running reds).

But it's usefull to understand. Cos often the reasons, when brought out in the open, turn out to be b*llsh*t. e.g. driver who had a problem with me being in the middle of the lane and him not being able to pass. By his aggressive and insistent horn honking he clearly thought I was being deliberately obstructive and he was clearly annoyed by this. The reality- parked cars down both sides of the road- me in the middle well away from parked car line on the left, as I know that to be closer in means I get wiped out if/when some idiot opens his/her right door to get out. The real reason driver can't overtake me- sh*t loads of parked cars that are at least as much the cause of his issue as me, in fact more so, cos of their much greater numbers. 99% of delays motorists attribute to cyclists, are, in reality, a result of the mass overclogging of road systems by cars (and vans/lorries etc). So that's why it's good to get drivers to actually give a bit of thought to the thought processes that leads to them being annoyed, so their reasoning can be analysed, compared to actual reality, and flagged up as b*llsh*t. Cos make no mistake- there is great prejudice against cyclists here, and, cyclists are dying and being maimed as a direct result. It's time to challenge and destroy that prejudice. I'll tell you what is annoying matey- you constantly being an apologist to that crap. motorist gets annoyed cos he/she has issue with a cyclist running a red light = motorist deems it right and good to be angry at ALL cyclists That is b*llsh*t, it's not valid reasoning and each time you bring it up and give it credence, it gets entrenched in the minds of the less intelligent motorist as being in some way valid. Any motorists who extrapolates from one/several cyclists to ALL cyclists is clearly lacking in reasoning ability, and, you'd be doing a much greater service to cycling if you flagged it up as the prejudice it is, rather than trying to pass it off as some kind of excuse for why some motorists despise cyclists.

Yes- I suggested cycle lights cos, maybe I'm wrong, correct me if so, but I thought 'running lights' were located on the rear of the trailer as opposed to the side (the visibility problem here occurring cos the cyclist was heading towards the trailer side, which therefore was not highly visible). And reflective strips, while great for motor vehicles casting out large amounts of light from their powerfull headlights, aren't actually that visible in the absence of such light. So my thought was that 3 or 4 cycle lights down each side, perhaps set in flashing mode (increases visibility) would be an easy way of removing the 'lack of visibility' full stop, making the trailer very easy to see for those who don't have headlights attached, e.g. cyclists and pedestrians. I'm not being funny here, and I'm certainly not excusing or condoning the cyclists lack of road sense; simply, for those who might be interested in making their low visibility flatbed trailers much more visible, offering a very cheap, easy and practical solution. That's one of the positives about being aspergic, we tend to be very good at thinking 'out of the box' and coming up with solutions where NTs often don't even see the problem.

Worth mentioning to anyone towing flatbed trailers, that the £shops stock bicycle rear red lights (cost £1), a few of which could be easily attached to the sides of a trailer and render it much more visible (not only to red light running cyclists, but a host of other situations where a life could be saved by the trailer being visible).

I'd suggest 1. eat a diet of REAL food (i.e. eliminate all processed 'food' and subsist off mainly plants (fruit, veg both cooked and raw) with, if you wish small amounts of animal produce. 2. eat MORE- once you're living off a plant based diet, as long as you're not adding overt fats to it, you will no longer have to restrict the quantities you eat. Long term 80-10-10 proponents (low fat, mainly raw, mainly fruit) for example tend to eat a minimum of 3000 calories/day and are all very lean. The main problem with eating LESS (assuming the food you're eating is REAL food, plant based and naturally very low in fat) is that, especially if you have a history of eating disorders or of weight issues, is that feeling hungry is very dangerous for you- in a hungry state you're never far away from a binging session. So eat as much REAL food as you want- if it's mainly plant based you're not making the mistake of adding loads of fat to it, your weight will gradually head towards the ideal. 3. Move more (we agree ). But don't kill yourself- once you're eating REAL food, very little exercise is necessary- an hour of walking every day and a bit of callisthenics if you want muscle tone. ---------- Post added 31-12-2014 at 10:32 ---------- Spot on about avoiding 'low fat' versions of food- undoubtedly most of it is not only useless for weight loss (I doubt it's a coincidence that the rise in obesity levels pretty much matches the rise of low-fat crap being pushed in supermarkets) it's probably toxic as well. Naturally low fat- as in fruit and veg in their natural state, is a very different matter, of course- that stuffs actually good for your health, and, if you live primarily off it, will lead you naturally to your ideal weight.

I'd suggest contacting multiple solicitors with an eye to suing SCC on a no-win no fee basis. Contact your local MPs. Contact as much media as you can (radio/tv/documentary makers etc). When dealing with SCC representatives and your MP, ensure you record all conversations as it will make them accountable, eliminate the possibility of them getting away with lying to you, and, if all else fails, constitute good evidence if/when this gets to court. If, as a result of this pressure, SCC relent and give you what you're legally entitled to (a secure and safe home for you and your children), please do retain the evidence you've collected, as it is certain that SCC will continue to abuse and fob off many other tenants, who may find your evidence usefull. They do not give a s**t about the people they abuse and fob off- all they understand is the threat of legal action.

Most experienced cyclist do not "ride along quite happily in them"- they actively avoid them as most cycle paths are badly designed and dangerous. Cyclists who do use them, tend to be inexperienced, naive and under the common delusion that cycles are inconveniences on the road and that their proper place is to be riding, cowed and afraid, on s*itty, ill-thought out bits of painted tarmac covered with crap/broken glass and obstructed by illegally parked cars. While being zipped past by motorists, many of who's misunderstanding of the highway code is so great, that they are often genuinely under the impression that cyclists are 'supposed' to be in the cycle lane. Cyclists are under no obligation to be in the cycle lane, and, every responsible cycling authority makes it very clear that, in many cases, to be in the cycle lane is a hazardous act, and not recommended.

Why don't you overtake them then? Pull out to the opposite lane, giving them the proper amount of space, and overtake? If the answer involves the fact that the opposite lane is chock full of cars, or one/both lanes are chronically narrowed by hundreds of parked cars, then, I'm wondering why, of the actual causal factors preventing you overtaking, you fixate soley on the cyclist. Cos it's the object in clearest sight in your field of vision? That's logical (not). I'll say again- open your mind, the real cause of your delays ain't the odd cyclist, it's the stuff on the periphery of your vision that's the main cause i.e. the monsterous excess of cars clogging up the road system.

No you don't. Your English isn't that plain, as half the time you're saying you're not blaming the cyclist (for riding, as the law allows) 2 abreast, the other half you are. The picture you linked to shows clearly that if the motorist overtakes properly, i.e. as if it's passing a car, then there is, in that picture you linked to, space for another cyclist abreast of the first one. Suggesting that there is a bit of vagueness in your understanding of the highway code. I don't know if you're familiar with the expression 'taking up primary position'? It's where cyclists, as recommended in situations where there is a danger of motorists attempting to overtake when it is unsafe to do so, take the center of the lane to prevent unsafe overtaking. It has a similar effect as riding 2 abreast i.e. makes overtaking impossible unless the driver is homicidal. If a driver attempts to unsafely overtake in that scenario, is the cyclist also, in your eyes, being irresponsible by doing the legal, and, recommended manouver?

It does happen, we agree fully on that. If that's all you're saying, and, you want to minimise being misunderstood, then I'd recommend, when posting that it does happen, also point out that it's in total breach of the highway code. i.e. instead of putting an emphasis (and, by implication, the blame) on cyclists riding, legally, 2 abreast, put the emphasis on the over close passing motorist who is contravening the highway code (and putting lives at genuine risk).