Guest sibon Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Can you show me where ROSPA cite visibility as a major factor in accidents? I have already clearly shown you where ROSPA say that improving your visibility will reduce your chance of having an accident. I'd have thought that you would be much more interested in not getting hit by a car, rather than blaming someone when you have. As for the rest of your post, let's just say that it meets your usual standards. If you really can't understand that if a car driver sees you late, it makes an accident more likely, then I really don't know what else to say to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 I have already clearly shown you where ROSPA say that improving your visibility will reduce your chance of having an accident. Which is wildly different to what you preciously claimed, that ROSPA disagree that cyclists with bad lighting are involved in a tiny percentage of accidents. You posted a link without reading it, accident stats aren't even mentioned in your link, merely advice. No breakdown, no stats, no data, no conclusions. You posted a link that had nothing to do with ROSPA disagreeing with a word of the DoT report. ROSPa don't disagree with the DoT report at all. How could they, since they didn't even mention it? And stop posting silly straw men, the fact that poor lighting is not a factor in many cyclist accidents is a million miles away from saying cyclists shouldn't use lights. Argue with what's been said, not your absurd, hysterical inventions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Which is wildly different to what you preciously claimed, that ROSPA disagree that cyclists with bad lighting are involved in a tiny percentage of accidents. You posted a link without reading it, accident stats aren't even mentioned in your link, merely advice. No breakdown, no stats, no data, no conclusions. You posted a link that had nothing to do with ROSPA disagreeing with a word of the DoT report. ROSPa don't disagree with the DoT report at all. How could they, since they didn't even mention it? And stop posting silly straw men, the fact that poor lighting is not a factor in many cyclist accidents is a million miles away from saying cyclists shouldn't use lights. Argue with what's been said, not your absurd, hysterical inventions. I'm not the hysterical one. Try reading your posts back when you wake up tomorrow. In the meantime, I'm off, because talking to you is a complete waste of time. Cycle safely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 ROSPA don't agree. And they do know a bit about accidents. That link has nothing to do with what I posted. Cyclists disobeying stop signal or wearing dark clothing at night rarely cited in collisions causing serious injury. ROSPA don't disagree at all, they merely offer advice. Stop making stuff up please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 You know who you are, dark clothes, no reflectives and no lights. You are the ninjas who will die when a vehicle rolls over you in the darkness of the night. Please take care and help yourself. Thanks for posting this. If it makes one person think before they do this, it'll be worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Sounds like the usual driver's 'obstruct me if you dare' rant Brake linings must be made of platinum with diamond coatings judging by how loathe some drivers are to use them at times. My golden rules for pedestrian survival are: (a) If a driver doesn't indicate or slow down near a turn, ALWAYS ASSUME THAT HE WILL TURN. (b) Drivers do not "get" the pavement/road demarcation. Woe betide you if you stray into their "territory", however, they will freely make use of the pavement as an extension of the road, even if it means that pedestrians are consequently forced into the road, thus incurring their anger (but it will still be the pedestrians fault mind). © If in doubt, assume that all drivers are, without exception, morons. Follow these rules and you will live to a ripe old age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mediman Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 They're not unnoticeable then? A pedestrian walking into a car won't do any damage. Becaus the driver of a vehicle is capable of doing far more damage, the onus is on them to avoid collisions by driving at a sensible speed. What a load of clap trap you have spouted, the Highway Code states look right look left and look right again before crossing the road, it is the onus of the pedestrian as well, to ensure the road is clear to cross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Just seen a cyclist, all in black with no lights. He stood out like ET flying past the moon. This snow is great. He looked to be struggling for traction in the conditions, but did OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastbank Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 one good thing about snow....you can see the cyclists coming...unless their dressed like a stormtrooper.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InvalidUser Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 The attitue of cyclists never fails to amaze me. Remember that if I run into you in my car you'll be the one in hospital or the morgue. Whatever damage your head does to my bumper can easily be repaired. You can have "It's always the car drivers fault" on your headstone if it makes you feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.