onewheeldave Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 ... And there's the veiled "I think you are not telling the truth but I'm not actually going to call you a liar so I can backtrack later and shout aspergic if the heat get's too much..." 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubermaus Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I cycle myself, so I'm not one to jump to critcise, but some people are morons. I've seen a few people cycling at this time of year with no lights and dark clothing. It's asking for trouble. And twice as many motorists are morons. They drive too fast, too agressively, unsafely, not legally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 And twice as many motorists are morons. Sure. It's not a contest though - bad road use is bad road use. As a cyclist, I've had my worst road experience with a horse carrier. You'd think if one group of road users understood that beeping a horn and using a vehicle to intimidate is not the wisest idea - it would be people who ride horses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denlin Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 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). Wouldn't have made any difference in this case as the trailer was hidden by a fence as the cyclist came through the lights. The cyclist was lucky he wasn't hurt and had the good grace to apologise for his stupidity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubermaus Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Range rover drivers tend to be the worst. Ive seen all drivers and all kinds of stupid tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) 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. See posts #118 & #141, that rhetoric of yours coupled with your insistent advocating in previous threads that it's safer for a cyclist to go through a red rather than wait, is a strong implication that you think Obelix should do more to increase his trailer's visibility rather than the simple solution of cyclists obeying the law. Edited January 2, 2015 by RootsBooster typo error Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) Range rover drivers tend to be the worst. Ive seen all drivers and all kinds of stupid tho. How fortunate that I don't drive one of them then. Mind you I suspect that a RR wouldn't have the tow capacity I need even if I did have enough pennies to buy one... Edited January 2, 2015 by Obelix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 See posts #118 & #141, that rhetoric of yours coupled with your insistent advocating in previous threads that it's safer for a cyclist to go through a thread rather than wait, is a strong implication that you think Obelix should do more to increase his trailer's visibility rather than the simple solution of cyclists obeying the law. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 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. Aspergers or not, repetetive posting of a suggestion that Obelix could fit additional lighting (mentioned by yourself in 3 posts on just the first page, without any criticism of the suggestion. I'm not going to bother counting how many times you brought it up throughout the rest of the thread) is an act of persistence. If it were merely a suggestion, posting it just once would have sufficed. Are you not aware of your insistence in previous threads that it's safer for a cyclist to go through a red light? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Aspergers or not, repetetive posting of a suggestion that Obelix could fit additional lighting (mentioned by yourself in 3 posts on just the first page, without any criticism of the suggestion. I'm not going to bother counting how many times you brought it up throughout the rest of the thread) is an act of persistence. If it were merely a suggestion, posting it just once would have sufficed. 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. Are you not aware of your insistence in previous threads that it's safer for a cyclist to go through a red light? 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- Are you not aware of your insistence in previous threads that it's safer for a cyclist to go through a red light? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts