RootsBooster Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 As I explained already, it got rementioned when other posters either wrongly critisised the idea, or, misunderstood it. As I explained already, the first page is evidence contrary to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 As I explained already, the first page is evidence contrary to this. No it isn't. as I have explained (around 7 times now, I beieve ) As I explained already, it got rementioned when other posters either wrongly critisised the idea, or, misunderstood it. As you're not inclined to actually provide quotes of me doing what you claim, let me assist you. First page, my first post- 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). It had running lights and a reflective stripe down the side. & The running lights are amber LED's five down each side from memory visible from the sides. The simple solution of course is not fitting more lights, it's people not running red lights.. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flanker7 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Give it up OWD. 7 times! Only a fool keeps on doing the same thing and expects a different result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Give it up OWD. 7 times! Only a fool keeps on doing the same thing and expects a different result. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 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. I see no criticism of your lighting suggestion there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I see no criticism of your lighting suggestion there The simple solution of course is not fitting more lights, it's people not running red lights.. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 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. If people cannot see red lights on a big pole , what makes you think they can see amber lights on a trailer. There is already intrastructure called traffic signals in place. Rather than have people use them you propose that we all should light anything that someone *might* run into on the off chance, at considerabler cost and inconvenience? Oh I forgot. It doesn't apply to cyclists. They don't need lights as you've mentioned... Just applies to big nasty car drivers. What a twonk.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimp27 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 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. Does current legislation demand that lights are fitted to these trailers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 If people cannot see red lights on a big pole , what makes you think they can see amber lights on a trailer. They can see red lights- they sometimes ignore them, but, as you well know, they can see them fine. There is already intrastructure called traffic signals in place. Rather than have people use them you propose that we all should light anything that someone *might* run into on the off chance, at considerabler cost and inconvenience? Pound shop lights are cheap and easy to attach What a twonk.... 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 3, 2015 Author Share Posted January 3, 2015 So we are back to the car drivers have to accommodate the failings of cyclists again. How about cyclists accommodate for their own failings? You know - a bit of that personal responsibility thing? Or is that really so hard that understand or accept? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts