onewheeldave Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Don't forget the requirement that they must be amber as well..... red lights are not amber.... I'll have that apology now. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimp27 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 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. That is very noble of you Dave. Could you also add that cycles are indeed flimsy, and the onus of safety on such a flimsy machine is down to the rider first and foremost. The hope that the rider will not encounter a crazed motorist is, at most just that. A hope. This is why I gave up cycling, and im sure im not as fit as I used to be because of it. I just woke one morning, and thought of the many MANY near misses I have suffered, and thought to myself that my personal safety is much MUCH more important than my right to cycle, regardless whether I was in the right or wrong. I understand cycling seems important to a lot of people, but at the end of the day, no matter how much cycling lobbyists plead with the Government for change, they will never eradicate the crazy motorist, which puts the odds of safety well in favour of the motorist. And to say that I should ignore the safety aspect, and carry on cycling, just to put two fingers up at motorists is as crazy as the silly guy who ran the red light. Having the "moral right" highground will not feed my family, should I be killed whilst protecting my right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 3, 2015 Author Share Posted January 3, 2015 Stop moving the goalposts. You know your original posts were about lights all the way down the side of the trailers. Trying to wriggle out of it by suddenly saying you only meant within a meter of the back is something I thought would be beneath you. Mind you I thought you'd be man enough to look it up yourself as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 That is very noble of you Dave. Could you also add that cycles are indeed flimsy, and the onus of safety on such a flimsy machine is down to the rider first and foremost. The hope that the rider will not encounter a crazed motorist is, at most just that. A hope. This is why I gave up cycling, and im sure im not as fit as I used to be because of it. I just woke one morning, and thought of the many MANY near misses I have suffered, and thought to myself that my personal safety is much MUCH more important than my right to cycle, regardless whether I was in the right or wrong. I understand cycling seems important to a lot of people, but at the end of the day, no matter how much cycling lobbyists plead with the Government for change, they will never eradicate the crazy motorist, which puts the odds of safety well in favour of the motorist. And to say that I should ignore the safety aspect, and carry on cycling, just to put two fingers up at motorists is as crazy as the silly guy who ran the red light. Having the "moral right" highground will not feed my family, should I be killed whilst protecting my right. Overall (health benefits vs risk) cycling is healthier than not cycling. And that includes the risk of injury or death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dean9 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 That is very noble of you Dave. Could you also add that cycles are indeed flimsy, and the onus of safety on such a flimsy machine is down to the rider first and foremost. The hope that the rider will not encounter a crazed motorist is, at most just that. A hope. This is why I gave up cycling, and im sure im not as fit as I used to be because of it. I just woke one morning, and thought of the many MANY near misses I have suffered, and thought to myself that my personal safety is much MUCH more important than my right to cycle, regardless whether I was in the right or wrong. I understand cycling seems important to a lot of people, but at the end of the day, no matter how much cycling lobbyists plead with the Government for change, they will never eradicate the crazy motorist, which puts the odds of safety well in favour of the motorist. And to say that I should ignore the safety aspect, and carry on cycling, just to put two fingers up at motorists is as crazy as the silly guy who ran the red light. Having the "moral right" highground will not feed my family, should I be killed whilst protecting my right. Hallelujah... thats giving the berk brigade the reason they need to ignore all of the highway code... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damageandy Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Hallelujah... thats giving the berk brigade the reason they need to ignore all of the highway code... No it is not! The cyclist has control of how they are riding, so they should do so properly. They have no control how another road uer is behaving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 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. You didn't originally mention any one metre issue, but just suggested illegally putting red lights all the way down the side. Then abused people for being incorrect when they said that would be illegal... Despite them actually being correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimp27 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Hallelujah... thats giving the berk brigade the reason they need to ignore all of the highway code... Yep, and your comment makes it all one sided yet again. When will people accept responsibility for themselves? And when will posters read a full post before writing this crap? Probably never.:suspect: ---------- Post added 03-01-2015 at 19:23 ---------- Overall (health benefits vs risk) cycling is healthier than not cycling. And that includes the risk of injury or death. Im sure and also know that it is healthy. Just not the safest, and can never take priority over the risk of injury/death. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 You didn't originally mention any one metre issue, but just suggested illegally putting red lights all the way down the side. Then abused people for being incorrect when they said that would be illegal... Despite them actually being correct. Stop moving the goalposts. You know your original posts were about lights all the way down the side of the trailers. Trying to wriggle out of it by suddenly saying you only meant within a meter of the back is something I thought would be beneath you. Mind you I thought you'd be man enough to look it up yourself as well. I originally didn't mention the 1 meter rule cos I wasn't aware of it. Then some posters claimed that lights on the side were illegal, so I asked for links to evidence. As usual, no replies to that for quite a while. Then we got a link saying that red lights were only legal within 1 meter of the rear. From that point I acknowledged the fact, and, often mentioned it when suggesting putting red lights on the side. I certainly never 'abused people for being incorrect when they said that would be illegal'- what I did was continue to ask for evidence of their claims, as I will always do when people make claims i.e. back them up with evidence. Like many aspergics I have an infinite patience when it comes to finding the truth, and know from long experience that people often make claims without actual evidence (and often make false claims). As recent events show, when evidence is presented that shows I'm wrong, I'm very happy to admit it- everyone is wrong at times, there's nothing to be ashamed of in being wrong, as long as we face the truth when it's presented and proven. Also an aspergic trait- I'm honest. So, much as some of you seem to think I'm here to play ego games and/or wind people up, fact is, it ain't true. You can believe that or not, it's no skin off my nose, and, the fact that some people jump to that conclusion, probably says more about them, and their world view. ---------- Post added 03-01-2015 at 19:38 ---------- The hope that the rider will not encounter a crazed motorist is, at most just that. A hope. This is why I gave up cycling, and im sure im not as fit as I used to be because of it. I just woke one morning, and thought of the many MANY near misses I have suffered, and thought to myself that my personal safety is much MUCH more important than my right to cycle, regardless whether I was in the right or wrong. I understand cycling seems important to a lot of people, but at the end of the day, no matter how much cycling lobbyists plead with the Government for change, they will never eradicate the crazy motorist, which puts the odds of safety well in favour of the motorist. And to say that I should ignore the safety aspect, and carry on cycling, just to put two fingers up at motorists is as crazy as the silly guy who ran the red light. Having the "moral right" highground will not feed my family, should I be killed whilst protecting my right. I can relate to that- just yesterday some fool in a car decided to pull out as I was passing (legally and visibly in broad daylight) in front of him. Luckily he stopped inches from me. Equally, cyclone is right- Overall (health benefits vs risk) cycling is healthier than not cycling. And that includes the risk of injury or death. But it's your choice- if I had a real scary near miss or got hit, I suspect I'd probably not want to cycle any more. It's a real shame this nations car fixation is killing the nations health and it's a viscious circle, cos the more obese/diabetic/chronically ill people get, the more they become even more relient on the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimp27 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I originally didn't mention the 1 meter rule cos I wasn't aware of it. Then some posters claimed that lights on the side were illegal, so I asked for links to evidence. As usual, no replies to that for quite a while. Then we got a link saying that red lights were only legal within 1 meter of the rear. From that point I acknowledged the fact, and, often mentioned it when suggesting putting red lights on the side. I certainly never 'abused people for being incorrect when they said that would be illegal'- what I did was continue to ask for evidence of their claims, as I will always do when people make claims i.e. back them up with evidence. Like many aspergics I have an infinite patience when it comes to finding the truth, and know from long experience that people often make claims without actual evidence (and often make false claims). As recent events show, when evidence is presented that shows I'm wrong, I'm very happy to admit it- everyone is wrong at times, there's nothing to be ashamed of in being wrong, as long as we face the truth when it's presented and proven. Also an aspergic trait- I'm honest. So, much as some of you seem to think I'm here to play ego games and/or wind people up, fact is, it ain't true. You can believe that or not, it's no skin off my nose, and, the fact that some people jump to that conclusion, probably says more about them, and their world view. ---------- Post added 03-01-2015 at 19:38 ---------- I can relate to that- just yesterday some fool in a car decided to pull out as I was passing (legally and visibly in broad daylight) in front of him. Luckily he stopped inches from me. Equally, cyclone is right- But it's your choice- if I had a real scary near miss or got hit, I suspect I'd probably not want to cycle any more. It's a real shame this nations car fixation is killing the nations health and it's a viscious circle, cos the more obese/diabetic/chronically ill people get, the more they become even more relient on the car. I cant see it ever being any different. The whole world and his brother owns a car. I think one of the disadvantages of cycling is that its not conveinient for families shopping trips/day trips etc. It is popular with commuters who work within a reasonable distance to work, but not for a lot who work many miles from home. A debatable subject that will go on and on for ever, with no winners, which is indeed a real shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts