Cyclists without lights - something needs to be done

[anonymous-user]

Nanook said:

cb1965 said:

It is and if you can't understand why then I'm not entirely surprised.

Now have you any comment on the thread's subject?

You mean the fabrication in the OP?

Yeah. get some help.

So that's a no then Mr. Egotist!

[anonymous-user]

Killboy said:

cb1965 said:

Killboy said:

Wow. You really do dodge any actual conversation or question dont you?

This is why there is no point to these "debates". You threads and posts are either nothing but trolling, or the result of someone with some serious issues in life. I'd suggest figuring out what it is and getting help. Maybe you just miss London?

I'm not dodging anything, but I'm not prepared to let you attribute me supporting a viewpoint that I don't support by chucking it into a post in the full knowledge that another of your cronies will pick it up and treat it as gospel. The fact you are prepared to use the death of a cyclist to try and score points is pretty low frankly.

Have you been hitting the sauce a bit early today? Your "cronies" brought in the link, the death, and in the very same post say its probably because he didn't have lights. I pointed to the comment made about it and I'm the one "scoring points"?

I have subsequently even said you never said it. And you still insulating I am? I tell you the odd thing about it, you blaming me for referencing a post that made in support of your argument, and you still have not said anything about it. Where is the outrage at that?

It isn't support of my argument though and that's my point. The report I read makes no mention of the cyclists having no lights and frankly with a suspected drunk driver involved would it have made any difference? One is dead and one is injured and I'm not calling it as being anything to do with lights. You know full well what you were trying to do by referencing it!

[anonymous-user]

J4CKO said:

cb1965 said:

Killboy said:

cb1965 said:

Killboy said:

Wow. You really do dodge any actual conversation or question dont you?

This is why there is no point to these "debates". You threads and posts are either nothing but trolling, or the result of someone with some serious issues in life. I'd suggest figuring out what it is and getting help. Maybe you just miss London?

I'm not dodging anything, but I'm not prepared to let you attribute me supporting a viewpoint that I don't support by chucking it into a post in the full knowledge that another of your cronies will pick it up and treat it as gospel. The fact you are prepared to use the death of a cyclist to try and score points is pretty low frankly.

Have you been hitting the sauce a bit early today? Your "cronies" brought in the link, the death, and in the very same post say its probably because he didn't have lights. I pointed to the comment made about it and I'm the one "scoring points"?

I have subsequently even said you never said it. And you still insulating I am? I tell you the odd thing about it, you blaming me for referencing a post that made in support of your argument, and you still have not said anything about it. Where is the outrage at that?

It isn't support of my argument though and that's my point. The report I read makes no mention of the cyclists having no lights and frankly with a suspected drunk driver involved would it have made any difference? One is dead and one is injured and I'm not calling it as being anything to do with lights. You know full well what you were trying to do by referencing it!

Indeed, that was me, I did say that maybe and I am wrong on that and rightly got called out on it.

No worries, your posts are usually on the level so I've no beef with you as these things happen.

[anonymous-user]

nickfrog said:

No point engaging with the OP as he is just an attention seeking agent provocateur with a persecution complex and other mental illnesses. Very Trump actually.

I think it's more likely that those who get ridiculously defensive about something they claim not to do might be the ones with the 'issues'!

[anonymous-user]

Ares said:

Wasn't your whinge last autumn about cyclists lights being too bright?

No, it wasn’t! Have never ever said such thing, but of course you know that and you just stick it in a post so one of your other chums can pick up on it later and it becomes yet more ‘anti cyclist folklore’. If I’m so easy to put down why do you all seem to resort to lying.

[anonymous-user]

Ares said:

cb1965 said:

Ares said:

Wasn't your whinge last autumn about cyclists lights being too bright?

No, it wasn’t! Have never ever said such thing, but of course you know that and you just stick it in a post so one of your other chums can pick up on it later and it becomes yet more ‘anti cyclist folklore’. If I’m so easy to put down why do you all seem to resort to lying.

So defensive! It must have been other members of your mob that ran a 10+ page thread on lights being too bright.

Ironic (groundless) accusation of lying too

Plus nice snipping of the rest of the post though, just to spark an argument. Again.

You are the one sparking the argument by deliberately posting baseless crap so try getting your facts right in future and then you won’t need an argument will you? FFS

[anonymous-user]

Ares said:

Mave said:

cb1965 said:

No, it wasn’t! Have never ever said such thing, but of course you know that and you just stick it in a post so one of your other chums can pick up on it later and it becomes yet more ‘anti cyclist folklore’. If I’m so easy to put down why do you all seem to resort to lying.

Pretty ironic that your first 2 posts in this thread start with you misrepresenting people's opinions and motivations.....

Hateful troll will troll Mave

Trolling is not just having a different opinion to you about some cyclists. You need to learn that. You and your chums as usual are making excuses for cycling without lights by trivialising it and claiming it doesn't happen. It's your usual modus operandi on any thread where a section of the people that use bikes are in any way criticised. Note I refrained from using the word cyclists there before you have another hissy fit!

In fact to save anyone the bother in future here is potted synopsis of all threads discussing anything negative about some people on bikes:

Poster makes a point about some cyclists not doing something right e.g. no lights at night, riding through pedestrian crossings etc.

Within no time the troops will have been fully mobilised and the following will be posted.

The OP will be deemed an idiot, a bigot, a mental patient, a bully and stupid.

heebeegeebeee will claim the OP and anyone posting in the slightest support of their point of view a hypocrite as they all speed in their cars and will then try and deflect the thread with a load of random links to something to do with drivers that has little or no relevance to the thread.

Mave will pick up on the most irrelevant point in the post, deliberately misunderstand it and argue until they're blue in the face about the minutiae of the point in an attempt to deflect the thread or bore people to death such that the thread dies.

nickfrog will call the OP out as being mentally ill and tell everyone to ignore them

Ares will say he doesn't see any evidence of threat the OP is talking about an post a link to some load of ste he's bought for his bike. He will return later to accuse the OP of starting yet another anti-cyclist thread despite the fact the OP might only have ever started 3 threads on cycling and another 20 in the F1 section for instance... i.e. all the normal behaviour of being on a forum where the idea is... to promote discussion

yellowjack will arrive and tell the OP he is plain wrong and post five or so extreme examples of why some drivers are tts and tell us all that that is more important!

yonex will tell the OP he's a troll and to leave the forum as obviously he owns it

Winston Wolf will tell everyone cycling is the future so we'd better get used to their behaviour

funkyrobot will pop by to tell everyone the OP is deranged and that all cyclists are wonderful salt of the earth types

80sMatchbox will appear and reference some obscure post from a previous thread that didn't actually get posted the way he remembers it, but as it's now been stated by a cyclist on PH it's folklore.

Killboy will claim the OP is a liar with no evidence as to why and then start offering to get involved in some obscure bet involving him with his obviously completely unbiased point of view coming up with perfectly fair and evenly collated 'evidence' to support his side of the argument.

After a while they will start mutually back slapping each other and using the word troll a lot.

They will eventually post a lot of conjecture about the OP and other posters' opinions being anti all cyclists and make up a few choice facts that when challenged they will point out that it seems that way or it's obvious it's that etc.etc.

Eventually the thread will descend into arguing about:

• red light jumping - they justify this by saying cyclists can make up their own mind as to whether it's safe or not, but they don't extend this courtesy to drivers over choosing to speed as they wouldn't be able to use their hypocrites argument in that case... which ironically makes them hypocrites

• riding on the pavement - they will tell you this is perfectly OK as the police take no notice and only the occasional child gets run over

• riding without lights - at least one of them claims to be able to see cyclists perfectly well when they're not lit at night so the drivers who can't see them must be unfit to drive

• close passing - they will insist that every driver should leave a chasm between themselves and a cyclist, but that it is perfectly OK for them to cycle between two buses as they are in control of that manoeuvre!

• left turning lorries - it is always the fault of the truck driver no matter what the cyclists did or didn't do as trucks drivers are nasty evil people

• cycle lanes - they don't use them as they are not designed exactly to the the poor little darlings' liking - like the roads are designed perfectly for drivers

• cutting up traffic and relying on drivers to avoid them - it's called filtering and it's perfectly OK

Eventually they will ensure the original point has been lost in the plethora of drivel posted and leave the rest of us all to ponder on why they seem so happy to defend things that none of them claim to do!

Put simply this thread is about cyclists not having lights at night or not wearing hi-vis. There are plenty that fall into that category as most of us normal people realise and the thread was trying to discuss how to persuade them otherwise. It is not about drivers not seeing them when they're lit, car headlights or anything else and if you wish to post threads on those subjects please do, but how about you actually focus on the subject rather than suggesting in some poor attempt at scoring a point that I've got a mental illness or anything else like that when you have probably got no idea what a real mental illness and how serious it can be!

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 13th November 22:42

[anonymous-user]

Mave said:

cb1965 said:

Mave will pick up on the most irrelevant point in the post, deliberately misunderstand it and argue until they're blue in the face about the minutiae of the point in an attempt to deflect the thread or bore people to death such that the thread dies.

This is what I actually wrote -

"I don't see anything like 30% of cyclists without lights, I think the ones that dont have lights are idiots, and this time of year I wear multiple sets and keep a spare set in my bag in case my main set gets damaged / lost / stolen. I think handing out free sets is a nice idea (just like the high viz bag covers that sometimes get handed out) , but not necessarily the most important thing to spend money on."

I'll leave other people to judge whether your statement above is a fair reflection of my post.

And as a reflection of your myriad of other efforts to wind people up with pedantry and tedium? Anyway well done you on an on-topic post at last, big pat on the back, go you

[anonymous-user]

OP gets called out, argues with everyone then has a flounce.

Standard CBeebies.

[anonymous-user]

yonex said:

OP gets called out, argues with everyone then has a flounce.

Standard CBeebies.

Flounce? You wish!

[anonymous-user]

heebeegeetee said:

To address the thread title - yes, possibly something should be done

Excellent - at last - so what do you suggest?

[anonymous-user]

Mave said:

cb1965 said:

Mave said:

cb1965 said:

Mave will pick up on the most irrelevant point in the post, deliberately misunderstand it and argue until they're blue in the face about the minutiae of the point in an attempt to deflect the thread or bore people to death such that the thread dies.

This is what I actually wrote -

"I don't see anything like 30% of cyclists without lights, I think the ones that dont have lights are idiots, and this time of year I wear multiple sets and keep a spare set in my bag in case my main set gets damaged / lost / stolen. I think handing out free sets is a nice idea (just like the high viz bag covers that sometimes get handed out) , but not necessarily the most important thing to spend money on."

I'll leave other people to judge whether your statement above is a fair reflection of my post.

And as a reflection of your myriad of other efforts to wind people up with pedantry and tedium? Anyway well done you on an on-topic post at last, big pat on the back, go you

That was actually my first, and only post before you accused me of being "so caught up in their perception of me they’d argue anything to the contrary of what I say no matter what it is."
Pretty ironic accusation.

Adjust scope to all cycling threads.

Re-run query

Bingo!

[anonymous-user]

cb1965 said:

Flounce? You wish!

Yes, your usual m.o would be to report a bunch of people to the mods and delete a load of your posts.

A troll, plain and simple (very)

[anonymous-user]

yonex said:

cb1965 said:

Flounce? You wish!

Yes, your usual m.o would be to report a bunch of people to the mods and delete a load of your posts.

A troll, plain and simple (very)

Oh really? Not my style, suggest you look a little closer to home for the reporting to the mods thing. If you’re not the culprit one of your chums is.

PS glad to see you posting true to form

[anonymous-user]

Mave said:

Do you really want me to go through all cycling threads and remind you of the exchanges? Just so you can accuse me of taking the thread off topic and boring people?

Couldn’t care less what you do, but Ivwould not bother as selective quoting won’t change anything. It’s not just my opinion as you’ll see when you go through the threads.

Any chance we can get back on topic though?

[anonymous-user]

Mave said:

Busted? You're just trotting out vague accusations. Go back and look at those threads and you'll see that in every case I have made points which respond to the topic, and which Cbeebies has then twisted and turned to avoid answering until he's distanced himself from the point being made.

LOL, sorry, but that's just utterly untrue and a great example of your divisive nature on here.

[anonymous-user]

cb1965 said:

Oh really? Not my style, suggest you look a little closer to home for the reporting to the mods thing. If you’re not the culprit one of your chums is.

PS glad to see you posting true to form

You mean asking you to back up your usual nonsense when you make a very tenuous link from weak facts to support your deeply rooted issues with cyclists?

One more time then.

Point me to one cyclist saying that riding without lights is the right thing to do? This is what you’re claiming, which is simply untrue.

‘One of my chums’ I guess you mean another cyclist who is probably fed up with your multiple nonsensical posts about a subject you have no clue about and clearly lack the comprehension or driving skills in the real world to deal with.

[anonymous-user]

Ares said:

Sorry CBA reading all that....but Trolling is starting an (usually) pointless argument on a subject that will immediately set to wind people up....especially when the troll in question often starts one per week..

3 in all the time I’ve been here, even with your lack of mathematical ability you can see that’s not 1 a week, but then that’s how you work. Say it enough and it’s folklore.

Riding without lights is not a pointless argument in most normal peoole’s eyes but you seem to imply it’s trivial by your statement that to you it is.

[anonymous-user]

Your Dad said:

Question, and it's a genuine one, of the "102 cyclists of which she recorded 34 riding without any form of lighting or hi-vis clothing" did she count 34 that had no lights AND were not wearing high-vis or was it 34 that had no lights OR no high-vis?

34 had one or the other or neither, but not both. She said it was about 50/50. Was going to point that out but the usual suspects were struggling enough with the overall discussion.

[anonymous-user]

Your Dad said:

cb1965 said:

34 had one or the other or neither, but not both. She said it was about 50/50. Was going to point that out but the usual suspects were struggling enough with the overall discussion.

So the opening statement you gave was "she decided to record the number of cyclists without lights while her mum drove" yet the figure of 34 out of 102 is a different record of events? So 17 cyclists out of 102 had no lights.

It's like news reports that say "100 people have been killed or injured", which is different to "one person has been killed and 99 injured". Creative reporting to make the issue sound worse.

Was going to point that out, or decided not to make the reporting different?

The school suggested that when cycling people should have lights and hi-vis, that's why she was looking for both. Clearly if it's only 17 out of 102 it's a non issue though as heebeegeebee keeps telling us