Cyclists without lights - something needs to be done
Discussion
cb1965 said:
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.
Pretty ironic accusation.
Re-run query
Bingo!
yonex said:
cb1965 said:
Flounce? You wish!
A troll, plain and simple (very)
PS glad to see you posting true to form
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?
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.
But, he has captured the way you operate in general on every thread perfectly accurately.
I assume you were smart enough to work out the system, but the more posts you've attempted it, the more the trend manifests.
Busted!!
Can't be arsed to read the whole thread, but I wonder if anyone does the same as me? I've just started carrying a set of these in my car at all times https://ebay.us/4Crej5
Very quick and easy to fit (10 seconds), bright, very cheap.
I stop and hand them out to any cyclists I see on the road without lights.
I came very close to wiping out a cretin on a large-ish 3 lane roundabout a while ago - dark clothing, dark bike, no lights, no hi-viz. Inside lane, very poor street lighting. Really made me think.
If it saves one motorist from the horror of maiming or killing just one of these morons it'll be more than worth it.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not a cyclist-hater. I used to ride 200 miles a week myself. These guys really are f
king idiots though.
Very quick and easy to fit (10 seconds), bright, very cheap.
I stop and hand them out to any cyclists I see on the road without lights.
I came very close to wiping out a cretin on a large-ish 3 lane roundabout a while ago - dark clothing, dark bike, no lights, no hi-viz. Inside lane, very poor street lighting. Really made me think.
If it saves one motorist from the horror of maiming or killing just one of these morons it'll be more than worth it.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not a cyclist-hater. I used to ride 200 miles a week myself. These guys really are f
king idiots though. mrtwisty said:
Can't be arsed to read the whole thread, but I wonder if anyone does the same as me? I've just started carrying a set of these in my car at all times https://ebay.us/4Crej5
Very quick and easy to fit (10 seconds), bright, very cheap.
I stop and hand them out to any cyclists I see on the road without lights.
Out of interest what is the response when you confront them and offer them the lights? Gracious or do they tell you to mind your own business?Very quick and easy to fit (10 seconds), bright, very cheap.
I stop and hand them out to any cyclists I see on the road without lights.
g3org3y said:
Out of interest what is the response when you confront them and offer them the lights? Gracious or do they tell you to mind your own business?
I've had everything from dead-eyed incomprehension to a 'cheers mate!'. I wouldn't say I 'confront' them, I just pull up a fair distance ahead of them and wind a window down, then set one of the lights flashing and call 'here mate, I've got some lights you can have'. No point being arsey or aggressive with them - the idea is to win them over and get them to use the bloody things
cb1965 said:
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.
Well, you seem to care enough to write a very long post, and to personally refer to me twice.cb1965 said:
Any chance we can get back on topic though?
That's up to you. It was you that went way off topic with your personal attacks, straight after I posted about keeping spare lights in the office.Edited by Mave on Wednesday 14th November 09:34
Kuji said:
Maybe in this case, you have an argument for adjudication.
But, he has captured the way you operate in general on every thread perfectly accurately.
I assume you were smart enough to work out the system, but the more posts you've attempted it, the more the trend manifests.
Busted!!
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.But, he has captured the way you operate in general on every thread perfectly accurately.
I assume you were smart enough to work out the system, but the more posts you've attempted it, the more the trend manifests.
Busted!!
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.cb1965 said:
heebeegeetee said:
To address the thread title - yes, possibly something should be done
Excellent - at last - so what do you suggest?This is the same reason why I don't feel we need to enforce HC rules on us pedestrians not making ourselves visible either, but at least you could point out to the 12 year old that she's the same as the cyclists when she's walking about at night. It's about this time in her life that she'll be more conscious about her appearance so I feel there's no chance of you getting her to wear some nice, practical hi-viz.
It's not ideal, and pedestrians will continue to be killed at a higher rate and a higher number than cyclists, but there's still far worse to worry about.
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?PS glad to see you posting true to form
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.
heebeegeetee said:
cb1965 said:
heebeegeetee said:
To address the thread title - yes, possibly something should be done
Excellent - at last - so what do you suggest?This is the same reason why I don't feel we need to enforce HC rules on us pedestrians not making ourselves visible either, but at least you could point out to the 12 year old that she's the same as the cyclists when she's walking about at night. It's about this time in her life that she'll be more conscious about her appearance so I feel there's no chance of you getting her to wear some nice, practical hi-viz.
It's not ideal, and pedestrians will continue to be killed at a higher rate and a higher number than cyclists, but there's still far worse to worry about.
Sad Ken said:
cb1965 said:
Look I know the usual mob will roll their eyes, but this has actually come from my partner's 12 year old daughter who did a school project about cycle safety (really good idea by the school). Anyway she was with her mum yesterday travelling a journey of about 12 miles at 6:30pm, her mum was driving and she decided to record the number of cyclists without lights while her mum drove. In short she saw 102 cyclists of which she recorded 34 riding without any form of lighting or hi-vis clothing.
That is not a 'tiny minority'! It also pretty much backs up what I used to see in London.
I'm not getting into a drivers vs cyclists argument over this (as the vast majority of drivers have lights on their vehicles that work anyway), but asking what can sensibly be done? I believe the police did an operation in Birmingham last year where they stopped cyclists without lights, showed them why it was a stupid idea to not have them and then issued them with a free set. I think this needs to be rolled out across the country. I know people will say they should buy their own, but to be honest if it saves just one from being knocked down and killed and the angst to the driver who has to carry that for the rest of their lives it's a small price to pay. It's clear some education is required at the very least.
Thoughts?
Aye and it's always the "maniac motorist"s fault when they almost get hit. That is not a 'tiny minority'! It also pretty much backs up what I used to see in London.
I'm not getting into a drivers vs cyclists argument over this (as the vast majority of drivers have lights on their vehicles that work anyway), but asking what can sensibly be done? I believe the police did an operation in Birmingham last year where they stopped cyclists without lights, showed them why it was a stupid idea to not have them and then issued them with a free set. I think this needs to be rolled out across the country. I know people will say they should buy their own, but to be honest if it saves just one from being knocked down and killed and the angst to the driver who has to carry that for the rest of their lives it's a small price to pay. It's clear some education is required at the very least.
Thoughts?
Whilst wearing hi-viz and seven (7) lights.
colin79666 said:
Ares said:
Don't forget that you can't tell if your rear light fails, or turns itself off. It's not like a car where you get a dashboard light warming you. If someone has a front but no rear, it's likely it has turned itself off, or failed. The polite thing to do is let them know....in the same way you would alert a driver that has forgotten to put their lights on and driving round on DRLs.
All the more reason to check periodically and back it up with some reflective clothing. I’m sometimes a cyclist too and would never go out in the dark and rely solely on one light. cb1965 said:
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:
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!
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.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 s
te 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 t
ts 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
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 cb1965 on Tuesday 13th November 22:42
I've also NEVER made excuses for people riding without lights. Who is lying/spouting bulls
t facts now? 
PS - Opinions are fine. They are like a
holes as Dirty Harry said.yonex said:
OP gets called out, argues with everyone then has a flounce.
Standard CBeebies.
...then give it a couple of pages and he will have an 'accident' where a cyclist spooked a circus elephant/unicorn/pink zebra and caused him/his car/his ego/his trolley bus/his zimmer frame significant damage. He'll swear its true, spend hours and several pages defending (on several threads) but CBA spending 20secs posting the picture to prove it, despite having one.Standard CBeebies.
Ares said:
...then give it a couple of pages and he will have an 'accident' where a cyclist spooked a circus elephant/unicorn/pink zebra and caused him/his car/his ego/his trolley bus/his zimmer frame significant damage. He'll swear its true, spend hours and several pages defending (on several threads) but CBA spending 20secs posting the picture to prove it, despite having one.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff