Ah. Apparently it's all our fault
Comments
-
notsoblue wrote:
No far from it.
I need to understand your point before I can debate it with you but at the moment I just don't see it, no pun intended
"Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity"
seanoconn0 -
@ initialized... Was being being flippant but totally agree. Always wear hi vis/ reflective, use lights, wear a helmet, take prime position, use hand signals, make eye contact etc etc. I like to enjoy my riding and stay alive...0
-
davmaggs wrote:The Police do lots of community advice type gigs ranging from inspecting locks in your home, to security marking bikes in town, to giving out anti-pickpocket flyers at stations, or warning women against using illegal minicabs. I don't think we'd be saying that they are victim blaming, instead we see it as trying to swing the odds back in the favour of the public.
My conclusion as to why this has panned on here is because some on here see cycling as political so they happily jump on a grievance.
I'd have more sympathy with the sentiments in your first paragraph if Essex Police were also stopping cars with an overall Euro NCAP rating of 3 stars and below and were advising the drivers of these vehicles of the increased risk they posed to themselves, their passengers and others.0 -
Origamist wrote:davmaggs wrote:The Police do lots of community advice type gigs ranging from inspecting locks in your home, to security marking bikes in town, to giving out anti-pickpocket flyers at stations, or warning women against using illegal minicabs. I don't think we'd be saying that they are victim blaming, instead we see it as trying to swing the odds back in the favour of the public.
My conclusion as to why this has panned on here is because some on here see cycling as political so they happily jump on a grievance.
I'd have more sympathy with the sentiments in your first paragraph if Essex Police were also stopping cars with an overall Euro NCAP rating of 3 stars and below and were advising the drivers of these vehicles of the increased risk they posed to themselves, their passengers and others.
Don't be daft, that would be far to hard for them to understand "Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity"
seanoconn0 -
Origamist wrote:davmaggs wrote:The Police do lots of community advice type gigs ranging from inspecting locks in your home, to security marking bikes in town, to giving out anti-pickpocket flyers at stations, or warning women against using illegal minicabs. I don't think we'd be saying that they are victim blaming, instead we see it as trying to swing the odds back in the favour of the public.
My conclusion as to why this has panned on here is because some on here see cycling as political so they happily jump on a grievance.
I'd have more sympathy with the sentiments in your first paragraph if Essex Police were also stopping cars with an overall Euro NCAP rating of 3 stars and below and were advising the drivers of these vehicles of the increased risk they posed to themselves, their passengers and others.
They could probably add cars without ABS, dark or silver cars, cars without HID lights, cars with no side-impact bars, cars with drum brakes, cars without airbags, pre-tensioning seatbelts, anti-submarine(*) seats. Death-traps all of 'em.
*: it's a real thing. But go all Sean Connery if you want.Sometimes parts break. Sometimes you crash. Sometimes it’s your fault.0 -
But go all Sean Connery if you want
Anti-shubmarine sheatsh? Shounds sherioush!Location: ciderspace0 -
arran77 wrote:Amazing innit
If you are failing to notice someone until you are within 10 feet of them then I'd suggest you need to get your cataracts sorted.
What is it with this thread with all the deliberate mis-interpretations/ mis-quotes of posts in this thread? Is there a full moon due or something?Faster than a tent.......0 -
Origamist wrote:davmaggs wrote:The Police do lots of community advice type gigs ranging from inspecting locks in your home, to security marking bikes in town, to giving out anti-pickpocket flyers at stations, or warning women against using illegal minicabs. I don't think we'd be saying that they are victim blaming, instead we see it as trying to swing the odds back in the favour of the public.
My conclusion as to why this has panned on here is because some on here see cycling as political so they happily jump on a grievance.
I'd have more sympathy with the sentiments in your first paragraph if Essex Police were also stopping cars with an overall Euro NCAP rating of 3 stars and below and were advising the drivers of these vehicles of the increased risk they posed to themselves, their passengers and others.
That's just nonsense whataboutery, and actually a really bad piece at that.
Next you'll be demanding that the fire brigade stop fitting smoke detectors for old people because its blaming them for burning to death, and in the spirit of whataboutery that the fire brigade should spend all their efforts on preventing fires and until such time no unplanned fire breaks out they should never do any safety campaigning.
daft isn't it?0 -
davmaggs wrote:Origamist wrote:davmaggs wrote:The Police do lots of community advice type gigs ranging from inspecting locks in your home, to security marking bikes in town, to giving out anti-pickpocket flyers at stations, or warning women against using illegal minicabs. I don't think we'd be saying that they are victim blaming, instead we see it as trying to swing the odds back in the favour of the public.
My conclusion as to why this has panned on here is because some on here see cycling as political so they happily jump on a grievance.
I'd have more sympathy with the sentiments in your first paragraph if Essex Police were also stopping cars with an overall Euro NCAP rating of 3 stars and below and were advising the drivers of these vehicles of the increased risk they posed to themselves, their passengers and others.
That's just nonsense whataboutery, and actually a really bad piece at that.
Next you'll be demanding that the fire brigade stop fitting smoke detectors for old people because its blaming them for burning to death, and in the spirit of whataboutery that the fire brigade should spend all their efforts on preventing fires and until such time no unplanned fire breaks out they should never do any safety campaigning.
daft isn't it?
It’s peculiar that you seem comfortable with the police stopping cyclists and lecturing them on the perceived safety benefits of Hi-Viz clothing and helmets (when the available evidence is both inconclusive and contested) but consider it daft "whataboutery" that the police should not be similarly tasked with approaching motorists and discussing NCAP safety standards (which are predicated on stringent and rigorous vehicle testing) and whose results correlate with real-life injury risks.0 -
Origamist wrote:
It’s peculiar that you seem comfortable with the police stopping cyclists and lecturing them on the perceived safety benefits of Hi-Viz clothing and helmets (when the available evidence is both inconclusive and contested) but consider it daft "whataboutery" that the police should not be similarly tasked with approaching motorists and discussing NCAP safety standards (which are predicated on stringent and rigorous vehicle testing) and whose results correlate with real-life injury risks.
You are still engaging in whataboutry. Even worse, insisting on sticking to a really rubbish version of it. At least try and be creative.
By the way the NCAP system isn't an example you want to start a campaign on as it has a lot of problems of its own.0 -
-
davmaggs wrote:Origamist wrote:
It’s peculiar that you seem comfortable with the police stopping cyclists and lecturing them on the perceived safety benefits of Hi-Viz clothing and helmets (when the available evidence is both inconclusive and contested) but consider it daft "whataboutery" that the police should not be similarly tasked with approaching motorists and discussing NCAP safety standards (which are predicated on stringent and rigorous vehicle testing) and whose results correlate with real-life injury risks.
You are still engaging in whataboutry. Even worse, insisting on sticking to a really rubbish version of it. At least try and be creative.
By the way the NCAP system isn't an example you want to start a campaign on as it has a lot of problems of its own.
Well, in that case, you should now be more, not less, comfortable with the police stopping you as a motorist on the grounds of a low Euro NCAP rating as the benefits of Hi-Viz clothing and helmets are similarly based on problematic data. That sounds daft - but this is your confused rationale we are exploring...0 -
Initialised wrote:FFS I post some serious, real, propper, peer reviewed science that shows why SMIDYs is a real thing and you start talking about light levels, doppler effect and the cyclists waist line. You must all want to die or summat. Get te feck ye omahdons. And take the lane if you think they ain't seen ye or that London'll be having a die in on your account.
There is the assumption that people see things in the same way a camera does, whereas the reality is very far from that, with substantial portion being filled in by the brain.0 -
davmaggs wrote:
That's just nonsense whataboutery, and actually a really bad piece at that.
Next you'll be demanding that the fire brigade stop fitting smoke detectors for old people because its blaming them for burning to death, and in the spirit of whataboutery that the fire brigade should spend all their efforts on preventing fires and until such time no unplanned fire breaks out they should never do any safety campaigning.
daft isn't it?
Are you seriously so stupid as to fail to notice that the fire brigade have never had and are not supposed to have the responsibility of stopping people from setting fires, by force if necessary?
Even if they did, that analogy fails: it would only work if it was someone else setting fire to their house.
Even then, that analogy fails: it would require the police to offer helmets and hi-vis for free.
I really hope I missed a joke, nobody's that stupid. Are they?0 -
Rolf F wrote:arran77 wrote:Amazing innit
If you are failing to notice someone until you are within 10 feet of them then I'd suggest you need to get your cataracts sorted.
What is it with this thread with all the deliberate mis-interpretations/ mis-quotes of posts in this thread? Is there a full moon due or something?
quite possibly...and Im not quite sure what a photo taken with a camera thats clearly using a flash (it tells you that on the wikipedia page the image comes from) is meant to tell us about hi viz...other than reflective stripes reflect back hi intensity light shone at them...who knew
at best all it demonstrates is how not to take a photo, as its a fluffed exposure using a camera stuck on green square auto with a totally needless fill in flash. and its just not what eyeball mk1 sees at all in these situations0 -
airbag wrote:davmaggs wrote:
That's just nonsense whataboutery, and actually a really bad piece at that.
Next you'll be demanding that the fire brigade stop fitting smoke detectors for old people because its blaming them for burning to death, and in the spirit of whataboutery that the fire brigade should spend all their efforts on preventing fires and until such time no unplanned fire breaks out they should never do any safety campaigning.
daft isn't it?
Are you seriously so stupid as to fail to notice that the fire brigade have never had and are not supposed to have the responsibility of stopping people from setting fires, by force if necessary?
Even if they did, that analogy fails: it would only work if it was someone else setting fire to their house.
Even then, that analogy fails: it would require the police to offer helmets and hi-vis for free.
I really hope I missed a joke, nobody's that stupid. Are they?
What on earth are you rambling on about?
I've made no claim that the fire brigade stops people setting fires by force, you are inventing things to try and kick the ar*** out of an objection you to a local awareness campaign.
I have pointed out that lots of public bodies run awareness campaigns on all sorts of things and they aren't seen as victim blaming (see posts above) and people don't engage in childish whataboutery. They take the flyer, walk on, and don't see a political conspiracy to undermine their means of moving about.
What you and the other loons appear to be saying is that no public body should ever run any campaign until ever other problem slightly related to an issue is solved first, and to even try to run a campaign is to be blaming victims.
edit; here's the link to free smoke alarms. I'm sure the LFB will look kindly on your objection to the elderly being victimised by their help so feel free to write to them. http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/HomeFireSafetyVisit.asp0 -
awavey wrote:Rolf F wrote:arran77 wrote:Amazing innit
If you are failing to notice someone until you are within 10 feet of them then I'd suggest you need to get your cataracts sorted.
What is it with this thread with all the deliberate mis-interpretations/ mis-quotes of posts in this thread? Is there a full moon due or something?
quite possibly...and Im not quite sure what a photo taken with a camera thats clearly using a flash (it tells you that on the wikipedia page the image comes from) is meant to tell us about hi viz...other than reflective stripes reflect back hi intensity light shone at them...who knew
at best all it demonstrates is how not to take a photo, as its a fluffed exposure using a camera stuck on green square auto with a totally needless fill in flash. and its just not what eyeball mk1 sees at all in these situations
It demonstrates that it's easier to see the one in the hi viz but maybe that's too difficult for you to understand :P"Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity"
seanoconn0 -
No - it doesn't ... because the way the photograph was taken is floored ... but perhaps that's too difficult for you to understand ...arran77 wrote:It demonstrates that it's easier to see the one in the hi viz but maybe that's too difficult for you to understand :P
It doesn't mean that HiViz isn't easier to see - it just that this photo doesn't prove it - unless your eyes have built in flash and cannot compensate for lower light conditions.0 -
F**k me why wont this thread die?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!!??!?!
And btw, I got no problem seeing the guy in black in that photo - he's perfectly silhouetted 0 -
Bit gloomy this morning so thought I'd do my best to help the idiot motorists spot my 6'2" bulk - hi viz jacket, 3 lights rear, 1 light front, reflectives on spokes. Some pr1ck still almost wiped me out, decided to change lane when his stopped moving and I had to take emergency evasive action. Which goes to show, the bad drivers will not see whatever you do and I still reckon that in daylight / on well lit roads the good drivers will see you whatever you do.
So, depressingly, the main reason for all this kit is so that when you do get wiped out by a SMIDSY, the courts won't slash your damages due to "contributory negligence". Depressing isn't it?0 -
It is very unfortunate but yes, that is my conclusion.BigMat wrote:..........So, depressingly, the main reason for all this kit is so that when you do get wiped out by a SMIDSY, the courts won't slash your damages due to "contributory negligence". Depressing isn't it?
Very depressing.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Slowbike wrote:
No - it doesn't ... because the way the photograph was taken is floored ... but perhaps that's too difficult for you to understand ...arran77 wrote:It demonstrates that it's easier to see the one in the hi viz but maybe that's too difficult for you to understand :P
It doesn't mean that HiViz isn't easier to see - it just that this photo doesn't prove it - unless your eyes have built in flash and cannot compensate for lower light conditions.
FFS, which is easier to see out of the two :roll:"Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity"
seanoconn0 -
The one on the left if you have a flash attached to your car.arran77 wrote:FFS, which is easier to see out of the two :roll:0 -
notsoblue wrote:
The one on the left if you have a flash attached to your car.arran77 wrote:FFS, which is easier to see out of the two :roll:
Forget the flash, I doubt even you have flash vision eyes, in a dull environment what stands out better, black or yellow, forget the reflective bits."Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity"
seanoconn0 -
arran77 wrote:Slowbike wrote:
No - it doesn't ... because the way the photograph was taken is floored ... but perhaps that's too difficult for you to understand ...arran77 wrote:It demonstrates that it's easier to see the one in the hi viz but maybe that's too difficult for you to understand :P
It doesn't mean that HiViz isn't easier to see - it just that this photo doesn't prove it - unless your eyes have built in flash and cannot compensate for lower light conditions.
FFS, which is easier to see out of the two :roll:
Do you mean - which one is easier to see on a monitor in a photograph taken by a camera phone with flash ...
or ... as originally inferred ...
Which one would be easier to spot if you were standing at the point where the camera was at that point in time...
The two answers are NOT necessarily the same...0 -
Slowbike wrote:arran77 wrote:Slowbike wrote:
No - it doesn't ... because the way the photograph was taken is floored ... but perhaps that's too difficult for you to understand ...arran77 wrote:It demonstrates that it's easier to see the one in the hi viz but maybe that's too difficult for you to understand :P
It doesn't mean that HiViz isn't easier to see - it just that this photo doesn't prove it - unless your eyes have built in flash and cannot compensate for lower light conditions.
FFS, which is easier to see out of the two :roll:
Do you mean - which one is easier to see on a monitor in a photograph taken by a camera phone with flash ...
or ... as originally inferred ...
Which one would be easier to spot if you were standing at the point where the camera was at that point in time...
The two answers are NOT necessarily the same...
RTFP
I said ignore the flash, if you were in a dark environment what is easier to see, yellow or black."Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity"
seanoconn0 -
How dark?arran77 wrote:Slowbike wrote:arran77 wrote:Slowbike wrote:
No - it doesn't ... because the way the photograph was taken is floored ... but perhaps that's too difficult for you to understand ...arran77 wrote:It demonstrates that it's easier to see the one in the hi viz but maybe that's too difficult for you to understand :P
It doesn't mean that HiViz isn't easier to see - it just that this photo doesn't prove it - unless your eyes have built in flash and cannot compensate for lower light conditions.
FFS, which is easier to see out of the two :roll:
Do you mean - which one is easier to see on a monitor in a photograph taken by a camera phone with flash ...
or ... as originally inferred ...
Which one would be easier to spot if you were standing at the point where the camera was at that point in time...
The two answers are NOT necessarily the same...
RTFP
I said ignore the flash, if you were in a dark environment what is easier to see, yellow or black.0 -
Veronese68 wrote:
How dark?arran77 wrote:Slowbike wrote:arran77 wrote:Slowbike wrote:
No - it doesn't ... because the way the photograph was taken is floored ... but perhaps that's too difficult for you to understand ...arran77 wrote:It demonstrates that it's easier to see the one in the hi viz but maybe that's too difficult for you to understand :P
It doesn't mean that HiViz isn't easier to see - it just that this photo doesn't prove it - unless your eyes have built in flash and cannot compensate for lower light conditions.
FFS, which is easier to see out of the two :roll:
Do you mean - which one is easier to see on a monitor in a photograph taken by a camera phone with flash ...
or ... as originally inferred ...
Which one would be easier to spot if you were standing at the point where the camera was at that point in time...
The two answers are NOT necessarily the same...
RTFP
I said ignore the flash, if you were in a dark environment what is easier to see, yellow or black.
No light source - because apparently our eyes can see HiViz in pitch black ...0 -
How pedantic can people get?
The silhouetted cyclist on the left is clearly visible against the bright light outside the archway.
But that is not the desired answer now, is it?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Veronese68 wrote:
How dark?arran77 wrote:Slowbike wrote:arran77 wrote:Slowbike wrote:
No - it doesn't ... because the way the photograph was taken is floored ... but perhaps that's too difficult for you to understand ...arran77 wrote:It demonstrates that it's easier to see the one in the hi viz but maybe that's too difficult for you to understand :P
It doesn't mean that HiViz isn't easier to see - it just that this photo doesn't prove it - unless your eyes have built in flash and cannot compensate for lower light conditions.
FFS, which is easier to see out of the two :roll:
Do you mean - which one is easier to see on a monitor in a photograph taken by a camera phone with flash ...
or ... as originally inferred ...
Which one would be easier to spot if you were standing at the point where the camera was at that point in time...
The two answers are NOT necessarily the same...
RTFP
I said ignore the flash, if you were in a dark environment what is easier to see, yellow or black.
As dark as a dark dark thing on a dark dark night in a dark dark place.PBlakeney wrote:How pedantic can people get?
The silhouetted cyclist on the left is clearly visible against the bright light outside the archway.
But that is not the desired answer now, is it?
I don't mind that answer, it's true, what I want to know is which one is more visible "Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity"
seanoconn0
