Ah. Apparently it's all our fault

DonDaddyD

Personally I think being able to see something and being aware that something is there are two different things.

team47b

I'm colour blind and can't see yellow

pblakeney

arran77 wrote:

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

What I want to know is, why is it important?
Being seen is all that counts, not being seen very brightly.
Refer to some of the earlier posts as to why it is fairly irrelevant anyway. Like this:-

BigMat wrote:

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?

arran77

team47b wrote:

I'm colour blind and can't see yellow

What about the reflective bits

Agent57

DJFish wrote:

Have you ever wondered why bikers keep their lights on during the day?

Is it Volvo envy?

Pituophis

arran77 wrote:

team47b wrote:

I'm colour blind and can't see yellow

What about the reflective bits

What reflective bits? :shock:

arran77

Agent57 wrote:

DJFish wrote:

Have you ever wondered why bikers keep their lights on during the day?

Is it Volvo envy?

No, it's because it makes 'em look 'ard

arran77

Pituophis wrote:

arran77 wrote:

team47b wrote:

I'm colour blind and can't see yellow

What about the reflective bits

What reflective bits? :shock:

I think it's best you stick to walking with a dog and a white cane, not that the colour is important if you're colour blind

Agent57

A few months old, but "a new study from the University of Bath and Brunel University offers the view that no matter what clothing a cyclist wears, around 1-2% of drivers will still pass dangerously close when overtaking."

http://www.freight-online.co.uk/road/fr ... angerously

arran77

Agent57 wrote:

A few months old, but "a new study from the University of Bath and Brunel University offers the view that no matter what clothing a cyclist wears, around 1-2% of drivers will still pass dangerously close when overtaking."

http://www.freight-online.co.uk/road/fr ... angerously

Not sure if it was this study or a different one but I think they found that the only time there was a little more gap given was if the cyclist was wearing a hi viz that said 'police' on it

rolf_f

arran77 wrote:

I don't mind that answer, it's true, what I want to know is which one is more visible

Why don't you find a slightly more sensible photograph to illustrate the point (though I'm sure we all respect your Google skills in successfully finding such an unrepresentative illustration - it must have taken some effort!). In the meantime we can probably agree, based on your photo, that Hi Vis doesn't make much differenceto our safety if we spend most of our time cycling out of dark passageways into daylight when followed very closely by other traffic.

arran77

What you do in dark passageways is up to you my friend.

arran77

Rolf F wrote:

arran77 wrote:

I don't mind that answer, it's true, what I want to know is which one is more visible

Why don't you find a slightly more sensible photograph to illustrate the point

Point taken Rolf, I found these photos that you'll probably understand as you seem familiar with dark passageways.

The first has no hi viz in sight.....



In this next picture the ladies of the night all have their hi viz on......



I think there may have been some enhancing of the background colours in the second one so you'll probably flame me anyway :roll:

slowbike

arran77 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

arran77 wrote:

I don't mind that answer, it's true, what I want to know is which one is more visible

Why don't you find a slightly more sensible photograph to illustrate the point

Point taken Rolf, I found these photos that you'll probably understand as you seem familiar with dark passageways.

The first has no hi viz in sight.....

Nice shutters over the arched window - but I think your photography skills are duff - you've completely missed the jogger - perhaps they were just too fast for you ...

arran77

Slowbike wrote:

arran77 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

arran77 wrote:

I don't mind that answer, it's true, what I want to know is which one is more visible

Why don't you find a slightly more sensible photograph to illustrate the point

Point taken Rolf, I found these photos that you'll probably understand as you seem familiar with dark passageways.

The first has no hi viz in sight.....

Nice hooters on the blonde - but I think my stalking skills are duff - I completely missed the tom's - perhaps they were just too classy for me ...

slowbike

arran77 wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

arran77 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

arran77 wrote:

I don't mind that answer, it's true, what I want to know is which one is more visible

Why don't you find a slightly more sensible photograph to illustrate the point

Point taken Rolf, I found these photos that you'll probably understand as you seem familiar with dark passageways.

The first has no hi viz in sight.....

Nice hooters on the blonde - but I think my stalking skills are duff - I completely missed the tom's - perhaps they were just too classy for me ...

You really are just an obnoxious twonk ...

arran77

Slowbike wrote:

arran77 wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

arran77 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

arran77 wrote:

I don't mind that answer, it's true, what I want to know is which one is more visible

Why don't you find a slightly more sensible photograph to illustrate the point

Point taken Rolf, I found these photos that you'll probably understand as you seem familiar with dark passageways.

The first has no hi viz in sight.....

Nice hooters on the blonde - but I think my stalking skills are duff - I completely missed the tom's - perhaps they were just too classy for me ...

You really are just an obnoxious twonk ...

Thank you

rjsterry

arran77 wrote:

Thank you

Can't you see the signs? No fishing, it says.

rolf_f

arran77 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

arran77 wrote:

I don't mind that answer, it's true, what I want to know is which one is more visible

Why don't you find a slightly more sensible photograph to illustrate the point

Point taken Rolf, I found these photos that you'll probably understand as you seem familiar with dark passageways.

So says the person who spends his time googling for pictures of dark passageways and hookers.

arran77

Rolf F wrote:

arran77 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

arran77 wrote:

I don't mind that answer, it's true, what I want to know is which one is more visible

Why don't you find a slightly more sensible photograph to illustrate the point

Point taken Rolf, I found these photos that you'll probably understand as you seem familiar with dark passageways.

So says the person who spends his time googling for pictures of dark passageways and hookers.

arran77

rjsterry wrote:

arran77 wrote:

Thank you

Can't you see the signs? No fishing, it says.

There's a difference between fishing and banter but maybe banter is frowned upon too :P

cookeeemonster

Agent57 wrote:

DJFish wrote:

Have you ever wondered why bikers keep their lights on during the day?

Is it Volvo envy?

Nope, it's been a legal requirement for all new motorbikes, scooters and mopeds to have them on all the time for around 10 years I think - could be more or less. Basically you cant turn them off without bodging it yourself.

They're trying to do the same for cars as well - totally negating any effect of the motorbike ruling and probably making things more dangerous for cyclists during the day - unless they're all kitted out with 500 lumen+ lights...

arran77

CookeeeMonster wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

DJFish wrote:

Have you ever wondered why bikers keep their lights on during the day?

Is it Volvo envy?

Nope, it's been a legal requirement for all new motorbikes, scooters and mopeds to have them on all the time for around 10 years I think - could be more or less. Basically you cant turn them off without bodging it yourself.

They're trying to do the same for cars as well - totally negating any effect of the motorbike ruling and probably making things more dangerous for cyclists during the day - unless they're all kitted out with 500 lumen+ lights...

Day time running lights have been around for a long time in some cars, Volvo, Saab etc.

Always caused a stink when taking the car on the continent where although not breaking any laws was very much frowned upon, easy solution was to remove the fuse for the daytime lights!

Agent57

CookeeeMonster wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

DJFish wrote:

Have you ever wondered why bikers keep their lights on during the day?

Is it Volvo envy?

Nope, it's been a legal requirement for all new motorbikes, scooters and mopeds to have them on all the time for around 10 years I think

Good to know, but I was joking.

I turn on the lights on my motorbike when I ride it, even in daylight. But it's a manual job for me.

ballysmate

Agent57 wrote:

CookeeeMonster wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

DJFish wrote:

Have you ever wondered why bikers keep their lights on during the day?

Is it Volvo envy?

Nope, it's been a legal requirement for all new motorbikes, scooters and mopeds to have them on all the time for around 10 years I think

Good to know, but I was joking.

I turn on the lights on my motorbike when I ride it, even in daylight. But it's a manual job for me.

If you ask Arran nicely where he took the pic of the hookers, they could perhaps sort the hand job for you.

itboffin

airbag

davmaggs wrote:

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.asp

Why don't you actually read my post you 'tard. It addresses all the points you've just made, because they're the same points you've made already, and they're just as stupid the second time.

arran77

Ballysmate wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

CookeeeMonster wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

DJFish wrote:

Have you ever wondered why bikers keep their lights on during the day?

Is it Volvo envy?

Nope, it's been a legal requirement for all new motorbikes, scooters and mopeds to have them on all the time for around 10 years I think

Good to know, but I was joking.

I turn on the lights on my motorbike when I ride it, even in daylight. But it's a manual job for me.

If you ask Arran nicely where he took the pic of the hookers, they could perhaps sort the hand job for you.

Based on my poor googling skills they're Spanish - ladies of the night there are required to wear high viz there to increase their safety

notsoblue

arran77 wrote:

Based on my poor googling skills they're Spanish - ladies of the night there are required to wear high viz there to increase their safety

Thats because they're not covered with these: http://road.cc/content/review/46514-exp ... rear-light

arran77

notsoblue wrote:

arran77 wrote:

Based on my poor googling skills they're Spanish - ladies of the night there are required to wear high viz there to increase their safety

Thats because they're not covered with these: http://road.cc/content/review/46514-exp ... rear-light

Exposure rear light.....very apt