Why do moany people on the internet hate police keeping cyclists safe? Close pass operation met with usual complaints; Ben Healy plays down Amstel drafting controversy; Tour of Britain stage finishes announced + more on the live blog

That seems more like bad attitude rather than poor eyesight inspired shitty driving.

I agree that, as a driver, I want to see cyclists and pedestrians using the road, at the maximum possible distance so that I can work to the maximum margin of safety for the least amount of effort. However, I also recognise that it is 100% my sole responsibility to drive such that I can stop within the minimum distance I can see to be clear.

As a cyclist of the non naked variety I have no problem putting on an outer garment that has the attribute of being conspicuous.

Still misconstruing everything possible, I see.

eburtthebike wrote:

Still misconstruing everything possible, I see.

Hardly misconstruing your sarcastic, dismissive comments, am I.

Calling people hard of thinking. How is that not sarcastic and dismissive?

I don't think it's sarcastic!
Poster has a track record of being offensive and dismissive.

perce wrote:

Calling people hard of thinking. How is that not sarcastic and dismissive?

If you don't realise that being conspicuous helps reduce the risk of being hit by the world's poor drivers (and there's a lot of them about), then you are hard of thinking. That is the polite version. It's not rude to call a spade a spade.

Yes it is.

What do you prefer to be called? 'Intellectually challenged'? 'Academically intolerant', perhaps? Perhaps a classic like 'a slice of bread short of a club sandwich'?

I'm happy to be flexible to mitigate your delicate sensibilities.

I don't know really - I think intellectually challenged is a bit much, I do the Times crossword most days. I'd say a bit daft perhaps. But not rude.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

I'm happy to be flexible to mitigate your delicate sensibilities.

You don't need to be 'flexible' (I can't quite figure out what that means in this context). But your posts, at least some of them, might be taken more seriously if you weren't so rude.

Rudeness like this is underpinned by a form of misplaced arrogance (isn't arrogance always misplaced?), which I've found over the years invariably means you don't know half as much as you want others to believe. If you choose to insult people repeatedly for no apparent reason, even after it is pointed out as such, then your opinions are worthless. In plain English: you come across as a real wanker.

I'm happy to come across that way to people who refuse to admit obvious and basic truths. Like putting on conspicuous clothing makes you easier to see from further away, putting an object which is designed to reduce head injury on your head reduces the chance of head injury, that a accelerating a heavy wheel requires less force than a lighter wheel (I even gave my workings and references to relevant text books in that case) or that 1 is not 100% less than 2 (that one was only yesterday wasn't it Rendel).

The only question I ask myself is why I engage in such 'discussion' in the first place.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

I'm happy to come across that way to people who refuse to admit obvious and basic truths anyone that doesn't agree with me.

I have amended your statement for accuracy.

I'll know not to even begin reading your posts in future. I will have no difficulty in finding a better way to waste my time. Wanker.

Simon E wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

I'm happy to come across that way to people who refuse to admit obvious and basic truths anyone that doesn't agree with me.

I have amended your statement for accuracy.

I'll know not to even begin reading your posts in future. I will have no difficulty in finding a better way to waste my time. Wanker.

That's probably for the best. If you're too obtuse to understand basic facts, you shouldn't waste your time.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

1 is not 100% less than 2 (that one was only yesterday wasn't it Rendel).

It was only yesterday that I tried to explain to you that difference between 1 and 2 (1) is 100% of 1, as indeed it is, and that the difference between 1 and 50 (49) is 4900% of 1, as indeed it is, yes.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

The only question I ask myself is why I engage in such 'discussion' in the first place.

Got me knackered, it just seems to get you enraged and annoys everyone else. I should go for a nice bike ride if I were you, it's a great way of getting a wee bit of perspective on things.

I agree

I agree

Well I should think so too!

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

perce wrote:

Calling people hard of thinking. How is that not sarcastic and dismissive?

If you don't realise that being conspicuous helps reduce the risk of being hit by the world's poor drivers (and there's a lot of them about), then you are hard of thinking.

If only!  The data shows that conspicuity has no effect on being hit by drivers who aren't looking.

I await your miscontrued response with barely concealed delight*.

*Exaggeration for effect: there is no concealed delight, nor any approximation of such an outcome: not even the conception of a reflection of an imagined picture of disappointment.

Firstly "no effect on drivers who aren't looking" is not the same thing as "no effect". Plainly a driver with their eyes shut is not going to see a cyclist whether they're wearing high Viz or not.

I'm noticing a trend with your comments along the lines of "But it doesn't work in the case of X, so there's no point in bothering." Helmets and high speed collisions being another example.

Perhaps you could share the data you're talking about.

Cycling weekly has a good summary of the effectiveness of high Viz.
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/what-is-the-evidence-that...

It helps.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

perce wrote:

Calling people hard of thinking. How is that not sarcastic and dismissive?

If you don't realise that being conspicuous helps reduce the risk of being hit by the world's poor drivers (and there's a lot of them about), then you are hard of thinking. That is the polite version. It's not rude to call a spade a spade.

I think we're just bickering about "reduce risk by how much?" and "how certain are you of that?"  Bickering because my safety is ultimately my responsibility but that includes noting when others (crap / entitled / habitually too casual drivers and their defenders) want to discount my safety for their convenience.

Clearly being wildly conspicuous sometimes has zero effect (as someone here has posted).  Equally we all have anecdata of looking into the dark and seeing something shiny (even better if moving, like pedals).

Personally I apply extra visibility measures - but then I've already got plenty reflectives, lights which just come on when I ride etc.  Plus I'm a helpful type.  It also allows me to soothe myself mentally.  No idea what actual protective effect this has - between "it's obviously useful" to "touch wood".

Reflectives are one step up from helmets in that they can potentially help avoid a collision, but as usual I'm more interested in even more effective solutions which have other benefits.

Anyone got any evidence of what the risk reduction is and some measure of how certain that is?

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

It's not rude to call a spade a spade.

Yes it is, even if what you're saying is true, it's pretty rude to call a fat person fat or an ugly person ugly even if they unquestionably are.

It's rude to tell the truth when it's relevant to the discussion at hand?

You must go out of your way to be offended.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

It's rude to tell the truth when it's relevant to the discussion at hand?

How is calling someone stupid relevant to the discussion? If you think they're that stupid (which is only your opinion, not "truth") why are you bothering to argue with them? It took me a long while but I've finally realised that it's a waste of time to bother to argue with a couple of the very stupid right wingers on here because, as Richard Dawkins sagely remarked, if you argue with an idiot the best outcome you can hope for is to say you've won an argument with an idiot.

I don't think Raab would agree !

Hirsute wrote:

Full face helmet required in this area.

Victim-blamer.

Hirsute wrote:

Not sure why they went with tomatoes "Police hunt for tomato-throwing attacker" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2w3wnjd8ro when apples were also thrown at people. Although an unripe tomato at ~ 30 mph would be painful. "The apparently unprovoked assaults happened in Eastbourne and Hastings in East Sussex." Full face helmet required in this area.

Was it an in-cider informant?

Either way, I hope they ketchup with the culprits