Rear LED light effectiveness.

[Terry]

In article <[email protected]>,
pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com (Mark
Thompson) wrote:

> The OP does seem to be frothing at the mouth rather too much

If you had anything worth adding you wouldn't need to attack the OP would
you?

 

[Terry]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]e (Tom Crispin) wrote:

> I you consider the value of a Chinese child to be the same as a
> European child, you would have an equal concern for the safety of both
> races.

I would not impute a disreputable thought to you in order to attack it and
would appreciate the same courtesy from you.

This is not China. There are no families of five on a bicycle in London.
Spurious comparisons do not mitigate the criminal stupidity I saw.

You and others weren't there which presumably explains why I am faced with
such a froth of blather and innuendo.

 

[Terry]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (David Martin) wrote:


> Strangely enough I expect them all to survive.

Strangely enough, though none of my interlocutors is in any position to
pass judgment on the specific circumstances of the event I reported, that
little fact has not in any way deterred them from doing so.

For the last time, I saw a dangerous folly involving a child. Please spare
me any more of these spurious comparisons and justifications.

 

[Tony Raven]

Terry wrote:
>
> Spurious comparisons do not mitigate the criminal stupidity I saw.
>

You've used the phrase "criminal stupidity" a lot for this incident.
What is your evidence that it was criminally stupid. Yes it was
criminal as he was breaking the law by riding without lights. But what
evidence do you have that riding without lights is dangerous or more
dangerous than normal cycling or walking. There is certainly no
evidence of a higher accident rate in unlit cyclists than lit cyclists
that I am aware of. Perhaps you could point me to some.

I use lights but I've yet to find anything that demonstrates a safety
benefit from using them.


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:23 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
[email protected] (Terry) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>
>> I you consider the value of a Chinese child to be the same as a
>> European child, you would have an equal concern for the safety of both
>> races.
>
>I would not impute a disreputable thought to you in order to attack it and
>would appreciate the same courtesy from you.

What exactly did you mean when you inferred that comparring the safety
of cycling in Chinese cities with British cities were not comparable?

>This is not China. There are no families of five on a bicycle in London.
>Spurious comparisons do not mitigate the criminal stupidity I saw.

Due to the one child per family policy, it is rare to see a family of
five on a bike in China, especially in the cities where the one child
policy is most rigorously enforced.

>You and others weren't there which presumably explains why I am faced with
>such a froth of blather and innuendo.

You're right, we weren't there. But you posted a safety critisism in
an open forum - something at which people wouldn't bat an eyelid in a
great many countries around the World.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

 

[Terry]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Tony
Raven) wrote:

> Terry wrote:
> >
> > Spurious comparisons do not mitigate the criminal stupidity I saw.
> >
>
> You've used the phrase "criminal stupidity" a lot for this incident.

I've used it twice. Is that 'a lot' or are you perhaps over-egging the
souffle? You agree that it's a crime to ride without lights at night so
what's your point? Are you suggesting that you are best placed to judge
whether an event you did not witness does not amount to stupidity?

In respect of the rest of your comments you may find more traction with
someone of Lord Hailsham's ilk who seeks debate for competition rather
than illumination.

But what
> evidence do you have that riding without lights is dangerous or more
> dangerous than normal cycling or walking. There is certainly no
> evidence of a higher accident rate in unlit cyclists than lit cyclists
> that I am aware of. Perhaps you could point me to some.

 

[Terry]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]e (Tom Crispin) wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:23 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
> [email protected] (Terry) wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
> >
> >> I you consider the value of a Chinese child to be the same as a
> >> European child, you would have an equal concern for the safety of
> >> both races.
> >
> >I would not impute a disreputable thought to you in order to attack it
> and >would appreciate the same courtesy from you.
>
> What exactly did you mean when you inferred that comparring the safety
> of cycling in Chinese cities with British cities were not comparable?

Why don't you think about it and figure it out for yourself? The last time
I expressed an opinion you ignored it and accused me or racism in so many
words. Take some time. Think it through. It's not a race. We have all the
time in the world to do this properly.

> You're right, we weren't there. But you posted a safety critisism in
> an open forum - something at which people wouldn't bat an eyelid in a
> great many countries around the World.

Am I not allowed to think? May I not hold opinions that differ from those
people?

 

[Mark Thompson]

>> The OP does seem to be frothing at the mouth rather too much
>
> If you had anything worth adding you wouldn't need to attack the OP
> would you?

Not an attack, just a vaguely humourous observation.

What I had to add was that the actions of the person you saw were illegal,
but, as described, not particularly dangerous. I would imagine that
carrying a child down the stairs would be considerably more "dangerous".

I should add that I do not approve of his actions but, if it weren't for
them being illegal, would not disapprove either.

 

[Terry]

In article <[email protected]>,
pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com (Mark
Thompson) wrote:

> >> The OP does seem to be frothing at the mouth rather too much
> >
> > If you had anything worth adding you wouldn't need to attack the OP
> > would you?
>
> Not an attack, just a vaguely humourous observation.

It's not amusing to try to undermine an opinion by levelling accusations
of frothing at the mouth, and post-hoc 'only joking' is facile at best.

> What I had to add was that the actions of the person you saw were
> illegal, but, as described, not particularly dangerous.

Well, then, I apologise for not providing sufficent detail to clearly
identify the action as dangerous for those not able to attend personally.

> I would imagine that carrying a child down the stairs would be
> considerably more "dangerous".

Do you often encounter cars on the stairs? Suddenly emerging from a side
door perhaps, maybe piloted by someone distracted by an important call on
their handheld mobile even.

 

[Tony Raven]

Terry wrote:
>
> Do you often encounter cars on the stairs? Suddenly emerging from a side
> door perhaps, maybe piloted by someone distracted by an important call on
> their handheld mobile even.
>

Nope but doesn't stop climbing or descending stairs causing far more
injuries than cycling ever does. I repeat, cycling is an extremely safe
activity despite what the meedya would have you believe.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[Mark Thompson]

>> I would imagine that carrying a child down the stairs would be
>> considerably more "dangerous".
>
> Do you often encounter cars on the stairs? Suddenly emerging from a
> side door perhaps, maybe piloted by someone distracted by an important
> call on their handheld mobile even.

Now who's being facile?

 

[Terry]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Tony
Raven) wrote:

> Terry wrote:
> >
> > Do you often encounter cars on the stairs? Suddenly emerging from a
> > side door perhaps, maybe piloted by someone distracted by an
> > important call on their handheld mobile even.
> >
>
> Nope but doesn't stop climbing or descending stairs causing far more
> injuries than cycling ever does.

Let's assume that this is fact. As it happens, I have no reason to believe
that it isn't.

So what? No amount of people falling on, down, or even up stairs can
mitigate the folly of the action I witnessed.

Your point is just completely irrelevant. A side-issue. A distraction.

> I repeat, cycling is an extremely safe activity despite what the meedya
> would have you believe.

Why do you assume that a) I think cycling is not safe, b) that I am
influenced by the media in that opinion, and c) that there is even the
slightest grounds to infer either from my single report of an act of
criminal stupidity?

If it helps, I commute approx. 18 miles daily through central London
traffic in fine weather and foul, rain or sleet, hot or cold, morning,
lunchtime, and evening, and I don't leave the bicycle at home because it's
a bit cold or wet. I don't do this because I'm, like, a real man... man,
but because I enjoy cycling. I don't read newspapers, at least not any in
which lies about cycling are published. And I'm tired of having my motives
impugned for petty partisan purposes.

 

[Terry]

In article <[email protected]>,
pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com (Mark
Thompson) wrote:

> >> I would imagine that carrying a child down the stairs would be
> >> considerably more "dangerous".
> >
> > Do you often encounter cars on the stairs? Suddenly emerging from a
> > side door perhaps, maybe piloted by someone distracted by an important
> > call on their handheld mobile even.
>
> Now who's being facile?
>

So you dislike it, huh? I guess we can agree that it's best avoided.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:06 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
[email protected] (Terry) wrote:

>Why don't you think about it and figure it out for yourself? The last time
>I expressed an opinion you ignored it and accused me or racism in so many
>words. Take some time. Think it through. It's not a race. We have all the
>time in the world to do this properly.

I didn't ignore it - I simply challenged your opinion by giving an
example of where a child riding on the handlebars of an unlit bike at
night would be the norm. You claimed it wasn't a fair comparrison,
and I expressed the view that it only wouldn't be a fair comparrison
if you value the safety of different peoples differently. It was a
fair challenge, but you are welcome to refute my argument by giving a
different reason for it not being a fair comparrison.

>> You're right, we weren't there. But you posted a safety critisism in
>> an open forum - something at which people wouldn't bat an eyelid in a
>> great many countries around the World.
>
>Am I not allowed to think? May I not hold opinions that differ from those
>people?

It seems to me that you are the one getting in a huff when your views
are challenged.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

 

[Terry]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]e (Tom Crispin) wrote:

> It seems to me that you are the one getting in a huff when your views
> are challenged.

Says the person who contrived a false accusation of racism when their
views were challenged...

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:12 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
[email protected] (Terry) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that you are the one getting in a huff when your views
>> are challenged.
>
>Says the person who contrived a false accusation of racism when their
>views were challenged...

I note that you still haven't explained why the safety comparrison of
London cyclists and Sanya cyclists is "apples and oranges".
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

 

[Terry]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]e (Tom Crispin) wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:12 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
> [email protected] (Terry) wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
> >
> >> It seems to me that you are the one getting in a huff when your views
> >> are challenged.
> >
> >Says the person who contrived a false accusation of racism when their
> >views were challenged...
>
> I note that you still haven't explained why the safety comparrison of
> London cyclists and Sanya cyclists is "apples and oranges".

Have you noticed how you constantly ignore the substantive point and shift
your ground in order to fire off yet another round? You don't appear to be
seeking honest debate. That's why I suggested that you "think about it and
figure it out for yourself [because] the last time I expressed an opinion
you ignored it and accused me of racism".

It's an open offer. Tell me why you think that road conditions in China
and London are comparable, leaving the personal stuff out, and we'll take
it from there.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> It's an open offer. Tell me why you think that road conditions in
> China and London are comparable, leaving the personal stuff out, and
> we'll take it from there.

Is it because, despite the roads in China being more dangerous, the Chinese
still trundle about 2 up on a bike and no one bats an eyelid. In the UK
with very safe roads, going 2 up on a bike makes Terry have a hernia?

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>,
[email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:

> oops sorry. Deleted it from google groups.

Without wishing to be hostile, that does what good, precisely? Usenet is
a several-tens-of-million node store and forward network, of which
Google is just one (albeit significant) node.

Sorry if that's slightly tetchy. I do get irritated with people thinking
that the way /they/ access Usenet is the 'only' way, and that what works
on their client should work for everyone else.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; All in all you're just another nick in the ball
-- Think Droid

 

[Alan Braggins]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>[email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> oops sorry. Deleted it from google groups.
>
>Without wishing to be hostile, that does what good, precisely? Usenet is
>a several-tens-of-million node store and forward network, of which
>Google is just one (albeit significant) node.

Since approximately none of those several-tens-of-million nodes
honour routine cancels these days, it's probably all he can do,
however limited it might be.

(For those less familiar than Simon with Usenet, a cancel message
is a special sort of post that asks Usenet servers to ignore an
earlier message with a specified message id. There is no digital
signature involved, and the messages are easily forged, and there
was a time when forged cancels were very common, so most sites now
ignore them.
_Sometimes_, you can send a cancel message to your local server
immediately and get it to not pass on a post you just made
(accidentally sent twice, or before finished editting, or just
spotted a stupid mistake). But once it's got beyond your local
server, it's too late.)