Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (uk.sci.weather) For the discussion of daily weather events, chiefly affecting the UK and adjacent parts of Europe, both past and predicted. The discussion is open to all, but contributions on a practical scientific level are encouraged. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
It's not just kids. In this town, 70% of cyclists don't use lights at
night. Graham Here too. It seems that there is a presumption that if there is an accident involving a cyclist, it is always the motorists's fault. IMO it should be the other way round if the cyclist is riding a bike after dark with no lights and is involved in an accident - after all, any cyclist in that situation is breaking the law, so why should the driver automatically get the blame? And I cannot understand why the law allows the sale of cycles which are not fitted with lights. It won't allow any other vehicle to be sold without them for use on the public roads - why should cycles be any different? Anne |
#52
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Anne Burgess wrote:
It seems that there is a presumption that if there is an accident involving a cyclist, it is always the motorists's fault. IMO it should be the other way round if the cyclist is riding a bike after dark with no lights and is involved in an accident - after all, any cyclist in that situation is breaking the law, so why should the driver automatically get the blame? I'm not aware of any presumption of blame in any RTA. And I cannot understand why the law allows the sale of cycles which are not fitted with lights. It won't allow any other vehicle to be sold without them for use on the public roads - why should cycles be any different? Probably because it won't make any difference to the problem. Just because a bike is sold with lights doesn't ensure that they'll be replaced after being removed to prevent theft, or that the batteries will be replaced when exhausted. They're not really like car lights at all... KotF |
#53
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
It seems that there is a presumption that if there is an accident
involving a cyclist, it is always the motorists's fault. IMO it should be the other way round if the cyclist is riding a bike after dark with no lights and is involved in an accident - after all, any cyclist in that situation is breaking the law, so why should the driver automatically get the blame? I'm not aware of any presumption of blame in any RTA. No, but if the worst happens, just wait and see what the attitude is. And I cannot understand why the law allows the sale of cycles which are not fitted with lights. It won't allow any other vehicle to be sold without them for use on the public roads - why should cycles be any different? Probably because it won't make any difference to the problem. Just because a bike is sold with lights doesn't ensure that they'll be replaced after being removed to prevent theft, or that the batteries will be replaced when exhausted. They're not really like car lights at all... No, but people could not use the excuse of 'this bike doesn't have any lights'. And as for theft - you can get bikes with the lights built into the handlebars, not just attached, and you can get them with dynamos to power the lights - mine has, so I have never needed to buy a battery for the bike lights. Anne |
#54
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Personally i disagree with the whole idea, its stupid and a waste of time.
The reason why europe is an hour in front, is because they are an hour in front in getting the sun's positions in the sky. Why change anything? Its just an example of MP's having nothing to do and passing no-sensical bills, don't they have more pressing issues to deal with like the failing NHS and the Iraq war crisis. The bill will also make mornings darker, so its more dangerous for children and adults travelling to school or work. Mike www.dudleyweather.angelcities.com "Adrian D. Shaw" wrote in message ... Yn erthygl , sgrifennodd Paul C : There's a certain illogicality here. Surely the rational thing is to stick with GMT which, after all, represents our correct time zone, and if people in England want to enjoy lighter evenings they should start work an hour earlier. I sort of agree. But that means businesses would have to work 8-4 (or 7:45-4:15) instead of their current hours. We'd have to persuade the TV and radio schedulers to bring their programmes forwards an hour (otherwise people just wouldn't get used to it), we'd have to change our ingrained thinking about each hour's position in the day, etc. It's easier to legislate a change to our clocks than to do the above. Adrian -- Adrian Shaw ais@ Adran Cyfrifiadureg, Prifysgol Cymru, aber. Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Cymru ac. http://users.aber.ac.uk/ais uk |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Just another one of those Evenings out here 2 of 4 | alt.binaries.pictures.weather (Weather Photos) | |||
Just another one of those Evenings out here 4 of 4 | alt.binaries.pictures.weather (Weather Photos) | |||
Just another one of those Evenings out here 1 of 4 | alt.binaries.pictures.weather (Weather Photos) | |||
Evenings drawing out | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
[OT] Lighter Evenings & Spring. | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) |