Colleague just rear ended on his E-Bike :(

[Linford]

Was the driver in a dark bit?

Now who is trolling ?

 

[Leodis]

Nice Saddle bag...

 

[ianrauk]

@Linford
I didn't say you fabricated it all all, so stop making things up.

You know you troll along with the best of them and looking at my reaction and the reaction of others are you really surprised at the comments ? Reap what you sow and all that. You have a history of trolling, with your current guise and that of your previous identities

Like others, I am sorry your mate got hit buy a car but some of the point's you made about hi-viz, dark clothing, lights are things that have been discussed ad-infinitum on the forum which more often then not descend into mud slinging, trolling and the cause of much friction.

If you had kept the preaching out of your initial post you would not have got the reactions you did.

 

[snorri]

Call me a 'Be seen' evangelist, but a troll for posting my concern about this very real danger to us at this time of year ?

You come over as the hi-viz version of the helmet evangelists who imagine their chosen form of protection is (almost) bombproof and are unwilling to accept any information to the contrary.
Strikes me Crackle in Post 43 comes up with the best advice in the conditions existing at the time of the incident you describe in the OP.

 

[Linford]

@Linford
I didn't say you fabricated it all all, so stop making things up.

You know you troll along with the best of them and looking at my reaction and the reaction of others are you really surprised at the comments ? Reap what you sow and all that. You have a history of trolling, with your current guise and that of your previous identities

Like others, I am sorry your mate got hit buy a car but some of the point's you made about hi-viz, dark clothing, lights are things that have been discussed ad-infinitum on the forum which more often then not descend into mud slinging, trolling and the cause of much friction.

If you had kept the preaching out of your initial post you would not have got the reactions you did.

I've never been afraid to play the devils advocate in either P&L or CA&D, but road safety is something I never joke about. I'd rather learn lessons in life from other peoples bad fortune than experience it myself...What happened this morning is a reminder that we will always come off worse against a car, and that they don't always see us can be due to conditions beyond their orour control...I favour the 'belt and braces' approach to it. I care little if people think less of me for that.

EDIT..that fabrication comment was directed at saraH

 

[Linford]

You come over as the hi-viz version of the helmet evangelists who imagine their chosen form of protection is (almost) bombproof and are unwilling to accept any information to the contrary.
Strikes me Crackle in Post 43 comes up with the best advice in the conditions existing at the time of the incident you describe in the OP.

It isn't bombproof protection, but very few car drivers would deliberately drive into another vehicle if they have the choice. I work on that premise, and by me wearing high viz, or using lights day and night 'may' just buy them a couple of seconds more reaction time...or 60ft more stopping distance @ 30mph

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Oh, what the heck, I might as well say it: there's nothing wrong in taking reasonable steps to give yourself a better chance of being seen. I routinely ride with flashing lights in daylight for precisely this reason. But - proviso - I am under no obligation to do so, an accident caused by someone else is not my fault for not having hi-viz or lights or flags or a helmet (shame on TfL's lawyers), and drivers always have a responsibility to look (and see, which doesn't always follow) where they're taking their box.

 

[Linford]

Oh, what the heck, I might as well say it: there's nothing wrong in taking reasonable steps to give yourself a better chance of being seen. I routinely ride with flashing lights in daylight for precisely this reason. But - proviso - I am under no obligation to do so, an accident caused by someone else is not my fault for not having hi-viz or lights or flags or a helmet (shame on TfL's lawyers), and drivers always have a responsibility to look (and see, which doesn't always follow) where they're taking their box.

THIS

 

[4F]

Were they wearing a helmet ?

 

[Linford]

Were they wearing a helmet ?

I believe that prevention is always betterthan cure

(no they weren't)

 

[Spinney]

Were they wearing a helmet ?

:troll:

 

[Noodley]

Now who is trolling ?

If as you said in the OP the driver could not see due to the sun, he should have been wearing sunglasses.

 

[Linford]

Can anyone reasonably explain why the driver couldn't see the moped rider as a silhouette, making any of the stuff about atomic custard and lights irrelevant?

Look at the pic of the road, the sun has to crest a big hill before coming into view.

 

[Noodley]

The driver did not see the other road user because he was not paying due attention to the conditions and carried on his journey without make the required adjustments.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Old Linford does initiate a lively thread. Whether he is a troll or not, the self-appointed anti-troll brigade seem to thrive on giving him the oxygen of publicity he may crave by inflating all his threads to fiteen pages of sneering in as many minutes.

Quite a few CC types will never forgive the world for not letting them be born as J-P Sartre or Michael Foot or Hugo Chavez or Virginia Woolf and their only recourse is to drip acid comments on Internet trolls and 'like' the hell out of each others' posts until some sort of orgasm of self-congratulatory nirvana is achieved.

Like many such exercises, it may be more fun to do than to witness. Disturbingly (for me) I enjoy being the onlooker in this unusual feast of internet mutual onanism, but I may be strange like that.