Laddy Muck

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > While high viz is good for other road users to > spot the cyclist, research has been done that > wearing high viz/helmet, etc gives the rider a > feeling of invulnerability and they do not ride as > carefully/defensively as they should. I, too, recall reading something along those lines, except that the research I read was specific to helmets only (though that doesn't mean to say that there wasn't separate research on high-viz clothing). If I recall correctly, the results suggested that cyclists who wore a helmet had more chance of being hit. This was because drivers tended to give helmet wearers less room than helmetless riders. I think the implication there was that drivers felt that the helmetless cyclists appeared more vulnerable than the helmet-wearing ones.

Applespider Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ah ha - a driver who likes the lights that flash. Yes, I smiled with intrigue when I read your comment Loz, because, until recently, the legal position was that the bike had to be equipped with back and front "static" lights at night. The implication was that it was illegal to ride with intermittent lighting. I like flashing lights as I feel they attract more attention. However, surveys at the time showed that drivers thought they were not as effective as static lights from a distance. I always got around this uncertainty in the law by using one static light at both back and front coupled with additional (flashing) lighting at the rear. What makes Loz's observation doubly interesting is the fact that legislation has relatively recently been amended to allow cyclists to use intermittent lighting at the rear, so - clearly - there must have been other like-minded souls with Loz's view. Fascinating stuff this!

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So drivers shouldn't put their lights on in urban > areas because everyone else does it? Ahem Loz! As far as I am aware, it is a legal requirement that drivers use their vehicle lights. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I don't believe that cyclists are under a similar statutory duty to wear - e.g. - a fluorescent vest. Whilst I am pretty certain that high visibility clothes make cyclists more conspicuous, such garments cannot take the place of competent cycling and driving. As alluded to earlier, I wear the whole kit and kaboodle (high viz vest, ruck sack cover, waist band, and ankle/wrist strips - though not necessarily all at once), but as DC suggests, lights (as required by law) should be sufficient.

Vilmos Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why oh why don't cyclists make themselves more > visible. The number of times I see cyclists > wearing dark clothing which renders them barely > visible, even when they are carrying children on > their bikes for goodness sake. Personally, I put on high visibility clothing when cycling simply because, in my opinion, it makes me more noticeable to other roadusers and that this will, hopefully, lead to fewer collisions etc. However, not everyone shares the same view. A friend of mine says he doesn't bother with "special high viz" clothing on the basis that it has become ineffective, ironically, because of the high number of cyclists who actually do wear it. He also believes that, as "so many others" don such gear - even in daylight - such as street cleaners for example, that, for him anyway, wearers of such, no longer stand out. He may be right, I don't know. However, I certainly "feel" less vulnerable attired in my fluorescent jacket; in the same way as I "feel" safer wearing a helmet. However, I acknowledge that "feeling" and "being" less exposed to the perils of road use are two very different concepts.

In any event, people with disabilities often have needs which require more funds than those who don't suffer from disability simply so as to enable them to - somehow - get on with the everyday matters which the rest of us take for granted. So, if anything, in order that a more level playing field may be provided, they should be furnished with additional support - both financial and practical - and not less. To suggest that they should accept less than the minimum wage is inconsistent with this. It is also discriminatory and manifestly unfair.

Mine is somewhere out in the street (outside house below pavement). Yours probably is too.

I think, utterly grotesque, is how I would sum up Philip Davies' words. The MP can have absolutely no idea of what life is like for a disabled/mentally ill person. Moreover, it is not something they (the disabled/mentally ill) choose to be - for heaven's sake. It has taken us years to reach the stage we have vis a vis equality in this country. To take this man's words seriously would undo much of it. The minimum wage is there for good reason.

Assuming we and this forum are still around by then. That's a long, long way away. That's not to say I'm not game though:)).

Proj London Health Wrote ----------------------------- > And the Reds keep cycling on! Red? Don't you mean purple?

Re: Change a letter (4 letter words) Posted by: Jeremy Today, 11:27AM I'm not interested in the "100 game" any more, since I got the 10000. pfffftttttt...see if I care... *assumes stalking position for the 11,000*

Why the grumpy face Master Quids? We love you as the Guardian hating, banker apologist, economically dry, Labour bashing polemecist!:)) You haven't said "tosser" for a while though.

Annette Curtain Wrote: ---------------------------------------------- > It doesn't actually say "Disabled" on the > allocated seats, it says "wheel chair user" > > So, if I use a wheelchair surely I qualify, no ? Hmmmmmm...now I know that you are just winding us all up! I should have known. Bad, bad, Nette. *puts Nette across knee and gives her jolly good spanking*

For information: On 27.07.11 Dulwich Hamlet play Crystal Palace in a pre-season fixture at 19.45. Can't wait!

katie1997 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also, why didn't anyone warn me not to use golden > caster sugar when making the cordial? Doesn't harm > the taste but it looks a bit like, erm, you know. > Or do the oranges and lemons make it that colour > anyway? Don't worry about it Lady Katharina van der Wotsit. Looks aren't everything. I made mine with raw cane demerara!

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------ > And a cheap place to obtain bottles suitable for > champagne? > > Thanks. I presume you are talking about Elderflower Champagne? I don't have/use any special equipment for this at all. As for bottles, I use plastic. Not ideal, as they can burst readily - so if you are able to obtain glass, all the better (though they too may burst!). However, I now find that if I release little gas out of the bottles every other day, they no longer explode. I currently have EFC fermenting nicely in my shed. I started off with 100 litres, but, as I am drinking it as a very refreshing elderflower-ade, I reckon I'll only get about 50 litres which is properly alcoholic. The fizz is incredible though: need to open bottles very slowly if you don't want your kitchen (ceilings and walls included) to end up a sticky/wet mess! Have fun!

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------ > You mean DKH park? Where? Or have you stripped > them bare?! Sorry Loz, just seen this. I meant St. Francis Park. Whilst little flower remains, the berries are swelling nicely...for wine, jam, cough syrup etc.... DC: you are still in time for the berries.

As I well know!!!!!????? Hmmmmmmmm.... *covers up*

Did you know that the one on the left is a Great Tit, whilst the other is a Blue Tit? Both nested and fledged in our garden this year.

Dear Nette, Please don't. You would feel like shit for a long while thereafter. Worse, you would be reducing yourself to the lowest of the low (and I know you are not). Sorry for boring post. x

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew indeed. Not unlike one of those little suction thingies on the bottom of Garfield's paws.::o

Are we there yet?

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He sounds like a burger. Not to mention a laptop.

His mum loves him... actually... ...oh dear... *sniggers*

ooops: roll on page 14!

OK, WHY is Mick Mac fab?