QUOTE Surrey Police Roads Policing Unit have pointed out you can wear all
the visible clothing in the world, but if someone is not looking then they
are not going to see you anyway... ENDQUOTE

Is this level of logical thinking prevalent in the police?

--
Spike

On 12/02/2023 02:18 pm, Spike wrote:
>
> QUOTE Surrey Police Roads Policing Unit have pointed out you can wear all
> the visible clothing in the world, but if someone is not looking then they
> are not going to see you anyway... ENDQUOTE
>
> Is this level of logical thinking prevalent in the police?

It's not without some tangential justification.

You are only safe walking across a pedestrian crossing (irrespective of
the distinctiveness of your apparel) if the fairy-cyclist is looking
ahead and will see you, rather than staring at the ground beneath his
fairy-cycle's pedals.

Even if he IS looking where he's going, you may well still not be safe,
since he will probably resort to the fairy-cyclist's favourite tactic
("The Alliston manoeuvre") of screaming a few obscenities at you and
then speeding toward you on the basis that it's your duty to get out of
his way.

JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
> On 12/02/2023 02:18 pm, Spike wrote:
>>
>> QUOTE Surrey Police Roads Policing Unit have pointed out you can wear all
>> the visible clothing in the world, but if someone is not looking then they
>> are not going to see you anyway... ENDQUOTE
>>
>> Is this level of logical thinking prevalent in the police?
>
> It's not without some tangential justification.
>
> You are only safe walking across a pedestrian crossing (irrespective of
> the distinctiveness of your apparel) if the fairy-cyclist is looking
> ahead and will see you, rather than staring at the ground beneath his
> fairy-cycle's pedals.
>
> Even if he IS looking where he's going, you may well still not be safe,
> since he will probably resort to the fairy-cyclist's favourite tactic
> ("The Alliston manoeuvre") of screaming a few obscenities at you and
> then speeding toward you on the basis that it's your duty to get out of
> his way.
>

LOL!

--
Spike

On 13/02/23 03:26, JNugent wrote:
> On 12/02/2023 02:18 pm, Spike wrote:
>>
>> QUOTE Surrey Police Roads Policing Unit have pointed out you can wear all
>> the visible clothing in the world, but if someone is not looking then
>> they
>> are not going to see you anyway...  ENDQUOTE
>>
>>   Is this level of logical thinking prevalent in the police?
>
> It's not without some tangential justification.
>
> You are only safe walking across a pedestrian crossing (irrespective of
> the distinctiveness of your apparel) if the fairy-cyclist is looking
> ahead and will see you, rather than staring at the ground beneath his
> fairy-cycle's pedals.
>
> Even if he IS looking where he's going, you may well still not be safe,
> since he will probably resort to the fairy-cyclist's favourite tactic
> ("The Alliston manoeuvre") of screaming a few obscenities at you and
> then speeding toward you on the basis that it's your duty to get out of
> his way.

Today I did scream at a pedestrian.
She (an oldish lady ?OAP) was walking, head down, towards a pedestrian
crossing.
I was on the bike, on the road, slowing down.
She looked up absent-mindedly, saw me, and suddenly stopped in fright.
I yelled at her to 'keep going' or something similar.
Does that count as an obscenity?

Peter Keller <muzhmuzh@centrum.sk> wrote:
> On 13/02/23 03:26, JNugent wrote:
>> On 12/02/2023 02:18 pm, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> QUOTE Surrey Police Roads Policing Unit have pointed out you can wear all
>>> the visible clothing in the world, but if someone is not looking then
>>> they
>>> are not going to see you anyway...  ENDQUOTE
>>>
>>>   Is this level of logical thinking prevalent in the police?
>>
>> It's not without some tangential justification.
>>
>> You are only safe walking across a pedestrian crossing (irrespective of
>> the distinctiveness of your apparel) if the fairy-cyclist is looking
>> ahead and will see you, rather than staring at the ground beneath his
>> fairy-cycle's pedals.
>>
>> Even if he IS looking where he's going, you may well still not be safe,
>> since he will probably resort to the fairy-cyclist's favourite tactic
>> ("The Alliston manoeuvre") of screaming a few obscenities at you and
>> then speeding toward you on the basis that it's your duty to get out of
>> his way.
>
> Today I did scream at a pedestrian.
> She (an oldish lady ?OAP) was walking, head down, towards a pedestrian
> crossing.
> I was on the bike, on the road, slowing down.
> She looked up absent-mindedly, saw me, and suddenly stopped in fright.
> I yelled at her to 'keep going' or something similar.
> Does that count as an obscenity?

Perhaps the obscenity here is that you did not automatically defer to her
position at the pinnacle of the hierarchy of road users, and give way to
whatever it was that she saw fit to do. She had no obligation to do
anything at all due to your mere presence or shouting of ‘orders’.

--
Spike

On 13/02/2023 07:54 am, Peter Keller wrote:

> On 13/02/23 03:26, JNugent wrote:
>> On 12/02/2023 02:18 pm, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> QUOTE Surrey Police Roads Policing Unit have pointed out you can wear
>>> all the visible clothing in the world, but if someone is not looking
>>> then they are not going to see you anyway...  ENDQUOTE
>>> Is this level of logical thinking prevalent in the police?
>
>> It's not without some tangential justification.
>
>> You are only safe walking across a pedestrian crossing (irrespective
>> of the distinctiveness of your apparel) if the fairy-cyclist is
>> looking ahead and will see you, rather than staring at the ground
>> beneath his fairy-cycle's pedals.
>
>> Even if he IS looking where he's going, you may well still not be
>> safe, since he will probably resort to the fairy-cyclist's favourite
>> tactic ("The Alliston manoeuvre") of screaming a few obscenities at
>> you and then speeding toward you on the basis that it's your duty to
>> get out of his way.
>
> Today I did scream at a pedestrian.
> She (an oldish lady ?OAP) was walking, head down, towards a pedestrian
> crossing.
> I was on the bike, on the road, slowing down.
> She looked up absent-mindedly, saw me, and suddenly stopped in fright.
> I yelled at her to 'keep going' or something similar.
> Does that count as an obscenity?

:-)

I think I have made it clear several times that what can truthfully said
about the majority of UK fairy-cyclists does not necessarily apply down
under.

On 13/02/23 22:31, Spike wrote:
> Peter Keller <muzhmuzh@centrum.sk> wrote:
>> On 13/02/23 03:26, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 12/02/2023 02:18 pm, Spike wrote:
>>>>
>>>> QUOTE Surrey Police Roads Policing Unit have pointed out you can wear all
>>>> the visible clothing in the world, but if someone is not looking then
>>>> they
>>>> are not going to see you anyway...  ENDQUOTE
>>>>
>>>>   Is this level of logical thinking prevalent in the police?
>>>
>>> It's not without some tangential justification.
>>>
>>> You are only safe walking across a pedestrian crossing (irrespective of
>>> the distinctiveness of your apparel) if the fairy-cyclist is looking
>>> ahead and will see you, rather than staring at the ground beneath his
>>> fairy-cycle's pedals.
>>>
>>> Even if he IS looking where he's going, you may well still not be safe,
>>> since he will probably resort to the fairy-cyclist's favourite tactic
>>> ("The Alliston manoeuvre") of screaming a few obscenities at you and
>>> then speeding toward you on the basis that it's your duty to get out of
>>> his way.
>>
>> Today I did scream at a pedestrian.
>> She (an oldish lady ?OAP) was walking, head down, towards a pedestrian
>> crossing.
>> I was on the bike, on the road, slowing down.
>> She looked up absent-mindedly, saw me, and suddenly stopped in fright.
>> I yelled at her to 'keep going' or something similar.
>> Does that count as an obscenity?
>
> Perhaps the obscenity here is that you did not automatically defer to her
> position at the pinnacle of the hierarchy of road users, and give way to
> whatever it was that she saw fit to do. She had no obligation to do
> anything at all due to your mere presence or shouting of ‘orders’.
>
Of course she had no obligation to do anything at all. But she stopped
in fright.
I merely stopped and told her to go.