Do you use your lights in the day light hours

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

fossyant

Ride It Like You Stole It!
Location
South Manchester
That's your opinion of people using lights on a bike in the day. Other people's opinions are different but you keep arguing ifs and buts about an issue that doesn't exist. The OPs question was who uses them or not.

You alone think that using bike lights during the day may affect the safety of others. I pointed out that in the event of an accident the insurance weasels will try anything to get out of a full payout.
 

GuyBoden

Guru
Location
Warrington

 

classic33

Leg End Member
Indeed, many seem to be, but trying to second guess their fraudulent attempts to impose pointless practices isn't covering one's own backside: it's bending over and greasing up, plus helping them to get their next victim!

I wish there was an insurer who promised to point out when there's no evidence supporting the other insurer's suggested anti-cycling measure and they'd have to prove otherwise in court to reduce their liability.
Why the use of the word "fraudulent"? I don't think there was anything fraudulent about his stay in hospital over Christmas, after being hit, nor the damage done to him.

Me, I was hit by a car, drunk driver(over the limit), in a car that had no MOT, VED or insurance. The driver had no licence or insurance. Oh and it wasn't his car either, he'd borrowed/been loaned it to get home by the female owner.

Your view changes after you've been involved in any RTC. To call it fraudulent is insulting. One reason why I ended up losing a job, despite my best efforts to keep it.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
Why the use of the word "fraudulent"? I don't think there was anything fraudulent about his stay in hospital over Christmas, after being hit, nor the damage done to him.
Nor do I and I don't see how what I wrote can be misunderstood that way. I used the word to suggest it's fraudulent when the insurer tries to blame a cyclist for using / not using daytime running lights (delete as applicable).
 
Last edited:

classic33

Leg End Member
Nor do I and I don't see how what I wrote can be misunderstood that way. I used the word to suggest it's fraudulent when the insurer tries to blame him for using / not using daytime running lights (delete as applicable).
It's not. Re-read your own post again.

I just hope you never find out the hard way.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
It's not. Re-read your own post again.
I've had another go at making the most recent clarification even clearer. Any better? I still don't quite see how you're making a massively mistaken leap to seem like you think fraudulent applied to fossy.

I just hope you never find out the hard way.
:huh: That's the second time you've written shoot like that. Is it meant to be some sort of threat?

I've already had practical experience of how some insurers wriggle TYVM :tongue:
 
Top Bottom