There is nothing I disagree with here, but I do not believe it has anything to do with what I was saying originally. We frequently see on these pages a reference to somebody riding without lights, it is almost without exception that somebody will reply to that with, what I consider to be, the rather tiresome "Well you saw them didn't you?" I don't believe that the vast majority of the posters who reply in such a manner are doing so because they are attempting to make a point about infrastucture, driver attitude, social standing or retail expenditure, I think they're doing it because they think it sounds clever. My issue with this is that the extension of it is that riding without lights is somehow acceptable because the individual clearly wasn't invisible. I doubt that anybody reading these posts would take take this as a reason to ditch their lights but I don't personally see it as the witty quip which I'm convinced the majority of people that post it believe it to be, as I said, maybe I'm being a little precious about it.
