# Saddened by ninja



## Browser (13 Nov 2012)

Riding home last night, roughly where the arrow is here, when I became aware of the cars coming the opposite way slowing down then pulling out around something. Bear in mind that this is a normally quiet-ish rural A-road, with a fairly recently opened bypass to it's East but there were about 10-12 cars converging on this spot at the time I was riding along it, probably because they were slowing to safely pass me and the obstruction on the other side. As I closed on said obstruction, probably ten metres away, I realised that it was a lad on a BMX, no lights, no helmet, clad in dark clothing with not a scrap of hi-vis, weaving about more than a tad because he was ON HIS ******G PHONE!!!!!!!  I should have stopped, turned, gone after him and pointed out the fact that he was relatively invisible but I didn't think he'd be bothered/receive it well etc.
I couldn't help but think that the motorists passing the two of us must have been impressed by the irony of the situation, me in fluorescent-decorated-with-Scotchbrite Altura jacket, two Smart rear lights, one Smart and one Lupine front light, pedal reflectors and 3M SekuClips on my spokes and captain invisible on the other side of the road. Ten quid for a pair of flashers from most places, surely their lives are worth that?


----------



## akb (13 Nov 2012)

Unfortunately it is a regular occurence around here. About 2 miles of my 12 miles route goes through a town. Time is about 1730 so nice and dark with low powered street lights. In those 2 miles I counted 5 cyclists who I overtook and 4 coming the other way, without any visibility gear on what so ever. Not even the standard issue front and rear reflectors. It was obvious the motorists were getting frustrated by these numpties. Unfortunatley, I dont feel it my place to pass on my night cycling knowledge.


----------



## ianrauk (13 Nov 2012)

How many ninjas do you actually hear about getting mowed down by cars? None.
How many 'proper' cyclists do you hear about getting mowed down by cars? Loads.

Ninjas seem to have an invincibility cloak surrounding them. Oh yes, it's called the pavement.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (13 Nov 2012)

See it day in day out.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (13 Nov 2012)

2150002 said:


> Note that key word "see".


 
So you are saying I see all the ninjas?


----------



## psmiffy (13 Nov 2012)

ianrauk said:


> How many ninjas do you actually hear about getting mowed down by cars? None.
> How many 'proper' cyclists do you hear about getting mowed down by cars? Loads.
> 
> Ninjas seem to have an invincibility cloak surrounding them. Oh yes, it's called the pavement.


 
I think that is actually the point - ninja cycling (if that TRL London survey is correct) is less dangerous than being lit - ditto RLJing etc - as opposed to death by lorry and SMIDSY


----------



## Mugshot (13 Nov 2012)

2150048 said:


> What I am saying is that every time you hear people complaining about unlit cyclists the story always goes "I saw this person riding without lights" . *What you don't hear is people relating how they hit an unlit cyclist without ever having seen them.*
> Before this goes any further I ought to clarify that my winter commuter has a dynamo giving steady lights front and rear plus two flashers both front and rear.


I did _see_ one once on a police camera stop type program. A young female driver had hit a cyclist, I can't remember the road I'm sorry, but it was if I remember correctly an unlit section of a dual carriageway. The driver went straight home afterwards with a windscreen which was totally caved in on the passenger side and was then, if memory serves, convinced by her parents that she should contact the police to inform them of the collision. The cyclist had by this time been found and so the police went to her house resonably certain that she was driver of the vehicle which had hit him. She claimed to have seen nothing and had thought that she had maybe hit a deer. The cyclist had no lights, he also died, the driver was not charged with anything.


----------



## 4F (13 Nov 2012)

I am intrigued as to how the the lack of a helmet impaired any visibility issues ?


----------



## Boris Bajic (13 Nov 2012)

Last Tuesday week, I failed to see thirty-five unlit cyclists.

On a normal Tuesday, the figure doesn't exceed nineteen.

I put this down to the unseasonally dark night sky and the deceptive reflections from the rain on my windscreen.

Although I was unable to see (and therefore to count) the cyclists in question, I am in no doubt that they were there.

The very fact that I was unable to see them is proof (if any were needed) not only of their presence but of their flagrant failure to illuminate their bicycles.

When I am elected Police and Crime Commissioner, I shall make it my core priority to address this very serious and very grave....

Oooh... Hang on.... I just saw another band wagon swing into view.

As you were.


----------



## PK99 (13 Nov 2012)

ianrauk said:


> How many ninjas do you actually hear about getting mowed down by cars? None.
> How many 'proper' cyclists do you hear about getting mowed down by cars? Loads.
> 
> Ninjas seem to have an invincibility cloak surrounding them. Oh yes, it's called the pavement.


 
My friend mowed don a ninja a few years ago - old bloke, dark clothing, dark bike, no lights passed straight across a t- junction and collided with my mate pulling out.

Police advised claiming against ninja for the several hundreds ££ damage but my mate was too upset to do that and found driving difficult for a while.


----------



## PK99 (13 Nov 2012)

2150048 said:


> What I am saying is that every time you hear people complaining about unlit cyclists the story always goes "I saw this person riding without lights" . What you don't hear is people relating how they hit an unlit cyclist without ever having seen them.
> Before this goes any further I ought to clarify that my winter commuter has a dynamo giving steady lights front and rear plus two flashers both front and rear.


 
Neither do you hear people say "I did not see the ninja cyclist"


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (13 Nov 2012)

Personal opinion,I don't see how that is "band wagon".


----------



## amelia-jane (13 Nov 2012)

I once hit an unlit cyclist on my bike. I was travelling quite fast (fast for me anyway) downhill in the dark. He was cycling up the hill,_ on the wrong side of the road_, on a dark bike, wearing dark clothing. I just didn't see him until the last second. I suppose i should have been paying more attention but you really don't expect a cyclist to be travelling towards you on the same side of the road...


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (13 Nov 2012)

Generally I don't find ninja cyclists the problem but sometimes peds,yes,


----------



## Browser (13 Nov 2012)

You may notice I didn't say I saw him, but that I 'became aware' he was there, i.e. a moving shadow in the near-dark conditions which resolved itself to be a twit with no lights on.
And yes, I have a big problem with ninja's as they tar us all with the same brush, that being 'bloody cyclists'. All that other road users see is cyclists, they don't differentiate.
Plus which, I live in fear of being the poor sod who, one morning whilst driving home from work after a nigth shift and not 100% concentrating I will collect one of these cretins because the visual stimuli of lights/hi-viz etc are absent and their road positioning is so utterly attrocious.


----------



## Steve Saunders (13 Nov 2012)

Mugshot said:


> I did _see_ one once on a police camera stop type program. A young female driver had hit a cyclist, I can't remember the road I'm sorry, but it was if I remember correctly an unlit section of a dual carriageway. The driver went straight home afterwards with a windscreen which was totally caved in on the passenger side and was then, if memory serves, convinced by her parents that she should contact the police to inform them of the collision. The cyclist had by this time been found and so the police went to her house resonably certain that she was driver of the vehicle which had hit him. She claimed to have seen nothing and had thought that she had maybe hit a deer. The cyclist had no lights, he also died, the driver was not charged with anything.


 
I think I remember watching that episode ... it was a Mini wasn't it ? If it was I think it was Road Wars.


----------



## lukesdad (13 Nov 2012)

ianrauk said:


> How many ninjas do you actually hear about getting mowed down by cars? None.
> How many 'proper' cyclists do you hear about getting mowed down by cars? Loads.
> 
> Ninjas seem to have an invincibility cloak surrounding them. Oh yes, it's called the pavement.


 You have pavements


----------



## HLaB (13 Nov 2012)

ianrauk said:


> How many ninjas do you actually hear about getting mowed down by cars? None.
> How many 'proper' cyclists do you hear about getting mowed down by cars? Loads.
> 
> Ninjas seem to have an invincibility cloak surrounding them. Oh yes, it's called the pavement.


 
Given the amount of ninjas I encounter down south I'm amazed by that (but not disputing it ), especially given that I encounter a lot on the road, although you are right the vast majority are on the pavement. I travel relatively slow pace though adjusting my pace to the visibility etc and can easily take avoiding action, some drivers don't


----------



## Nebulous (14 Nov 2012)

I've been struggling to get my lighting to my satisfaction since the clocks changed. Infact I've just ordered a super super new front light. I still manage 2 front and 2 back however. 

I've been out much more in the evening recently as we've acquired a dog and I've been amazed at:- 

a) the number of people still cycling. 
b) how many of them are well lit. I must see 20 with decent lights to every ninja.


----------



## eddiemee (14 Nov 2012)

The issue is not so much seeing the ninja, it's WHEN you see them, as the OP has already pointed out.

I think most people on here would agree that reading the road ahead, anticipating hazards and being ready for them is a much better way of riding safely than simply reacting to hazards when they actually happen. If you see a red light 200 yards ahead, you anticipate that there will be a car/bike/motorbike/ped/horse attached to it, and your mind gears up towards passing it safely. If an otherwise unlit cyclist comes into view in your headlights when you're only 50 yards away then you have much less time to react. Some people may panic, swerve into the other lane and potentially oncoming traffic, brake hard (following traffic may be too close, but that's another topic), or may not have time to react at all and end up hitting the cyclist.

Yes, we all SEE ninjas all the time, but we'd see them 10 or 20 seconds earlier if they had lights.


----------



## Drago (14 Nov 2012)

Sneak up behind them in a police car and give them a blast of the wailers. The shock usually makes them have a coronary or sheet themselves, sometimes both.


----------



## Mugshot (14 Nov 2012)

Steve Saunders said:


> I think I remember watching that episode ... it was a Mini wasn't it ? If it was I think it was Road Wars.


That sort of rang a bell and it also brought to mind that the cyclist had a violin so I did a little search and HERE it is.


----------



## Boris Bajic (14 Nov 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> Personal opinion,I don't see how that is "band wagon".


 
Sorry, I was just being silly.

I've never done it before and will never do it again.

It isn't a bandwagon. 

Although if it were, it would need lights.


----------



## 400bhp (14 Nov 2012)

I suspect there's actually quite a few ninja's mowed down, it's just that we don't see the stats for it.e

Ninja's will, on average, cycle far fewer miles than most us here, so perhaps they actually do have a greater chance of an accident than the rest of us.

I saw some ninja's today, but I have no idea how many i didn't see.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (14 Nov 2012)

2150002 said:


> Note that key word "see".


 
yes by dint of shining a light on them. They would be more easily seen, from a greater distance and less prone to the last minute swerve to not hit them if they were lit as well. 

its not about them being invisible per-se but the reckless and unneccesary abdication of any sort of responsibility for their own safety to the good practice and reflexes of other people.


why are we happy to slag off dangerous selfish idiotic car drivers but ok to find feeble excuses and cop outs for cyclists acting just as irresponsibly - the upshot of it going wrong is invariably going to be the same either way.


----------



## 400bhp (14 Nov 2012)

It's better to see a cyclist early than too late or not at all.


----------



## 400bhp (14 Nov 2012)

In an idea world yes, but drivers make errors of judgement.

Most things a sensible cyclist will do is endeavour to mitigate the risk of an accident. So, for other people looking on at a cyclist that doesn't have one of the most obvious items to mitigate risk then it's perfectly reasonable for them to assume the cyclist is careless at best.


----------



## 400bhp (14 Nov 2012)

I know - sh1t happens in real life doesn't it.


----------



## Headgardener (14 Nov 2012)

Drago said:


> Sneak up behind them in a police car and give them a blast of the wailers. The shock usually makes them have a coronary or sheet themselves, sometimes both.


----------



## ComedyPilot (14 Nov 2012)

Mugshot said:


> I did _see_ one once on a police camera stop type program. A young female driver had hit a cyclist, I can't remember the road I'm sorry, but it was if I remember correctly an unlit section of a dual carriageway. The driver went straight home afterwards with a windscreen which was totally caved in on the passenger side and was then, if memory serves, convinced by her parents that she should contact the police to inform them of the collision. The cyclist had by this time been found and so the police went to her house resonably certain that she was driver of the vehicle which had hit him. She claimed to have seen nothing and had thought that she had maybe hit a deer. The cyclist had no lights, he also died, the driver was not charged with anything.


 
I saw the same program, the comentator was voicing over and saying the bike was unlit, but on film in the background behind the police officers on screen the wreckage of the bike was blatantly visible reflecting the camera lights....? I immediately thought, "If I can see the bike reflecting on camera lights, why couldn't the driver see that?"


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (14 Nov 2012)

Have been seeing a few ninjas lately. Including the one casually pootling along the wrong side of the road head on to everyone.
Good Luck.


----------



## eddiemee (15 Nov 2012)

> As a sensible person I mitigate the risk and commute with three lights front and rear but I really shouldn't need any of them and in using them I am at the minimum tacitly accepting a transference of responsibility from the dangerous to the potential victim thereof.


 
I get where you're coming from, but I think the key point is the first four words of your post. We can debate until the end of time about who was at fault for incident X, Y or Z, but if we can do something to avoid it altogether then that's a much better outcome.

Regarding responsibility, again I see your point, but my own feeling is that all road users have a responsibility to contribute to their own (and obviously everyone else's) safety, above and beyond what the law states. I personally feel that horse riders, joggers and pedestrians should use lights when using unlit roads. There's a short section of B road near me without a footpath; I never walk it without lights, and when cycling it (slowly) there have been several occasions where I have only seen pedestrians when they were no more than 10-15 yards away even though I was scanning the road expecting to encounter them. I doubt it would be any consolation to a grieving family that a driver should have seen the pedestrian in his headlights and been driving slow enough to pass them safely, even if that is how the law sees it.


----------



## Boris Bajic (15 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> I suspect there's actually quite a few ninja's mowed down, it's just that we don't see the stats for it.e
> 
> Ninja's will, on average, cycle far fewer miles than most us here, so perhaps they actually do have a greater chance of an accident than the rest of us.
> 
> I saw some ninja's today, but* I have no idea how many i didn't see*.


 
We can calculate this.

If we give the total number of Ninjas the value* n *and the number you saw the value_* s*, _then the resulting formula looks like this:

The number of Ninjas you failed to see was *n - s*.

Using a form of extrapolation of unknowns from approximated or imagined data that I devised myself, I can furnish you with the following totals:

*n* has the value 743
*s* has the value 12.

Applying simple subtraction to those results, we can see that you failed to see 731 Ninjas.

This is fewer than you would have failed to see on the same morning a year earlier, had I guessed at different (and higher) figures for that day.

I do try to help and I hope it is not entirely in vain.


----------



## Hip Priest (15 Nov 2012)

It amazes me that the motorists of Britain aren't constantly stacking it into un-lit parked cars at night.


----------



## Boris Bajic (15 Nov 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> It amazes me that the motorists of Britain aren't constantly stacking it into un-lit parked cars at night.


 
As a teen, I was riding fast on a suburban side road in broad daylight and having trouble getting the toe of a trainer into a rat-cage.

I looked down and quickly up again...

Looked down and quickly up again....

Looked down and quickly up again.... and started to gnash and swear.

Then I looked down and went straight over the bonnet of a small hatchback parked quite innocently on the other side of the road.

It was parked (at midday) without lights, which is why I failed to see it.

I limped 6 miles home with my bike on my shoulder and my front tyre almost touching my chainring. Bloody Ninja drivers!


----------



## defy-one (15 Nov 2012)

Are some of you actually condoning ninja cyclists!!!!!
Don't quote me studies and research .... a moving object in close proximity to vehicles should have front and rear lights as a bare minimum eriod


----------



## PK99 (15 Nov 2012)

shouldbeinbed said:


> yes by dint of shining a light on them. They would be more easily seen, from a greater distance and less prone to the last minute swerve to not hit them if they were lit as well.
> 
> its not about them being invisible per-se but the reckless and unneccesary abdication of any sort of responsibility for their own safety to the good practice and reflexes of other people.
> 
> ...


 
Because too many cyclists have a "Two wheels good, four wheels bad" mentality and display extraordinary mental gyrations to avoid making any criticism of cyclists


----------



## PK99 (15 Nov 2012)

2153145 said:


> Sure cyclists can use lights to make it easier but cars do have lights with which their drivers can see stuff so what is the problem?


 
What a good example of mental gyration to avoid criticising a cyclist!!! (see post just above!!)

If the ninja is approaching at 90 degrees to the car eg at a junction, the car lights do not illuminate the cyclist


----------



## PK99 (15 Nov 2012)

2153171 said:


> Of course it is but driving slowly enough to stop in the distance we can see, that should be quite comfortable lit or unlit.


 
Again what about an unlit cyclist approaching at 90 degrees at a junction?


----------



## PK99 (15 Nov 2012)

2153199 said:


> As a sensible person I mitigate the risk and commute with three lights front and rear but I really shouldn't need any of them and in using them I am at the minimum tacitly accepting a transference of responsibility from the dangerous to the potential victim thereof.


 
Are you for real? or deliberately trolling?


----------



## Davidc (15 Nov 2012)

My level of sympathy for any cyclist who is hit while unlit after dark, rlj ing, on the phone, or similar is exactly zero. In those cases my sympathies are entirely with the driver.


----------



## Davidc (15 Nov 2012)

2153199 said:


> As a sensible person I mitigate the risk and commute with three lights front and rear but I really shouldn't need any of them and in using them I am at the minimum tacitly accepting a transference of responsibility from the dangerous to the potential victim thereof.


 
Rubbish.

It is reasonable to expect any road user to take measures to ensure they are seen. The law gives a minimum requirement for meeting that responsibility in the case of bikes. In accepting that and in meeting that responsibility there is absolutely no question of any transference of responsibility.

A driver is responsible for avoiding colliding with cyclists.But it is reasonable for the driver to expect the cyclist to behave responsibly as well. That should mean legal reflectors and lights. In practice drivers know from experience that that may not be met, and most manage to avoid near invisible cyclists.

You are taking your responsibility, more than adequately, with your lights. If you were to be hit by a motor vehicle your action in using lighting above the legal minimum would almost certainly be used by your barrister as evidence that the driver had failed in their responsibilities. The driver's barrister would I suspect be hard pressed to show that by doing that you had transferred the responsibility to yourself.

(Although having been on the receiving end of a barristers efforts more than once I would never be certain of these things!)


----------



## Davidc (15 Nov 2012)

2153796 said:


> The accepting of the transfer of responsibility occurred in 1920 something when the CTC agreed that cyclists should have a rear light rather than just painting a bit of the rear mudguard white. Since then it has got worse and will probably continue to do so. Drivers have been absolved of responsibility for not seeing cyclists because the legal rear light in use was not as bright as a brighter one. Others because the cyclist didn't have Hi-Viz clothing. Where do you think the line should be drawn here?


 
The law is quite clear as to what is required. You and I choose to go further. Drivers have not been absolved of responsibility by lighting rules, cyclists have been given a responsibility to make themselves more visible. The limits to that responsibility are for the courts to decide, however my view is that if a driver avoids hitting an unlit cyclist with no reflectors and dark clothing they've gone further than reasonable care.

There is no requirement for cyclists to have lights brighter than the law requires, though the law needs sorting out, no requirement to wear high visibility clothing, and no requirement to use reflectors beyond the legal minimum. AFAIK there are no plans to change things at present. I think that's a well drawn line.

My personal opinion is that for any sensible bike user the legal requirements represent a sensible minimum.

Road vehicles have to use lights (not sure about hand carts and horse drawn though). That includes bicycles and like you I'll use far more lighting than I have to.

If anyone suggests hi vizand reflective clothing should be compulsory I'll accept it when all motor vehicles have to be painted with bright yellow reflective, with black stripes. In the mean time I'll voluntarily wear bright yellow reflective jackets, which tends to be when it's dull or raining, and also less usefully when it's cold, and put extra reflective tape and spoke reflectors on the bikes.


----------



## Arjimlad (15 Nov 2012)

Sometimes it's only the pedal reflectors which give away the presence of a ninja to the approaching motorist. You can see a ninja cyclist on an unlit road in the car lights IF you are not dazzled by the lights of oncoming cars. My sympathies would not be entirely with the driver if a cyclist got squashed by a car coming from behind.

If you are waiting to come out of a junction and there is oncoming traffic, you'll struggle to see an unlit bike against the car lights.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Nov 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> We can calculate this.
> 
> If we give the total number of Ninjas the value* n *and the number you saw the value_* s*, _then the resulting formula looks like this:
> 
> ...


 
Sorry, but that's bollox.


----------



## Davidsw8 (15 Nov 2012)

I'm not sure if the issue is always about how many people get killed or seriously injured not having lights, RLJ'ing, riding pavements etc. etc., IMO, the issue is perception of safety and responsibility.

If cyclists want to be taken seriously, they need to represent themselves like serious road users. My perception of a serious cyclist is one who is well lit, rides responsibly and also (maybe controversially?) wears a helmet.

These ninja cyclists are generally too lazy to buy lights, it's nothing to do with cost, they don't see why they should have lights, so they don't bother. If they get hit, it's someone else's problem and they might get some cash out of it anyway with a nice bit of compo.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Nov 2012)

2153930 said:


> And similarly if drivers wish to be taken seriously they could all get insurance, not talk on mobile phones, not jump red lights, turn their lights on, clean their windows before setting off, wear helmets, etc etc etc. Except they don't have to because drivers are taken seriously no matter what and we aren't no matter what


 
Drivers aren't taken seriously no matter what.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Nov 2012)

You're going off at a tangent.

Let's stick to cyclists not having lights on their bikes.


----------



## Davidsw8 (15 Nov 2012)

2153930 said:


> And similarly if drivers wish to be taken seriously they could all get insurance, not talk on mobile phones, not jump red lights, turn their lights on, clean their windows before setting off, wear helmets, etc etc etc. Except they don't have to because drivers are taken seriously no matter what and we aren't no matter what


 
That's a little apples and oranges-y Adrian. There are lot fewer cyclists than drivers and the more cyclists that are seen to be acting irresponsibly, the greater the impact on general perception.

Also, the repercussions of bad driving are far worse than what comes from bad cycling so it's of benefit to the driver to drive well, there doesn't seem to be much incentive for a cyclist to cycle well, so fewer tend to make the effort.

All I'm saying is, if we want people to view cyclists positively, we have to represent ourselves well - I don't think that being defeatist will improve anything.


----------



## Davidsw8 (15 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> You're going off at a tangent.
> 
> Let's stick to cyclists not having lights on their bikes.


 
Apparently, there doesn't appear to be any danger in not having lights (more lit cyclists get hit then no-lit cyclists?) and there's no incentive to have them (the legal position on this is rarely enforced).

Having lights is more to do with the individual cyclists' sense of responsibility and safety.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Nov 2012)

I disagree - this isn't a car v cyclist issue in my eyes & it's not solely about the unequal relationship. It's about individuals taking responsibility and I refer you to my earlier thread which I'm not repeating.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> Apparently, there doesn't appear to be any danger in not having lights (more lit cyclists get hit then no-lit cyclists?) and there's no incentive to have them (the legal position on this is rarely enforced).
> 
> Having lights is more to do with the individual cyclists' sense of responsibility and safety.


 
Yep - some people believe that cars are not a necessary evil, they are an absolute evil which from my understanding of Adrian's comments in this and other threads is his point of view. Free country and they are entitled to their opinion of course.


----------



## Davidsw8 (15 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> I disagree - this isn't a car v cyclist issue in my eyes & it's not solely about the unequal relationship. It's about individuals taking responsibility and I refer you to my earlier thread which I'm not repeating.


 
I guess it depends on whether this is a safety issue or a perception issue. If it's felt that these people pose a safety threat to others, then the law needs enforcing and peer pressure needs increasing. If it's felt that they pose a safety threat only to themselves, then it's either greater education or 'take your chances mate'.

If it's about how a non-lit cyclist is perceived than the issue broadens into general perceptions of cyclists and that, I suppose, gets dragged out further to perceptions of cyclists Vs. drivers.


----------



## Davidsw8 (15 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> Yep - some people believe that cars are not a necessary evil, they are an absolute evil which from my understanding of Adrian's comments in this and other threads is his point of view. Free country and they are entitled to their opinion of course.


 
At the end of the day, cyclists, drivers, public transport etc, it's just people trying to get from A to B the best way they can. As long as they're not a d!ck about how they go about it then we should all be fine.


----------



## Davidsw8 (15 Nov 2012)

2154031 said:


> Whereas drivers routinely behave badly but this doesn't reflect badly on them as a group.


 
Well, you seem to have a bad view of them so evidently it does 

IMO, percentage-wise, I think way fewer drivers drive badly than cyclists cycle badly.


----------



## PK99 (15 Nov 2012)

2153890 said:


> And if a law is passed mandating Hi-Viz without any obligation about painting cars?


 
"hi-viz"/ reflective number plates are already mandated, for cars in addition to rear reflectors and lights


----------



## Dilbert (15 Nov 2012)

2154031 said:


> Whereas drivers routinely behave badly but this doesn't reflect badly on them as a group.


It does, Ask any Motorcyclist, Horse Rider, Cyclist (Obviously) and they will have a view. Lorry Drivers moan about car drivers and vice versa. The fact is that a large chunk of the population drive so you are not going to get a loud groundswell against drivers, even though sub groups might moan about each other. People don't think of themselves as drivers in the same they think about cyclists as a group (from both sides of the fence).


----------



## PK99 (15 Nov 2012)

2153930 said:


> And similarly if drivers wish to be taken seriously they could all get insurance, not talk on mobile phones, not jump red lights, turn their lights on, clean their windows before setting off, wear helmets, etc etc etc. Except they don't have to because drivers are taken seriously no matter what and we aren't no matter what


 
I how accept you are not a troll - you are just at the extreme end (and IMHO extremely stupid end) of the "two wheel good - four wheels bad" spectrum.

The vast majority of motorists do get insurance, do not talk on mobiles, do not jump red lights, do turn their lights on, do clean their windows - the minority who do not are antisocial law breakers, just as are minority of cycling ninjas. But no reasonable law abiding motorist would dream of defending the antisocial motoring law breaker as you defend the cycling ninja.


----------



## PK99 (15 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> Well, you seem to have a bad view of them so evidently it does
> 
> IMO, percentage-wise,* I think way fewer drivers drive badly than cyclists cycle badly*.


 
A view discussed and shared by a group of cycling buddies over dinner on saturday


----------



## Recycle (15 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> IMO, percentage-wise, I think way fewer drivers drive badly than cyclists cycle badly.


A 2009 study commissioned by the DfT showed that where cyclists were killed or injured in a collision with another vehicle, the blame was about evenly shared. However, only adults can drive whereas cyclists are made up of all age groups. When you eliminate children from the equation then cyclists share about 1/3 of the blame and motorists take 2/3.

There are a lot of bonehead cyclists out there as this thread has already highlighted, but motorists are beating us hands down in this department.


----------



## Davidsw8 (15 Nov 2012)

2154048 said:


> Any stats to back up your popularist opinion or have you just been reading the Express?


 
lol, how dare you! 

No stats whatsoever, just anecdotal evidence based on my own cycling round London twice a day, every day.


----------



## Recycle (15 Nov 2012)

PK99 said:


> The vast majority of motorists do get insurance, do not talk on mobiles, do not jump red lights, do turn their lights on, do clean their windows - the minority who do not are antisocial law breakers, just as are minority of cycling ninjas. But no reasonable law abiding motorist would dream of defending the antisocial motoring law breaker as you defend the cycling ninja.


Mmmm!
There are many electronic speed checking devices spread around most cities. Spend just 5 min at anyone that monitors a busy road and you will find that motorists disregard the speed limit in greater numbers (and proportion) than cyclists jump lights.
Wales recently had a blitz on motorists using mobile phones and netted 1000 with little effort. It's estimated that those fined for the offence only represent about 5% of those doing it.
Drunk driving accounts for about 30% of casualties which is an indication that it is routine practice since that measurement is also only a fraction of offenders.

I dislike defending cyclists breaking the law, but they are only doing what ALL road users are doing, just in a more visible way.


----------



## Davidsw8 (15 Nov 2012)

2154125 said:


> You will have to excuse me if I don't take it seriously then.


 
Adrian, I didn't expect you would


----------



## Dilbert (15 Nov 2012)

2154094 said:


> Show me the newspaper columnists arguing that, if motorists want to be taken seriously on our roads, they need to put their house in order.


There won't be one for the reasons I described above, there just is not an sense of 'drivers' in that manner within the popularon at large, because so many of that group are drivers. IMHO the perception of drivers as a group only exists within non-driver road user groups.

Back to the topic:

Its not just car drivers we are lighting up for, its other cyclists, peds, horse riders etc.

As we live in democracy which is heavily dependent on cars/in love with cars, we can only hope to improve the lot of cyclists by breaking down stereotypes and trying to push for change that can be presented as benifit to the majority of the population. Getting the RVLR modified to exempt cycles is not going to happen, and trying would just reinforce the stereotype of cyclists, held by many drivers,as lawless hooligans who think the own the roads.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (15 Nov 2012)

I remember when I was a much younger cyclist I used to fit lights because it was the law,nowadays I fit the best I can manage due to the fact I want to be seen.

So different now,lighting technology is so much better/cheaper.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Nov 2012)

2154094 said:


> Show me the newspaper columnists arguing that, if motorists want to be taken seriously on our roads, they need to put their house in order.


 
Come on Adrian, this is ridiculous. Newspapers as you well know often don't reflect reality.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (15 Nov 2012)

Motorists taken serious on the roads?

They almost own the roads.


----------



## Recycle (15 Nov 2012)

PK99 said:


> _ People don't think of themselves as drivers in the same they think about cyclists as a group (from both sides of the fence)._
> A view discussed and shared by a group of cycling buddies over dinner on saturday


You've been drinking the Kool-Aid.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Nov 2012)

Popular opinion would also have us think that many things in life cause cancer and that immigrants are responsible for 99% of the country's ills.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (15 Nov 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> I remember when I was a much younger cyclist I used to fit lights because it was the law,nowadays I fit the best I can manage due to the fact I want to be seen.
> 
> So different now,lighting technology is so much better/cheaper.


 
Unfortunately we're in a a lighting arms race at the moment due to the creeping implementation of daytime running lights, which has become an excuse for the use of 24 hour fog lights. On top of this bi-xenon lights are on the increase too


----------



## 400bhp (15 Nov 2012)

Oh, sorry.

Car drivers = nasty

cyclists = holier than thou

That better?


----------



## Recycle (15 Nov 2012)

2154203 said:


> No it is not ridiculous. The reality is that drivers and cyclists, being people, are both as likely to behave badly in our roads but we have a polularist opinion that it is true of cyclists with no corresponding opinion for drivers. This popularist opinion is fueled in part by influential newspaper columnists.


Motorists not only make up the majority of opinion, but you would struggle to find any one of them who speeds or uses a mobile phone behind the wheel, who doesn't regard himself as an above average reasonable law abiding motorist. None would ever consider their actions to be anti-social, and if pushed would defend themselves in much the same way a RLJ cyclist does.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (15 Nov 2012)

I dislike ninja cars or cars with one headlight out.


----------



## Davidsw8 (15 Nov 2012)

Recycle said:


> Motorists not only make up the majority of opinion, but you would struggle to find any one of them who speeds or uses a mobile phone behind the wheel, who doesn't regard himself as an above average reasonable law abiding motorist. None would ever consider their actions to be anti-social, and if pushed would defend themselves in much the same way a RLJ cyclist does.


 
People do whatever they can get away with IMO and cyclists can get away with a lot more than motorists can.

I'd be curious to know what the percentage of motorists who, as standard behaviour, RLJ or use their mobile phone while driving is compared to cyclists who RLJ, ride light-less or pavement cycle every time they get on their bike is.


----------



## Recycle (15 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> I'd be curious to know what the percentage of motorists who, as standard behaviour, RLJ or use their mobile phone while driving is compared to cyclists who RLJ, ride light-less or pavement cycle every time they get on their bike is.


As I said in an earlier post. If you want a sample of law breaking frequency, just spend 5 min watching an electronic speed checking device. You'll get your answer.


----------



## PK99 (15 Nov 2012)

2154007 said:


> As a result we get this creeping pressure put upon us, the victims and potential victims of that danger, to make it easier for drivers to go about the place as fast as they feel like and paying as little attention as they can.


 
A ninja cyclist is a danger to other cyclists and to pedestrians


----------



## Davidsw8 (15 Nov 2012)

2154260 said:


> You would be interested in figures? Scroll back a page and read where you posted a firm opinion about this.


 
Hmm, so me saying 'I THINK way fewer drivers drive badly than cyclists cycle badly.' equates to a 'firm opinion'? Try not to misrepresent me if you can Adrian, thank you.

I've been very clear that this is only my opinion based on my own experience. I was merely stating an interest in some nearly impossible to gather statistics on this.

People here appear to be stating that everyone is as bad as each other, and some saying motorists are way worse. This is something that I don't recognise from my personal experience and I'm curious to understand why others think differently.


----------



## PK99 (15 Nov 2012)

2154031 said:


> Whereas drivers routinely behave badly but this doesn't reflect badly on them as a group.


 
But motorists do not, as a group, attempt to claim the high moral ground. A significant number of cyclists do absolutely attempt to claim the high moral ground - you included it would appear from your posts here.
Anyone claiming the high moral ground put upon themselves a higher duty to behave responsibly.


----------



## Davidsw8 (15 Nov 2012)

Recycle said:


> As I said in an earlier post. If you want a sample of law breaking frequency, just spend 5 min watching an electronic speed checking device. You'll get your answer.


 
Stand by the crossing opposite Kennington Tube for 10 minutes and I guarantee you'll see a much much larger % of cyclists RLJ than you will motorists doing the same.


----------



## PK99 (15 Nov 2012)

2154041 said:


> I wouldn't go as far as absolute evil but your phrase "necessary evil" does illustrate the problem. A large number of people actually believe that that necessity exists, when what* it really is is a matter of choice*.


 
I chose to drive today, i drove an elderly patient to a hospice (something i do every week) without volunteer transport the hospice day service could not function. Your "two wheels good, four wheels bad " stance is just too ridiculous for words


----------



## Recycle (15 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> Stand by the crossing opposite Kennington Tube for 10 minutes and I guarantee you'll see a much much larger % of cyclists RLJ than you will motorists doing the same.


I didn't say you wouldn't and I am not going to defend it. My point was that cyclists are no worse than motorists in breaking the law and public opinion disproportionately favours the motorist. Mostly because motorists don't perceive their own actions as anti-social and they hugely outnumber cyclists in the make-up of public opinion.

The perception is massively unbalanced.


----------



## Davidsw8 (15 Nov 2012)

Recycle said:


> I didn't say you wouldn't and I am not going to defend it. My point was that cyclists are no worse than motorists in breaking the law and public opinion disproportionately favours the motorist. Mostly because motorists don't perceive their own actions as anti-social and they hugely outnumber cyclists in the make-up of public opinion.
> 
> The perception is massively unbalanced.


 
Sorry, I didn't mean to seem narky...


----------



## Recycle (15 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> Sorry, I didn't mean to seem narky...


We all get a bit over-defensive on this.
I have divided opinions when there is a blitz on cyclists. On the one hand I'm irritated at being blamed for what others cyclists do, but I also get pissed of when I see law resources used to crack down on cyclists when I get routinely buzzed by close overtakes, and ignored when I complain.


----------



## Davidsw8 (15 Nov 2012)

Recycle said:


> We all get a bit over-defensive on this.
> I have divided opinions when there is a blitz on cyclists. On the one hand I'm irritated at being blamed for what others cyclists do, but I also get ****ed of when I see law resources used to crack down on cyclists when I get routinely buzzed by close overtakes, and ignored when I complain.


 
Don't be disheartened by being ignored with complaints, it's worth pursuing. I complained about a van driver who drove through 2 red lights whilst on his phone, I had the incident on camera and contacted the company AND RoadSafe London. Both the company and the Met have got back to me and told me they've issued the driver with written warnings and that he'll be in it up to his neck if he does anything like it again (not in so many words  )


----------



## Davidsw8 (15 Nov 2012)

2154371 said:


> Undoubtedly. How significant a danger are they? How many pedestrians have been mown down by ninja cyclists in the last x years do you think?


 
Do we need some KSI's before anything is done about an illegal activity?


----------



## 400bhp (15 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> Don't be disheartened by being ignored with complaints, it's worth pursuing. I complained about a van driver who drove through 2 red lights whilst on his phone, I had the incident on camera and contacted the company AND RoadSafe London. *Both the company and the Met have got back to me and told me they've issued the driver with written warnings and that he'll be in it up to his neck if he does anything like it again (not in so many words  )*


 
I know it's difficult to do anything substantial in terms of prosecution but those type of words from authorities and employers always sound like [monty python life of brian esque] "he's been a very naughty boy". Just words that don't resonate too loudly with me i'm afraid.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Nov 2012)

2154380 said:


> No clearly not. After all* it is much more pressing to rid the roads of a small number of ninja cyclists*, where there is little to no evidence of any great danger to any third party, than it is to get to grips with the behaviors of a significant number of people in other groups who represent demonstrable risk to others.


 
Is it?


----------



## Davidsw8 (15 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> I know it's difficult to do anything substantial in terms of prosecution but those type of words from authorities and employers always sound like [monty python life of brian esque] "he's been a very naughty boy". Just words that don't resonate too loudly with me i'm afraid.


 
I dunno, if I got a letter from the Met telling me 'one more strike and you're out', I'd be incentivised to toe the line from there on in, or maybe I just scare easily.

I guarantee that van driver never dreamed he'd be reported let alone be captured on camera and put on YouTube  Funny thing was, I saw his van parked up a couple of days later so I'm guessing he drives a similar area quite regularly so I'll be keeping an eye out for any future problems....


----------



## Davidsw8 (15 Nov 2012)

2154380 said:


> No clearly not. After all it is much more pressing to rid the roads of a small number of ninja cyclists, where there is little to no evidence of any great danger to any third party, than it is to get to grips with the behaviors of a significant number of people in other groups who represent demonstrable risk to others.


 
I sense a hint of sarcasm Adrian 

So, anything goes as long as people don't die? hah! I don't subscribe to that way of thinking, if something is illegal, it needs to be enforced. If not, make it legal.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Nov 2012)

2154392 said:


> You tell me. How important is this problem in the grand scheme of things?


 
Not very

I don't think anyone has commented on the relative importance of it have they? Apart from you and your answers.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> I dunno, if I got a letter from the Met telling me 'one more strike and you're out', I'd be incentivised to toe the line from there on in, or maybe I just scare easily.
> 
> I..


 
Yes, but the police can't prosecute in isolation can they.

I think all it means is that they would consider putting it in front of the CPS, who might then throw it out.


----------



## Davidsw8 (15 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> Yes, but the police can't prosecute in isolation can they.
> 
> I think all it means is that they would consider putting it in front of the CPS, who might then throw it out.


 
To be honest, I don't know what the system is (I'd guess that most people don't). I think for many people, the threat of action is enough to alter behaviour, e.g. you see a police car stopped at a set of lights and you're guaranteed not to see any RLJ'ing or mobile phone use.


----------



## Boris Bajic (15 Nov 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> Motorists taken serious on the roads?
> 
> They almost own the roads.


 
Of *course* we do.... We bloody pay for them through Road tax, don't we? What? Wrong forum? Is it?

OK. Thanks.... 

It's the one on the back of the door... Leather elbow patches and string-back gloves in the pocket.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Nov 2012)

2154412 said:


> Apart from all the "It's awful, they give us all a bad name" stuff you mean?


 
And how is that relative to how car drivers are treated?


----------



## theclaud (15 Nov 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> I sense a hint of sarcasm Adrian
> 
> So, anything goes as long as people don't die? hah! I don't subscribe to that way of thinking, if something is illegal, it needs to be enforced. *If not, make it legal*.


 
Now there's a thought.


----------



## Davidc (15 Nov 2012)

2153890 said:


> And if a law is passed mandating Hi-Viz without any obligation about painting cars?


I'll be communicating with my MP during the discussion period of the white paper! I'd also expect CTC and the rest to do what they could to oppose it. Beyond that I'd probably put up with it, grumpily. I don't expect it to happen.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (15 Nov 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Of *course* we do.... We bloody pay for them through Road tax, don't we? What? Wrong forum? Is it?
> 
> OK. Thanks....
> 
> It's the one on the back of the door... Leather elbow patches and string-back gloves in the pocket.


 
Don't mean it like that,just don't like some of the driving sometimes.Why are motorists in Thailand so different,less aggressive,more courteous ?


----------



## Davidc (15 Nov 2012)

I'm a cyclist and a car driver, at different times, and like most cyclists and most car drivers do each activity legally and responsibly as far as I can.

There are those in both groups who don't. Too many. There's too little enforcement to persuade the offenders to change their ways. None of us can do much about it. Motor vehicles can do far more harm when misused than can cycles. Cars more than motorcycles. Lorries more than cars. Safe use of roads is in everyone's interests and that's the important bit. I've already said I have no time for ninja cyclists, I don't have any time for anyone who behaves that way on the roads.

The sort of anti-driver comments from some here are as silly as the anti-cyclist comments seen in other places and are of no value to anyone.


----------



## Davidc (15 Nov 2012)

2154742 said:


> If you think that someone pointing out that motorists pose more danger to other people than ninja cyclists do and should have to face up to the consequences of that risk is anti-driver then I'm sorry but you might have to consider that you are being a touch over sensitive.


That, as you are aware, is not what I'm suggesting since I think I've already said drivers need to accept their responsibilities.


----------



## AndyPeace (15 Nov 2012)

Ashamed to say but my nephew was a ninga cyclist, up untill recently. He eventually gave in and asked me for a spare set of lights ( gave him a cat eye 10W halogen and my aldi back light). He said he was fed up of drivers honking their horns at him. So it seems see a ninja, make some noise, may encorage them to get some lights.


----------



## Dan B (15 Nov 2012)

PK99 said:


> The vast majority of motorists do get insurance, do not talk on mobiles, do not jump red lights, do turn their lights on, do clean their windows - the minority who do not are antisocial law breakers, just as are minority of cycling ninjas. But no reasonable law abiding motorist would dream of defending the antisocial motoring law breaker as you defend the cycling ninja.


I don't want to assert anyhing about any 'vast majority', but I am reasonably certain it is socially acceptable among most drivers to injure (or worse) another road user through a "moment's inattention", even if that inattention were caused by low sun, lack of sleep, distraction caused by hands-free mobile or passenger, unexpected happening on the pavement, ... and as long as "sorry mate I didn't see you" or "he came out of nowhere" are perceived as mitigation and not as the admission of guilt that they should be, I really do think Adrian has a point here. 

I base my certainty on the likelihood of such a driver after an accident of getting sentenced to much more than three points and a slap on the wrist. I accept that the legal system may lag social norms slightly, but not that much


----------



## 400bhp (15 Nov 2012)

2154545 said:


> There is no equivalent, that is part of my point.


 
This thread was someone moaning about a cyclist not having lights, nothing more, nothing less.

But you are trying you best to politicicise this into an argument against cars.


----------



## Davidc (15 Nov 2012)

2154887 said:


> That would be good but we all know that a lot of the time they don't. What we need is our Police, the CPS and our Courts taking a more robust attitude about it when they don't.


A massive majority of drivers and all road users do act sensibly and responsibly, the problem is with the tiny minority who don't. For them, as I have already said detection, enforcement and penalties are required.

I'm all for cyclists to be better served by road design, the courts etc. but I'm more concerned to see conditions improved for all of us who use the roads no matter what transport method we're using, and foremost in that is enforcement of the existing laws. Reducing police numbers will probably mean it's a long time coming.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Nov 2012)

Davidc said:


> A massive majority of drivers and all road users do act sensibly and responsibly, the problem is with the tiny minority who don't. For them, as I have already said detection, enforcement and penalties are required.
> 
> I'm all for cyclists to be better served by road design, the courts etc. but I'm more concerned to see conditions improved for all of us who use the roads no matter what transport method we're using, and foremost in that is enforcement of the existing laws. Reducing police numbers will probably mean it's a long time coming.


 
David - this thread isn't about drivers.

Lets stick to those silly cyclists without lights.

They are a PITA aren't they.


----------



## Davidc (15 Nov 2012)

Dan B said:


> I don't want to assert anyhing about any 'vast majority', but I am reasonably certain it is socially acceptable among most drivers to injure (or worse) another road user through a "moment's inattention", even if that inattention were caused by low sun, lack of sleep, distraction caused by hands-free mobile or passenger, unexpected happening on the pavement, ... and as long as "sorry mate I didn't see you" or "he came out of nowhere" are perceived as mitigation and not as the admission of guilt that they should be, I really do think Adrian has a point here.
> 
> I base my certainty on the likelihood of such a driver after an accident of getting sentenced to much more than three points and a slap on the wrist. I accept that the legal system may lag social norms slightly, but not that much


 
I don't know anyone who finds the section I've coloured red acceptable. Most adults I know drive. You must associate with some odd people.


----------



## StuartG (15 Nov 2012)

Davidc said:


> A massive majority of drivers and all road users do act sensibly and responsibly, the problem is with the tiny minority who don't.


Quite a claim and one at variance with statistics I seem to recall. Well if you promise to go away and find some to support your case I will try and dig up mine. Then we can see which way probability falls.

Fancy putting a tenner on the outcome?

Not that i'm saying cyclists are any better. Cyclists do infringe less but that's probably because there is less opportunity to infringe. Well not many of us can break the national speed limit ...


----------



## StuartG (15 Nov 2012)

Right got it. The tiny minority of motorists who don't drive sensibly and responsibly is a truly a tiny 83% (RAC linky). My apologies I didn't realise it was that small. Any chance of that tenner


----------



## Davidc (15 Nov 2012)

StuartG said:


> Quite a claim and one at variance with statistics I seem to recall. Well if you promise to go away and find some to support your case I will try and dig up mine. Then we can see which way probability falls.
> 
> Fancy putting a tenner on the outcome?
> 
> Not that i'm saying cyclists are any better. Cyclists do infringe less but that's probably because there is less opportunity to infringe. Well not many of us can break the national speed limit ...


Simple.

If it wasn't the case the roads would be unuseable by anyone, and cars would be uninsureable.

Add to that simple observation while using the roads.

QED


----------



## Dan B (15 Nov 2012)

Davidc said:


> I don't know anyone who finds the section I've coloured red acceptable. Most adults I know drive. You must associate with some odd people.


Imagine any of the people you know as a magistrate, or on a jury, asked to rule on a case where a driver pulled out of a junction on his way to work knocking down a cyclist and later said he'd had a restless night because his small child had been ill. Would they be saying "no, that's unacceptable, you should have taken the day off work, now you're going down for a tretch" or would they be saying "oh no, how unfortunate (yes I realise you need the car or you'll lose your job and your family will be homeless)" and thinking "wow, I'm glad that wasn't me"? THere's a range of possible reactions depending on individual's experiences, but I imagine that most drivers would be more towards the lenient end of the continuum not the the strict one. There's a strong sense of "there but for the grace of God" in social reactions to car accidents


----------



## StuartG (15 Nov 2012)

Davidc said:


> Simple.
> If it wasn't the case the roads would be unuseable by anyone, and cars would be uninsureable.
> Add to that simple observation while using the roads.
> QED


You are absolutely right of course. That's why something like 80% of people believe it is too dangerous to use the road without a great deal of protective steel and other restraints to protect you. Oh why the insurance premiums are around two magnitudes greater than for cyclists. Oh and kids are not allowed to use the streets anymore. Are you real?

(20% of 18-24 do decide cars are uninsureable)

QED?


----------



## Davidc (15 Nov 2012)

StuartG said:


> Right got it. The tiny minority of motorists who don't drive sensibly and responsibly is a truly a tiny 83% (RAC linky). My apologies I didn't realise it was that small. Any chance of that tenner


 
That is a figure for occasional speeding, not for what we are discussing. I await your tenner.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Nov 2012)

Dan B said:


> Imagine any of the people you know as a magistrate, or on a jury, asked to rule on a case where a driver pulled out of a junction on his way to work knocking down a cyclist and later said he'd had a restless night because his small child had been ill. Would they be saying "no, that's unacceptable, you should have taken the day off work, now you're going down for a tretch" or would they be saying "oh no, how unfortunate (yes I realise you need the car or you'll lose your job and your family will be homeless)" and thinking "wow, I'm glad that wasn't me"? THere's a range of possible reactions depending on individual's experiences, but I imagine that most drivers would be more towards the lenient end of the continuum not the the strict one. There's a strong sense of "there but for the grace of God" in social reactions to car accidents


 
To be fair Dan, that kind of mitigation would probably work, to some extent, in many criminal cases too.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Nov 2012)

:sigh:

thread moves onto cars..


----------



## 400bhp (15 Nov 2012)

Thanks

Good post - wish you would bring out your argument more clearly earlier on


----------



## 400bhp (15 Nov 2012)

2155171 said:


> Oh sorry, I would have thought that someone who defines himself by reference to a car and its power output would relish that.


 
Then you spoil it


----------



## 400bhp (15 Nov 2012)

2155171 said:


> Oh sorry, I would have thought that someone who defines himself by reference to a car and its power output would relish that.


 
You're taking a lot in from my avatar and username


----------



## Devonshiredave (15 Nov 2012)

I saw a hoody ninja tonight. Cycled between me and the guy in front of me at a junction (I was in my car just to clarify).Bumped up the pavement and on his way. Didn't look right when crossing the junction or left when joining the pavement. No point I suppose wearing a hoody?


----------



## StuartG (15 Nov 2012)

Davidc said:


> That is a figure for occasional speeding, not for what we are discussing. I await your tenner.


Sorry I did not realise you had difficulty reading.. The tiny minority of 83% IS FOR THOSE WHO ADMIT TO SPEEDING REGULARLY. Did those capitals help you to grasp the issue? Perhaps you had better spend the tenner on a pair of glasses.


----------



## Davidc (15 Nov 2012)

Dan B said:


> Imagine any of the people you know as a magistrate, or on a jury, asked to rule on a case where a driver pulled out of a junction on his way to work knocking down a cyclist and later said he'd had a restless night because his small child had been ill. Would they be saying "no, that's unacceptable, you should have taken the day off work, now you're going down for a tretch" or would they be saying "oh no, how unfortunate (yes I realise you need the car or you'll lose your job and your family will be homeless)" and thinking "wow, I'm glad that wasn't me"? THere's a range of possible reactions depending on individual's experiences, but I imagine that most drivers would be more towards the lenient end of the continuum not the the strict one. There's a strong sense of "there but for the grace of God" in social reactions to car accidents


 
As you said, and I didn't question it, the courts are too lenient and are out of touch.

The response to incidents of that sort among the very mixed groups of people I meet is now more likely to be that the driver should have been banned and fined heavily.

18 months ago we had a very serious fatality near here which has been national news, when Amy Hoffmeister, aged 13, cycling on a cycle path, was killed and her friend seriously injured. The response was universally that the sentences were far too lenient. After the appeal which got one of the driver's sentence increased they were about half the maximum.

Locally that crash has had interesting effects on vehicle speeds and the social status of speeding which have lasted until now.

Attitudes among those I meet in this area and also in the London area have all shifted in recent years, in the same direction, and I'm sure the courts will catch up, eventually.


----------



## Davidc (15 Nov 2012)

StuartG said:


> Sorry I did not realise you had difficulty reading.. The tiny minority of 83% IS FOR THOSE WHO ADMIT TO SPEEDING REGULARLY. Did those capitals help you to grasp the issue? Perhaps you had better spend the tenner on a pair of glasses.


 
I refer you to my post above, which clearly demonstrates that your conjecture is wrong.

The item you have referred to may suggest, if the figures are of any significance at all, that many of us occasionally break the letter of the law, it does not show a lack of sensible and responsible driving.


----------



## Davidc (15 Nov 2012)

2155218 said:


> Simple question. Who here as a cyclist reckons they are more likely to be killed by a ninja cyclist than be a driver in a car?


 
The answer is self evident. It doesn't alter the stupidity being shown by ninja cyclists.

The probability of being killed in a collision with a car is nonetheless extremely small. Of the 107 road deaths of cyclists in the latest figures many are single vehicle (the bike) and too many are with lorries, leaving very few car related deaths.

What has a very much higher probability is being seriously injured, and I can't find the numbers at the moment.

All road casualty figures are too high. Cyclist numbers are only a small proportion of the total KSI. The whole lot needs to be reduced and that's going to need lots of changes to attitudes.


----------



## Davidc (15 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> David - this thread isn't about drivers.
> 
> Lets stick to those silly cyclists without lights.
> 
> They are a PITA aren't they.


 
Couldn't agree more.

Unfortunately they interact with drivers, and make life difficult for the rest of us in doing so.


----------



## snorri (15 Nov 2012)

The sooner responsibility for road crime detection and punishment is taken away from police and the courts and handed over to the CC lynch mob the better, I say.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Nov 2012)

2155215 said:


> You chose them to project an image



What image do you believe I am projecting?


----------



## lukesdad (15 Nov 2012)

2155218 said:


> Simple question. Who here as a cyclist reckons they are more likely to be killed by a ninja cyclist than be a driver in a car?


 Option 3 who is more likely to be killed by a heart attack ?


----------



## 400bhp (15 Nov 2012)

2155218 said:
 

> Simple question. Who here as a cyclist reckons they are more likely to be killed by a ninja cyclist than be a driver in a car?



Start a new thread as it has nothing to do with this thread


----------



## StuartG (15 Nov 2012)

Davidc said:


> I refer you to my post above, which clearly demonstrates that your conjecture is wrong. The item you have referred to may suggest, if the figures are of any significance at all, that many of us occasionally break the letter of the law, it does not show a lack of sensible and responsible driving.


 
83% is tiny. Regular is occasional. Deliberately disregarding the law placed there for our own safety is sensible and responsible. Ummm you can tell where the 92% comes from. Would you by chance be one of the 80% who are 'above average'?

You really frighten me. Please tell me its a troll and you don't drive ...


----------



## Cyclist33 (15 Nov 2012)

http://aka.media.entertainment.sky..../12/16/Crouching-Tiger-Hidden-Dragon-01-1.jpg


----------



## 400bhp (15 Nov 2012)

Not directly, no.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Nov 2012)

Why the question mark? do you believe they aren't naughty then?


----------



## 400bhp (16 Nov 2012)

2155455 said:


> No that is a standard convention in written English, using a question mark when inviting agreement.


 
Or it is a question.


----------



## 400bhp (16 Nov 2012)

Sorry, but it's not and I find that quite insulting to be honest.


----------



## Dan B (16 Nov 2012)

Davidc said:


> As you said, and I didn't question it, the courts are too lenient and are out of touch.


But the decision making process in courts is driven by people - magistrates, judges, jurors. The decision making process as to whether anything even gets to court is driven by people (Police, CPS). If _all_ these people are out of touch, who exactly are they out of touch with? ...


> 18 months ago we had a very serious fatality near here which has been national news, when Amy Hoffmeister, aged 13, cycling on a cycle path, was killed and her friend seriously injured. The response was universally that the sentences were far too lenient. After the appeal which got one of the driver's sentence increased they were about half the maximum.


According to the news report I just googled he was uninsured and unlicenced - so hardly an otherwise law-abiding citizen of the kind to be let off with an "oh well, was just an unfortunate mistake, could have happened to anyone". And he killed a 13 year old girl


> Locally that crash has had interesting effects on vehicle speeds and the social status of speeding which have lasted until now.
> 
> Attitudes among those I meet in this area and also in the London area have all shifted in recent years, in the same direction, and I'm sure the courts will catch up, eventually.


I hope you're right, I really do.


----------



## Davidsw8 (16 Nov 2012)

2155166 said:


> And why not? Someone moaning about ninja cyclists a small subset of a small sector of society. People moan about them but produce no evidence of any substantial harm. All I have sought to do here is restore a sense of proportion and suggest that there are other groups on our roads who pose genuine and measurable risks to others about whom action could and should be taken as appropriate but isn't.


 
I guess you could always create a thread specially to address your pressing concerns Adrian.

Not every single thread on this forum will be out the biggest issues we face in society, sometimes people want to talk about those things that don't create untold death and destruction.


----------



## Davidsw8 (16 Nov 2012)

2155914 said:


> Or you could just choose not to engage with it, but seeing as this thread was specifically about a pressing road safety issue and that is all that we have been discussing, I really don't see what your problem is.


 
I'm demonstrably very happy to discuss the actual subject of this thread Adrian (i.e. cyclists not using lights).


----------



## 400bhp (16 Nov 2012)

2155918 said:


> Sorry but what I wrote was plainly accessible English.


 
No, in my eyes it wasn't. It was veiled in some attempt at a patronising retort which I find the majority of your posts to be that way inclined.


----------



## Davidsw8 (16 Nov 2012)

2155938 said:


> Me too, were there anything further worth saying on the subject but there isn't. To recap, unlit cyclists are silly boys and girls but bizarrely under-represented in accident stats so perhaps less endangered than one might imagine at first thought. They may or may not reflect badly on the rest of us but if they do, we all more than counterbalance it by the good we do as we go about our daily cycling.
> 
> OK?


 
That's fabulous Adrian, cheers 

I guess when one finds a thread to be done with, one moves on to sommat else even if others still want to continue to discuss the original OP...


----------



## Dilbert (16 Nov 2012)

2155938 said:


> Me too, were there anything further worth saying on the subject but there isn't. To recap, unlit cyclists are silly boys and girls but bizarrely under-represented in accident stats so perhaps less endangered than one might imagine at first thought. They may or may not reflect badly on the rest of us but if they do, *we all more than counterbalance it by the good we do as we go about our daily cycling*.
> 
> OK?


 Please share with us how you think what we do counteracts the negative impression of cyclists created by Ninjas in the population at large, because frankly I think the general population's views of cyclists is formed almost entirely by Ninjas, RLJ's and Pavement cyclists. IMHO law abiding cyclists are at best a slight hinerance or at worst irrelevent to other road users, I don't imagine many drivers going round going "wow look another well ridden bike". Same way comment on here focuses on bad driving when there is lots of good driving about in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (18 Nov 2012)

2153145 said:


> Sure cyclists can use lights to make it easier but cars do have lights with which their drivers can see stuff so what is the problem?


I suspect an element of trolling rather than this question really being as daft as it sounds; but to nibble away whilst waiting for my phone sync to finish; I did recognise that cars have lights in the very first words of my reply. However, bike lights are generally visible blinking or a bit wobbly far in advance of when the car beam picks the person or high viz up (I'm a fan of high viz too, in addition to lights) giving said car driver even more warning than simply relying on their own light source & reactions to ninja cyclist being a last minute surprise to them, very very last minute if the car is going at some speed.

I can't understand, even as a devils advocate/trolling question, why responsible cyclists wouldn't want to give drivers every possible assistance to be aware of our presence as early as possible.
Also with negative comment on victims in no-helmet or headphones-present cases & as per Wiggins post olympic 'helmetgate' comments, if there is a coming together outside of broad daylight and the cyclist dosen't have lights, what chance there being any other 'verdict' than cyclists fault, regardless of other factors that may be relevant.


----------



## HLaB (21 Nov 2012)

ianrauk said:


> How many ninjas do you actually hear about getting mowed down by cars? None.
> How many 'proper' cyclists do you hear about getting mowed down by cars? Loads.
> 
> Ninjas seem to have an invincibility cloak surrounding them. Oh yes, it's called the pavement.


A colleague of mine was looking at some accident stats of a mini rbt, the majority of reported bike accidents were ninja's


----------

