The ninja cycle epidemic *mod warning - see OP*

magicbastarder

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You really shouldn't be missing anything. If you're relying on lights alone, there's a bigger issue at play.

should i be using my superhuman sense of smell too?

robyntmorton

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You really shouldn't be missing anything. If you're relying on lights alone, there's a bigger issue at play.

At this stage I think you're intentionally being obtuse. No, you shouldn't be missing anything, but by someone being an idiot and using lights the wrong way round, you are forced to try and reconcile something that isn't right. Your situational awareness is affected, through no fault of your own. Whether you're a cyclist or a motorist or whatever, it can easily lead to an accident, and while you didn't cause it, you have to deal with the consequences of it.

To try and pin it on "oh you shouldn't be relying on lights" is bulls!?t.

Samuel T. Cogley

Yes everyone should absolutely being doing exactly what they are required to do. This sort of thing is either changed by massive enforcement, which has never, ever happened and never will, or by people taking baby steps and hopefully being seen, which is at the end of the day all I really care about. It's a huge fear of mine I'm going to take out some idiot dressed in black, not paying attention one night. I'll take red, green, orange or lights and a high vis over nothing any day of the week.

You are out of your mind if you think wrong lights are worse than no lights at all and a pretty poor driver.

Chips Lovell

The conversation has been had here many, many times before, but the solution to no lights or crap lights isn't Fred vests (which are an inadequate alternative to, or supplement for, poor lights) but proper, decent bicycle lights.

Minimum vehicle lighting standards for bike lights would go a long way to addressing this but, considering the existing vehicle lighting regulations are barely enforced, I wouldn't hold out hope of this happening any time soon.

robyntmorton

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You are out of your mind if you think wrong lights are worse than no lights at all and a pretty poor driver.

Oh come on, where did I say that?! They're as bad as each other.

If someone has the sense to realise they should be using lights though, it stands to reason to assume they should have the sense too to know where each light should be pointing.

Pinch Flat

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Yes everyone should absolutely being doing exactly what they are required to do. This sort of thing is either changed by massive enforcement, which has never, ever happened and never will, or by people taking baby steps and hopefully being seen, which is at the end of the day all I really care about. It's a huge fear of mine I'm going to take out some idiot dressed in black, not paying attention one night. I'll take red, green, orange or lights and a high vis over nothing any day of the week.

You are out of your mind if you think wrong lights are worse than no lights at all and a pretty poor driver.

Actually, I remember growing up as a teenager (mid 80s) it wasn't unusual to have a Garda stop you and make you walk your bike without proper or no lights.

Wrong lights are dangeerous - crappy dealz, freebies, those ridiculous 5,000 lumen flashing ones from ebay / aliexpress, wrong coloured lights can do more harm than good.

Samuel T. Cogley

robyntmorton wrote: »

Oh come on, where did I say that?! They're as bad as each other.

If someone has the sense to realise they should be using lights though, it stands to reason to assume they should have the sense too to know where each light should be pointing.

It would, but you'd expect someone who is familiar with the outside and night time not to dress in black and have no lights. Experience tells us, people are idiots.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Actually, I remember growing up as a teenager (mid 80s) it wasn't unusual to have a Garda stop you and make you walk your bike without proper or no lights.

Wrong lights are dangeerous - crappy dealz, freebies, those ridiculous 5,000 lumen flashing ones from ebay / aliexpress, wrong coloured lights can do more harm than good.

Again rather that, even Mr. blindy than nothing. Absolutely they should be pulled and made to do it right. But in the mean time I'll take any effort over none.

Kaisr Sose

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's the role of an garda siochana to enforce the law.
it's not the role of an garda siochana to enforce common sense.

what happens when the law=common sense? does logic collapse into a singularity?

Common sense is not always legislated for. It's common sense to have / use lights at night time. It's also the law, but common sense trumps the law on this issue for me. If somebody wants to beak the law and not use them, then they are stupid. You cannot legislate for stupidly but enforcement of the law would certainly help.

There are a lot of cars running with one head lamp blown...lots of taxis too. If I recall correctly, there was a time a taxi was not allowed pick up fares if their vehicle had a blown headlamp. Now they just feign they did not know....

Kaisr Sose

JMcL wrote: »

This. It's also the law - white (or yellow) front, and red rear - both can flash

Flash = Once per second. Not the trance inducing flashing strobes some cyclist have.

Macy0161

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Wrong lights are dangeerous - crappy dealz, freebies, those ridiculous 5,000 lumen flashing ones from ebay / aliexpress, wrong coloured lights can do more harm than good.

Or the one's that the RSA have handed out in the past!

I actually saw someone with one of the cree lights this morning - pointed down about a metre in front - it actually worked well as a "be seen" light, with the wide dispersal pattern without being as blinding as they can be - which I do also think is slightly overplayed tbh (people putting those stupid xenon bulbs in cars all over the shop, and a few cyclists doing similar overkill is a major issued).

Is there "wrong" lights at that end of the spectrum, without a clear standard? Again, it adds to the confusion. People see the media stuff about cyclists being invisible/ not having lights, so they go to the other extreme with over bright lights and ott hi viz (particularly love those helmet covers).

Macy0161

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It would, but you'd expect someone who is familiar with the outside and night time not to dress in black and have no lights. Experience tells us, people are idiots.

Not so sure about that - I've a black rain jacket that has loads of reflective detail, and similarly have bib tights with lots of reflective detail (which normally have similarly reflective detailed overshoes). Reflective is the important bit. A Reflective Browne Belt would be as effective as a builders vest at night time.

mrcheez

Moflojo wrote: »

Lights are a legal requirement yet very few bikes are sold with integrated lights. There should be an onus on manufacturers and retailers to include lights in the sale of every bike.

If lights were an 'optional extra' on motor vehicles would there be a similar issue with Ninja Motorists? I think there would be.

Well car lights are "optional" in the sense that they can be turned on/off, but yes you do see the odd car without lights (more likely because the driver is on a well-lit street and didn't realise they hadn't got the lights on).


So, judging by the fact no seasoned cyclists on here have come on to defend cycling with no lights, I'll take it that it must be a naivety issue that people new to the sport partake in, rather than a new attitude prevalent amongst regular riders.
The comment about someone not knowing red lights go on the back gives an example.

I guess it's the large uptake in cycling that is putting a lot of new inexperienced riders out there and might be why we see a surge in this.

I don't recall Gardai enforcement ever being a factor even when I was cycling to school etc in the 90s. But I'd still have had lights on my bike then!

mrcheez

UPDATE: actually just chatting to a co-worker here who said he used to cycle with no lights for ages, and said it was because he'd have to go organise batteries, or find a fitting, or just plain didn't think it would make him more noticeable on the road.

So... eh... maybe it is laziness

Macy0161

mrcheez wrote: »

So, judging by the fact no seasoned cyclists on here have come on to defend cycling with no lights, I'll take it that it must be a naivety issue that people new to the sport partake in, rather than a new attitude prevalent amongst regular riders.

Not sure to the general commuter it is a sport - it's just a mode of transport. And again, people across all modes do stupid and illegal things on our roads.

magicbastarder

mrcheez wrote: »

So, judging by the fact no seasoned cyclists on here have come on to defend cycling with no lights, I'll take it that it must be a naivety issue that people new to the sport partake in, rather than a new attitude prevalent amongst regular riders.
The comment about someone not knowing red lights go on the back gives an example.

i find it irritating/aggravating when i see cyclists with no lights, but i often wonder how big a problem it actually causes.

Roadhawk

mrcheez wrote: »

Well car lights are "optional" in the sense that they can be turned on/off, but yes you do see the odd car without lights (more likely because the driver is on a well-lit street and didn't realise they hadn't got the lights on).

This is a very rare occurrence and you can be guaranteed that the majority of motorists who pass another vehicle without lights on will beckon them to turn on their lights. In most cases a motorist would not set out on a journey at night without lights whereas a cyclist would.

mrcheez wrote: »

So, judging by the fact no seasoned cyclists on here have come on to defend cycling with no lights, I'll take it that it must be a naivety issue that people new to the sport partake in, rather than a new attitude prevalent amongst regular riders.
The comment about someone not knowing red lights go on the back gives an example.

No seasoned cyclist would defend cycling without lights but that doesnt mean they dont do it. A lot of those racer style and "fixies" bicycles dont have lights. I see heaps of them all over the city. Its mostly commuter/hybrid style bicycles who have/use lights at night.

mrcheez wrote: »

I guess it's the large uptake in cycling that is putting a lot of new inexperienced riders out there and might be why we see a surge in this.

The increase in numbers definitely adds to the surge but so does the season. During the winter the number of cyclists without lights at night spikes because of the dark morning and evenings. A combo of both really but as we come into the brighter morning and evening it will appear as if there are less cyclists without lights.

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

i find it irritating/aggravating when i see cyclists with no lights, but i often wonder how big a problem it actually causes.

Looking at the graph in this article it would appear that more cyclists are injured during hours of light:

http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-roads-dangerous-cyclists-years-ago-statistics-injuries-1945680-Feb2015/

magicbastarder

that article illustrates why journalists need to go on mandatory courses on the correct use of statistics and percentages.

e.g. "Between 2006 and 2011, CSO figures showed a 9.6% increase in the number of people cycling to work across Ireland."

does that mean that, say, the number of people cycling to work jumped from 10% to 19.6%?
or that it jumped from 10% to 10.96%?

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

that article illustrates why journalists need to go on mandatory courses on the correct use of statistics and percentages.

e.g. "Between 2006 and 2011, CSO figures showed a 9.6% increase in the number of people cycling to work across Ireland."

does that mean that, say, the number of people cycling to work jumped from 10% to 19.6%?
or that it jumped from 10% to 10.96%?

Well my previous post did say to refer to the graph in the article but if you wish to tackle the integrity of the journalist perhaps look up the CSO figures between 2006 and 2011 to confirm.

As far as i can make out there were 36,306 cyclists recorded in 2006 and 39,803 in 2011 so that should give you your 9.6% increase.

Weepsie

Roadhawk wrote: »

This is a very rare occurrence and you can be guaranteed that the majority of motorists who pass another vehicle without lights on will beckon them to turn on their lights. In most cases a motorist would not set out on a journey at night without lights whereas a cyclist would.

It's not that rare at all though, particularly in the winter to see cars without headlights on, or with broken headlights. I'd agree that there's certainly a higher proportion of bikes without lights though.

I just got a dynamo light, I'd be recommending that any commuter has then personally

Hungrycol

I am so paranoid about being hit from the back that I have three red lights on the back of my bike, one white flashing on the front. I am one of those fools who wears a highvis and puts a black bag over it but I have THREE RED LIGHTS on the back!

Having said that I have heard and read many stories of motorists saying "sorry didn't see you" when a well lit cyclist was hit or nearly hit. Some motorists subconsciously just look out cars on the road.

Pinch Flat

Hungrycol wrote: »

Having said that I have heard and read many stories of motorists saying "sorry didn't see you" when a well lit cyclist was hit or nearly hit.

Both times I was knocked off, I had a lenzyne 80 lumen flashing rear mounted on the seat post and a half watt led flashing at helmet level. Hi-vis bag cover. Both by left turning cars. Both times the drivers claimed to have not seen me.

mrcheez

Macy0161 wrote: »

Not sure to the general commuter it is a sport - it's just a mode of transport. And again, people across all modes do stupid and illegal things on our roads.

sorry "mode of transport" is probably what I meant to say.. couldn't think of the word so used "sport"!

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

if you wish to tackle the integrity of the journalist

not their integrity, but the fact that they're not clear on whether they're talking about relative or absolute percentage increases.

Thud

Roadhawk wrote: »

Looking at the graph in this article it would appear that more cyclists are injured during hours of light:

http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-roads-dangerous-cyclists-years-ago-statistics-injuries-1945680-Feb2015/

Could that be because more cyclists cycle during daylight hours by any chance....

Macy0161

Weepsie wrote: »

It's not that rare at all though, particularly in the winter to see cars without headlights on, or with broken headlights.

And it most cases I would suggest they set off without them.

You can also add in foggy/ poor light conditions to times people driving can't even be bothered to turn on the appropriate lights. Or turn them off when they're not needed. Like I said, ignorant people across all modes, whether a legal requirement or not, or whether built into what they're using or not.

I think it's been noticeable this winter of the number of vehicles driving around after lighting up hours with just daylight running lights on. Obviously these are more common, but some people driving seem to think they are enough - not sure how a reflective strip on a pedestrian or cyclist is supposed to be able to reflect light to them...

cdaly_

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You are out of your mind if you think wrong lights are worse than no lights at all and a pretty poor driver.

Wrong colour light on the front is definitely worse than no lights. If I'm driving out of a side road and see a black-dressed unlit cyclist outlined by ambient lighting, I'll take note and due care.

If I see a black-dressed cyclist with a red light showing, I'll assume they're heading away from me and will carry on driving and (possibly) have a collision.

Worse outcome is for the incorrectly lit cyclist, not the unlit one.

mrcheez

cdaly_ wrote: »

Wrong colour light on the front is definitely worse than no lights. If I'm driving out of a side road and see a black-dressed unlit cyclist outlined by ambient lighting, I'll take note and due care.

If I see a black-dressed cyclist with a red light showing, I'll assume they're heading away from me and will carry on driving and (possibly) have a collision.

Worse outcome is for the incorrectly lit cyclist, not the unlit one.

or 3rd option is when you don't see them with no ambient lighting (think Phoenix Park), in that case *ANY* light is better than no light.

Had this happen with a few joggers on the bike path a few years ago... running side by side taking up the whole lane and invisible due to the fact that oncoming car lights were blinding. Only spotted them when I elbowed one of them.

Similar for bikes with no lights on that stretch.


You should never trust someone's lights when driving. I've had many people indicate left only to drive straight on in front of me, again same for red bike lights.

Roadhawk

Macy0161 wrote: »

And it most cases I would suggest they set off without them.

I would really have to disagree with this statement. In most cases motorists would set of with their lights on at night.

Macy0161 wrote: »

You can also add in foggy/ poor light conditions to times people driving can't even be bothered to turn on the appropriate lights. Or turn them off when they're not needed. Like I said, ignorant people across all modes, whether a legal requirement or not, or whether built into what they're using or not.

This is true but is also applicable to cyclists. For all them cyclists who only use their bikes during the day and dont have a light fitted, how are they visible in fog or heavy rain?

For the few cyclists who even own a light, many have them covered by a long jacket they are wearing or have them stuck on the side of a bag which is not visible to the intended road users and others just dont bother replacing batteries so the light is only noticeable in the last 5-10 meters or have a front light and no rear or vice versa.

Macy0161 wrote: »

I think it's been noticeable this winter of the number of vehicles driving around after lighting up hours with just daylight running lights on. Obviously these are more common, but some people driving seem to think they are enough - not sure how a reflective strip on a pedestrian or cyclist is supposed to be able to reflect light to them...

Most new cars (in the last 5 years or so) have automatic lights so the main beam will turn on once it becomes dark. Give it another 10 years or so and this wont be an issue. Im not sure if you are motorist but as a motorist you will notice that other vehicles will flash you if your lights are off or on day lights.

Chips Lovell

Back on topic please.

The proportion of motorists driving without lights has no bearing on the issue of cyclists using no lights. Ordinarily we're fine with threads going a bit off topic but if this means yet another motorist vs. cyclist row (yawn), we're going to call a halt.

Thank you