The ninja cycle epidemic *mod warning - see OP*

CramCycle

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

But of course if someone then does hit them, it's everyone else's fault and at least there's a hefty payout to look forward to.

MOD VOICE: Please read the forum charter and also familiarise yourself with the general posting around the forum. You will find that this is not the general attitude around here and such thinly veiled anti cyclist posts will not be tolerated. Any discussion via PM

I love Sean nos

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Can you clarify what the problem actually is? Do many cyclists get killed or injured each year as a result of not having lights?

I looked this up in the last couple of years on the RSA reports. It was a particularly boring afternoon.

All bar one of the cyclists killed in collisions that year were hit in the hours of daylight.

mrcheez

Actually how many people have died from walking around a plane during takeoff/landing?
Hardly any I imagine.

I vote that we do away with seat-belts and let people walk around as they wish.


Back on topic, it's exceedingly inconsiderate to cycle without lights showing particular lack of consideration toward other cyclists on bike paths (that are a lot less well lit than roads so the "ambient lighting is enough" excuse doesn't suffice).

I NARROWLY avoided colliding head-on with an idiot on the Clontarf path as I rounded a corner last night. Shouted at him.. he knows who he is.

How many incidents are left unreported of collisions involving cyclists due to no lights? I'd say a lot!

mrcheez

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Can you clarify what the problem actually is? Do many cyclists get killed or injured each year as a result of not having lights?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So it's a purely theoretical issue then? Not something that actually kills people on the roads, like speeding, phone use or drink driving then.

I love Sean nos wrote: »

I looked this up in the last couple of years on the RSA reports. It was a particularly boring afternoon.

All bar one of the cyclists killed in collisions that year were hit in the hours of daylight.

Kellyanne Conway is that you?!?

seamus

Beasty wrote: »

Just because no-one can find examples of cyclists who may have been harmed when cycling with no lights (and I'm sure there will be many examples) does not mean such cyclists have some kind of immunity from harm or indeed causing harm to others

The point here is not attempting to claim that "cycling without lights is perfectly safe", but dealing with the "epidemic" claim in the OP and that this is something which needs special focus.

That is;

A. Are the actual numbers of unlit cyclists increasing?
and
B. Is this resulting in incidents such that it requires additional focus and enforcement beyond what already exists?

You won't find anyone on this thread who has claimed that cycling without lights is perfectly safe.

Roadhawk wrote: »

In that case why is it even illegal to cycle without lights?

For a few reasons;

- On paper it's pretty dangerous and on unlit roads absolutely essential

- Even if it wasn't dangerous, it provides additional information to other road users to allow for the smooth flow of traffic. Like indicators.

tomasrojo

mrcheez wrote: »

Back on topic, it's exceedingly inconsiderate to cycle without lights showing particular lack of consideration toward other cyclists on bike paths (that are a lot less well lit than roads so the "ambient lighting is enough" excuse doesn't suffice).

I NARROWLY avoided colliding head-on with an idiot on the Clontarf path as I rounded a corner last night. Shouted at him.. he knows who he is.

Effective Cycling mentions this scenario as one where having lights is especially important, as cyclists without lights tend to hug the centre line to be sure they're definitely on the track.

One of the scenarios where I've decided a bell is handy is going around a blind corner on a two-way cycle track.

tomasrojo

mrcheez wrote: »

I NARROWLY avoided colliding head-on with an idiot on the Clontarf path as I rounded a corner last night.

Effective Cycling makes particular mention of the importance of using lights on two-way cycle lanes, as people without lights tend to follow the centre-line very closely, which can result in some awful collisions.

I also, now I frequent some two-way cycle tracks with blind corners, have a new-found respect for the bicycle bell. It's quite hard to think of anything else you can do (shouting, singing, sneezing, coughing) to alert centre-line huggers that you're coming around the corner without looking like a loon.

lissard

mrcheez wrote: »

it's exceedingly inconsiderate to cycle without lights showing particular lack of consideration toward other cyclists on bike paths (that are a lot less well lit than roads so the "ambient lighting is enough" excuse doesn't suffice).

I NARROWLY avoided colliding head-on with an idiot on the Clontarf path as I rounded a corner last night. Shouted at him.. he knows who he is.

I have had exactly the same experience on the N11 cycle lane. I really have to concentrate when it's dark - you never know what is about to loom out of the darkness.

I love Sean nos

mrcheez wrote: »

Kellyanne Conway is that you?!?

Why would Kellyanne Conway be looking up boring RSA reports?

Tombo2001

tomasrojo wrote: »

Effective Cycling makes particular mention of the importance of using lights on two-way cycle lanes, as people without lights tend to follow the centre-line very closely, which can result in some awful collisions.

I also, now I frequent some two-way cycle tracks with blind corners, have a new-found respect for the bicycle bell. It's quite hard to think of anything else you can do (shouting, singing, sneezing, coughing) to alert centre-line huggers that you're coming around the corner without looking like a loon.

Completely agree.....this is an essential for cyclists in my view.

Tombo2001

mrcheez wrote: »

Actually how many people have died from walking around a plane during takeoff/landing?
Hardly any I imagine.

I vote that we do away with seat-belts and let people walk around as they wish.


Back on topic, it's exceedingly inconsiderate to cycle without lights showing particular lack of consideration toward other cyclists on bike paths (that are a lot less well lit than roads so the "ambient lighting is enough" excuse doesn't suffice).

I NARROWLY avoided colliding head-on with an idiot on the Clontarf path as I rounded a corner last night. Shouted at him.. he knows who he is.

How many incidents are left unreported of collisions involving cyclists due to no lights? I'd say a lot!

Are you really relying on 'unreported incidents' as a statistic to back up your arguments?

Sorry, hypothetical question, you are......

Mr Cheez, you have absolutely no evidence that badly lit cyclists pose a meaningful hazard on the road, to anyone. (In this country, at this time......).

What clearly there is evidence of, is that when you see a badly lit cyclist, it really annoys you.

Two different things.

Annie get your Run

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Are you really relying on 'unreported incidents' as a statistic to back up your arguments?

Sorry, hypothetical question, you are......

Mr Cheez, you have absolutely no evidence that badly lit cyclists pose a meaningful hazard on the road, to anyone. (In this country, at this time......).

What clearly there is evidence of, is that when you see a badly lit cyclist, it really annoys you.

Two different things.

Is the fact that it's the law not enough of a reason that cyclists should have lights?

Tombo2001

Annie get your Run wrote: »

Is the fact that it's the law not enough of a reason that cyclists should have lights?

I love when people answer a question I didn't ask, as a way to winning an argument.

Did I suggest that being badly lit is a good idea? No I didn't.

What I said was - is there evidence that in Ireland today, that the level of unlit cyclists is significant to a degree that it is a meaningful hazard, that it is causing accidents or is a factor in a significant number of accidents.

In other words stats please.

This thread is call 'The Ninja cycle epidemic'......

Otherwise its just cyclist bashing and hearsay and whingeing as usual.

Annie get your Run

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I love when people answer a question I didn't ask, as a way to winning an argument.

Did I suggest that being badly lit is a good idea? No I didn't.

What I said was - is there evidence that in Ireland today, that the level of unlit cyclists is significant to a degree that it is a meaningful hazard, that it is causing accidents or is a factor in a significant number of accidents.

In other words stats please.

This thread is call 'The Ninja cycle epidemic'......

Otherwise its just cyclist bashing and hearsay and whingeing as usual.

I'm a cyclist. I'm not sure what the issue is though, the law says we must have lights, what's the problem with pointing out that those on bikes with no lights are wrong?

Perhaps I'm missing something.

Tombo2001

Annie get your Run wrote: »

I'm a cyclist. I'm not sure what the issue is though, the law says we must have lights, what's the problem with pointing out that those on bikes with no lights are wrong?

Perhaps I'm missing something.

Yes you are missing something.

This thread is about 'the Ninja cycling epidemic', and the hazards this is supposedly causing.

Its not about whether cycling with no lights is wrong.

We are in Donald Trump territory here......build up a big bogeyman that doesn't exist, and then promise to defeat it.

Where is the evidence for this 'epidemic'.....

Roadhawk

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Yes you are missing something.

This thread is about 'the Ninja cycling epidemic', and the hazards this is supposedly causing.

Its not about whether cycling with no lights is wrong.

We are in Donald Trump territory here......build up a big bogeyman that doesn't exist, and then promise to defeat it.

Where is the evidence for this 'epidemic'.....

Well we all know that cycling without a light at night is wrong. The OP had given a brief outline of their recent experience of the epidemic but mention nothing about the hazards involved...that kind of trickled in after.

Defeating this sort of thing is easier said than done.

mrcheez

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Mr Cheez, you have absolutely no evidence that badly lit cyclists pose a meaningful hazard on the road, to anyone. (In this country, at this time......).

erm... didn't I say I narrowly missed a ninja last night?

Seems pretty hazardous that I only spotted them when they were a few metres away since they were
(a) not lit up
(b) wearing black
(c) cycling in the centre lane because they had no lights

My Kellyanne Conway comment was regarding how some people are trying to defend the indefensible :rolleyes:

It's an "epidemic" since it seems to be on the rise and "catching" (perhaps lots of people see others with no lights so think "sure why should I bother since everyone's going without")

07Lapierre

Maybe the answer is to ban street lights! I mean I only notice these guys in urban areas, where they obviously feel the street lights give adequate light to allow others to see them?

Roadhawk

mrcheez wrote: »

erm... didn't I say I narrowly missed a ninja last night?

Seems pretty hazardous that I only spotted them when they were a few metres away since they were
(a) not lit up
(b) wearing black
(c) cycling in the centre lane because they had no lights

My Kellyanne Conway comment was regarding how some people are trying to defend the indefensible :rolleyes:

It's an "epidemic" since it seems to be on the rise and "catching" (perhaps lots of people see others with no lights so think "sure why should I bother since everyone's going without")

Well done for spotting them. In a round about way you have possibly saved a life for being so aware.

Roadhawk

07Lapierre wrote: »

Maybe the answer is to ban street lights! I mean I only notice these guys in urban areas, where they obviously feel the street lights give adequate light to allow others to see them?

Oh God, could you imagine...it would need to be done in phases. Lights out across the board might negatively effect cycling numbers.

I love Sean nos

mrcheez wrote: »

My Kellyanne Conway comment was regarding how some people are trying to defend the indefensible :rolleyes:

Why did you quote me then? I defended nothing. I simply answered a question asked.

I love Sean nos wrote:

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Can you clarify what the problem actually is? Do many cyclists get killed or injured each year as a result of not having lights?

I looked this up in the last couple of years on the RSA reports. It was a particularly boring afternoon.

All bar one of the cyclists killed in collisions that year were hit in the hours of daylight.

Unknown Soldier

A ninja cyclist nearly got mushed by a bus in Terenure this evening.
Quite a barney followed due to the bus driver getting the fright of his life.

Near misses are not recorded.

Cyclist was a right arsehole.

odyssey06

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

A ninja cyclist nearly got mushed by a bus in Terenure this evening.
Quite a barney followed due to the bus driver getting the fright of his life.
Near misses are not recorded.

Correction. A fake ninja cyclist nearly got mushed.

A real ninja would have had the necessary agility to avoid such a scenario.

Clearly some sort of test of ability involving a samurai sword should be required before one earns the privilege to cycle in dark clothing without lights at night.
"Sir, unless you can present one sample ninja weapon immediately, I am going to have to confiscate this bicycle."

A real ninja would never allow himself to be dispossessed of his mode of transport by an unarmed Garda.

nomoreexams

I nearly slammed into a cyclist tonight who just stopped (at a speed which defied the laws of physics) with absolutely no warning in the middle of the bike lane. It was a Dublin Biker and I shouted an obscene profanity and 10 mins later felt so guilty for losing my cool with the poor sod, in saying that, she looked very confused so will probably continue to stop at breakneck speed.

Wishbone Ash

nomoreexams wrote: »

I nearly slammed into a cyclist tonight who just stopped (at a speed which defied the laws of physics) with absolutely no warning in the middle of the bike lane. It was a Dublin Biker and I shouted an obscene profanity and 10 mins later felt so guilty for losing my cool with the poor sod, in saying that, she looked very confused so will probably continue to stop at breakneck speed.

What's your point? The onus is on you to travel at a speed and distance to avoid such incidences. If you were driving a motorised vehicle, you would be held to be responsible. 'Expect the unexpected' as they say!

nomoreexams

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

What's your point? The onus is on you to travel at a speed and distance to avoid such incidences. If you were driving a motorised vehicle, you would be held to be responsible. 'Expect the unexpected' as they say!

I didn't crash into her, so I was going at an appropriate speed with a safe distance between us but a bit of consideration goes a long way! You're very defensive of her, wasn't you by any chance was it haha

magicbastarder

Does 'a bit of consideration' also include not shouting profanities at them?

All I'm getting from your post is that you wanted to tell us you were a bit of a dick.

nomoreexams

magicbastarder wrote: »

Does 'a bit of consideration' also include not shouting profanities at them?

All I'm getting from your post is that you wanted to tell us you were a bit of a dick.

I said I felt guilty, I got a shock and I reacted. Never done that no? No cyclist who's done something stupid has ever irritated you, no? Never reacted to a driver who nearly took you out of it?? It's a thread about ninja cyclists. If someone's going to slam on breaks with no warning then I consider that ninja. No need to be sanctimonious.

Kaisr Sose

magicbastarder wrote: »

Does 'a bit of consideration' also include not shouting profanities at them?

All I'm getting from your post is that you wanted to tell us you were a bit of a dick.

Attack the post but not the poster. No way is it fair to make that allegation. Moral high ground is all well and good but it's very slippy up there and many people can slip off it very easily ...

People do erratic things all the time, even things that the most keen observers of human behaviour cannot predict or see coming till it's too late.

magicbastarder

nomoreexams wrote: »

I said I felt guilty, I got a shock and I reacted. Never done that no? No cyclist who's done something stupid has ever irritated you, no? Never reacted to a driver who nearly took you out of it?? It's a thread about ninja cyclists. If someone's going to slam on breaks with no warning then I consider that ninja. No need to be sanctimonious.

it's one thing doing something as a reflex action, and learning from your mistake. however, a) i don't see what relevance this has to this thread - it's about unlit cyclists at night - and b) you're showing up a flaw in *your* cycling technique but portraying it as someone else's fault.