Cycling UK Forum

Tonyf33 wrote:

gbnz wrote:No comment

Why no comment, if you don't agree with my post why not give reasons, don't be shy ?

My apologies . Don't read too much into "no comment", it wasn't in reply to your's

A long day on the bike, returned after dark, late dinner, the Saturday roast was apparently burning, a case of deleting a half completed post, accidently submitted it instead and couldn't find delete . Would have returned to it, but a roast chicken after a day on the bike waits for no man

I cannot quite believe some people are defending ninja cyclists and linking it to some sort of motorists conspiracy against cyclists. Ninja cyclists are a danger to all road users, especially vulnerable road users like cyclists and a danger to pedestrians. The same arguments could be used to allow car drivers to drive without headlights, street lighting is good enough, people should drive slower and take more care, obviously nonsense just like ninja cyclists.

Someone stated only one fatality was linked to no lights, roughly 1% of cycle fatalities using this uncorroborated statistic. I have no desire to be that 1%, there are probably also lots of minor and non-fatal crashes which I do my best to avoid. Considering 20% of drivers have vision below the legally required standard and there is little hope of the government/Police doing anything about it in the near future I for one will illuminate myself as much as possible to avoid becoming another statistic.

BSRU wrote:I cannot quite believe some people are defending ninja cyclists and linking it to some sort of motorists conspiracy against cyclists. Ninja cyclists are a danger to all road users, especially vulnerable road users like cyclists and a danger to pedestrians. The same arguments could be used to allow car drivers to drive without headlights, street lighting is good enough, people should drive slower and take more care, obviously nonsense just like ninja cyclists.

Someone stated only one fatality was linked to no lights, roughly 1% of cycle fatalities using this uncorroborated statistic. I have no desire to be that 1%, there are probably also lots of minor and non-fatal crashes which I do my best to avoid. Considering 20% of drivers have vision below the legally required standard and there is little hope of the government/Police doing anything about it in the near future I for one will illuminate myself as much as possible to avoid becoming another statistic.

Feel free to find the 'uncorroborated' statistic on the TRL website.

Obviously all your statements such as "Ninja cyclists are a danger to all road users" are corroborated?

Incidentally, if you'd actually read my posts instead of jumping to conclusions you'd see that I wasn't actually defending ninja cyclists, merely arguing against the type of stuff you've spouted wholesale above and the general panic cyclists seem to get into over lighting and hi-vis, something else you appear to be doing.

kwackers wrote:Feel free to find the 'uncorroborated' statistic on the TRL website.

Probably badly worded by me, I meant a statistic I am taking on trust without verifying it myself.

kwackers wrote:Obviously all your statements such as "Ninja cyclists are a danger to all road users" are corroborated?

Since it is an opinion born out of my experience it cannot be corroborated.
I had a perfect example of a ninja cyclist this morning, dark, heavy rain and they were virtually invisible, lots of cars pulling out in front of them or suddenly braking when they emerged from the darkness they were hiding in.

kwackers wrote:Incidentally, if you'd actually read my posts instead of jumping to conclusions you'd see that I wasn't actually defending ninja cyclists, merely arguing against the type of stuff you've spouted wholesale above and the general panic cyclists seem to get into over lighting and hi-vis, something else you appear to be doing.

My lighting and hi-viz set-up has been decided by me from my own experiences whilst on the road, no panic or pressure involved and certainly no opinions of other people taken into account. I am obviously not the only one guilty of wholesale spouting as some cyclists need to blame motorists for all our problems.

BSRU wrote:My lighting and hi-viz set-up has been decided by me from my own experiences whilst on the road, no panic or pressure involved and certainly no opinions of other people taken into account. I am obviously not the only one guilty of wholesale spouting as some cyclists need to blame motorists for all our problems.

That's great. I have what I consider to be decent lights and wear hi-vis too.

Over the years I've experimented with various outfits and lighting and found not a jot of difference - with one exception. Dark clothing does cause motorists to give me much more room! Now obviously that's simply because the one's that have seen me have placed me in the 'unpredictable' pile but I wouldn't claim it makes any allowances for people who haven't seen me, but then I've always been seen from vehicles approaching from the rear, can't say I've ever had any evidence of this not being the case.
On the other hand from the front I can expect someone not to have seen me to the point I have to take avoiding action about once a month (aprox 400 miles) and lighting has made no difference to that number and indeed, neither does daylight.

With regards the motorists conspiracy - not a word I've ever used, conspiracy implies deliberate and with very few examples I don't think things are deliberate, just misjudged or not thought about.

As for them being responsible for all cyclists problems, nope not all - just most.
Evidence for this is the 90+ % of fatalities and injuries attributed to them. Backed up by my own experience of having to avoid them from time to time or having them overtake with inches to spare for no reason at all (i.e. no oncoming traffic - not that it should matter), tailgating, the occasional "race to the junction/pinch point/traffic island" plus the odd person who having failed to complete a badly thought out manoeuvre (or nearly coming a cropper attempting it) feels the need to have a go.

BSRU wrote:Someone stated only one fatality was linked to no lights, roughly 1% of cycle fatalities using this uncorroborated statistic. I have no desire to be that 1%,

I did a search on the TRL website. The report I found was - "Collisions involving pedal cyclists on Britain's roads: establishing the causes " a free download at

http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/repor ... auses_.htm

This report gives figures of 27% (table 6.1 on pg 36) of fatals as taking place at night. 5% (table 7.4 on page 46)of fatals had "no lights" as a contributary factor. So I think if around a fifth of night time fatals are unlit cyclists then lights are a good idea.

So that's 5% of all fatals linked to no lights or around a fifth of fatals at night or in poor visibilty.

irc wrote:So I think if around a fifth of night time fatals are unlit cyclists then lights are a good idea.

Or put another way your're 80% more likely to be killed if you have lights!

I think we need more information to draw conclusions. A pair mile risk would be more informative, as would knowing whether the deceased had badly judged a gap in the traffic (ninjas by all accounts being renown for pavement riding and sudden darts across the roads).
Trouble is nobody really collects the necessary information so we're back to guessing...

kwackers wrote:

irc wrote:So I think if around a fifth of night time fatals are unlit cyclists then lights are a good idea.

Or put another way your're 80% more likely to be killed if you have lights!

I think we need more information to draw conclusions. A pair mile risk would be more informative, as would knowing whether the deceased had badly judged a gap in the traffic (ninjas by all accounts being renown for pavement riding and sudden darts across the roads).
Trouble is nobody really collects the necessary information so we're back to guessing...

But this is further complicated by cyclists with lights more likely to be on the road, and those without more likely to be on the pavement and going slower.

If I get caught out by non-working lights (flat battery or poor connection), then I become very cautious and will use alternative routes (quieter roads and pavements/footpaths). Only happens when I am close to home, as I now use two sets of lights (and spare batteries) for commuting or longer journeys, in case my main lights fail / battery doesn't last.

I saw a cyclist get pulled up many years ago, had a problem with his front light and was fiddling with it. I stopped to ask if there was anything I could do to help and he mumbled something "poxy light" and said he had about 4 miles to go. The copper told him he had to walk & couldn't ride on the "pavement" (Though strictly speaking is a 'footway') and no way should he be on the road (or words to that effect)
Given how quiet the road and footway was I really felt for the cyclist.

I sympathise with kwackers.

The law requires lights, and you should use them. I wouldn't ride without them at night, I don't like cycling in dark clothing, and so on.

However, I'm fascinated by the story of the CTC's opposition to compulsory rear lights. That wasn't about them being a bad idea either. The aim of compulsory lights was to make cyclists safer. That means that hitting an unlit cyclist was already unacceptable, and hitting a lit one would be even worse.

That's not where we are now, and that's why the CTC was opposed. Instead of using lights to get extra safety, we're using them as the minimum for visibility, and adding reflectors, flashers and all kinds of stuff as well. If we started from the idea of hitting an unlit cyclist being unacceptable, hitting a Christmas tree would be an immediate life ban.

The same applies to pedestrians. As a driver (or cyclist), I should be expecting pedestrians in dark clothes on country roads. Those in hi-vis should be easier to spot. Hi-vis is not the minimum. I need to watch my driving to make sure I live up to that.

And yes, the stats do seem to say that lit cyclists are more likely to get hit. Which is unsurprising, because the massive numbers of people who report seeing invisible cyclists must mean that the latter stand out.

There is an approach to cyclist safety that says that the key is to get the motorist to react to your presence. It appears that riding without lights is a way to achieve that.

I'm sticking with my lights though...

drossall wrote:...The same applies to pedestrians. As a driver (or cyclist), I should be expecting pedestrians in dark clothes on country roads. ...

We've several threads going on the conspicuousness theme at the moment and this one is as good as any. I have quite a lot of caring responsibilities at present, and that includes frequently taking my young grandchildren to and from school, nursery, play school etc, often in the gloom. I've always been a hi-vis cyclist, at least since it's been possible to get hi-vis togs, although I tend to think that their biggest use is as protection against the victim-blamers. The underlying theme even on here seems to be that a lot of people see hi-vis as a necessary part of life for everybody. On that basis I have just bought a goretex (what else ) hi-vis coat for walking my grandchildren to school. O tempora, o mores.

thirdcrank wrote:On that basis I have just bought a goretex (what else ) hi-vis coat for walking my grandchildren to school. O tempora, o mores.

Autre pays, autre moeurs. Round here (Oxford) school kids tend to cycle in maroon jumpers, black trousers and (when it finally gets cold/wet enough) a dark coat. Rather more in danger of hitting each other than being hit by a car, fortunately.

A couple of small LED lights is not too much trouble; can't be bothered with the rest.

Richard

Seems odd this topic has generated such a long thread. Coppers catch people breaking the law and issue a fixed penalty for the same. End of.

From Road.cc: Hampshire Constabulary launch lo-viz cyclist crackdown

http://road.cc/content/news/27179-updat ... -crackdown

A police officer I know described the following system he used for cycling offences including lights.

1. Decent person not known to police - first offence - verbal caution - recorded

2. As above - second offence - no further action letter - recorded

3. As above - third offence - FPN.

3A. As above - further offences - further FPN's

4. first offence - failed attitude test - FPN (if contined failure of attitude test - summons to court)

5. Convicted criminal (damage / assault / theft) - summons to court

Easy!