The ninja cycle epidemic *mod warning - see OP*

mrcheez

I typically notice a few ninjas on my cycle home these days but usually I'm too busy concentrating on traffic to see just how bad it really has become.

I had to drive into the office to pick something up this evening and the drivers seat afforded me a more relaxed view of the route I normally take. I couldn't believe the number of ppl sans lights weaving through traffic. I counted 20 in the space of 15 minutes.

Now I'm no angel in the road and I may go through the odd red light (when no pedestrians/cars approaching), but being seen at night is just something I automatically assume everyone does without thinking.

I thought it was just young uns, but even Lycra clad cycle club members were at it. What gives???

Mod warning:

Beasty wrote: »

We've already issued one mod warning to keep on topic and move away from all this cyclist versus motorist crap. There will be no more "friendly" warnings. Back onto the topic which is ninja cyclists

Any questions please PM me

Wishbone Ash

But you noticed them! :pac:

mrcheez

Or more specifically why would someone not have lights? Is it a cost thing? Fear they'll look silly? Life too busy with social media to think of such minor things?

I've asked one or two mid cycle and answer is like "aww I know I should ..."

So, laziness? Or are they waiting for the gardai to give out more free ones?

mrcheez

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

But you noticed them! :pac:

Only when they were 5m away. Fine when you're on a bike. Not good when driving at 40kph

07Lapierre

Never underestimate the stupidity of joe public! (Lack of enforcement by the gardai is also an issue... although lack of resources is probably a contributing factor)

rollingscone

Red front lights are getting ubiquitous.

It makes me see red both literally and figuratively

Wishbone Ash

rollingscone wrote: »

Red front lights are getting ubiquitous.

It makes me see red both literally and figuratively

That bloody idiot in the Sky kit who frequents the Clontarf/Sutton track at night! It's bad enough that he has a red up front but he puts a white at the rear. :mad::mad::mad:

The tax man

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

That bloody idiot in the Sky kit who frequents the Clontarf/Sutton track at night! It's bad enough that he has a red up front but he puts a white at the rear. :mad::mad::mad:

I'll raise your red front and white rear, to a blue front and flashing white rear light I passed this evening. The mind boggles.

Jack the Stripper

Are white front flashing lights legal along with rear red ones?

Wishbone Ash

Jack the Stripper wrote: »

Are white front flashing lights legal along with rear red ones?

Yes (law was changed a few years back).

Kaisr Sose

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

But you noticed them! :pac:

But he was performing valid Boardsies research ...and looking for them

Kaisr Sose

mrcheez wrote: »

Or more specifically why would someone not have lights? Is it a cost thing? Fear they'll look silly? Life too busy with social media to think of such minor things?

I've asked one or two mid cycle and answer is like "aww I know I should ..."

So, laziness? Or are they waiting for the gardai to give out more free ones?

Life is cheaper than lights...

Kaisr Sose

07Lapierre wrote: »

Never underestimate the stupidity of joe public! (Lack of enforcement by the gardai is also an issue... although lack of resources is probably a contributing factor)

It's not the role of An Garda to enforce common sense. It basic common sense that if you want to see in a dark room, you turn a light on. So conversely, if you want to be seen while cycling at night, you use lights.

Rokta

I see so many of them on my rather short commute every day...every time Darwinism comes to my mind, survival of the fittest...

Even cheap lights are better than no ones but tbh you should never skimp out on a good set of lights, you life might depend on it one day.

Thud

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

It's not the role of An Garda to enforce common sense. It basic common sense that if you want to see in a dark room, you turn a light on. So conversely, if you want to be seen while cycling at night, you use lights.

I remember as a kid I was told to get off my bike and walk it home by a Garda because I didn't have a light

magicbastarder

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

It's not the role of An Garda to enforce common sense.

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?

Pinch Flat

I think anyone that cycles at night, particularly in unlit areas, without a light without a light back and front (a proper one, not some yoke from dealz) is idiotic.

The cynic in me would say that people who have hi-vis vests / bag covers on probably think that the hi-vis affords them some sort of protection.

Macy0161

mrcheez wrote: »

What gives???

Victim blaming RSA/ media/ politicians on focusing on hi viz and helmets, imo.

We saw it during recent discussions on road safety, minimum passing distances etc - no mention of enforcement of lights, or of having a clear minimum standard of lights like Germany. The great brainwaves from our politicians, not completely dismissed by the Minister, was about mandatory hi viz.

Macy0161

Pinch Flat wrote: »

The cynic in me would say that people who have hi-vis vests / bag covers on probably think that the hi-vis affords them some sort of protection.

That's the message they're continually told!

Samuel T. Cogley

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I think anyone that cycles at night, particularly in unlit areas, without a light without a light back and front (a proper one, not some yoke from dealz) is idiotic.

The cynic in me would say that people who have hi-vis vests / bag covers on probably think that the hi-vis affords them some sort of protection.

In comparison to the morons in dark clothing it does. I'd take I hi vis on the back pack over nothing any day of the week.

Also I don't really care what colour the light is as long as they have them. If they need to rebel against 'the man' more power to them if they've lights on.

robyntmorton

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Also I don't really care what colour the light is as long as they have them. If they need to rebel against 'the man' more power to them if they've lights on.

That I have to absolutely disagree with. Road users are trained and conditioned to automatically associate white with the front and red with the back of a moving object. For someone to "rebel against 'the man" in this way is confusing for others, foolish, and frankly dangerous.

Pinch Flat

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

In comparison to the morons in dark clothing it does. I'd take I hi vis on the back pack over nothing any day of the week.

Also I don't really care what colour the light is as long as they have them. If they need to rebel against 'the man' more power to them if they've lights on.

I'm in partial agreement. Hi-vis (and I mean reflective elements of hi-vis - the green fluorescent is useless in the dark) is certainly better than nothing on an unlit rural road in the dark, where it is likely to stand out more. In an urban situation, I would argue its efficacy in the dark.

Having a cyclist coming against you on a narrow path cycle path with a red flashing light can or approaching someone with a rear flashing white light can be dangerous and disorientating. Had it happen a few times in the Phoenix Park at night. It's white on the front, red on the back. Not too difficult.

cdaly_

robyntmorton wrote: »

That I have to absolutely disagree with. Road users are trained and conditioned to automatically associate white with the front and red with the back of a moving object. For someone to "rebel against 'the man" in this way is confusing for others, foolish, and frankly dangerous.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Having a cyclist coming against you on a narrow path cycle path with a red flashing light can or approaching someone with a rear flashing white light can be dangerous and disorientating. Had it happen a few times in the Phoenix Park at night. It's white on the front, red on the back. Not too difficult.

I have stopped people once or twice to point out the danger of red on the front. They've all said approximately "Oh, I didn't know that"... :rolleyes:

Samuel T. Cogley

robyntmorton wrote: »

That I have to absolutely disagree with. Road users are trained and conditioned to automatically associate white with the front and red with the back of a moving object. For someone to "rebel against 'the man" in this way is confusing for others, foolish, and frankly dangerous.

Which is probably why they do it, to draw attention to themselves. Tbh and I'm talking about an urban setting here, once you see them it's grand. Driving it wouldn't make any odds to me. I can see PFs point ref other cyclists/pedestrians though.

robyntmorton

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Which is probably why they do it, to draw attention to themselves. Tbh and I'm talking about an urban setting here, once you see them it's grand. Driving it wouldn't make any odds to me. I can see PFs point ref other cyclists/pedestrians though.

Yes, seeing them is important. The problem I have though is that while you are processing and trying to reconcile red light front in your situational awareness, what do you miss?

tomasrojo

I once pulled out a side road partly in front of someone on a bike because they had a red light at the front. Bizarrely, they also had a white light at the rear. No idea why they didn't just swap them.

I was on the bike, no harm was done, but I really did instinctively think they were heading away from me when I looked to the right from the side road. I really think it's a terrible idea putting a red at the front.

(On a very slightly related topic, I do regret that red became the standard colour for the rear reflector, as red reflectors really aren't all that eye-catching compared to, say, yellow. But there's no point in changing it now, and maybe we've all had enough of yellow, here in the Hi-Vizocene epoch.)

cython

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Which is probably why they do it, to draw attention to themselves. Tbh and I'm talking about an urban setting here, once you see them it's grand. Driving it wouldn't make any odds to me. I can see PFs point ref other cyclists/pedestrians though.

robyntmorton wrote: »

Yes, seeing them is important. The problem I have though is that while you are processing and trying to reconcile red light front in your situational awareness, what do you miss?

Not to mention that you assume that a red light will be either stationary or heading away from you, and as a result you have one expectation of its relative velocity to you (and consequently the time it may take to close the gab between you and it), but when the red light is on the front this expectation becomes exceedingly wrong. It's downright dangerous to have a red light on the front really. White light on the rear is probably slightly more forgivable, if just because you will assume it is heading towards you, and be surprised when it takes longer for you to meet it, but still most certainly inconsiderate and even dangerous in its own way.

JMcL

robyntmorton wrote: »

That I have to absolutely disagree with. Road users are trained and conditioned to automatically associate white with the front and red with the back of a moving object. For someone to "rebel against 'the man" in this way is confusing for others, foolish, and frankly dangerous.

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

Samuel T. Cogley

robyntmorton wrote: »

Yes, seeing them is important. The problem I have though is that while you are processing and trying to reconcile red light front in your situational awareness, what do you miss?

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

Moflojo

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.

Pinch Flat

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.

Well, some dark evenings coming through the phoenix park, I've tried to work out the red flashing light coming against me, then become distracted with another cyclist, probably not lit up as well, or a stray jogger / walker in the cycle lane. It's dangerous simple as.

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.

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.