Saddened by ninja

[Davidsw8]

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]

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]

You're going off at a tangent.

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

 

[Davidsw8]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.