Saddened by ninja

[Nigel-YZ1]

Have been seeing a few ninjas lately. Including the one casually pootling along the wrong side of the road head on to everyone.
Good Luck.

 

[eddiemee]

As a sensible person I mitigate the risk and commute with three lights front and rear but I really shouldn't need any of them and in using them I am at the minimum tacitly accepting a transference of responsibility from the dangerous to the potential victim thereof.

I get where you're coming from, but I think the key point is the first four words of your post. We can debate until the end of time about who was at fault for incident X, Y or Z, but if we can do something to avoid it altogether then that's a much better outcome.

Regarding responsibility, again I see your point, but my own feeling is that all road users have a responsibility to contribute to their own (and obviously everyone else's) safety, above and beyond what the law states. I personally feel that horse riders, joggers and pedestrians should use lights when using unlit roads. There's a short section of B road near me without a footpath; I never walk it without lights, and when cycling it (slowly) there have been several occasions where I have only seen pedestrians when they were no more than 10-15 yards away even though I was scanning the road expecting to encounter them. I doubt it would be any consolation to a grieving family that a driver should have seen the pedestrian in his headlights and been driving slow enough to pass them safely, even if that is how the law sees it.

 

[Boris Bajic]

I suspect there's actually quite a few ninja's mowed down, it's just that we don't see the stats for it.e

Ninja's will, on average, cycle far fewer miles than most us here, so perhaps they actually do have a greater chance of an accident than the rest of us.

I saw some ninja's today, but I have no idea how many i didn't see.

We can calculate this.

If we give the total number of Ninjas the value n and the number you saw the value s, then the resulting formula looks like this:

The number of Ninjas you failed to see was n - s.

Using a form of extrapolation of unknowns from approximated or imagined data that I devised myself, I can furnish you with the following totals:

n has the value 743
s has the value 12.

Applying simple subtraction to those results, we can see that you failed to see 731 Ninjas.

This is fewer than you would have failed to see on the same morning a year earlier, had I guessed at different (and higher) figures for that day.

I do try to help and I hope it is not entirely in vain.

 

[Hip Priest]

It amazes me that the motorists of Britain aren't constantly stacking it into un-lit parked cars at night.

 

[Boris Bajic]

It amazes me that the motorists of Britain aren't constantly stacking it into un-lit parked cars at night.

As a teen, I was riding fast on a suburban side road in broad daylight and having trouble getting the toe of a trainer into a rat-cage.

I looked down and quickly up again...

Looked down and quickly up again....

Looked down and quickly up again.... and started to gnash and swear.

Then I looked down and went straight over the bonnet of a small hatchback parked quite innocently on the other side of the road.

It was parked (at midday) without lights, which is why I failed to see it.

I limped 6 miles home with my bike on my shoulder and my front tyre almost touching my chainring. Bloody Ninja drivers!

 

[defy-one]

Are some of you actually condoning ninja cyclists!!!!!
Don't quote me studies and research .... a moving object in close proximity to vehicles should have front and rear lights as a bare minimum eriod

 

[PK99]

yes by dint of shining a light on them. They would be more easily seen, from a greater distance and less prone to the last minute swerve to not hit them if they were lit as well.

its not about them being invisible per-se but the reckless and unneccesary abdication of any sort of responsibility for their own safety to the good practice and reflexes of other people.


why are we happy to slag off dangerous selfish idiotic car drivers but ok to find feeble excuses and cop outs for cyclists acting just as irresponsibly - the upshot of it going wrong is invariably going to be the same either way.

Because too many cyclists have a "Two wheels good, four wheels bad" mentality and display extraordinary mental gyrations to avoid making any criticism of cyclists

 

[PK99]

Sure cyclists can use lights to make it easier but cars do have lights with which their drivers can see stuff so what is the problem?

What a good example of mental gyration to avoid criticising a cyclist!!! (see post just above!!)

If the ninja is approaching at 90 degrees to the car eg at a junction, the car lights do not illuminate the cyclist

 

[PK99]

Of course it is but driving slowly enough to stop in the distance we can see, that should be quite comfortable lit or unlit.

Again what about an unlit cyclist approaching at 90 degrees at a junction?

 

[PK99]

As a sensible person I mitigate the risk and commute with three lights front and rear but I really shouldn't need any of them and in using them I am at the minimum tacitly accepting a transference of responsibility from the dangerous to the potential victim thereof.

Are you for real? or deliberately trolling?

 

[Davidc]

My level of sympathy for any cyclist who is hit while unlit after dark, rlj ing, on the phone, or similar is exactly zero. In those cases my sympathies are entirely with the driver.

 

[Davidc]

As a sensible person I mitigate the risk and commute with three lights front and rear but I really shouldn't need any of them and in using them I am at the minimum tacitly accepting a transference of responsibility from the dangerous to the potential victim thereof.

Rubbish.

It is reasonable to expect any road user to take measures to ensure they are seen. The law gives a minimum requirement for meeting that responsibility in the case of bikes. In accepting that and in meeting that responsibility there is absolutely no question of any transference of responsibility.

A driver is responsible for avoiding colliding with cyclists.But it is reasonable for the driver to expect the cyclist to behave responsibly as well. That should mean legal reflectors and lights. In practice drivers know from experience that that may not be met, and most manage to avoid near invisible cyclists.

You are taking your responsibility, more than adequately, with your lights. If you were to be hit by a motor vehicle your action in using lighting above the legal minimum would almost certainly be used by your barrister as evidence that the driver had failed in their responsibilities. The driver's barrister would I suspect be hard pressed to show that by doing that you had transferred the responsibility to yourself.

(Although having been on the receiving end of a barristers efforts more than once I would never be certain of these things!)

 

[Davidc]

The accepting of the transfer of responsibility occurred in 1920 something when the CTC agreed that cyclists should have a rear light rather than just painting a bit of the rear mudguard white. Since then it has got worse and will probably continue to do so. Drivers have been absolved of responsibility for not seeing cyclists because the legal rear light in use was not as bright as a brighter one. Others because the cyclist didn't have Hi-Viz clothing. Where do you think the line should be drawn here?

The law is quite clear as to what is required. You and I choose to go further. Drivers have not been absolved of responsibility by lighting rules, cyclists have been given a responsibility to make themselves more visible. The limits to that responsibility are for the courts to decide, however my view is that if a driver avoids hitting an unlit cyclist with no reflectors and dark clothing they've gone further than reasonable care.

There is no requirement for cyclists to have lights brighter than the law requires, though the law needs sorting out, no requirement to wear high visibility clothing, and no requirement to use reflectors beyond the legal minimum. AFAIK there are no plans to change things at present. I think that's a well drawn line.

My personal opinion is that for any sensible bike user the legal requirements represent a sensible minimum.

Road vehicles have to use lights (not sure about hand carts and horse drawn though). That includes bicycles and like you I'll use far more lighting than I have to.

If anyone suggests hi vizand reflective clothing should be compulsory I'll accept it when all motor vehicles have to be painted with bright yellow reflective, with black stripes. In the mean time I'll voluntarily wear bright yellow reflective jackets, which tends to be when it's dull or raining, and also less usefully when it's cold, and put extra reflective tape and spoke reflectors on the bikes.

 

[Arjimlad]

Sometimes it's only the pedal reflectors which give away the presence of a ninja to the approaching motorist. You can see a ninja cyclist on an unlit road in the car lights IF you are not dazzled by the lights of oncoming cars. My sympathies would not be entirely with the driver if a cyclist got squashed by a car coming from behind.

If you are waiting to come out of a junction and there is oncoming traffic, you'll struggle to see an unlit bike against the car lights.

 

[400bhp]

We can calculate this.

If we give the total number of Ninjas the value n and the number you saw the value s, then the resulting formula looks like this:

The number of Ninjas you failed to see was n - s.

Using a form of extrapolation of unknowns from approximated or imagined data that I devised myself, I can furnish you with the following totals:

n has the value 743
s has the value 12.

Applying simple subtraction to those results, we can see that you failed to see 731 Ninjas.

This is fewer than you would have failed to see on the same morning a year earlier, had I guessed at different (and higher) figures for that day.

I do try to help and I hope it is not entirely in vain.

Sorry, but that's bollox.