"Ninjas"

pblakeney

bsharp77 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

bsharp77 wrote:

The black car argument doesn't hold water - you can't compare a bike and rider to a car.....

Why not?
If you can see a black car, you should be able to see a black cyclist.

Really? You think you can see a bike as easily as a 6ft wide car?
Amazing.

Thats me done with this debate, it just get sillier every time its brought up.

Good luck to all the ninjas, no really, good luck - you'll need it more than the rest :shock:

Ah! So it boils down to size? What about Ninjas on mopeds?
Should we look out for them? Do they get wiped out Darwin stylee? Yes, you should be able to see them equally.

Michael-B

Arthur Scrimshaw wrote:

The risk with the hi viz evangelists is that it plays to the agenda of insurance companies and poor drivers/defence solicitors who seize on every opportunity to reduce financial liability and responsibility in any collision and try to put as much fault onto the cyclist/pedestrian etc so they can pay out less, get off a conviction, or increasingly, not get charged at all. This is just wrong.

Good point.

pblakeney

The driving test has it that a driver must be able to read a number plate at 20m.
If you can read a number plate at 20m, you can see a black cyclist. If you can see them, don't hit them.

type:epyt

I'm guessing the OP was made aware that he hadn't waved to a fellow cyclist as he passed on the opposite side of the road and rather than starting a social media campaign searching for the aggreived party, he's decided to go on the offensive and claim it was the other cyclist's fault as he 'couldn't see them' ...

Or something similarly mundane ...

kingstongraham

PBlakeney wrote:

The driving test has it that a driver must be able to read a number plate at 20m.
If you can read a number plate at 20m, you can see a black cyclist. If you can see them, don't hit them.

Bikes don't have number plates, so your argument falls down straight away.

pblakeney

KingstonGraham wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

The driving test has it that a driver must be able to read a number plate at 20m.
If you can read a number plate at 20m, you can see a black cyclist. If you can see them, don't hit them.

Bikes don't have number plates, so your argument falls down straight away.

??????
If you can read numbers 50mm high, you should be able to see a 1.5m person.

craigus89

I think (hope) that was intended as a joke.

diamonddog

I sometimes wear black kit with some white on it does that make me half ninja ?

y33stu

My 2 cents. Idiots are going to be idiots regardless of the colour of your jersey... or the bridge.

diamonddog

^^This

tangled_metal

There's no better advice than all road users drive or ride such that they can stop in the distance they can see. If you can't see a cyclist are you driving too quickly?

I lived in a rural area and no lighting for many miles meant roads were dark and you had your lights on. One night I drove along and what did I see? A black cow that had got out of the field it was in. Why didn't I hit it? Because I was looking at the road ahead and paying attention. I saw it.

Now I'm a cyclist in.s semi rural area. Low light or rain I turn my lights on. Night I've got lights on and reflectives as around my bike and on my clothes. Hmmm! 4 decades riding a bike and I'm still alive. People in.cars just plain see me.

No doubt I'll end up in an accident but I would bet no amount of hiviz will stop the motorist or insurer trying to reduce liability. God help you if you don't have helmet on, orange pedal reflectors, red reflector to bs standard to rear and white one to front plus bs standard lights front and rear.

To all the hi-viz evangelists complaining about ninjas do you have the required reflectors and lights to the recent bs standard or equivalent? No? Sort yourself out or just choose for yourself what you want to wear and fit to your bike.

BTW there was a study referenced on another hi-viz thread indicating that in some conditions, such as against green hedges, hi-viz yellow / green is almost invisible. In those cases red is better or blue. There were other colour issues too. If you want to wear colour to help you be seen then perhaps you would need to keep changing tops as you passed different backgrounds. Daft idea i know.

BTW motion gets seen before colour and reflectives before colour too. Lights on wheels and pedals, even helmets probably get noticed more in poor light.

Anyhow, it's personal choice so no need to be sell aggressive over it. Like helmet wearing it's a choice.

One last thing, if you do go hi-viz you're easily identified as a cyclist. Target even! There's another good reason to wear more normal looking clothes.

tangled_metal

There's a bridge near me that's claimed several buses like that. I think it happens about every 5 years or sooner.

Another bridge near where I work gets trucks a lot more often than that.

thegreatdivide

Arthur Scrimshaw wrote:

No amount of lights or bright clothing can be a substitute for people just looking where they are going, focusing on the number 1 priority when driving. Which is trying not to kill anyone else, this seems to have got lost somewhere?
The hi viz argument is about vulnerable road users doing what they feel is necessary to minimise risk to a level they are comfortable with, we all have a different thresholds and that's fine.
The risk with the hi viz evangelists is that it plays to the agenda of insurance companies and poor drivers/defence solicitors who seize on every opportunity to reduce financial liability and responsibility in any collision and try to put as much fault onto the cyclist/pedestrian etc so they can pay out less, get off a conviction, or increasingly, not get charged at all. This is just wrong.

Nail on head.

FWIW I get close passes no matter what I wear or have flashing at 20 billion lumen.

kingstongraham

Tangled Metal wrote:

...red is better...

Agree with everything you say there.

pblakeney

Craigus89 wrote:

I think (hope) that was intended as a joke.

Possibly. Probably even. I just like to remove doubt.
PS - Just as well the Rapeseed season is over if everyone is to wear yellow hi-viz.

darkhairedlord

I just don't understand how the op can see these black ninjas that can't be seen.

sloppyschleckonds

darkhairedlord wrote:

I just don't understand how the op can see these black ninjas that can't be seen.

X-Ray vision

supermurph09

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

I just don't understand how the op can see these black ninjas that can't be seen.

X-Ray vision

It's all the racism that's bothering me.......

Kevin Technohimalayanot often gets in breakaways, I think he'd stay in the bunch if he felt worried.

motogull

I spotted one this evening. All cars had lights on. This fella was in black shorts (possibly longs, too dark to see) and maybe a red top but with a big black rucksack. A dark tree-lined road and no lights on his bike. The icing on the cake being one of the best cycle lanes on my manor is on the other side of the road.

SME

I know this might seem a silly answer, but for me it depends where and when I ride.

When I worked on the old S+T (Signal and Telecoms branch of old British Rail) a light/ fluorescent green/yellow top was hard to see against foliage on the track (at least from a high speed train some distance back), hence rail workers wearing orange.

My shorts and bibs are black, but my tops are blue/white combinations which, if I'm on a ride out in some country lanes, I hope stand out against the backdrop. When I'm commuting through town, there is so much variation in colour (and so many goons stepping onto the CS's without looking) that it probably doesn't make a difference what is worn, except...

In low light or inclemental weather I try and wear a contrast. My Squadra rain jacket is black, but I usually commute with a fluorescent PE bag or rucksack with 2 hi-vis stripes across it which, once again, I hope stands out.

If the whole world was fluorescent yellow (and sometimes it feels like it with motorcycists, cyclist, joggers, council workers all in such) then the black jersey would stand out like a sore thumb.

Phil&hisbikes

Can you be a "ninja" on a brightly coloured bike?

Alex99

Debeli wrote:

My wife keeps telling me about cyclists that nobody could possibly see, but I've never seen one.

I fear she may be pulling my leg.

For the record, my shorts tend to be black or nave but most of my tops are not unlike a highlighter pen. My woolly hats tend to be dark but my cotton caps (summer) tend to be jolly and bright.

I use a small, single LED at the front and another at the rear. I have never taken primary and am alive and well at the time of writing.

As a driver, I have never seen an invisible cyclist and I think they may be a myth.

I hope I have helped in this debate.

Helped me

awavey

KingstonGraham wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

...red is better...

Agree with everything you say there.

unless you are colour blind, then it can look like black, and it will definitely look black if you are cycling towards a setting sun.

tangled_metal

Perhaps they need to invent garments that can change colour to become more noticeable whatever is behind you. Like the opposite of stealth suit. If there's a green hedge then you're not in hi viz yellow/green but perhaps red. Then Sun behind you then not red.

Simply put no colour is ideal for all situations.

norvernrob

Well considering the guy who drove straight out of a junction into my car last Friday at 3pm on a lovely dry afternoon 'didn't see me' (his words), and it's a 15ft long silver convertible car, I don't think wearing a white top or some reflective trouser piping would have saved me if I'd been on the bike.

That happening is the only thing that's ever really scared me a little about road riding. I'm always aware of cars at junctions, turning across in front of you etc etc, but it makes you realise sometimes there's just nothing you can do to prevent it. It won't put me off cycling btw, I'll be back out as soon as my knackered back and leg will let me!

smudgerii

Why do people think hi-viz clothing is a cloak of invincibility?

Being aware of other road users is more important to your own safety than any bright coloured clothing. Defence riding is how it was described to me.

kingstonian

Everyone knows that a black outfit makes you look slimmer..........so maybe it is because they are porkies

kingstongraham

Smudgerii wrote:

Why do people think hi-viz clothing is a cloak of invincibility?

Being aware of other road users is more important to your own safety than any bright coloured clothing. Defence riding is how it was described to me.

Yes, but it isn't an either/or thing, is it?

You can ride aware of your surroundings while not in all black to try and help other road users see you more easily, I believe.

Also for clarity, not wearing all black doesn't necessarily mean wearing fluorescent yellow with orange trim. Each to their own, but I prefer to make it slightly easier for other road users to see me. When I'm driving, I know that cyclists wearing all black are generally less obvious than those wearing other colours. (Again for clarity, this doesn't mean always, and doesn't mean invisible, just on average likely to be visible earlier.) It's about trying to tip the odds in my favour.

iPete

What KingstonGraham said and..

There have been various studies over the years into the correlation between car colour and accident rates, and black cars almost always top the car crash index. One study concluded that black cars are 47% more likely to be involved in road accidents than vehicles of other colours. White, gold, and yellow are deemed to be the safest.

http://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-ins ... by-colour/

craigus89

iPete wrote:

What KingstonGraham said and..

There have been various studies over the years into the correlation between car colour and accident rates, and black cars almost always top the car crash index. One study concluded that black cars are 47% more likely to be involved in road accidents than vehicles of other colours. White, gold, and yellow are deemed to be the safest.

http://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-ins ... by-colour/

That article doesn't quote a single one of the "various studies" that have been done.

Some of the extracts are reassuring though:

It’s not an exact science, but...

and

But insurers do not take colour into account when setting premiums as the statistics are too unreliable.

It's fine if you feel safer or you feel you are stacking the odds in your favor, but lets not pretend that this is a science.