Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: Pickled Onion on 04 May, 2013, 08:28:28 am
-
From last week's Observer/Guardian piece about helmet cams, this comes near the bottom:
A study commissioned by a car insurance company this weekend suggested that drivers fail to see 22% of cyclists on the road in clear view of their vehicle. Direct Line used revolutionary eye-tracking technology to establish that motorists who used satnavs were even less likely to spot a cyclist than those who did not. Some 24% of cyclists were "invisible" to drivers who used a satnav, while the younger the driver, the more likely they were not to spot a cyclist – 31% of cyclists were not seen by motorists aged 20-29, compared with 21% by those aged 50-59.
If true, that is genuinely frightening.
-
Also mentioned on RoadCC last week:
The experiment was conducted in three cities – London, Oxford, and Sheffield – and according to Direct Line the issue is most prevalent in the capital, where motorists fail to see three in ten cyclists.
That’s despite the growth in cycling in the city in recent years, that suggests we’re some way from seeing a ‘Safety in numbers’ effect kick in there, whereby the more people there are on bikes, the more motorists are likely to register their presence and drive accordingly.
In Oxford, which has the second highest levels of cycling in England after Cambridge, 20 per cent of riders went unseen, and in Sheffield, 15 per cent.
Researchers found examples of motorists taking their eyes of the road to adjust sat-nav devices and in one case navigate using a hand-held smartphone, and Direct Line says that 24 per cent of riders are “invisible” to drivers using a sat-nav device, compared to 19 per cent where the motorist does not use one.
The biggest difference in the proportion of drivers registering the presence of cyclists was by age. Some 21 per cent of cyclists were unnoticed by those aged 50 or over, but 31 per cent among motorists aged between 20 and 29 years. Again, that’s a cause for concern given that younger people have better eyesight on the whole.
http://road.cc/content/news/81753-invisible-cyclists-eye-tracking-experiment-finds-drivers-dont-see-more-1-5-riders
-
I hate the terminology "invisible cyclists". The cyclists aren't invisible - this is a study showing how many motorists aren't looking at their surroundings properly when driving.
If we start using the terminology 'invisible cyclists' we're subtly moving the emphasis away from drivers and on to cyclists. We see that in the quote Direct Line, who did the study: "UK roads are busy and congested and as a result millions of cyclists are going unseen.
“Blaming motorists seems like an easy option, but this issue can only be really addressed if both motorists and cyclists accept responsibility.
Cyclists are NOT responsible for the fact that huge numbers of motorists fail miserably in one of the most basic functions necessary when driving a car: looking where you are going. All this study will do, with the language of 'invisible cyclists', is increase the calls for cyclists to cover themselves in day-glo clothing as a sop to the inattentiveness of motorists.
-
I agree wholeheartedly, my thread title was a little tongue in cheek.
The way the study was done shows that drivers are not even looking at cyclists, which is truly horrifying. They don't even count the ones who "look through" cyclists as they're only actively looking for motor vehicles.
It's also unacceptable that many drivers think it's perfectly reasonable to say that they didn't see a cyclist, when these stats clearly show it's nothing down to cyclists being difficult to spot, the drivers are not even looking in the first place.
-
Personally I find it difficult to believe the stats.
Admittedly I'm only a sample of one cyclist, but I'd estimate I am passed by more than 50 cars each days commute. If 12 of those failed to see me at all, I'd be getting a lot more close passes, or would be hit on a regular basis.
-
Personally I find it difficult to believe the stats.
Admittedly I'm only a sample of one cyclist, but I'd estimate I am passed by more than 50 cars each days commute. If 12 of those failed to see me at all, I'd be getting a lot more close passes, or would be hit on a regular basis.
I don't think it's that simple. Lack of direct gaze suggests that cyclists aren't being consciously registered, but most of us will steer around objects only seen in peripheral vision without registering them consciously. What this suggests to me is that a large proportion of motorists are passing cyclists on 'auto-pilot' without ever consciously registering their presence. That would fit with other behaviours, such as pulling in as soon as they're alongside; the pass is being performed using subconscious mental routines which are normally employed to pass stationary objects such as parked cars, bollards, trees, etc.
The processing load when driving is very high, and the subconscious brain will push things up the priority list based on very simple cues: Big = potential threat. Movement across the field of vision = potential threat. Blue and Yellow coloring = potential threat! ;-) These are the things that get consciously registered. Hence the effectiveness of 'Polite' Hi-vis!
-
That's a very good point, PhilO. Not so much a "failure to see" but a "failure to look at". To drive safely around other vehicles you have to ascertain their speed and direction, and to do that you have to look at them.
-
I think I agree with that. A-pillars and bike ninjas aside, the problem isn't that cyclists are invisible, so much that they are relatively hard to judge the speed of and often (it appears subconsciously) treated as stationary objects of negligible width.
How to work around that? You have to do something that causes drivers to look at you for long enough that they judge your speed and direction. That's either horizontal or erratic motion (wobbling, the spinning pedals of a recumbent, a cycle helmet bouncing up and down by a bungee cord from your rucksack, etc.) or being sufficiently visually interesting that they notice you (obnoxious lighting[1], looking like a police officer, sexual attractiveness, unusual bike, comedy luggage, garden fork on the rear rack, etc.). I remain unconvinced that traditional hi-vis fulfils that function.
How to fix it? Segregation. Eliminating the inherently flawed human driver. Slowing motor traffic to the point where cyclists can treat them as almost-stationary objects and ride around them.
[1] Although this can be an own goal if it gets attention but actively inhibits judging speed and direction.
-
Your last point happens at 5pm every weekday in most towns. ;D
-
Classic case of statistics proving something something that actually isn't backed-up by reality.
Or, more accurately, their stats don't draw any meaningful conclusions.
I suggest the statistic is more like "22% of motorists don't focus their eyes on cyclists that their subconscious tells them they don't need to focus on"
The roads are full of hazards that I bet would fail to be detected by this technology.
Headline could be "Drivers fail to notice parked cars and bollards" (but somehow the vast majority of motorists manage not to drive into them).
We've all probably driven to work and arrived without any recollection of the journey. That "full Auto-pilot" feeling that seems like it must be dangerous and yet didn't involve any dead pedestrians or cyclists stuck to your windscreen.
I suggest that the recognition of hazards is more complex than simply registering a direct gaze at an object. I'd be amazed if that figure remained the same when a motorist approaches and subsequently passes a cyclist. If it's still 22% then I'm quitting cycling (but of course, real life tells me what actually happens).
Their own stats undermine their stats.
"2,660 cyclists seriously injured in 2011-2012". OK, well how many times were cyclists overtaken by motorists that year? Countless millions of times? Billions of times?
That's the stat I want to see. What percentage of motorists don't see cyclists 10 yards away, directly in front, as they start to pass them?
-
Exactly. It's only the cyclists that don't reasonably approximate a two-dimensional object of negligible velocity that are a problem, and only a subset of those are ever going to be involved in an incident.
The problem with heuristics is that they work.
-
I don't think some drivers notice anything. I recently watched a driver zoom across a zebra crossing, nearly clipping the person using the crossing at the time. I was approaching so could see the driver and her (lack of) reaction. She'd neither noticed the crossing or the pedestrian in the middle of the road, despite the fact that she came within a few centimetres of hitting them.
Given that every bollard seems to get knocked down and drivers are always being surprised by things like large, illuminated traffic islands, I don't think there are any surprises.
-
It has been stated elsewhere that above about 22-25mph driving moves from a 'notice and respond to the surroundings' to a 'keep it between the lines' action. Try performing a commentary and ensuring that you have seen every reasonable potential hazard - your speed in town *will* drop to 20mph. Above that we play a percentage game and woe betide anyone else who is a non-majority user who wants to be on the road.
I would urge you all to head over to http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/30kmh_making_streets_liveable.htm and sign the petition.
-
I have performed an interesting (to me anyway) experiment on invisibility a number of times. Find a country road that's wide enough for a couple of cars to be side by side and has a kerb - doesn't have to have a footpath, just a kerb. Stand in the road with your feet touching the edge of the kerb. Note how nearly all the cars slow down and give you a pretty wide berth. Now step onto the kerb so you have effectively moved about 6". Note how none of the cars slow down or change their line so you will now be passed very closely and at speed. You have become invisible merely by stepping onto the kerb.
Which is why I always walk in the road on country lanes - never on the kerb.
-
That is an interesting observation Knackers.
I've noticed that the unzipped jacket flapping, seems to unnerve drivers and, after a couple of close calls* on my Sunday ride, I'm seriously thinking of putting a 'lollipop' on my mountain bike and racer. Okay, it's only a couple of close calls in amongst several hundreds during the ride, but then it only takes one doesn't it.
Maybe having one of those plastic child seats, with a life-like doll strapped in would help?
*This particular one happened in Lewes at a traffic island that produces an obvious(?) pinch-point. It didn't delay Mr old Arse Cock who sped passed me so close, I could have simply angled my elbow out a little to brush against his windows.
-
It has been stated elsewhere that above about 22-25mph driving moves from a 'notice and respond to the surroundings' to a 'keep it between the lines' action. Try performing a commentary and ensuring that you have seen every reasonable potential hazard - your speed in town *will* drop to 20mph. Above that we play a percentage game and woe betide anyone else who is a non-majority user who wants to be on the road.
I would urge you all to head over to http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/30kmh_making_streets_liveable.htm and sign the petition.
I'm pretty sure I've signed that already - it was linked to a while ago by Panoramix. Unless there are two such petitions. Dithering now between not signing it at all or possibly invalidating something! (it does say "I hereby certify that the information provided in this form is correct and that I have not already supported this proposed citizens' initiative" though I guess if it's clever enough it will just say "Oi, you've already signed this!")
-
I don't know if I'm imagining this, but on my last few longish rides I've been sporting various YACF jerseys, with the chevrons. I seem to have had fewer close passes.
-
That is an interesting observation Knackers.
I've noticed that the unzipped jacket flapping, seems to unnerve drivers and, after a couple of close calls* on my Sunday ride, I'm seriously thinking of putting a 'lollipop' on my mountain bike and racer. Okay, it's only a couple of close calls in amongst several hundreds during the ride, but then it only takes one doesn't it.
Maybe having one of those plastic child seats, with a life-like doll strapped in would help?
*This particular one happened in Lewes at a traffic island that produces an obvious(?) pinch-point. It didn't delay Mr old Arse Cock who sped passed me so close, I could have simply angled my elbow out a little to brush against his windows.
A blonde wig ;)
-
… with real hair!? Actually, if it was a blow-up doll, it would certainly get people slowing down.
Good call Dr. You're to blame for that line of thought.
-
Having recently returned to France I am astonished all over again at the space given me by local drivers! It happens every year.
-
A Tricycle works well :) -see up thread
-
I don't know if I'm imagining this, but on my last few longish rides I've been sporting various YACF jerseys, with the chevrons. I seem to have had fewer close passes.
That's something I noticed on the way to JOG last year. If anything I found the black jersey works better than the yellow one or the red one for some reason.
Of course there is nothing more visible to a motorist than a black police uniform ;)
-
I always make sure my pony tail is out there, with red bands holding it together...
I get a lot of chavs leering at me, momentarily, before they cotton on I'm a bloke!!!!
-
I'm always surprised that we've allowed drivers to have a screen with directions in front of them. It's unsurprising that those who've grown up with Sat-Nav don't see the obvious hazard of such a distraction, they live in a world where undivided attention is the norm.
-
I'm always surprised that we've allowed drivers to have a screen with directions in front of them. It's unsurprising that those who've grown up with Sat-Nav don't see the obvious hazard of such a distraction, they live in a world where undivided attention is the norm.
Don't you mean divided attention is the norm?
-
I'm always surprised that we've allowed drivers to have a screen with directions in front of them. It's unsurprising that those who've grown up with Sat-Nav don't see the obvious hazard of such a distraction, they live in a world where undivided attention is the norm.
Did you mean: "they live in a world where divided attention is the norm."
I'd say that people who have grown up with computers and gaming are very accustomed to processing multiple inputs. It's quite impressive, actually, but I don't think it produces good drivers!
-
This explains to me why drivers waiting on BIG roundabouts, or indeed approaching the laughably called 'give way' line, when you watch their heads, look very briefly over the give way line, and then they turn their heads 90 degrees right to look at cars and lorries way back around the roundabout.
It's as if they don't need to look in the middle of those two areas, because any car that is there will have already passed, by the time they pull out...
If the area back around the roundabout is clear, they just pull out.... They are not trained to look in between for us slower moving targets !!!!!!!
-
Which is why it's a good idea, as you approach their entrance, to look the driver in the eyes - assuming you can see through their tinted windscreen - and sometimes to move sideways within your lane; makes you look bigger and the sideways movement can be more eye-catching than simple approaching linear movement.
-
I'm always surprised that we've allowed drivers to have a screen with directions in front of them. It's unsurprising that those who've grown up with Sat-Nav don't see the obvious hazard of such a distraction, they live in a world where undivided attention is the norm.
Did you mean: "they live in a world where divided attention is the norm."
I'd say that people who have grown up with computers and gaming are very accustomed to processing multiple inputs. It's quite impressive, actually, but I don't think it produces good drivers!
You're right about the divided attention thing. Young female Sat-Nav users might be the ones who we need to look out for. I'm a 55 year old non Sat
-Nav male.
Drivers % that failed to spot cyclists
Sat nav drivers 23.7
Non-sat nav drivers 19.0
Female drivers 25.6
Male drivers 17.1
Drivers aged 20-29 31.1
Drivers aged 30-39 20.7
Drivers aged 40-49 21.6
Drivers aged 50-59 20.9
All drivers 22.0
-
Drivers % that failed to spot cyclists
Sat nav drivers 23.7
Non-sat nav drivers 19.0
Female drivers 25.6
Male drivers 17.1
Drivers aged 20-29 31.1
Drivers aged 30-39 20.7
Drivers aged 40-49 21.6
Drivers aged 50-59 20.9
All drivers 22.0
Strewth ! That's scary. Have you got a link for those stats ?
-
Drivers % that failed to spot cyclists
Sat nav drivers 23.7
Non-sat nav drivers 19.0
Female drivers 25.6
Male drivers 17.1
Drivers aged 20-29 31.1
Drivers aged 30-39 20.7
Drivers aged 40-49 21.6
Drivers aged 50-59 20.9
All drivers 22.0
Strewth ! That's scary. Have you got a link for those stats ?
They look like the ones from the article referred to in the OP. As per the discussions on page 1, 'failed to look directly at' <> 'did not see'. It's not comforting, but it's not as scary as it looks.
-
There is no incentive to look properly.Drivers are allowed to injure cyclists,kill them even,without fear of appropriate penalty.
-
Yes, I know of a German coach driver who hit me, and quite possibly didn't even see me, and who was released by the police without charge, or even it seems the consideration of a charge
-
I'm pretty sure his insurance premiums have taken an alarming jump though.......
-
As per the discussions on page 1, 'failed to look directly at' <> 'did not see'. It's not comforting, but it's not as scary as it looks.
Or, given the number of anecdotes of drivers who do look directly at you, then state categorically they didn't see you, it might be more scary than it looks!
-
Where is the category for those who do look,do see you & still carve you up 'cause they just DGAF. ::-)
In fairness it's possible that they are simply crap at judging speed & distance
-
There is no incentive to look properly.Drivers are allowed to injure cyclists,kill them even,without fear of appropriate penalty.
I don't think it's the extreme cases, involving death or even a collision that necessarily need stiffer sentences. Or at least, I don't think stiffer sentences in those cases would have much of a direct effect on behaviour. After all, compared with the consequences of killing someone, whether a driver considers a penalty might be 2 years or 10 years is probably fairly low down in their priorities while on the road.
Where there does need to be stiffer sentencing, and importantly, enforcement, is in the 'careless' behaviour that can increase the likelihood of collision in the first place. Driving safely is hard, and requires considerable effort to go with the responsibility of moving a big lump of metal around at speed. We shouldn't tolerate the short cuts in vigilance that lead to the kinds of stats being quoted here and that's where enforcement and penalty can have an effect. As ever, blogger Bez puts it rather well (https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/05/06/legislating-for-headlines/).
-
Everyone suffers from the human condition.
The drivers that 'fail to spot' are not evil. Or out to kill you deliberately. Missing cyclists in your field of vision is very different to deliberately cutting as close as frickin possible to a pair riding two-a-breast to 'prove a point'.
It's life, humans aren't robots.
I'd rather take my chances with the traffic as it is than be mollycoddled into driving everywhere at 20 mph....which I guess won't be a popular view on here, but hey ho....another part of the human condition is that we all have different opinions.
-
I'd rather take my chances with the traffic as it is than be mollycoddled into driving everywhere at 20 mph....which I guess won't be a popular view on here, but hey ho....another part of the human condition is that we all have different opinions.
Is anyone suggesting driving EVERYWHERE at 20mph?
That's a fucking weird opinion. But is indeed part of the human condition that some will hold fucking weird opinions.
-
I like to think of myself as invisible to all road users; even with Christmas lights hiviz etc;
when I see a vehicle ahead; or hear one behind, I think to myself "I'm invisible; what do I need to do to reduce the chances of being in an accident" and act accordingly *
it's avoided any accidents with other road users (which is the most important thing to me above all else) so far
* often this involves what some OTP might call "assertive" riding but I don't use words like that
-
If I hear a loud engine coming up and I'm completely sure the road is otherwise empty, I do tend to throw in a major wobble before getting back to a sensible position.
Seems likely that the brain of any driver on autopilot might see the wobble, and that might make it think I might wobble again, and then give the body instructions to steer a bit further away from me!!
-
Aye, I've been known to use a tactical wobble or two as well. Or sometimes pretending to be entirely unaware of the motor vehicle behind me as I move very, very gently a bit further away from the kerb - I'm convinced there are situations where a glance behind gets interpreted as an invitation to pass fast and close, generally immediately before a pinch point.
-
I like to think of myself as invisible to all road users; even with Christmas lights hiviz etc;
when I see a vehicle ahead; or hear one behind, I think to myself "I'm invisible; what do I need to do to reduce the chances of being in an accident" and act accordingly *
it's avoided any accidents with other road users (which is the most important thing to me above all else) so far
* often this involves what some OTP might call "assertive" riding but I don't use words like that
What difference does the word make?!? What matters is your riding.
-
Is there another set of stats to show what percentage of motorists have seen cyclists at night wearing dark clothes and without lights, or jumping red traffic lights?
-
Last night I was driving a Mazda 6 towards a mini roundabout in rain, on a steet lit road, single carriageway, one lane in each direction, at 10:00 p.m.- here. (https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Ferndale+Road,+Swindon&hl=en&ll=51.570935,-1.780429&spn=0.000053,0.027423&sll=52.8382,-2.327815&sspn=7.356199,14.040527&oq=ferndale+road&hnear=Ferndale+Rd,+Swindon,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=51.570945,-1.788791&panoid=oNOUhrF99VbLBbWEpDwchg&cbp=12,107.92,,0,3.79)
As I approached the roundabout, I scanned several times to the right and was about to accelerate, turning right when I suddenly spied the front wheel of a bicycle as the bike negotiated the roundabout from my right. I stopped in time to not scare the rider (as far as I know) but it did scare me.
The wheel and rest of the bike and rider was first spied through my windscreen, I did not see either the bike of the rider as I scanned to my right. The bike was equipped with a front light and the rider was wearing a light coloured helmet and dark top clothing.
At the time I had absolutely no idea why I didn't see the bike earlier. After a few moments reflection, I concluded a combination of factors contributed-
a) The rain drops on the side windows and outside the sweep of the wipers refracted the light from the street lamps and bike light so that it didn't register with me.
b) The relatively low speed of the bike (upright bike, rider not progressing particularly swiftly) may have meant that the light on the bike was occluded by the drivers door mirror for the whole of my approach to the roundabout.
c) I was tired and my observation fell far below the standard it should have been.
This scared the crap out of me and reinforced my decision to always wear a light on my helmet when riding at night as it gives another light source to register with an attentive driver.
-
I wish all motorists encountering a similar situation reflected on it so carefully.
-
Could he have been obscured by the A post? Some roundabout approaches curve so that the angle of the arc travelled by an approaching car exactly tracks the speed of a cyclist - so if you're obscured by the A post, you stay obscured while faster (or slower) vehicles are not.
-
I work very hard when driving at moving my head around so that I see round the A post.
On a wet night I too lost a cyclist in the background lights directly ahead of me, I was waiting to turn off a main road to the right. I saw him before I started moving, but it was that incident that persuaded me that I needed to have both a fixed and a flashing light on the front of the bike. That and the fact that the night before when I was on the bike someone nearly drove head on into me at a TL crossroads where I was waiting to turn right and he was aiming to do the same but coming from the other direction.
-
The A post on many cars is now so thick (due to crash-worthiness regs, mainly) that it obscures a very considerable amount of the driver's view - and particularly in just the place that you need that view when approaching a roundabout. My last daily driver - an XC90 - was particularly bad in this respect, but my current Fiesta really isn't that much better. I've seen this flagged up in a number of road tests in car magazines, but it's not reflected in either better car design or reminders to the driving public to try and compensate for the lost field of view. Sadly, the result is many emergency stops approaching roundabouts, and occasionally something worse.
Fuzzy, I absolutely recognise the situation you describe! These days, I make a big effort to look round the A-pillar and slow down far more than I used to when approaching roundabouts.
-
Just an impression, but I think big roundabouts - dual-carriageway and motorway junctions, for instance - can be better in this respect than smaller ones. I suppose it's because the angles are different, or maybe it's because the greater size means you take that much longer to cycle between previous exit and the next entrance that you are bound to move a bit in relation to the driver.