Why SMIDSYs happen

Peter Fox said:

c
There are big rewards for being able to find out 'why drivers are
careless' _in this particular case_. Hypotheses developed from this
might then be applied/tested in other cyclist/motor interactions.

Certainly are and I learnt a lot from reading the paper and hope to
learn even more when he's finished his latest research project. I am
pleased he dismisses segregation of VRUs from motor vehicles as a
solution and makes some sensible suggestions for overcoming the human
limitations of drivers that lead to problems for VRUs. If our species
development means that we can only cope with three visual targets a
second and have to build mental models to cope with the complexity of
driving, it is no use coming up with solutions that require us to make
more observations and not build mental models. That would be asking us
to do things we simply cannot do. But there are things I can do as a
cyclist to recognise the human limitations and act accordingly until we
can get enough cyclists on the road to be built into the mental models
of the road environment. Road positioning is one but there is another
factor he covers which I have always believed to be right which is
cycling and positioning yourself like when driving a car so that the
visual cues of intentions you send out are easily interpreted by drivers.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

vernon said:

Quoted message said:

Care to quote the source of your claim? Or is it a case of your
convictions being more valid that researched evidence?

Hi tony,

Have a look at this Paul Smith offshoot

http://www.smidsy.org.uk/

I was thinking more of ukrc's claim that psychological factors play a
minor role in SMIDSY's and that speed, drunkenness, aggression etc are
more important.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Quoted message said:

I feel that phrases such as 'drivers expect only to interact with other
automobiles and so attend to their surroundings in such a way that VRUs
are overlooked' is just another way of saying that 'drivers don't
bother to look out for cyclists.

Unfortunately such 'scientific' statements are all too often taken as
excusing drivers for 'seeing' cyclists, when in reality they are
simply pointing out the fact that many motorists don't bother taking
proper observations!

This 'failed to see' nonsense is, for the most part, hogwash cooked up
by the motoring lobby to excuse driving without due care and worse.

Having been the victim of a SMIDSY, I'd have to disagree with you to
some extent.

I was going round a large roundabout near the centre of the left-hand
lane, just about to pass an on-slip from a dual-carriageway, and taking
the exit after that.

A young man in a small black hatch stopped at the end of the slip road
and looked towards me. I am convinced we made eye contact, and yet he
pulled out and ran over my back wheel.

No serious injuries, but it could have been much worse.

I discussed the incident with him (very polite and apologetic), and
despite stopping and looking for an appropriate amount of time, he
simply did not register me despite me moving within his visual field.
I'm certain his brain told him to go, having determined there were no
cars or trucks in his way.

So - yes, he failed to take proper observations, but I don't think this
was "nonsense" cooked up to excuse what many people do - just barging on
without stopping.

I've done similar myself, both on the bike and in the car: you look and
ony half-see. It's experience that makes me stop and re-evaluate what's
really there. Hopefully the driver involved in my incident will do
likewise in future.

Now all we need is a way to drum that instinct into people without
having to cause injuries (and scratch my poor Roberts!) first.

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

Mark Tranchant said:

Having been the victim of a SMIDSY, I'd have to disagree with you to
some extent.

I was going round a large roundabout near the centre of the left-hand
lane, just about to pass an on-slip from a dual-carriageway, and taking
the exit after that.

A young man in a small black hatch stopped at the end of the slip road
and looked towards me. I am convinced we made eye contact, and yet he
pulled out and ran over my back wheel.

No serious injuries, but it could have been much worse.

I discussed the incident with him (very polite and apologetic), and
despite stopping and looking for an appropriate amount of time, he
simply did not register me despite me moving within his visual field.
I'm certain his brain told him to go, having determined there were no
cars or trucks in his way.

Yes, a classic situation. But why did the driver not look out for
cyclists, only for cars and trucks? Again it comes down in part to the
potential cost of failing to 'see' a car as opposed to failing to 'see'
a cyclist. Miss a car and you may well be killed, miss a cyclist and
the potential cost is much less. Hell, even if you kill a cyclist all
you have to do is say that you 'didn't see' them in court and you will
in all probability be allowed to drive away with a £50 fine. Give
drivers the motivation to 'see' cyclists, say by offering them 10 cents
for everyone they spot in a driving simulation and they will spot them
alright!

Transport Research Laboratory report 549 'Drivers perceptions of
cyclists' makes an important point here. It says: cyclists are not
perceived to be high on most drivers' road user status hierarchy...
research has shown that road users who are deemed to be of low status
are treated with less care and consideration.'

I.e. drivers do not regard cyclists as being equal or even legitimate
road users and so do not consider cyclists as being deserving of the
same 'care and consideration' as other road users. Again, this relates
back to the lower incidence of car/bike collisions in places such as
Holland and Denmark. There cyclists are seen as being legitimate road
users deserving equal, if not greater, care and consideration from car
drivers, so drivers are much more likely to 'look out' for cyclists and
respond appropriately.

Again, the failure to 'see' cyclists in the UK has much more to do with
attitudinal and motivational factors than the supposed limitations of
the perceptual system.

Tony Raven said:

"The main identified cause of collisions to bicyclists is a process

[chop]

How does that fit with the substantial differences between different
countries? I'm thinking of my time in Italy, where cyclists and
pedestrians share roads much narrower and more difficult than ours
with all the motor traffic, yet rarely if ever dress for visibility.
Yet drivers are more alert, and the SMIDSY so rare I don't recollect
encountering one in my six years there.

(Yes I know they have a worse death rate than us. I suspect that's
because our roads - even those considered very narrow by brits -
give us a lot of spare space to avoid an accident at the last moment,
whereas theirs are mostly far too small).

One point that does support your thesis: the general lack of pavements
puts pedestrians in the road almost everywhere, unlike here where
most roads where people are *expected* to walk have pavements,
and peds come as a surprise to motorists.

--
not me guv

Ian Smith said:

I know which category of postings within the groupings "refugees from
car-centric sites" and "ukrc@thebikezone" _I_ find most annoying.

Don't encourage him to bring on us the true loony element of the cagers.

Or on second thoughts ... maybe we could leave thebikezone fighting
jnugent in a corner and get on with life.

--
not me guv

Mark Tranchant said:

Now all we need is a way to drum that instinct into people without
having to cause injuries (and scratch my poor Roberts!) first.

Compulsory cycling as part of the driving test? The more people have
cycled themselves the more they know when and where to expect them.

Roos

Quoted message said:

Which reminds me. Why do drivers moan about not being able to 'see'
unlit cyclists at night? If they 'can't see' them do they detect their
presence by radar? And why does fitting a couple of hundred quids worth
of high-power lighting to ones bike seem to make you invisible? I once
had a driver cut me up who when challenged claimed he did it because my
lights had 'confused' him! What did he think might be going down the
road with a bright head light? An alien spacecraft?

It's a well established perceptual phenomenon that if you're using a
light to make yourself more visible, then the best judgments as to
your speed and postion occur when the light is not so bright as to
completely obscure all other visual details of your vehicle. If the
light is so bright that *all* that can be seen is the light, then
people can make considerable misjudgments about speed and position.

Making yourself more visible by using brighter lights is often
foolishly counterproductive.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Roos Eisma said:

Compulsory cycling as part of the driving test? The more people have
cycled themselves the more they know when and where to expect them.

I cite London cabbies doing the Knowledge and their subsequent behaviour
driving a cab as evidence that that would make the situation worse!

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Nick Kew said:

One point that does support your thesis:

Its not my thesis. Its a paper which I think has some very interesting
points worth considering.

As for Italy, I don't know other than if their death rate is higher than
ours and its not from SMIDSY's and drivers are all courteous to
cyclists, what is killing them?

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Quoted message said:

Again, the failure to 'see' cyclists in the UK has much more to do with
attitudinal and motivational factors than the supposed limitations of
the perceptual system.

You have put forward points that are all addressed in some detail and
consideration in the paper with detailed references to the sources. You
have chosen to dismiss all that for your unsubstantiated opinion. What
evidential basis, which references, do you have to demonstrate your
opinion is more valid than the quoted research. You keep ducking this
question but until you do your opinion is nothing more than that.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

On 23 Oct 2005 11:14:38 -0700, [email hidden] said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

someone is sure to bring up that old chestnut about the research
which found that people didn't quickly spot gorilla's hidden in
pictures of everyday scenes.

Or even
http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~jadams/PDFs/800%20pound%20gorilla%20plus%20ensuing%20letters.pdf

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Roos Eisma said:

Compulsory cycling as part of the driving test? The more people have
cycled themselves the more they know when and where to expect them.

Would be a start. But it needs to be ongoing: some basic _annual_
mileage. Perhaps with options (at least for the disabled) of a
motorbike instead, since two-wheelers share many of the same problems.

It's only the same principle that requires you to have a car license
before you can train for an HGV or PSV.

--
not me guv

vernon said:

And for those who are truly paranoid, the vehicles you to be extra
vigilant about are
Seat Altea
Vauxhall Meriva
Honda Jazz
Mazda MX5
Toyota Yaris
VW Touran
Audi TT
Peugeot 206
Vauxhall Zafira
Land Rover Freelander

As a Zafira owner I can confirm that the door pillar does give a huge
blind spot. It's probably the biggest single fault on the car. It is
possible to operate a Zafira safely, of course, but the driver has to
be aware of the blind spot and actually move his nut from time to time.

--
Dave...

Quoted message said:

Yes, a classic situation. But why did the driver not look out for
cyclists, only for cars and trucks?

Can you do sums? Any idea what empirical substantiation means?

Quoted message said:

Again it comes down in part to the
potential cost of failing to 'see' a car as opposed to failing to
'see' a cyclist. Miss a car and you may well be killed, miss a
cyclist and the potential cost is much less. Hell, even if you kill
a cyclist all you have to do is say that you 'didn't see' them in
court and you will in all probability be allowed to drive away with a
£50 fine.

I just don't buy this. Do you seriously believe that the average motorist
would kill cyclists if they thought they wouldn't get done for it? How many
people do you know that could happily live with someone's death on their
conscience?

--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

Wally said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, a classic situation. But why did the driver not look out for
cyclists, only for cars and trucks?

Can you do sums? Any idea what empirical substantiation means?

Quoted message said:

Again it comes down in part to the
potential cost of failing to 'see' a car as opposed to failing to
'see' a cyclist. Miss a car and you may well be killed, miss a
cyclist and the potential cost is much less. Hell, even if you kill
a cyclist all you have to do is say that you 'didn't see' them in
court and you will in all probability be allowed to drive away with a
£50 fine.

I just don't buy this. Do you seriously believe that the average motorist
would kill cyclists if they thought they wouldn't get done for it? How many
people do you know that could happily live with someone's death on their
conscience?

You miss the point. It is about transferance of properties.
Transferring the "I'll probably get away with this and if I don't it'll
be a slight knock" to the cyclist without conciously realising that the
'slight knock' is actually a serous crash without a safety cage and
airbags. They won't say this if they think about it. The problem is
that they don't think about it.

...d

Peewiglet <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
| On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:54:47 +0100, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>
| wrote:
|
| [...]
| >"Fontaine and Gourlet (1997) found that in many pedestrian-initiated
| >accidents (28% overall, rising to 41% in people aged between 16 and 44),
| >the pedestrian had recently left a vehicle or was planning shortly to
| >get into one. In particular, the authors refer to many police reports of
| >heavy goods vehicle drivers who were killed soon after leaving their
| >trucks. The drivers in all these accidents were apparently walking
| >around in the mindset of a motorist, and so continued to act as if they
| >were protected from other traffic"
|
| Bizarre. This sounds a bit like the experience I had some months ago
| of the pedestrian who just walked straight across the road in front of
| my bike whilst looking straight through me, apparently towards the
| cars travelling behind me.

I've had the same.

My theory, ahem, is that people are basically looking out for danger to
themselves, where danger includes expensive repair bills. We're the ones
who notice most because everything is potentially a danger to us. The
solution, w.r.t. drivers, is to make it much more dangerous and/or
expensive to hit a cyclist or pedestrian, e.g. an automatic
manslaughter-by-negligence investigation if a death results.

--
Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph

Patrick Herring said:

Peewiglet <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
| On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:54:47 +0100, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>
| wrote:
|
| [...]
| >"Fontaine and Gourlet (1997) found that in many pedestrian-initiated
| >accidents (28% overall, rising to 41% in people aged between 16 and 44),
| >the pedestrian had recently left a vehicle or was planning shortly to
| >get into one. In particular, the authors refer to many police reports of
| >heavy goods vehicle drivers who were killed soon after leaving their
| >trucks. The drivers in all these accidents were apparently walking
| >around in the mindset of a motorist, and so continued to act as if they
| >were protected from other traffic"
|
| Bizarre. This sounds a bit like the experience I had some months ago
| of the pedestrian who just walked straight across the road in front of
| my bike whilst looking straight through me, apparently towards the
| cars travelling behind me.

I've had the same.

My theory, ahem, is that people are basically looking out for danger to
themselves, where danger includes expensive repair bills. We're the ones
who notice most because everything is potentially a danger to us. The
solution, w.r.t. drivers, is to make it much more dangerous and/or
expensive to hit a cyclist or pedestrian, e.g. an automatic
manslaughter-by-negligence investigation if a death results.

or, how about an automatic suspension of a driving license for three
days after any collision with a VRU? The hardship case is surely
negligible as a) taxi's don't cost *that* much for day to day travel (
or three days holiday entitlement gone..) and b) it is only three days
so not a life sentence.

That would make drivers far more aware of their surroundings.

Oh, and instant, mandatory banned for life for leaving the scene of an
accident that you were involved in without either informing the police
or exchanging accurate name/address/insurance.

...d

vernon said:

Vauxhall Zafira

You better believe it, ruddy huge pillars with wipers that don't go all
the way to the edge of the screen making them even wider!
Driving Mrs Badgers Zafi its frightening loosing a whole car in the
blind spot...

Quoted message said:

I discussed this issue with a community officer at York rally last
year. He said that when riding to work in a bright yellow jacket he was
frequently cut up by drivers who 'failed to see' him. However, when on
duty wearing a similar top (only with 'Police' written on it) he
seemed to be spotted by drivers from miles away. Again this suggests
that drivers really do see cyclists perfectly well, but fail to act
appropriately unless they see that the cyclist is also obviously a
police officer...

IIRC a police motorcyclist did some research into this, riding a CID
bike totally unmarked in dark gear through to full marked traffic with
all the dayglo on in various stages, the biggest change was when drivers
"see" a threat to their licences.

Thats why the unmarked traffic bikes with cameras, dark blue lights and
dark paintwork catch so many in Hampshire. I spotted one a while back,
the antenna and odd red light on the back screamed COPPER to me, most
other drivers just went tearing past this bike with the rider in black
with a blue helmet, at the next lights the blues, camera and siren were
clear to see IF your observant...

Shame the copper who did the research didn't have a Phd, he might have
published something useful if he had, but as he didn't it was in a few
bike mags and no doubt dismissed as irrelavent by those with.