CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

One in five cyclists 'invisible' to drivers

(17 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. crowriver
    Member

    Dunno if this has been posted here before. It was linked from the recent story on the Tweeting cyclist hating driver on the Telegraph site:

    One in five cyclists 'invisible' to drivers

    Research using special glasses which track eye movement shows that drivers fail to see more than a fifth of cyclists on the road, and that London has some of the least attentive motorists.

    Drivers taking part in the study were asked to wear glasses which pinpointed exactly where they were focusing, and what they failed to spot as they drove through London, Sheffield and Oxford.

    The results varied by age, with those between 20 and 29-years-old being the worst offenders, failing to notice 31 per cent of cyclists. They also varied geographically, with London drivers missing 30 per cent of cyclists, but those in Sheffield failing to spot just 15 per cent.

    Motorists using satelite navigation devices were less likely to spot a cyclist, failing to notice 24 per cent, compared to those not using them, who missed 19 per cent. The average figure for all 100 drivers in the study was 22 per cent, more than one-in-five.

    For some reason, cyclists seemed to get far less attention than other vulnerable road users. "Jaywalkers" - pedestrians who stepped into the road away from a crossing - were missed by drivers only 4 per cent of the time, while 15 per cent of motorcyclists were overlooked.

    Continues at:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/active/recreational-cycling/10018541/One-in-five-cyclists-invisible-to-drivers.html

    I wonder how Edinburgh motorists compare?

    Anyway, there it is: drivers just don't pay attention to their surroundings enough. I think we cyclists knew that, didn't we?

    All I can say is: beware of young female drivers using satnav in London!

    Posted 10 years ago #

  2. Smudge
    Member

    Miserable victim blaming headline which should say something along the lines of "one in five drivers lethally inattentive"n, the cyclists and motorcyclists are no more "invisible" to drivers (or anyone else) than walls trucks or police officers, they're just not perceived as a threat :-<

    Posted 10 years ago #

  3. wingpig
    Member

    It's be interesting to see what cyclists from various areas fail to fleetingly lock their gaze upon.
    Whilst it's difficult to catch the focus of every little saccade I'd say that I can be quite aware of something without having noticeably trained my fovea upon it.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  4. Smudge
    Member

    Having seen film of the technology I've always fancied having a go to then watch back on a video and see where I look/don't look whilst driving/motorcycling/cycling. Don't know whether I'd be comparatively good or bad though :-/

    Posted 10 years ago #

  5. crowriver
    Member

    @wingpig, yes this is roughly the argument made by the academic drummed up to rubbish the research. However, you are not guiding a tonne of metal propelled by a motor. Given that the most common cause of road traffic collisions is cited as "failed to look properly" I'd say the onus is on drivers to check the way is clear by focussing on anything that might be a hazard, rather than relying on being vaguely aware something (eg. a cyclist) is in the vicinity of their peripheral vision.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  6. wingpig
    Member

    "...by focussing on anything that might be a hazard..."

    An hazard to them or an object to which they are the greater hazard?

    The exaggerated feeling of cocoonedness of the motor vehicle driver has been mentioned a bit before.

    I'd want to see where the not-fixated-upon objects were in relation to the course of the driver being studied.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  7. crowriver
    Member

    Hazard, rather than a danger to them necessarily. Isn't it odd how pedestrian 'jaywalkers'* are not as 'invisible' as cyclists or motorcyclists?

    * - No such thing. We're not part of the US, yet.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  8. gembo
    Member

    When eye trackers got cheap enough in the late 1980s a cognitive psychologist I knew redid a lot of his old experiments about reading paragraphs of text. When he could get the tracker to work, Whoa, the eyes were all over the place, not just one word then the next.. However, if you asked the poor subjects questions on wht the text was about, they seemed to know. now when I say the eyes were all over the place, they did still stick to the page they were reading, unlike drivers who can easily be distracted by being on the phone, lighting a fag, listening to radio, interacting with passengers etc. Personally, I think drivers should give maximum concentration but maybe being protected by their metal cages instils a false sense of security?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  9. PS
    Member

    Isn't it odd how pedestrian 'jaywalkers'* are not as 'invisible' as cyclists or motorcyclists?

    I'm not sure it is. A ped crossing the road is more noticeable because it is tracking across your field of vision. A (motor)cyclist is going in the same direction as you, so is more like a fixed spot in your perception, therefore not as obvious.

    Maybe cyclists should weave about on the road more to attract attention?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  10. Instography
    Member

    I think gembo and PS have got it. The essence of it is that the practice and organisation of driving is set up to make it automatic. To move it from being conscious behaviour to become largely unconscious, instinctive, flow behaviour. Bad news for people coming straight into your field of view, not changing the picture enough to elevate them from unconscious non-perception to be consciously visible. Good news for people changing the picture, moving across it. Invisible is the perfect word for it.

    To think that motorists will always be acting consciously is, I think, to fundamentally misunderstand how it works. It will, I'm afraid, always be on us to avoid them.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  11. Roibeard
    Member

    @Smudge - Having seen film of the technology I've always fancied having a go to then watch back on a video and see where I look/don't look whilst driving/motorcycling/cycling.

    I'd prefer not to see that played back in public. I may spend longer becoming aware of a certain class of road user than others, with a close correlation to chromosomes.

    [That said, the only time I've wrapped myself round a lamp post when walking, was when I was eyeing up a car!]

    I refer again to what fighter pilots can teach drivers about observation...

    I'm with Insto, though, that few road users will take it as seriously as they should, which is why I'm into interventions higher up the hierarchy of safety controls - training/education is much less effective and should only be used if elimination or engineering can't be used.

    EDIT - and, of course, it's another reason to cycle where the attention is directed, where vehicles are expected.

    Yep, I'm a vehicular cyclist campaigning for segregation - I'm a bundle of complexity...

    Robert

    Posted 10 years ago #

  12. Calum
    Member

    Oh, wouldn't the car lobby just love it if the UK introduced the crime of "jaywalking" - finally, the streets would be clear of all those pesky obstacles to busy, important, road-tax-paying, law-abiding Motorists! Fortunately I think our culture is still sufficiently different from the absurd and barbaric United States that it probably won't happen.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  13. chdot
    Admin

    Actually in some parts of US if you go near curb (aka kerb) vehicles stop!

    Posted 10 years ago #

  14. neddie
    Member

    Although jaywalking is an offence in the US, I'd argue that US drivers treat pedestrians a lot better than drivers do here.

    US drivers will always stop for peds at Stop signs, traffic lights, junctions, shopping mall car parks, residential streets, etc.

    Here they just try to run you over...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  15. neddie
    Member

    Most of what the human eye 'sees' is made up by the brain, based on memories. Only changes in scene, or movement are really passed to the brain from the eye.

    In fact the eye is really good at detecting movement.

    It's one reason this still appears as a normal face, even though the eyes and mouth are shown upside-down:
    http://www.moillusions.com/2008/03/upside-down-optical-illusion-again.html

    Posted 10 years ago #

  16. Coxy
    Member

    My only experience of US roads has been New York. Peds have priority over cars turning on green lights - so perhaps drivers are more tuned in to giving way.

    Years ago, we went on holiday in Amalfi, Italy. We were warned about the driving and it was pretty wild! However, you always felt that if you stepped into the traffic, everyting would stop. It always felt pretty safe and I remember and old mad/drunk/tramp person on a bike with a dog on a lead circling a roundabout in Sorrento for about 30 minutes. No problem!

    If you step into the road in the UK, I recon a lot of cars would speed up!

    Posted 10 years ago #

  17. PS
    Member

    @coxy Similar to your Italian experience: cycling in Paris looks like it should be scary as hell, but it's actually really quite easy (and safe) to cycle across the likes of Place de la Concorde; largely, I think, because the lack of clear lanes/demarcation mean that drivers have to pay attention to what is around them, rather than just sailing along on autopilot.

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin