 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Great article, worth a read....
http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/
Most interesting, thanks.
I'm off to see if I can catch me an Antelope now..
Interesting, thanks.
Great article - that explains a lot.....
That is very interesting.
I have often wondered why I, as a keen cyclist, but also a driver, occasionally miss seeing a bike even though I make a point of trying to see them.
Yeah quite interesting.
Still doesn't excuse the twunts that mouth "sorry" as they pull out while looking right at you and force you to haul on the anchors though
Hugely interesting. I've had vehicles seem to appear from nowhere before and it's very disturbing as I was convinced I had looked carefully. Need to read that and retrain myself a bit
Best article on safety I've read, thanks for posting.
Mods - perhaps make this sticky?
that deserves as wide an audience as possible
Should be part of the driving test!
I can't get onto the page, can someone paste the text on here or does it have piccies/vids with it?
wowsers - excellent article. thanks
Why is it not working for me? Just get 'Cannot display page' 😥
I can't get onto the page, can someone paste the text on here or does it have piccies/vids with it?
It's a long article with pics
It's not loading for me either. I've bookmarked it for reading later tho.
Lifer - lots of pics which are essential.
A good, interesting and scary read.
No worries will have a go later.
That's a really good, clear explanation.
Some studies have found that when you add the effects of in-car and out-of-car distractions to saccades (the periods when your eyes are moving but not focusing on anything), the typical driver is only focused on the road for one third of the time.
It does make me wonder whether people who think there's nothing fundamentally unsafe about driving fast, or who say things like "We've already got a perfectly good network of cycle paths - they're called roads!" really understand the processes involved.
Remember that woman who was on youtube running over the cyclist who got knocked off to finish under her car?
This one?...
Updated with sentencing now. Seems the video was crucial evidence.
excellent link - hoorah for horatio !
Lulled into a false sense of security you looked quickly right and left, to avoid holding up the traffic behind you, and your eyes jumped cleanly over the approaching vehicle
Easily remedied by actually taking the time to [i]look[/i] left and right, instead of simply moving one's head
FFS no wonder there are so many accidents if stuff like this needs explaining.
Nah - that article is rubbish. And possibly dangerous.
It is giving drivers an excuse to drive dangerously.
The recommendations they make at the end still fall short of what new drivers are taught to do.....
I'm fairly sure that until factors like this are acknowledged and accounted for in road design, preventable accidents will continue to happen, regardless of how high your horse is.
It is giving drivers an excuse to drive dangerously.
how so ?
it is a fairly good explanation of how hand to eye co-ordination/brain function works.
as experienced riders know, the making of eye contact is the key to recognition/safety-- but in busy places this is not always possible in all circs.
Interesting comments. Would perhaps add that when looking either side of your windscreen pillars, it is best to look out of the side windows first then move your head forward and look through the windscreen from side to side. Cyclists approaching from either side will quickly pass across the pillar blindspot. Doing it t'other way about can mask the cyclist for longer. This is particularly dangerous at roundabouts with approach roads on what is called a 'closing angle'. As the approaching driver nears the roundabout, their approach lane curves with the roundabout to aid merging. As their vehicle turns in, the pillar blindspot moves slowly across their field of view, continually masking any cyclist who may be there. Driver's MUST move their head and actively look behind and ahead of their windscreen pillars if this blindspot is to be eliminated. When cycling, if you can't see the driver's eyes....
Interesting stuff. Hadn't heard of Saccadic masking before.
To those people who think that the article is a good one - talk me through your looking procedure for both approaching a junction and emerging from it.
My god you're right, I'm a complete and utter idiot.Nah - that article is rubbish. And possibly dangerous
So, if that that cyclist was flying through the air, right in front of the woman's eyes, but her eyes were simply *moving*, then biological physics science fact says she COULDN'T SEE IT HAPPEN. Look, Cyclist there, look around, cyclist not there, experience tells her he's up the pavement and gone while she looked the other way. She failed to assume he might be laying under her car. Do we all here get out the car and peer under the bumper before moving off?
I now feel even less confident in my internet warrior super abilities ensuring that this could never *have* happened to me. (Having seen it, I hope it would be less to likely in the future.)
My observations on approach to a junction are something along the lines of: start identifiying hazards as soon as possible, look specifically for any potentially hidden hazards - i.e. bikes, kids, cars moving off without indicating, then look for gaps in traffic, then recheck for any changes to the hidden hazards, check to the sides and behind, check that gap is safe, then move off - then finish up looking to see if you have to take evasive action due to missing something......
Takes a few seconds at most.
No quick glances involved. Position in seat is changed if there is a risk that something might be hidden by pillars.
So you agree with the article then?
No - I do not agree with the article.
It does not have important repercussions for the way drivers are trained. Drivers are already trained to a standard that is higher that what they suggest and they have been for many years.
SMIDSY is not a valid excuse. People are taught to look carefully as it is.
What needs to be done is to determine why people are choosing to not be careful with their observations. Changing the risk response element of driving is what is needed.
Interesting that, we had a football coach who taught defence and his mantra was that we had to be like fighter pilots always turning our heads so that we missed nothing or we were dead, metaphorically of course.
Perhaps if people were actually aware of the neurological processes involved in seeing, they would be more cautious when in charge of a tonne of highly speedy metal?
I sense this debate isn't going anywhere though. Glupton knows best, because that's what he does for a living.
Used to do it for a living a number of years ago....
I don't see the article as giving an excuse for bad observation, I see it as explaining why one needs to consciously observe correctly.
I didn't read it as an "excuse" either, its just an explanation. Just as explaining to someone why tyres don't grip on a wet road is not an excuse for someone skidding in the wet.
Position in seat is changed if there is a risk that something might be hidden by pillars.
pillars block something wherever you sit, no?
Great article, thanks for sharing.
To put my point a different way - the intro, methods, results and the most of the discussion is fine in that article, but the conclusions are shoddy. Shoddy because there is no need to make changes to the way people are taught to drive - people are already taught to a better standard than the article recommends....
there is no need to make changes to the way people are taught to drive
That's not what the article is saying either. I read it as a call to change driver behaviour, not testing.
Although is the current system, where you drive satisfactorily for half an hour and do a peasy multiple choice test, then get the right to drive until you drop dead or seriously injure someone, the best solution? Even most driving instructors disagree, apparently:
www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3531657.ece
That article says that most of the 600 people that driving instructors RED suveryed said they'd like a cycling module introduced.
Me - I'd like compulsory retesting every 5 years.
At no point when I was learning to drive was I told: "By the way, even if your eyes are in perfect working order, they barely work. Objects that you aren't staring directly at are practically invisible. If your eyes are swivelling everything is invisible. And you won't know because your brain will just make up the scene you're looking at and it'll look real. Here's the techniques to get around this..."
(Also, this explains why I can spin round the house and not find my keys despite "looking at them" half a dozen times!)
Me - I'd like compulsory retesting every 5 years.
is that from a viewpoint of an instructor, or a concerned road user or both ?
Would certainly cause some unease among the petrol heads- i think its treated as a sort of video game at the moment, responsibility seems a distant concept in road culture..
have you any evidence that people are actually learning to this high standard, or do you mean it's the aspiration of their teachers that they might ?To put my point a different way - the intro, methods, results and the most of the discussion is fine in that article, but the conclusions are shoddy. Shoddy because there is no need to make changes to the way people are taught to drive - people are already taught to a better standard than the article recommends....
What the article seems to be saying is that no matter how well taught you are, and no matter how careful you are, there will sometimes be scenarios where you don't see things because your brain actually edits them out in order to preserve continuity and its own understanding of the scene.
I'd like compulsory retesting every 5 years.
Don't think that's necessarily a bad idea. But if the current standard of driver testing is so jolly amazing, how come new drivers are disproportionately likely to be involved in accidents?
I think the salient point to be taken from the article is HOW the eyes work & HOW we use them.
Most drivers are probably completely unaware of this information.
Lets not lose sight of that..
(Ill get my coat)
But if the current standard of driver testing is so jolly amazing, how come new drivers are disproportionately likely to be involved in accidents?
I'm not sure that they are, when you look at things on a crashes per mile basis. Could it be that they dont realise that theyre not solely at fault in a crash and end up taking the blame?