[Closed] "Sorry, I didn't see you... You're not a car!"

🙁 Ow, hope your arse recovers soon OP.

Ow ow ow indeed.

Very restrained. I would have probably let the adrenaline take over and ended up in jail.

Glad you're relatively uninjured! Please make sure you report it to the police, the driver should have but under exporting of car v cyclist collisions is rife!

Not even proper swearing, very restrained sir.
Glad you're okay.
Edit:
'You were just a Blur'

Very calm sir. I would have ruined her and her car in seconds.

"Sorry, I didn't see you... You're not a car!"

Somewhat missing the point that these ****wits bloody [i][b]should[/b][/i] be looking for bikes

OP, I'd get your bike checked over properly. That looked like a fair impact

Please tell me this is with the police, could have been very much worse.

On the subject of being seen I used to drive a blue LWB Transit, it's amazing how many people look straight through you regardless of who you are and what you are in/on.

that adverts brilliant. whys it only london it should be everywhere in the middle of corrie.

That advert's great, yeah - needs a headcam image of a crash or a near miss like that guy and the lorry at a roundabout, just before the "look out for cyclists" bit

The same's happened to me on a roundabout - with the "sorry I didn't see you", which might not be a valid excuse but it is genuine, obviously. That's why making eye contact with drivers, specially when negotiating rondabouts, is so important. I doubt I would have entered a roundabout at that speed..... once bitten twice shy and all that. Hope you make a full recovery quickly.

Eye contact is balls. Even if the windscreen isn't simply reflecting the sky or the streetlights, people can still look straight at you and fail to register you. Assume they've not seen you, and watch the front wheelarches.

The same's happened to me on a roundabout - with the "sorry I didn't see you", which might not be a valid excuse but it is genuine, obviously.

Saccadic Masking has a lot to answer for at junctions and roundabouts:
http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/

(plus not being car-shaped)

Hope you're okay OP. Follow it up with insurance and police as appropriate.

Eye contact is balls. Even if the windscreen isn't simply reflecting the sky or the streetlights, people can still look straight at you and fail to register you. Assume they've not seen you...

Except that if you look into their eyes there is a reasonable chance that they have seen you, while if all you manage to see is the back of their head, for example, then there is a reasonable chance that they haven't seen you.

Always assuming that you haven't been seen isn't useful when entering a roundabout unless of course you are prepared to only enter a roundabout when there are no cars in sight.

For those reasons I will continue attach importance to making eye contact with drivers.

Excellent delivery and insult choice, 9/10, would run down again.

GrahamS - Member

Saccadic Masking has a lot to answer for at junctions and roundabouts

Agree, but wasn't involved here- the OP was riding across from the side, if the driver didn't see him it's because of not looking at all.

My understanding is that is exactly the kind of situation where Saccadic Masking might kick in. The driver approaches the roundabout, but doesn't want to alter speed much if they can avoid it. They throw a glance to the right but fail to register the non-car-shaped object approaching at steady speed as they only focus on a more distant point (i.e. where a car approaching at speed would be) and rely on peripheral vision to catch closer car-shaped-objects. Like this photo in the article:

[img] [/img]

They throw a glance to the right but fail to register the non-car-shaped object approaching at steady speed as they only focus on a more distant point

Saccadic masking is basically about looking at 2 points and missing things inbetween that you'd think would be obvious. Most commonly seen when someone looks left and right then hits something right in front of them. But in this case, it could only arise if the driver failed to look where they bloody should be looking.

So possibly masking came into it, but only because of dangerously bad observation, it's a symptom not a cause. I suppose this is a bit semantic but what I'm really saying is, no excuse, this didn't happen because of some physiological quirk, it happened because of dangerous driving.

Northwind, whilst I agree that it is dangerous driving and it is the drivers responsibility how many people are even aware saccadic masking even exists? More to the point, the driver may well have looked, all the while believing that the area in between had been checked by his glance.

IMO it should be part of the driving theory test, might stop a few people from making mistakes and killing/injuring someone else.

Very aware of it and I see plenty of drivers look straight through me while on a bike, car or van. It happens, unfortunately telling drivers about it is a very small part. Trying not to do victim blaming but it's something cyclists need to be much more aware of.

Glad you're OK, arse aside.

Fantastic roll to Buddha position, crossed legs and everything. High marks for that. Points off for un-Buddhist like abuse. More points off that if you are going to abuse, needs stronger swearing than bitch. Which isn't even STW filtered, therefore not swearing.

Saccadic masking is only a problem when people are looking too fast - trying to do stuff more quickly than their brain can handle. Look properly and saccadic masking is not an issue. I do wish that people would stop looking for physiological excuses for what is simply crap driving.

Dons flame proof jacket- you were riding too quick into that roundabout.

That does [u][b]NOT[/b][/u] make the driver missing you better though. The driver couldn't process you that quickly whilst also trying to clutch/brake/manage a piece of machinery on top.

Glad you are ok.

Proportionally for our size I have seen cyclists riding too quickly on our roads- especially when you consider all the other factors drivers have to manage/we can blend into street furniture.

Anyway- its a 1,000degree special suit

[img] [/img]

The driver couldn't process you that quickly whilst also trying to clutch/brake/manage a piece of machinery on top

Years of motorcycling taught me always to watch the emerging car for wheel movement as it's dificult to see forward movement from a changing perspective. Also to move across the driver's field of vision by moving outwards as the sideways movement will attract their attention. Sometimes when a bike is heading stright towards them they simply don't see it as the peripheral vision is tuned to spot movement.

I'd upgrade if I were you mate:

SO are you able to get the driver's license rescinded then Hora, you know, if they're not up to the job of spotting something going about 20mph maximum ?

I had a very close miss a while ago and someone posted up a Fighter Jets perspective/how our eyes and brain take in and process information- our eyes take in a series of snap shots- its not continuous under certain circumstances. Anyone got a link?

*Slaters on suncream*

So, why not cross the roundabout closer to the center [even if you're taking the first left] so as to be further away from the driver and therefore cross a larger field of their vision.

Also, as mentioned you could try: approaching on the left of the lane, crossing to the primary,entering the bout while looking for eye contact or the turn of the wheels/braking dip, then swing across the 'bout heading left again for the exit.

Source - crashed loads of times, not been hit like that at a roundabout though, despite hours on the road including working as a courier for a while.

Certainly averted a few swipes in that way - either by them seeing me late or because our paths would have crossed further forward so I had room to maneuver when they made a mistake.

Y [s]M[/s]AR MV.

My situation was slightly different i.e. the cyclist was already on the roundabout and not pegging it but the mechanics on why I missed the cyclist/slender profile visually. I was firmly in the wrong but it gives you a drivers perspective who is also a cyclist:

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/so-i-had-a-close-miss-last-night-with-a-cyclist

In the OP's situation I do feel you entered the roundabout too quickly, position and you should have lifted off and been more cautious.

I had a very close miss a while ago and someone posted up a Fighter Jets perspective/how our eyes and brain take in and process information- our eyes take in a series of snap shots- its not continuous under certain circumstances. Anyone got a link?

Those certain circumstances are usually things like fyling fighter jets....

Eye contact is balls.

It's not, it does help. Clearly as you say there are times it won't, but there are times it will. Humans seem to be predisposed to notice human faces.

In the spirit of sharing tips rather than criticising the op (glad you are ok ofc) sometimes it does help to put yourself where a motorist will see you, or in other words take the lane.

Re the op's vid - did you look left? You shouldn't have to cos it's your right of way but as cyclists we need to expect not to be seen, and to be prepared for people to do just as they did in the vid.

Re the op's vid - did you look left? You shouldn't have to cos it's your right of way but as cyclists we need to expect not to be seen, and to be prepared for people to do just as they did in the vid.

This not looking left at roundabouts thing is bollocks. Why would you deliberately limit the information you have available when you're making a decision on which your life might depend? When I taught people to drive I always taught them to look left too. Same as I taught them to check straight ahead at T-junctions.

it goes back to the expect everyone to be trying to kill you from everywhere principle.

Precisely.

The OP should have slowed down - they had ample opportunity to see the car coming from the left,assess its speed, and whether it had seen him or not. Could have avoided landing on his arse if he'd been more careful.

Though it was still technically the fault of the car driver, right?

In the OP's defense, the wide angle nature of GoPro type cameras makes it look like you are travelling much faster that you really are. He probably wasn't travelling at too high a speed for the situation. Also you can see the car approaching the junction earlier in the video, and they definitely have plenty of time to see.
It was drilled into me when I was being taught to drive (by my traffic copper father) to look and then REALLY look again at junctions, roundabouts, etc. People are in too much of a rush and cut basic, common sense, safety corners.

This situation is why I have an obnoxiously bright light on the front, in daylight, and assume that everyone else is out to kill me.

Though it was still technically the fault of the car driver, right?

Yes. But technically it wasn't an accident as both people could have avoided it by being in less of a hurry, being more careful and having better life preserving instincts.

Yes. But technically it wasn't an accident as both people could have avoided it by being in less of a hurry, being more careful and having better life preserving instincts.

I assume that a car, driven safety and within the speed limit, would be travelling as fast, if not faster, than the OP in this situation.
The driver pulling out, just did not look and put another person's safety at risk.
Really can't see how the OP is at fault.

Oh here we go, the old STW "if you were as good a rider as me you wouldn't have got knocked off". Pathetic. Utterly pathetic.

Get your Blur checked out OP. I thought there was no damage to my bike after getting knocked off (apart from tacoed wheel, which the driver paid for). Cracks in the frame only showed up a few weeks later.

The driver pulling out, just did not look and put another person's safety at risk.
Really can't see how the OP is at fault.

Eye contact is the most important tool we have at junctions/roundabouts. If I make eye contact with a driver, I continue at my current speed, if I don't, I slow a bit and cover the brakes.

Assuming the OP and bike are OK, what would going to the Police achieve?

Assuming the OP and bike are OK, what would going to the Police achieve?

[i][b]VENGEANCE AND FURIOUS ANGER?[/b][/i]

Mike: Fully agree, but I read a few of the posts as bordering on victim blaming, and not helpful advice.

As a side note I've been reading the cyclecraft book (1p from Amazon 🙂 ) and it does pass on some very helpful advice about how to approach different situations. It has made me think more about where I am on the road, and how I ride in general.
Also a roady friend has highly recommended the advanced bikeability training for anyone who commutes.

cyclecraft book (1p from Amazon )

Link please 🙂

Fair point about the stats Mike, I hadn't considered that. In the past I've not reported hits or near misses because it has been a genuine accident and the driver has been genuinely apologetic.

gfs: I picked mine up for 1p + £2.80 postage, but now comes up as 43p + £2.80 postage used 🙁
Just search Amazon for Cyclecraft and pick the paperback version of the first result.
(Link won't work for some reason)
Well worth it at that price.

Ta lad.

gerti, first thing when you read any indecent/accident report you get all the near misses that were never reported, or the yeah that's been broken for ages stuff. You know all the H&S madness that actually make a difference.

used to live opposite a T junction and drivers would regularly turn left after only looking right for a gap in the traffic - they would accelerate into the back of a stationary bus - the council eventually moved the bus stop 10 metres or so - bus stop positioning to blame, not dumb drivers

Eye contact is balls.

It's not, it does help.

Eye contact is vastly over rated by some, it's not an indicator that they've seen you and can lead to inaccurate assumptions, the only way it [i]may[/i] assist is negatively, ie if you've clocked that they haven't once looked in your general direction on approach to the junction - in which case rider beware.

*someone will probably run into the back of you

Saccadic masking

Shall I get me balaclava on?

If you're a SadoSaccadic would it be a ball gag?

I assume that a car, driven safety and within the speed limit, would be travelling as fast, if not faster, than the OP in this situation.

That's not an assumption that I would be prepared to make.

Eye contact is vastly over rated by some, it's not an indicator that they've seen you and can lead to inaccurate assumptions, the only way it may assist is negatively, ie if you've clocked that they haven't once looked in your general direction on approach to the junction - in which case rider beware.

It's not just a glance to make sure that people have looked in your general direction, it's a full on "has this **** seen me" glare. It works.

It works.

*I've tried it a fair few times due to people banging on about it on here, still do use it but not for confirmation that they've seen but, as I said, so I can tell whether they've not even looked in my direction in which case it's emergency stop time.

I had exactly that, too- driver maintained constant eye contact right up til I stove in their door with 160 kilos of motorbike. Then said "you came out of nowhere", then "You were going too fast", of course.

At night, I find the atomic helmet light makes a massive difference- I think because people don't worry much about pulling out in front of pushbikes, but they think twice about UFOs.

I've looked people in the eye (or as close as you can judge, considering you're normally a fair distance from them) and have had them still pull out on me

I didn't say it was guaranteed to work - that would be stupid. I said it helps, and it does.

Eye contact is indicative of nothing other than whether or not they have looked in your general direction

Eye contact means they've seen you, by definition. What we are talking about is *seeking* eye contact. So you move your head to try and see the driver's face. Often, if someone's looking generally in my direction but not at me, I move my head to look them in the eye and they will then notice me.

I've been cycling on roads for 30 years, I've cycled in cities all over the country (and a few in other countries) including London quite a bit, I'm not making up bollocks. I do have experience here.

It's happened enough times* for me to decide either they have just looked straight through me or they have seen me and don't GAF

You may be doing something wrong then, because I try to make eye contact, and people very rarely pull in front of me, and I can't recall anyone pulling out in front of me whilst looking at me.

Oh here we go, the old STW "if you were as good a rider as me you wouldn't have got knocked off". Pathetic. Utterly pathetic.

That's not it. I'm posting to share tips with the forum and the internet in general. I'm trying not to criticise the OP directly, but to have a good discussion about cycle safety. If anyone feels insulted or threatened by my posts then I apologise unreservedly and I will strive to word my posts better in the future.

You know when you met your first partner where ever that may have been and you first gained eye contact with them - that's the kind of eye contact we're talking here. Not the random stranger who appears to be running towards you at the airport with their arms outstretched who then proceeds to run straight past you to the person they had eye contact with.

I had a very close miss a while ago and someone posted up a Fighter Jets perspective/how our eyes and brain take in and process information- our eyes take in a series of snap shots- its not continuous under certain circumstances. Anyone got a link?

Hora demonstrating Saccadic masking brilliantly there by asking for a link to something that was posted several messages before his but he failed to see...

I would get that Blur written off - I wouldn't want to be riding around on a carbon bike that had taken a sideswipe like that.

You may be doing something wrong then,

You know when you met your first partner where ever that may have been and you first gained eye contact with them

that's the kind of eye contact we're talking here. Not the random stranger who...

From the perspective of a (bad) driver, making eye contact with a cyclist may mean to them that they've been seen by the cyclist, so can pull out because it's only a soft squishy human who will yield to my two tons of steel and they won't be going very fast and I don't want to get stuck behind them. So while eye contact is important, it's not really an indicator of a driver's intention.

Maybe we should all carry a lance?

(no, not that sort of Lance)

Eye contact, police advanced driver/motorcyclist told me to watch the front wheel, its the only real indicator.

Oof, that looked like a hard knock.

Hope you're OK and not getting too depressed by the internet fusspots telling you how bad a rider you are.

It's not, it does help. Clearly as you say there are times it won't, but there are times it will.

Well, IME there are so many times that it wont, whether because it gives a false sense of security or because it's simply impossible, that it's basically useless.

There is one time I use it (well, sort of, as I'll come to in a bit): there's a junction I negotiate frequently, a crossroads where I am turning right and both I and a driver opposite are stopped at give way lines. For most combinations of events, their opportunity to move off will arise at the same time as mine, but clearly if we move off at the same time I get hit. So I need to either let them go first, or be sure that they have signalled for me to go. For this, I need eye contact. But actually I need more. I need to see them gesture with their had, or nod their head, or similar. It's not enough to see them look at me.

Even then, as I mentioned, much of the time I simply can't see them because their windscreen is just reflecting sky in the summer or street lighting in the winter.

In that scenario, both I and the driver are stationary and we have time to conduct some sort of protocol. If one or both of us are moving, such an involved two-way process takes too much time and requires too narrow a focus of attention, and the chances of it being completed successfully (still leaving the risk of a false positive) are slim. When there's movement involved, I'm usually glancing at the front wheelarches. They tell me what inputs the driver's applying to the vehicle.

YMMV, natch, but over the years I've found eye contact to be of negligible use in almost all situations.

Well, IME there are so many times that it wont, whether because it gives a false sense of security or because it's simply impossible, that it's basically useless

Not IME so we'll disagree.

Scenario is as follows. Someone waiting at say a mini roundabout (a bit like the OP). I'm riding along and there's a car on the exit to my left they're stopped and waiting for a car approaching from their left to turn left. They look down the road to my right and start to move, but as I dip my head slighltly and look directly at the driver, they notice me and stop. This happens LOADS in Cardiff - maybe it's the particular configuration of junctions and mini roundabouts in the Cardiff suburbs, I dunno. If, as you say, I can't see their face at all due to reflection, I get unnerved and will slow right down expecting them to pull out. I rely quite heavily on seeing the driver's face, and will go into full cautious mode if I can't see it.

My theory is that people notice faces looking at them far more than faces looking elsewhere. As I sit here typing there are three people's faces in my peripheral vision - above and to the left, from the row of desks opposite mine. They are all moving slightly, here and there, moving eyes between monitors and so on. However if one of them looks directly at me for a second, my brain will notice it and alert me.

Hope you're OK and not getting too depressed by the internet fusspots telling you how bad a rider you are.

We're discussing defensive riding. The car driver is definitely at fault, of course, but blaming her and carrying on the same is going to result in the same thing happening again eventually.

As above if a car looks like it's not slowing down when it should be giving way then slowing as you near it is a good thing - tough to say how easy/possible this was for the OP.

Bez - Member
YMMV, natch, but over the years I've found eye contact to be of negligible use in almost all situations.

It's pretty helpful for me, or at least it feels that way.

My theory is that people notice faces looking at them far more than faces looking elsewhere.

but as I dip my head slighltly and look directly at the driver, they notice me [b]and stop[/b].

the important bit is bold the rest is unreliable info.

What do you mean?

I don't think making eye contact is what [i]makes[/i] it safe; being able to make eye contact is an indicator [i]that[/i] it's safe

Someone who's not registered you as they make their quick glance along the road can't meet your gaze. I think that's the point.

I don't think making eye contact is what makes it safe

It does sometimes, trust me.

Someone gazing further down the road, you're in their peripheral vision. Seeing a face looking at them catches their attention in a way that a steadily moving bicycle (amazingly) sometimes doens't.

The other side of it is that *having* made eye contact you are significantly safer (but not, as mentioned above, completely safe, you never are). Experience has taught me when a driver looks like pulling out or not based on their body language.

I always go for checking the front wheel, if that's moving they've probably not seen me or they're not fussed, and if it's not moving they've hopefully seen me, or they're just simply staying still (for now) and shall see me as I approach.

I go for watching the front wheel as I get closer and then ideally try and establish eye contact too.

I'd stop using a carbon frame after that kind of impact, or I'd try and get it Xrayed to see for cracks inside it.