Cycling, Safety and Sharing the Road

[Origamist]

I'm really disappointed the report didn't mention selective inattention blindness.

Sam

The report does v briefly allude to the phenomenon, but couches it differently: "Looked-but-failed-to-see" (p.51,2). However, as it was not brought up directly by the the focus group participants, it only receives an unfortunately fleeting reference. Here's a bit:

One interesting question to raise here is: where does ‘look but failed to see’ (LBFTS) fit into this scheme? One could try to link LBFTS to, for example, the failures of attention created by stress or situational distraction. Our judgement, however, is that LBFTS did not feature as an explanatory concept in any of the discussions in the workshops, either with cyclists or with ORUs.

This report is interesting, if you want to know more about the multi-faceted "Looked but failed to see" collision causation factor: http://www.dft.gov.u...ailedto4755.pdf

 

[John the Monkey]

A driver's responsibility to more vulnerable road users is not diminished by being in a hurry. I find it somewhat depressing that there are cyclists arguing that it is the job of cyclists to make drivers' lives easier, rather than the job of drivers not to make cyclists' lives more hazardous.

This.

 

[Davidc]

Again, you are suggesting that cyclists take responsibility for driver behaviour by changing their own behaviour to compensate.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that or anything like it. What's being suggested is that cyclists help drivers take responsibility for their own (the driver's) actions by ensuring that the driver is aware that they need to take that responsibility - now.

The suggestion that cyclists should wear hi-viz all the time, run with bright lights all the time and all the rest is not entirely dissimilar from the suggestion that women shouldn't wear short skirts in case they provoke a man into attacking them.

I think that is a very poor analogy. You are confusing active measures with passive ones.

Cyclists making sure they're seen is active. A reasonable analogy would be with putting a lighthouse on the Needles rocks. Without it it would still be the ship's master's responsibility not to run aground, but it actively helps prevent shipwrecks by increasing the rocks' visibility.

A driver's responsibility to more vulnerable road users is not diminished by being in a hurry. I find it somewhat depressing that there are cyclists arguing that it is the job of cyclists to make drivers' lives easier, rather than the job of drivers not to make cyclists' lives more hazardous.

I haven't seen anyone on here arguing that, only the opposite. What people including me argue is that cyclists and pedestrians, like all road users, have a responsibility to actively help everyone else carry out their responsibilities by making their lives easier.

If a car or motorcycle has its lights on, day or night, I'm more likely to see it and not pull out in front of it (applies whether i'm on a bike or in a car). By using their lights the driver has helped me take responsibility for my own driving/ riding. That applies in all directions. By having lights on my bike or car I provide the same service to others. It happens to benefit me as well.

 

[davefb]

[/size][/font][/color]

I'm not talking about lights, which IMO opinion should be used by cyclists in precisely the same fashion as cars, at night, and in gloomy conditions.

I'm talking about hi-viz.

Cars are not expected (or indeed forced) to be painted in hi-viz colours. Why should cyclists be?

Obviously it's a good idea to make yourself more visible - but the onus should be on the driver to spot people. They should be able to see objects in the road, and drive accordingly. Not everything that ends up in the road is going to be in hi-viz - be it fallen trees, wildlife, etc. I think for certain drivers, these kinds measures foster a degree of complacency and/or negligence about the unexpected, which makes road conditions more dangerous for everyone.

cars have reflectors on them, they have lights which they are expected to use, they are not (well in general) painted with matt colours, unless they're tanks. The article doesnt say everyone should go round in all hiviz clothing, it talks about using elements of hi viz in order to help being seen.. what exactly is wrong with that?

yes it's up to people to actually look, but why not help to be seen?

and yes, i have walked home on half a mile of unlight road with a newspaper in my hand ....

Obviously I try to look for cyclists, but theres this almost childlike assumption that 'just because i can see you, means you can see me'. that isnt the case, especially in the dark when there are myriads of other lights.

 

[BSRU]

Again, you are suggesting that cyclists take responsibility for driver behaviour by changing their own behaviour to compensate.
A driver's responsibility to more vulnerable road users is not diminished by being in a hurry. I find it somewhat depressing that there are cyclists arguing that it is the job of cyclists to make drivers' lives easier, rather than the job of drivers not to make cyclists' lives more hazardous.

Sam

In the real world you have to realistic and not idealistic.

No-one is arguing it is the job of the cyclists to make the drivers lives easier and it is also not the job of cyclists to make drivers lives harder,

 

[snorri]

If a car or motorcycle has its lights on, day or night, I'm more likely to see it and not pull out in front of it (applies whether i'm on a bike or in a car). By using their lights the driver has helped me take responsibility for my own driving/ riding. That applies in all directions. By having lights on my bike or car I provide the same service to others. It happens to benefit me as well.

I must say I find your view completely at odds with my own, and would reword your posting as follows.
If a car or motor cycle has its lights on day or night I am at greater risk of hitting the unlit fallen trees sheep etc. in its vicinity.
By using their lights the driver has distracted my vision from possible hazards. By having lights on my bike or car in daylight I provide the same distraction to other road users. It benefits my safety to the detriment of the safety of others.

 

[Origamist]

A driver's responsibility to more vulnerable road users is not diminished by being in a hurry. I find it somewhat depressing that there are cyclists arguing that it is the job of cyclists to make drivers' lives easier, rather than the job of drivers not to make cyclists' lives more hazardous.

Sam

Concisely put (and reminiscent J S Dean).

I note how none of the other contributors to this thread are advocating regularly cleaning windscreens, or more rigorous eye-tests for drivers, or that drivers should be able to stop in the distance that they can see to be clear - no siree...

 

[BSRU]

Again, you are suggesting that cyclists take responsibility for driver behaviour by changing their own behaviour to compensate.

So why bother taking primary at junctions and RAB's,
firstly, to be more visible to other road users and have more visibilty of other road users,
secondly, to try an prevent stupid and dangerous close overtakes.

 

[Davidc]

I must say I find your view completely at odds with my own, and would reword your posting as follows.
If a car or motor cycle has its lights on day or night I am at greater risk of hitting the unlit fallen trees sheep etc. in its vicinity.
By using their lights the driver has distracted my vision from possible hazards. By having lights on my bike or car in daylight I provide the same distraction to other road users. It benefits my safety to the detriment of the safety of others.

We'll just have to disagree. I simply look forward to the day when we follow the scandinavian countries, Poland and so on and make 24/7 lighting compulsory, with the (measured, documented, and large) improvement in safety that brings.

 

[John the Monkey]

So why bother taking primary at junctions and RAB's,
firstly, to be more visible to other road users and have more visibilty of other road users,
secondly, to try an prevent stupid and dangerous close overtakes.

Road Position > Hi Vis, ime.

I don't think anyone's denying that we all have responsibilities here, but for my money, they skew heavily in the UK towards those who are in danger, not those who present the danger, and that is fundamentally wrong. The duty of the driver to account for others, and to drive according to conditions is barely mentioned, rarely backed up by enforcement, and beyond a one off test in most people's late teens, never assessed.

You see the attitude in a smaller way when (some) cyclists talk about riding around "peds".

 

[StuartG]

We'll just have to disagree. I simply look forward to the day when we follow the scandinavian countries, Poland and so on and make 24/7 lighting compulsory, with the (measured, documented, and large) improvement in safety that brings.

Can you point me to this.

I thought the evidence indicated that car headlighting endangered motorcyclists who otherwise could not be distinguished from four wheel vehicles. Also the increased danger to planet and people by increasing fossil fuel burn.

 

[BSRU]

Road Position > Hi Vis, ime.

I don't think anyone's denying that we all have responsibilities here, but for my money, they skew heavily in the UK towards those who are in danger, not those who present the danger, and that is fundamentally wrong. The duty of the driver to account for others, and to drive according to conditions is barely mentioned, rarely backed up by enforcement, and beyond a one off test in most people's late teens, never assessed.

You see the attitude in a smaller way when (some) cyclists talk about riding around "peds".

The main problem is lack of enforcement, very rare to see any traffic Police, which results in some road users ignoring the rules of the road that they don't like
Plus lack of personal responsibility, just look at all websites dedicated to helping people subjugate their personal responsibilities in order to escape fixed penalty notices or endorsements.

Until the government breaks free of the "Car is King" culture we have to do what we can to mitigate the risks.

 

[Davidc]

Can you point me to this.

I thought the evidence indicated that car headlighting endangered motorcyclists who otherwise could not be distinguished from four wheel vehicles. Also the increased danger to planet and people by increasing fossil fuel burn.

I've heard the comment about motorcycles, and also seen it refuted. Not being a motorcyclist I haven't noted where to find the information.

The environmental question depends on the type of lighting. The daytime lights now being fitted, and proposed for retrofitting to meet compulsory lighting laws, are LED based and use littlle power.

Edit - should have said that there are several research results for daytime lights on the EU's website, I found them once in the past.

 

[mcr]

Road Position > Hi Vis, ime.

I don't think anyone's denying that we all have responsibilities here, but for my money, they skew heavily in the UK towards those who are in danger, not those who present the danger, and that is fundamentally wrong. The duty of the driver to account for others, and to drive according to conditions is barely mentioned, rarely backed up by enforcement, and beyond a one off test in most people's late teens, never assessed.

You see the attitude in a smaller way when (some) cyclists talk about riding around "peds".

+1


I also find there's something about cars running daytime lights in good conditions as a 'hey, look, I'm here, get out of my way' mentality. And with some of these modern super-bright lights I find I can be dazzled even when they're dipped.

 

[Origamist]

We'll just have to disagree. I simply look forward to the day when we follow the scandinavian countries, Poland and so on and make 24/7 lighting compulsory, with the (measured, documented, and large) improvement in safety that brings.

Err, in Poland there was a 6% increase in road fatalities since the introduction of DRL on 17 April 2007!