Why are UK cyclists fixated on helmets

[theclaud]

Anyway, we're straying rather far from the OP.

Naughty!

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

We're not fixated on helmets! This thread has only got a measley 483 posts so far!!

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Yeap. That's my point. Motorists expect to see other cars, so don't look for anything else. But if they expect to see cyclists, they'll look for cyclists. A problem that can be fixed by a change of attitude or training, perhaps? Anyway, we're straying rather far from the OP. A major problem is that this fixation on helmets, and hi-vis merely serve as a distraction from issues such as this - and that is to the detriment of all road users, because genuine opporunitities to make the roads safer are being ignored for populist sticking plasters such as lids.

Safety in numbers is what may fix it by conditioning nobber-drivers to expect to see cyclists. Not training. Not attitude modification.

 

[mcshroom]

Or victim blaming and the promotion of 'safety' equipment that's only proven effect is to reduce the numbers of cyclists where it has been mandated.

 

[slowmotion]

I don't think that the vast majority of drivers look down on cyclists or wish them any harm. I suspect that they just have no appreciation of how their driving affects us, or how grave the consequences are when they ( or dare I say, we?) make even a small mistake. It's not just a minor scrape on the bodywork and a letter to the insurance company. Its bruises, bones and death.
Education is all.

 

[Wobblers]

Safety in numbers is what may fix it by conditioning nobber-drivers to expect to see cyclists. Not training. Not attitude modification.

Yeap. That's my point. Motorists expect to see other cars, so don't look for anything else. But if they expect to see cyclists, they'll look for cyclists.

One TMN to me!

 

[benb]

I don't think that the vast majority of drivers look down on cyclists or wish them any harm. I suspect that they just have no appreciation of how their driving affects us, or how grave the consequences are when they ( or dare I say, we?) make even a small mistake. It's not just a minor scrape on the bodywork and a letter to the insurance company. Its bruises, bones and death.
Education is all.

I reckon about 50% are OK. Not brilliant, but probably pass a bit closer than you'd like and don't pay attention as much as they ought.
10% are fantastic (probably cyclists themselves!) courteous, patient, observant, calm, and safe
35% are quite crap, but incompetent rather than malicious. Close passes, overtaking through pinch point, impatient tail-gating, that sort of thing.
5% are criminally dangerous, and either deliberately or because they don't give a stuff will drive in a terrifyingly appalling manner.

Figures plucked out of the air to an extent - I haven't actually tried quantifying the types.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

66.6% drive on auto pilot but can nonetheless cope with the unexpected.

33.3%* drive under the illusion of attention but cannot cope with the unexpected.

.1% actually mean to harm others.

evidence base is experiments conducted by Chris Chabris.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

One TMN to me!

Fraid not. They still won't look for cyclists. Nonetheless they will see them. Having been conditioned to expect their presence they will see them without looking for them.

 

[oldstrath]

Safety in numbers is what may fix it by conditioning nobber-drivers to expect to see cyclists. Not training. Not attitude modification.

Wish I had your optimism. I suspect the problem drivers are such because they haven't internalised any consequences, to them, of hitting a cyclist. Sure, if they do so and hurt someone they will suffer remorse, probably quite genuine remorse, but they lack the wiring to make the imaginative leap before the event, so they look for threats, fail to see a threat, and go.

Maybe seeing more cyclists wil help, but I suspect that vfor some only the apprehension of real, personal, fear-inducing, consequnces will change their behaviour early enough to matter. In a half civilised society this presumably means a real fear of getting caught, and a level of punishment that will cause them personal problems. This, after all, is what really did for drink driving.

 

[benb]

Evidence based?

Touché.

It's a subjective opinion, so doesn't need evidence per se, but I guess I could try and count interactions that fall into each category.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

It pains me to say it on here but I almost took out a cyclist while behind the wheel today. When you're cycling there's no frontal blind spot. When you're behind the wheel, there are several. I'm a competent driver and have never caused an accident or even got a single point on my licence. And I'm very aware of cyclists. But the pillar - is it called the A-pillar? - between windscreen and side windows is a genuine blind spot, and that's where the cyclist was. But considerations of driver and passenger security allow for frontal blind spots at the expense of other, more vulnerable road users. I did see him but I saw him late and braked in time. I simply couldn't see him early. In my view, that's driver safety elevated above others safety. And it frightens me.

 

[DavidD]

How big is the A post on your car?

 

[MontyVeda]

... In the gorilla study the participants were primed to count the number of passes of the ball
...

this is why i believe the gorilla video is a red herring... if the instruction was "watch this video and note what happens" then a lot more people would see a bunch of people passing a white ball around, a person in a gorilla suit, a person wonders off, a red curtain, a wooden floor, and so on. It says nothing about ones observational awareness.

And @deptfordmarmoset, a checked blind spot is not a blind spot... that why you're told to check your blind spots... all you have to do is move your skull a bit, and use the brain inside it

 

[Wobblers]

Fraid not. They still won't look for cyclists. Nonetheless they will see them. Having been conditioned to expect their presence they will see them without looking for them.

Pah. I think Adrian put it the most succinctly:

Bollocks