Am I ******* invisible

Soup said:

Hi all Was cycling today with the eldest (11) was
following him at a distance of about 20 yards the better
to shout, don't panic,change gear, look behind you etc. .
We were on the main road (Lanark road just after Juniper
green but before Gillespie cross roads, Edinburgh) he went
past a side street with a car on it the car let him past
and didn't try to intimidate him. I was just thinking what
a nice person when, **** SHE PULLED OUT IN FRONT OF ME,
luckily I had my head on a swivel so knew there was
nothing immediately behind me so I slammed on the anchors
all the time shouting to my son to wait for me swerving
but with no room to shoot passed the front of her as there
was oncoming traffic.(bit of a heart stopper when you
realise you are responsible for someone apart from you).
Managed to only just hit (hit is too strong a word I was
barely moving when the car stopped me)her car (no damage
apart from five years taken off my life) Wasn't wearing
stealth kit and the bike I was on I won in a competition
so it is flame red with Coca~Cola emblazoned on it (V-hard
to miss)

You have just experienced a classic SMIDSY. Try riding
something much larger, much louder, with a whopping
headlight and wear a yellow Sam Brown. They still
can't see you.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS Honda
Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
thehewitts.plus.comthehewitts.plus.comOpen ↗ - now online

"Soup" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi all Was cycling today with the eldest (11) was
following him at a distance of about 20 yards the better
to shout, don't panic,change gear, look behind you etc. .
We were on the main road (Lanark road just after Juniper
green but before Gillespie cross roads, Edinburgh) he went
past a side street with a car on it the car let him past
and didn't try to intimidate him. I was just thinking what
a nice person when, **** SHE PULLED OUT IN FRONT OF ME,
luckily I had my head on a swivel so knew there was
nothing immediately behind me so I slammed on the anchors
all the time shouting to my son to wait for me swerving
but with no room to shoot passed the front of her as there
was oncoming traffic.(bit of a heart stopper when you
realise you are responsible for someone apart from you).
Managed to only just hit (hit is too strong a word I was
barely moving when the car stopped me)her car (no damage
apart from five years taken off my life) Wasn't wearing
stealth kit and the bike I was on I won in a competition
so it is flame red with Coca~Cola emblazoned on it (V-hard
to miss)
--
Yours S. addy not usable (not that you would try it) ( )
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant! /
\ www.killies.co.uk/forums/index.php

Did the driver issue the formal SMIDY apology and a hand
wave, or just drive off?

Soup popped his head over the parapet,saw what was going
on and said

Quoted message said:

Did the driver issue the formal SMIDY apology and a hand
wave, or just drive off?

Was pretty much non vocal I got the sheepish look and the
'sorry' gesture, was only when I was away down the road that
I was thinking of all the witty remarks (along with getting
the shakes). Actually came of the road and went down stairs
to "the water of Leith walkway" (longer but no traffic).

--
Yours S. addy not usable (not that you would try it) ( )
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant! / \
www.killies.co.uk/forums/index.php

Oh, they see you alright. However, they think either you
will be doing 2MPH or that as a driver they have automatic
priority and it is entirely up to you to avoid being run
down. This misconception is supported by the courts who
almost universally accept that claiming 'I didn't see the
cyclist' amounts to an automatic 'get out of jail free'
card, even when they have killed someone. Further the courts
hold that most drivers who kill or maim have simply suffered
a 'momentary lapse'. I.e. rather then being responsible for
their own actions they have been the unfortunate victim of
fortune and as such may be entirely absolved from any blame.
Often this is still the case when that 'momentary lapse'
would be better described as quite wilful dangerous driving.
Perhaps if drivers knew that the faced something more the a
£100 fine for killing someone in such circumstances they
just might wait a moment longer to let you pass...

I believe that motorists don't actually register cyclists, as they're
looking for cars, not bikes.
The University of Illinois have done quite a bit of research on this
phenonomon, Inattentional Blindness. You're so focussed on looking for one
thing, you don't see all the other things going on around you.
There's a famous video demonstrating this effect where people are passing a
basketball to each other.....I won't spoil it, but suffice to say I was
fooled.
viscog.beckman.uiuc.eduoverviewIB.htmlOpen ↗

M

Mucco said:

I believe that motorists don't actually register cyclists,
as they're looking for cars, not bikes.

Agreed. The one time I've actually been knocked off, the
motorist was waiting to enter a roundabout around which I
was circulating. We made eye contact, and I remember
thinking "good, he's seen me" before he drove into my
rear wheel.

There was lots of other traffic, and visibility at this
roundabout entry isn't brilliant: I guess I just fell
off the bottom of his brain's "important things I have
seen" list...

--
Mark.

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 07:28:07 GMT someone who may be "Soup" <[email hidden]>
wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Was pretty much non vocal I got the sheepish look and the
'sorry' gesture,

Only being able to stop yourself with your foot tends to
leave them with more permanently sorry, as they have to
remove the foot shaped dent from their door. Of course they
claim this is your fault. The dent is also far more
important than your life, a fact the courts will be only too
happy to confirm.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

Mark Tranchant said:

Quoted message said:

I believe that motorists don't actually register
cyclists, as they're looking for cars, not bikes.

Quoted message said:

Agreed. The one time I've actually been knocked off, the
motorist was waiting to enter a roundabout around which I
was circulating. We made eye contact, and I remember
thinking "good, he's seen me" before he drove into my
rear wheel.

I was recently knocked off my bike (at least I believe this
is what happebed, I don't remember at the moment, I need to
talk to PC Plod about
it).

It happened at a roundabout, I'm wondering if this may have
happened here.

And no I wasn't wearing a helmet - many people have "tutted"
me for this.
--
Chris Johns ([email hidden])

"Chris Johns" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mark Tranchant said:

Quoted message said:

I believe that motorists don't actually register
cyclists, as they're looking for cars, not bikes.

Quoted message said:

Agreed. The one time I've actually been knocked off, the
motorist was waiting to enter a roundabout around which
I was circulating. We made eye contact, and I remember
thinking "good, he's seen me" before he drove into my
rear wheel.

I was recently knocked off my bike (at least I believe
this is what happebed, I don't remember at the moment, I
need to talk to PC Plod about
it).

It happened at a roundabout, I'm wondering if this may
have happened here.

And no I wasn't wearing a helmet - many people have
"tutted" me for this.

Please please please dont't go there.

Quoted message said:

--
Chris Johns ([email hidden])

Soup said:

Who said that?

-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before
you confirm"

Soup popped his head over the parapet,saw what was going
on and said

Quoted message said:

Soup said:

Who said that?

-dan

rofl
--
Yours S. addy not usable (not that you would try it) ( )
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant! / \
www.killies.co.uk/forums/index.php

Speaking as someone who has a first class degree in
Psychology I feel it very important that we don't overstate
the value of such research. As with much psychological
research what can be shown in an experimental set up may
have very little validity in the real world.

Also we need to give due regard to driver behaviour in other
circumstances where conspicuity is not an issue. For
example, over 70% of drivers will quite deliberately 'cut
up' a cyclist at pinch point and many will move out to
overtake a cyclist (proving they have 'seen' them) then turn
immediately left across their path. In such cases whether or
not a driver has 'seen' a cyclist is not an issue, they
have. What is more relevant is their failure to act
appropriately. A similar 'failure to act appropriately' may
be expected to have ocurred in situations where a driver has
failed to 'give way' to a cyclist at a junction.

Again, if cyclists were really so hard to 'see' why are so
few cyclists run down from behind?

Look at countries such as Holland and Denmark where the
casualty rate for cyclists is a fraction of that in the UK,
yet cyclists there ride with much less discipline then those
in the UK (riding one handed whilst carrying an umbrella and
ones girlfriend side saddle on the rear rack is considered
quite cool in Amsterdam). Even in countries such as Holland
cars and cyclists mix a lot of the time, especially in towns
where most crashes occur. Are we suppose that Dutch and
Danish drivers have better eyesight the British ones?

Again I never fail to ‘see' cyclists. Does this reflect the
acuity of my visual system or my own ATTITUDE towards
cyclists as road users?...

I would suggest that the key point underlying any measure of
'inattentional blindness' is that to some extent drivers
choose not to 'see' a cyclist, especially in car dominated
cultures such as the USA and UK where such behaviour
effectively is the social norm and drivers know they will
not be held to account. (In over 70% of cases where a driver
has run down a cyclist in the UK they claim the 'didn't see'
the cyclist...). I certainly don't think it is a genuine
failing in visual perception and I am sure if it was made
quite clear that drivers were expected to make much more
effort to 'see' cyclists their vision would improve...

I would suggest that if drivers really do suffer some form
of inattentional blindness this issue needs to be addressed
with urgency. The potential of a minimal 12 month driving
ban for 'failing to see' a cyclist would probably focus the
drivers mind wonderfully. A driver education program might
also pay dividends if it spelt out messages such as 'Don't
pull out, that cyclist might be going faster then you think'
and similar.

All in all I would argue that the biggest reason so little
progress has been made in reducing the carnage on our roads
is that so many are willing to argue that drivers are not
responsible for their actions. Appeals to 'inattentional
blindness' and similar are just one example. Phrases such as
'the car went out of control rather then 'the driver lost
control', the use of the term 'accident' rather then
'crash', the failure of courts to hold drivers account table
even when they have deliberately take risks with safety of
others and so on are others.

Howard said:

Oh, they see you alright. However, they think either you
will be doing 2MPH or that as a driver they have automatic
priority and it is entirely up to you to avoid being run
down. This misconception is supported by the courts who
almost universally accept that claiming 'I didn't see the
cyclist' amounts to an automatic 'get out of jail free'
card, even when they have killed someone. Further the
courts hold that most drivers who kill or maim have simply
suffered a 'momentary lapse'. I.e. rather then being
responsible for their own actions they have been the
unfortunate victim of fortune and as such may be entirely
absolved from any blame. Often this is still the case when
that 'momentary lapse' would be better described as quite
wilful dangerous driving. Perhaps if drivers knew that the
faced something more the a £100 fine for killing someone
in such circumstances they just might wait a moment longer
to let you pass...

Indeed. The 'SMIDSY' is entirely a get out.

I must admit I was actually guilty of a silly act a couple
of weeks ago. I had completely misjudged the speed of a
cyclist as I approached a junction, and had thought there
was enough room to overtake him and make a left turn. He was
actually travelling at a good speed, which totally took me
by surprise, and I only just missed him. Mind you, he didn't
make much effort to avoid the situation either. Had I hit
him, I would have been entirely to blame, but it wasn't a
case of blatant ignoring him, just a simple misjudgement.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS Honda
Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
thehewitts.plus.comthehewitts.plus.comOpen ↗ - now online

"Howard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Speaking as someone who has a first class degree in
Psychology I feel it very important that we don't
overstate the value of such research. As with much
psychological research what can be shown in an
experimental set up may have very little validity in the
real world.

Also we need to give due regard to driver behaviour in
other circumstances where conspicuity is not an issue. For
example, over 70% of drivers will quite deliberately 'cut
up' a cyclist at pinch point

any references for this?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

know they will not be held to account. (In over 70% of
cases where a

driver has run down a cyclist in the UK they claim the
'didn't see' the cyclist...

or refs for this?

References...

'It should normally be anticipated that at least 70% of
drivers will attempt to overtake a cyclist within or close
to a 3.5m narrowing.'

k/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_504706-
02.hcsp

See also:

thebikezone.org.ukpinchOpen ↗
points.html

I would have to go through my research reports to find the
original quote about the percentage of drivers who claim
they 'did not' see a cyclist they have run down. However,
the following has much interesting information on this
topic. It also notes that almost all conspicuity aids such
as 'Sam Brown belts' have no impact at all on driver
behaviour. Also the claim that a full 'road menders' high
visibility jacket aids conspicuity is simply based on the
finding that drivers will give a cyclist wearing one a few
more cm when overtaking.

oecd.org2103492.pdfOpen ↗

Another important point to note is that most attempts to
increase cyclist visibility have been ineffective as drivers
then seem to take even less effort to look out for them! Of
course, this emphasis on the potential victim taking action
to 'protect' themselves via high visibility clothing also
means that any cyclist who fails to conform can then be
blamed if they are run down by a careless driver! The worst
example of this mentality is they way the motor lobby in the
1930's got the 'advice' included in 'The Highway Code' which
tells pedestrians to walk on the right hand side of the
road, facing traffic. Previously a driver going too fast for
the conditions and running a pedestrian down from behind
might well be held responsible (although they would be most
unlikely to receive a serious penalty). However, by getting
this 'advice' into the 'Code motorists were able to argue
that pedestrians had an 'equal responsibility' to avoid
being run down and should simply 'get off the road', jumping
into the nearest ditch if necessary, should a speeding car
hove into view from around the next corner! (I recently saw
a news report from the USA where one politician was seeking
to introduce an identical rule...for cyclists!!!).

Similarly, in the 1930's the CTC opposed the use of rear
lights on the basis motorists should at all times drive at a
speed that allows them to stop in the distance they can
actually SEE to be clear, with the main burden of
responsibility being on the faster, overtaking party. When
red lights came in the main effect was that motorists drove
more quickly, especially on country roads, on the assumption
they would spot a rear light in time for them to be able to
take avoiding action...

The extent to which motorists are willing to go to deny
their responsibility for taking proper observations and to
drive at a speed that allows them to stop well within the
distance they can actually SEE to be clear is sometimes
staggering. There have even been cases where drivers have
successfully argued in court that the ‘high visibility'
yellow jacket worn by a cyclist they have run down and
killed made them ‘impossible to see' because it was a bright
sunny day and the sun is also yellow...

The bottom line is that any driver who fails to 'see' a
cyclist in normal lighting conditions, even when that
cyclist is dressed in 'normal' clothing, is simply not
taking the time to take proper observations and is a danger
who should be removed from the road.

Simon Brooke said:

in message <Pine.LNX.4.40.0406071348330.17378-
[email hidden]>, Chris Johns

(') said:

And no I wasn't wearing a helmet - many people have
"tutted" me for this.

Ignore them. The whole issue is much too murky and tangled
for simple certainties. See helmet threads passim.

I would be inclined to swear that not wearing a helmet saved
his life ;-)

Tony

On 7 Jun 2004 10:48:24 -0700 someone who may be
[email hidden] (Howard) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

All in all I would argue that the biggest reason so little
progress has been made in reducing the carnage on our roads
is that so many are willing to argue that drivers are not
responsible for their actions.

Have you read, "Death on the Streets. Cars and the mythology
of road safety" by Robert Davis?

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

On 7 Jun 2004 10:48:24 -0700, [email hidden] (Howard)

Quoted message said:

Speaking as someone who has a first class degree in
Psychology I feel it very important that we don't overstate
the value of such research. As with much psychological
research what can be shown in an experimental set up may
have very little validity in the real world.

[SNIP the rest of excellent post]

Well said, Howard. Not to labour the point but that's
exactly what happened to me on 22/05/2003 (Council tax day,
Dave!!). I can only think that Dr. Driver (not his real
name) saw me - he must have as he pulled out to overtake me
- wasn't knowing of the speed or a miving bike.

Good post, Howard James

David Hansen said:

Quoted message said:

All in all I would argue that the biggest reason so
little progress has been made in reducing the carnage on
our roads is that so many are willing to argue that
drivers are not responsible for their actions.

Quoted message said:

Have you read, "Death on the Streets. Cars and the
mythology of road safety" by Robert Davis?

A few rare unsigned copies are still available...

(c) Uncle Bob

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!