Why SMIDSYs happen

Euan said:

Interesting study here:

http://staff.bath.ac.uk/pssiw/cognitive/WalkerVulnerableReview.pdf

"In accidents where a VRU is struck by a vehicle, the literature
suggests that many incidents occur because drivers expect only to
interact with other automobiles and so attend to their surroundings in
such a way that VRUs are overlooked. This is perhaps most
dramatically seen in the looked-but-failed-to-see phenomenon, where
drivers do not expect to encounter VRUs and so do not become aware of
VRUs even though they look at them"

The appropriate phrase for bicyclists to use is "dodgem car mentality"
Puts the onus right back where it belongs and doesn't allow weasel words
to explain cupability away.

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

Quoted message said:

Euan said:

Interesting study here:

http://staff.bath.ac.uk/pssiw/cognitive/WalkerVulnerableReview.pdf

"In accidents where a VRU is struck by a vehicle, the literature
suggests that many incidents occur because drivers expect only to
interact with other automobiles and so attend to their surroundings in
such a way that VRUs are overlooked. This is perhaps most
dramatically seen in the looked-but-failed-to-see phenomenon, where
drivers do not expect to encounter VRUs and so do not become aware of
VRUs even though they look at them"

The appropriate phrase for bicyclists to use is "dodgem car mentality"
Puts the onus right back where it belongs and doesn't allow weasel words
to explain cupability away.

Remind me of an encounter yesterday.. I was riding at approx. 25km/h in a
low traffic residential street and a car started to exit a driveway on my
left. At this point I was only about 10 metres away from the driveway so he
stopped, but as I got within a few metres he slowly started to move slowly
into the road to do a right hand turn, I had to swerve to the right to avoid
having my rear wheel clipped.. He was in a sports car with a girl, he must
have felt silly having to wait for me and so he had to show at least some
authority.. I felt this to be a deliberate attempt to intimidate me - it
definitely wasn't the looked-but-failed-to-see phenomenon (which I do
acknowledge).

Job

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

Quoted message said:

Interesting study here:

http://staff.bath.ac.uk/pssiw/cognitive/WalkerVulnerableReview.pdf

"In accidents where a VRU is struck by a vehicle, the literature
suggests that many incidents occur because drivers expect only to
interact with other automobiles and so attend to their surroundings in
such a way that VRUs are overlooked. This is perhaps most
dramatically seen in the looked-but-failed-to-see phenomenon, where
drivers do not expect to encounter VRUs and so do not become aware of
VRUs even though they look at them"

Snaffled from uk.rec.cycling
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

I guess a round about is a good example of what you refer to (I should
probaby read the .pdf first, which I must admit I haven't..) A driver
quickly glances to their right, and on seeing an absence of
cars/buses/trucks etc. trusts that quick glance enough to proceed through at
speeds often approaching the speed limit - This can be unfortunate to those
on vehicles that may not be easily noticed on a quick glance to the side. I
try to avoid round abouts when possible. A left turn at a round about is
obviously fairly safe, but not riding through one and especially not a right
hand turn. I know I have every right to use them, but I do avoid them - at
least in heavy traffic.

Job

On 2005-11-06, Jobba (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Remind me of an encounter yesterday.. I was riding at approx. 25km/h in a
low traffic residential street and a car started to exit a driveway on my
left. At this point I was only about 10 metres away from the driveway so he
stopped, but as I got within a few metres he slowly started to move slowly
into the road to do a right hand turn, I had to swerve to the right to avoid
having my rear wheel clipped.. He was in a sports car with a girl, he must
have felt silly having to wait for me and so he had to show at least some
authority.. I felt this to be a deliberate attempt to intimidate me - it
definitely wasn't the looked-but-failed-to-see phenomenon (which I do
acknowledge).

Convertible?

Did you spray your bidon full of sticky gatorade over his girlfriend? 🙂

--
TimC
I like the US government, makes the Aussie one look less dumb
and THAT is a pretty big effort. -- Craig Small

On 2005-11-06, Jobba (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

I guess a round about is a good example of what you refer to (I should
probaby read the .pdf first, which I must admit I haven't..) A driver
quickly glances to their right, and on seeing an absence of
cars/buses/trucks etc. trusts that quick glance enough to proceed through at
speeds often approaching the speed limit - This can be unfortunate to those
on vehicles that may not be easily noticed on a quick glance to the side. I
try to avoid round abouts when possible. A left turn at a round about is
obviously fairly safe, but not riding through one and especially not a right
hand turn. I know I have every right to use them, but I do avoid them - at
least in heavy traffic.

Perhaps a swift arm movement -- use your right arm first forming a
right-angled vertical, and wave it down in front of you. The sudden
movement may be enough, if they are looking but not seeing, to alert
them to your presence.

That's the theory anyway. I do wonder if the signal, being one not
encountered in the wild often, probably confuses drivers (that was
mentioned in the paper). Possibly long enough to make them think and
hence see???

I used it with success the first and only time a few days ago. My local
roundabout that usually causes me problems (and I can't avoid, because
my street has a roundabout in every direction from my house) had a
driver that looked like he was going to go through at speed. My
usual reaction is a swift and loud "hey", but I figured they were
probably still too far to hear that, so I used the arm movement
instead. Car stopped quickly 🙂

--
TimC
Some of you know what the Perl slogan on Windows is, and you can say it
with me: "It's a good thing there's more than one way to do it, because
most of them don't work." --Larry Wall

Terry Collins said:

Euan said:

Interesting study here:

http://staff.bath.ac.uk/pssiw/cognitive/WalkerVulnerableReview.pdf

"In accidents where a VRU is struck by a vehicle, the literature
suggests that many incidents occur because drivers expect only to
interact with other automobiles and so attend to their surroundings in
such a way that VRUs are overlooked. This is perhaps most
dramatically seen in the looked-but-failed-to-see phenomenon, where
drivers do not expect to encounter VRUs and so do not become aware of
VRUs even though they look at them"

The appropriate phrase for bicyclists to use is "dodgem car mentality"
Puts the onus right back where it belongs and doesn't allow weasel words
to explain cupability away.

There's a world of difference between trying to understand a phenomena,
and excusing behaviour. If humans got that "natural" does not mean
"good" we as a species would probably be a lot better off.

Terry Collins said:

Euan said:

Interesting study here:

http://staff.bath.ac.uk/pssiw/cognitive/WalkerVulnerableReview.pdf

"In accidents where a VRU is struck by a vehicle, the literature
suggests that many incidents occur because drivers expect only to
interact with other automobiles and so attend to their surroundings in
such a way that VRUs are overlooked. This is perhaps most
dramatically seen in the looked-but-failed-to-see phenomenon, where
drivers do not expect to encounter VRUs and so do not become aware of
VRUs even though they look at them"

The appropriate phrase for bicyclists to use is "dodgem car mentality"
Puts the onus right back where it belongs and doesn't allow weasel words
to explain cupability away.

There's a world of difference between trying to understand a phenomena,
and excusing behaviour. If humans got that "natural" does not mean
"good" we as a species would probably be a lot better off.

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

Quoted message said:

Interesting study here:

http://staff.bath.ac.uk/pssiw/cognitive/WalkerVulnerableReview.pdf

Another interesting observation regarding how drivers perceive
bicyclist arm signals:
"found that responses to an arm signal were not slowed when
the decision was 'is the cyclist going to turn the corner?' but
were slowed when the decision was 'is the cyclist going to turn
in front of you?"

That is, drivers see an arm signal and know you are going to
turn, but can't decide if they are going to turn in front of the
car. That must be why all those drivers overtake me when I
am riding along with my right arm out about to turn right.
Or maybe they just ignore it and think "I've got time to
overtake before their turn", or "I weigh 1.2 tonne and
that cyclist wouldn't dare turn in front of me".

Yet another interesting observation:
"Cyclists are even more likely than pedestrians to be the
cause of their own accidents. However, whereas pedestrians
need the assistance of a motor vehicle to achieve injury,
cyclists usually do it by themselves1. Studies have repeatedly
found that most cyclists who receive hospital treatment do so
because of accidents involving no other road user.
.... most of their injuries are caused by falls in the absence
of other road users, these tend to be relatively minor incidents. ...
When we consider deaths and serious injuries, collisions with
motor vehicles are nearly always the cause."

Reminds me of the saying "to err is human, to really foul things
up requires a computer". Except in this case it is motor vehicles.

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

Quoted message said:

Interesting study here:

http://staff.bath.ac.uk/pssiw/cognitive/WalkerVulnerableReview.pdf

Another interesting observation regarding how drivers perceive
bicyclist arm signals:
"found that responses to an arm signal were not slowed when
the decision was 'is the cyclist going to turn the corner?' but
were slowed when the decision was 'is the cyclist going to turn
in front of you?"

That is, drivers see an arm signal and know you are going to
turn, but can't decide if they are going to turn in front of the
car. That must be why all those drivers overtake me when I
am riding along with my right arm out about to turn right.
Or maybe they just ignore it and think "I've got time to
overtake before their turn", or "I weigh 1.2 tonne and
that cyclist wouldn't dare turn in front of me".

Yet another interesting observation:
"Cyclists are even more likely than pedestrians to be the
cause of their own accidents. However, whereas pedestrians
need the assistance of a motor vehicle to achieve injury,
cyclists usually do it by themselves1. Studies have repeatedly
found that most cyclists who receive hospital treatment do so
because of accidents involving no other road user.
.... most of their injuries are caused by falls in the absence
of other road users, these tend to be relatively minor incidents. ...
When we consider deaths and serious injuries, collisions with
motor vehicles are nearly always the cause."

Reminds me of the saying "to err is human, to really foul things
up requires a computer". Except in this case it is motor vehicles.

Russell Lang wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

Studies have repeatedly
found that most cyclists who receive hospital treatment do so
because of accidents involving no other road user.
... most of their injuries are caused by falls in the absence
of other road users, these tend to be relatively minor incidents. ...

<snip>

I wonder if that includes crashes where the cyclist doesn't collide with
another vehicle but is forced to swerve to avoid hitting a vehicle, and
in doing so, crashes - therefore, a 'single-vehicle' accident.

I had a worrying experience yesterday. I was riding along in the left
lane (with parked cars, but plenty of room) and the right lane was
pretty blocked up.

An ambulance was coming up from behind but was taking a while, and ended
up driving on the wrong side of the road to get aroudn all the cars
lined up in the right lane.

So this stupid moron decides to pull over into my space to get out of
the ambulance's way (even though she wasn't in the ambulance's way). I
yelled out to get her attention and she immediately threw her hands in
the air and said "there's an ambulance coming!!".

It was prety clear to me that she knew I was there and yet she thought
it would be ok to run me off the road to let the ambulance go - there
are some real bright sparks out there.

--
Nick

Russell Lang wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

Studies have repeatedly
found that most cyclists who receive hospital treatment do so
because of accidents involving no other road user.
... most of their injuries are caused by falls in the absence
of other road users, these tend to be relatively minor incidents. ...

<snip>

I wonder if that includes crashes where the cyclist doesn't collide with
another vehicle but is forced to swerve to avoid hitting a vehicle, and
in doing so, crashes - therefore, a 'single-vehicle' accident.

I had a worrying experience yesterday. I was riding along in the left
lane (with parked cars, but plenty of room) and the right lane was
pretty blocked up.

An ambulance was coming up from behind but was taking a while, and ended
up driving on the wrong side of the road to get aroudn all the cars
lined up in the right lane.

So this stupid moron decides to pull over into my space to get out of
the ambulance's way (even though she wasn't in the ambulance's way). I
yelled out to get her attention and she immediately threw her hands in
the air and said "there's an ambulance coming!!".

It was prety clear to me that she knew I was there and yet she thought
it would be ok to run me off the road to let the ambulance go - there
are some real bright sparks out there.

--
Nick

Russell Lang said:

Yet another interesting observation:
"Cyclists are even more likely than pedestrians to be the
cause of their own accidents. However, whereas pedestrians
need the assistance of a motor vehicle to achieve injury,
cyclists usually do it by themselves1. Studies have repeatedly
found that most cyclists who receive hospital treatment do so
because of accidents involving no other road user.
... most of their injuries are caused by falls in the absence
of other road users, these tend to be relatively minor incidents. ...

My experience is consistant with this observation. I've never been hit
by a car, but have hit a few stationary objects, slid on wet timber etc
requiring some 1st aid.

Quoted message said:

When we consider deaths and serious injuries, collisions with
motor vehicles are nearly always the cause."

Ke = (m.v^2)/2 after all ... and it takes energy to cause damage.

On 2005-11-07, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Russell Lang said:

Yet another interesting observation:
"Cyclists are even more likely than pedestrians to be the
cause of their own accidents. However, whereas pedestrians
need the assistance of a motor vehicle to achieve injury,
cyclists usually do it by themselves1. Studies have repeatedly
found that most cyclists who receive hospital treatment do so
because of accidents involving no other road user.
... most of their injuries are caused by falls in the absence
of other road users, these tend to be relatively minor incidents. ...

My experience is consistant with this observation. I've never been hit
by a car, but have hit a few stationary objects, slid on wet timber etc
requiring some 1st aid.

Hmmm. 1 slide-out in the wet, leading to a tiny bit of missing bark,
and many falls while almost stationary, leading to nothing damaged but
my pride 🙂

And 4 vehicles.

Many descents down curvy hills at rediculous speeds, but still no
mishaps.

I wonder how much their stats are skewed by non-skilled weekend riders
who ride onto the wrong side of the road at night without lights from
the footpath without looking? Apart from yourself, I would imagine
most bicycle accidents with skilled riders at the wheel^Wbars
requiring medical attention, involve a car, and again, with skilled
riders, the car will at least be mostly at fault, with the rider only
liable as far as not riding as defensively as possible[1].

[1] A few people have pointed out that it was my fault that the last
accident happened. Sure, I broke no laws, and the driver broke 2
laws, but I wasn't riding as defensively as possible. Because he was
in charge of a 2 tonne lethal weapon, without sufficient training or
excercising due care, and I was on a bike, it was my fault and
responsibility. Because, you know, it was rape victims faults that
the guy found them attractive.

--
TimC
Speaker: They used an alcohol fog to visualize what's happening.
From the audience: That's always worked for me. -- From an astronomy talk

TimC said:

Hmmm. 1 slide-out in the wet, leading to a tiny bit of missing bark,
and many falls while almost stationary, leading to nothing damaged but
my pride 🙂

And 4 vehicles.

Tim, you're confusing a very small statistical sample (1, you!) with
some other quite possibly bogus statistics.

Quoted message said:

I wonder how much their stats are skewed by non-skilled weekend riders
who ride onto the wrong side of the road at night without lights from
the footpath without looking? Apart from yourself, I would imagine
most bicycle accidents with skilled riders at the wheel^Wbars
requiring medical attention, involve a car, and again, with skilled
riders, the car will at least be mostly at fault, with the rider only
liable as far as not riding as defensively as possible[1].

[1] A few people have pointed out that it was my fault that the last
accident happened. Sure, I broke no laws, and the driver broke 2
laws, but I wasn't riding as defensively as possible. Because he was
in charge of a 2 tonne lethal weapon, without sufficient training or
excercising due care, and I was on a bike, it was my fault and
responsibility. Because, you know, it was rape victims faults that
the guy found them attractive.

Was anyone suggesting the recent accident was your fault? I know I
wasn't suggesting that, I was however, suggesting that maybe (and this
is a maybe! - I wasn't there, didn't see it and don't know what
happened, and can only rely on the report you wrote) the situation may
have been avoided. For the distances you ride and the time you spend
on the road you seem to have an extraordinarily high number of
incidents with motor vehicles. Bad luck? Perhaps. Your description
of the incidents suggests bad luck, but there may be factors which
increased your risk that you could control? I don't know, but if you
can look at it objectively, maybe you can see some patterns? It's not
just about how you ride, but when and where, and in what state of mind
you're in etc.

I knew sooner or later the rape thing would crop up, without invoking
Godwin out of context, there's a huge difference between reducing risks
and absolving guilt. Remember, to understand is not to condone.
Natural isn't good etc .. you're a cluey lad, you know this stuff.

TimC said:

Hmmm. 1 slide-out in the wet, leading to a tiny bit of missing bark,
and many falls while almost stationary, leading to nothing damaged but
my pride 🙂

*Almost* stationary? You're not trying hard enough 😄

The worst fall I've had, as in actually hurting myself (including the duffer who managed to cross the buffer zone and get me in the bike lane on Macauley road) was when I was motionless with one foot on the ground. :o

Ali

On 2005-11-07, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

TimC said:

Hmmm. 1 slide-out in the wet, leading to a tiny bit of missing bark,
and many falls while almost stationary, leading to nothing damaged but
my pride 🙂

And 4 vehicles.

Tim, you're confusing a very small statistical sample (1, you!) with
some other quite possibly bogus statistics.

But the plural of anecdote is data 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[1] A few people have pointed out that it was my fault that the last
accident happened. Sure, I broke no laws, and the driver broke 2
laws, but I wasn't riding as defensively as possible. Because he was
in charge of a 2 tonne lethal weapon, without sufficient training or
excercising due care, and I was on a bike, it was my fault and
responsibility. Because, you know, it was rape victims faults that
the guy found them attractive.

Was anyone suggesting the recent accident was your fault? I know I

The police certainly did originally.

Quoted message said:

I knew sooner or later the rape thing would crop up, without invoking
Godwin out of context, there's a huge difference between reducing risks
and absolving guilt. Remember, to understand is not to condone.
Natural isn't good etc .. you're a cluey lad, you know this stuff.

Natural isn't good? But I love my natural snakes!

--
TimC
"Warning: Do not look into laser with remaining eye" -- a physics experiment
"Press emergency laser shutdown button with remaining hand" -- J.D.Baldwin@ASR

On 2005-11-07, alison_b (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

TimC said:

Hmmm. 1 slide-out in the wet, leading to a tiny bit of missing bark,
and many falls while almost stationary, leading to nothing damaged but
my pride 🙂

*Almost* stationary? You're not trying hard enough 😄

The worst fall I've had, as in actually hurting myself (including the
duffer who managed to cross the buffer zone and get me in the bike lane
on Macauley road) was when I was motionless with one foot on the ground.
:o

Windy day?

I think it was Friday when the wind threatened to knock me over
everytime I stopped at the lights, when I already had my foot down.
Needless to say, I didn't even attempt to practice trackstanding.

--
TimC
Theoretically one might have been wearing pants at work.
-- Anthony de Boer in Scary Devil Monastry

TimC said:

A few people have pointed out that it was my fault that the last
accident happened. Sure, I broke no laws, and the driver broke 2
laws, but I wasn't riding as defensively as possible. Because he was
in charge of a 2 tonne lethal weapon, without sufficient training or
excercising due care, and I was on a bike, it was my fault and
responsibility. Because, you know, it was rape victims faults that
the guy found them attractive.

I haven't seen that on this forum. I've seen people, myself included, say that in similar circumstances they wouldn't have overtaken on the left.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. There are plenty of times where I have the opportunity to overtake on the left and choose not to because it's a safer course of action. Riding uphill coming to an intersection, a high risk area for a cyclist, is an area I'd definately choose to keep other vehicles in front of me so I can react to what they're doing.

Now you can take free advice any way you want, you want to think we're blaming you when we're not then that's your look out. You could of course take another view that we're offerring you the benefit of our experience so that you don't get hit by cars. Being right and bent is not fun when you're soft and squashy.

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

Quoted message said:

On 2005-11-07, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

TimC said:

Hmmm. 1 slide-out in the wet, leading to a tiny bit of missing bark,
and many falls while almost stationary, leading to nothing damaged but
my pride 🙂

And 4 vehicles.

Tim, you're confusing a very small statistical sample (1, you!) with
some other quite possibly bogus statistics.

But the plural of anecdote is data 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[1] A few people have pointed out that it was my fault that the last
accident happened. Sure, I broke no laws, and the driver broke 2
laws, but I wasn't riding as defensively as possible. Because he was
in charge of a 2 tonne lethal weapon, without sufficient training or
excercising due care, and I was on a bike, it was my fault and
responsibility. Because, you know, it was rape victims faults that
the guy found them attractive.

Was anyone suggesting the recent accident was your fault? I know I

The police certainly did originally.

Quoted message said:

I knew sooner or later the rape thing would crop up, without invoking
Godwin out of context, there's a huge difference between reducing risks
and absolving guilt. Remember, to understand is not to condone.
Natural isn't good etc .. you're a cluey lad, you know this stuff.

Natural isn't good? But I love my natural snakes!

You'll be right at home when you start racing seriously then. Seems other
riders aren't so keen on them. 🙂