Who causes cyclists' deaths?

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 3 Sep 2009 01:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
Phil Herring wrote:

And it isn't because car drivers are worse than bike riders; it's
mostly just that smaller (and quieter) vehicles are harder to notice.

If that were true then the rates would be the same all over the world.

They are not.

IT's not "hard to notice" it is "not trained to notice".

There's a lot of work involved in driving that most people dont'
realise is happening. A lot of visual processing going on.

So people get pretty good at filtering, at dropping "don't need that"
at a subconscious level.

They do this by focusing on "need this", hence the famous test with
the gorilla in the basketball match. By giving viewers a task to
focus on, the researchers showed they didn't notice things they
didn't think were involved in the task.

Drivers who think seeing two wheelers are part of the task of driving
see them.

This is obvious in Holland, but it's also the subject of a study in
Scotland that showed that drivers who were also motorcycle riders had
massively fewer (as in wildly statistically significantly fewer)
car/motorcycle incidents than ones were were not. OTher crashes not
so much difference, but specifically car/motorcycle ones, wildly
different. (this extended to those with a motorcycle riding family
member.)

Because they felt seeing motorcycles was part of the job.

This is the same mechanism that many people have encountered when they
are proceeding down a quiet road they know well, across an
intersection that "never has any cars on it" and a car approaches.
They literally "don't see" it because they don't expect anything
there.

Happened to me, happened to my housemate while I was a passenger in
his car, happened to several people I know and more I've talked to.

Zebee

"Phil Herring" wrote in message
...
On Sep 3, 3:16 pm, F Murtz wrote:

Which means that there are many more chances that that is the reason
that cars can be the cause not necessarily all the waffle about the
various drivers,riders capabilities.
It stands to reason that the sheer weight of numbers of cars is the
reason that they cause more accidents.

Erm... no.

In absolute terms, car drivers cause more accidents than bikes, but
the ratio of "reported car driver at fault accidents involving bikes"
vs. "reported bike rider at fault accidents involving bikes" will
always break down along the lines of who makes the mistakes. I.e., if
car drivers and bike riders are equally prone to making errors, we'd
see a 50%/50% breakdown of fault, even if there are 1,000 cars to
every bike. However, the ratio is more like 75% car driver at fault to
25% bike rider at fault, and that's what Zeebee is talking about.

And it isn't because car drivers are worse than bike riders; it's
mostly just that smaller (and quieter) vehicles are harder to notice.

Okay, so it's a bit more complex than that. For example, if a bicycle
rider runs into the side of a car, there's good chance that the rider
will bounce off onto the road and end up shaken, but not broken, and
will probably limp home to dab on some Dettol; whereas if a car t-
bones a bike, the rider will definitely be off to see Mr. Casualty
Ward, and Mr Plod will want to stick his nose in to see what happened.
That sort of asymmetry skews accident reporting rates.

The "defining incident bias" would make a bit of difference, but how about
car/truck 70:30?

However... it's mostly the visibility thing.

I like Zebee's re-interpretation of this - on whether the driver is trained
to notice.

Some years back I put an L Plate on the back of my (push) bike. Holy
smokes was I noticed. Some cars drove completely on the other side
of the road when over-taking. I reckon I could probably have ridden
vast distances with my eyes closed (except for those bloody cyclists).

BTW: What's the ratio for pedestrians Vs X incidents?

Tom - all my bike incidents have been my fault.

-- Phil (who learned this the hard way back in 1979)

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 3 Sep 2009 18:49:48 +1000
Tomasso wrote:

Some years back I put an L Plate on the back of my (push) bike. Holy
smokes was I noticed. Some cars drove completely on the other side
of the road when over-taking. I reckon I could probably have ridden
vast distances with my eyes closed (except for those bloody cyclists).


I don't seem to have a problem with people seeing the 'bent.

It's odd enough to get through the filters.

Bod I met who rides a low trike to work says he finds the same.

Zebee

"Zebee Johnstone" wrote in message
...
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 3 Sep 2009 18:49:48 +1000
Tomasso wrote:

Some years back I put an L Plate on the back of my (push) bike. Holy
smokes was I noticed. Some cars drove completely on the other side
of the road when over-taking. I reckon I could probably have ridden
vast distances with my eyes closed (except for those bloody cyclists).


I don't seem to have a problem with people seeing the 'bent.

It's odd enough to get through the filters.

Bod I met who rides a low trike to work says he finds the same.

Zebee

Yes. My brother has a bent trike. He said the same thing.

Tom.

In article
,
"Tomasso" wrote:

"Phil Herring" wrote in message
...
On Sep 3, 3:16 pm, F Murtz wrote:

Which means that there are many more chances that that is the reason
that cars can be the cause not necessarily all the waffle about the
various drivers,riders capabilities.
It stands to reason that the sheer weight of numbers of cars is the
reason that they cause more accidents.

Erm... no.

In absolute terms, car drivers cause more accidents than bikes, but
the ratio of "reported car driver at fault accidents involving bikes"
vs. "reported bike rider at fault accidents involving bikes" will
always break down along the lines of who makes the mistakes. I.e., if
car drivers and bike riders are equally prone to making errors, we'd
see a 50%/50% breakdown of fault, even if there are 1,000 cars to
every bike. However, the ratio is more like 75% car driver at fault to
25% bike rider at fault, and that's what Zeebee is talking about.

And it isn't because car drivers are worse than bike riders; it's
mostly just that smaller (and quieter) vehicles are harder to notice.

Okay, so it's a bit more complex than that. For example, if a bicycle
rider runs into the side of a car, there's good chance that the rider
will bounce off onto the road and end up shaken, but not broken, and
will probably limp home to dab on some Dettol; whereas if a car t-
bones a bike, the rider will definitely be off to see Mr. Casualty
Ward, and Mr Plod will want to stick his nose in to see what happened.
That sort of asymmetry skews accident reporting rates.

The "defining incident bias" would make a bit of difference, but how about
car/truck 70:30?

However... it's mostly the visibility thing.

I like Zebee's re-interpretation of this - on whether the driver is trained
to notice.

Some years back I put an L Plate on the back of my (push) bike. Holy
smokes was I noticed. Some cars drove completely on the other side
of the road when over-taking. I reckon I could probably have ridden
vast distances with my eyes closed (except for those bloody cyclists).

BTW: What's the ratio for pedestrians Vs X incidents?

Tom - all my bike incidents have been my fault.

-- Phil (who learned this the hard way back in 1979)

Some years ago, I bought a length of threaded, stainless steel rod. It
was about 1m long & 5mm diameter. As I had no other way of carrying it,
I held it in my hands, across the handlebars. Cars have never given me
so much room as on that afternoon. Was it the width of the rod, or was
it the hard, shiny, scratchy thing I was bearing. Almost makes me want
to use a sideways safety flag.

--
K.A. Moylan
Canberra, Australia
Ski Club: http://www.cccsc.asn.au
kamoylan at ozemail dot com dot au

I take your points about people's prioritisation of driving tasks, but
I'd be cautious when comparing data from different places. There's not
much value in comparing figures from Berlin (where cyclists ride on
the footpath) with Amsterdam (where the bike population is very large
and the traffic is quite slow) and with Sydney (where traffic is fast,
and car drivers are usually angry, eating and texting while they
drive).

In general, I agree with you, but as a general point, smaller things
are harder to see than bigger things, and silent things are harder to
hear than noisy things, so even if drivers are vigilant, I would still
expect some bias towards car drivers being at fault in bicycle/car
accidents. I'd be interested to hear any figures you have that show
otherwise.


-- Phil

On Sep 4, 12:06*am, "Tomasso" wrote:

Yes. My brother has a bent trike. He said the same thing.

Ditto for a folder (but I try to stay off the main roads, anyway).


-- Phil

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
Phil Herring wrote:

In general, I agree with you, but as a general point, smaller things
are harder to see than bigger things, and silent things are harder to
hear than noisy things, so even if drivers are vigilant, I would still
expect some bias towards car drivers being at fault in bicycle/car
accidents. I'd be interested to hear any figures you have that show
otherwise.

Isn't clear how you could prove it really....

All that can be done is to run tests that you hope mimic the driving
task, or that you hope use the same cognitive systems.

You can't ask people, because people are quite bad at estimating their
own performances.

I do note though that traffic lights are small and quiet... and so are
road markings.

I also note that while some people have trouble spotting police by the
side of the road with hair dryers, most don't.

I suggest you get a hold of _Traffic_ by Tom Vanderbilt. There's a
lot of very good info of the kind you are after there.

Zebee

Are you still in Ultimo?

"Phil Herring" wrote in message
...
On Sep 4, 12:06 am, "Tomasso" wrote:

Yes. My brother has a bent trike. He said the same thing.

Ditto for a folder (but I try to stay off the main roads, anyway).


-- Phil

Tomasso wrote:

Ditto for a folder (but I try to stay off the main roads, anyway).

A trailer on a wedgie gets you noticed and extra clearance.