Lethal memory fail: Why drivers see, and then forget motorcyclists • Hacker News Board

Re: Lethal memory fail: Why drivers see, and then forget motorcyclists

#31

Post by FussyZeus » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 1:21 PM UTC

ebg13 wrote: post #27

upofadown wrote: post #19

>But he also found that participants were much more likely to miss the motorcyclist than the car driver. Drivers have to sort threats in terms of risk. Cycles, motorized or not, are simply not as much of a threat as cars/trucks. So it makes sense that they would fall off the bottom first. Cars are dangerous to things that are less dangerous than cars and it is inherent I think. At some point we are going to have to s…

> Drivers have to sort threats in terms of risk...At some point we are going to have to stop blaming the driver for stuff like this Missing from your response is that there are both risks FROM and risks TO. We absolutely need to blame dangerous drivers for failing to prioritize the second category.

I mean, it's their fault to be sure, but can you blame them? Drivers have had nearly a century of society bending over backwards to suit them. We rewrote pedestrian law to give cars the right of way in all but a few select spots. We built a highway system and cut neighborhoods square in half to make road travel easier.

Driving has become far too casual, too "just a thing you do." People don't respect it anymore. I'm a car guy and I see it every day, people rolling around in cheap, crappy cars who have no respect and no interest in driving; driving is the thing they have to do to get to the thing they actually want/need to do. That's it to them. Because of that they see it as something that needs to be tolerated, an accepted nuisance, and because of that, they purposely distract themselves, try and pass the time. Make this boring, arduous task go quicker so they can get their shit done and move on to more interesting things.

It doesn't matter how good you are or not behind the wheel; if you just don't care, you're a fucking danger to everyone around you. That's something not nearly enough people appreciate anymore.

Edit: Tucking fypo.

Re: Lethal memory fail: Why drivers see, and then forget motorcyclists

#32

Post by Wowfunhappy » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 1:22 PM UTC

Japhy_Ryder wrote: post #25

shadowgoat wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I mostly agree you, I think “never valid” is a bit extreme. My uncle was hit by a drunk driver that turned left into his lane at the last minute on a straight road. These type of incidents, which are rare and can’t be avoided, is why I took my bike off the road and only take it to the track. Maybe the first rule of riding is “it’s not the safest form of transportation and you must accept the risk”?

I've always liked "Ride like everyone else is trying to kill you, because they are." Myself, I'm a cyclist, but a lot of motorcycle rules and bike rules overlap.

If everyone is literally trying to kill you, someone will, regardless of how careful you are.

I'm not being pedantic—there are situations, like the one described in the GP, that you just can't humanly do anything about.

Re: Lethal memory fail: Why drivers see, and then forget motorcyclists

#33

Post by bluejekyll » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 1:25 PM UTC

ebg13 wrote: post #27

upofadown wrote: post #19

>But he also found that participants were much more likely to miss the motorcyclist than the car driver. Drivers have to sort threats in terms of risk. Cycles, motorized or not, are simply not as much of a threat as cars/trucks. So it makes sense that they would fall off the bottom first. Cars are dangerous to things that are less dangerous than cars and it is inherent I think. At some point we are going to have to s…

> Drivers have to sort threats in terms of risk...At some point we are going to have to stop blaming the driver for stuff like this Missing from your response is that there are both risks FROM and risks TO. We absolutely need to blame dangerous drivers for failing to prioritize the second category.

Exactly. One thing, at least in the US (in general) is that many people have similar feelings about driving as the GP, this includes the police. What it translates to is bad drivers are not held accountable for their actions.

Police in many cases use driving enforcement as a means of raising money, rather than reducing risk. Much of the infrastructure is designed to make driving easier and faster. We as a society need to make it unacceptable to drive at all dangerously, and introduce better alternatives (buses, rail, protected bike lanes, etc), and yes, driving needs to become less convenient in order to make other non-drivers safer on and around the roads.

Re: Lethal memory fail: Why drivers see, and then forget motorcyclists

#34

Post by ken » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 1:26 PM UTC

i_am_proteus wrote: post #13

scarface74 wrote: post #5

My first thought was that the motorcyclist in the picture almost deserves to be hit for driving illegally and dangerously between two cars - ie lane splitting. But from the comments, it does seem to be legal some places. But, in all other states in the US besides CA, it is explicitly illegal. It still seems unsafe even it is legal.

Lane splitting is safe (safer than not lane splitting, in congestion) provided the motorcycle doesn't go too much (ca. 15 mph) faster than traffic. https://news.berkeley.edu/2015/05/29/motorcycle-lanesplittin...

I don't see where in that study it shows what you claim. They specifically say:

> This study is not without limitations. The primary limitation is our lack of exposure data. To estimate how the risk of being involved in a collision changes when motorcyclists chose to lane- split, we would require information on both the lane-splitting and non-lane-splitting riding that is done by some identifiable sample of motorcyclists. The collection of these data is fraught with problems, and the current study did not attempt to collect such data. The current data set cannot be used to compare the collision risks for lane-splitting or non-lane-splitting riders.

Re: Lethal memory fail: Why drivers see, and then forget motorcyclists

#35

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 1:30 PM UTC

upofadown wrote: post #19

>But he also found that participants were much more likely to miss the motorcyclist than the car driver. Drivers have to sort threats in terms of risk. Cycles, motorized or not, are simply not as much of a threat as cars/trucks. So it makes sense that they would fall off the bottom first. Cars are dangerous to things that are less dangerous than cars and it is inherent I think. At some point we are going to have to s…

[deleted]

Re: Lethal memory fail: Why drivers see, and then forget motorcyclists

#36

Post by timwaagh » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 1:32 PM UTC

i'm a lifelong (nonmotor) cyclist finally learning to drive. what i notice is that driving is a lot more complex than cycling. you have so little space and so much vehicle. you have to stay in lane, take care when cornering. you are ultimately relying on cyclists or pedestrians not to do anything rash because the chances of you being concentrated on something else when a sudden crossing happens are significant. In which case you will definitely not see them.

Re: Lethal memory fail: Why drivers see, and then forget motorcyclists

#37

Post by nguoi » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 1:33 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #29

nguoi wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's how people usually react when someone is hit on 2 wheeled vehicle: trying to find a reason the rider deserved it. It's built into the language of articles about crashes too. You'll see 'it is not known if the rider was wearing a helmet'[1] without any similar remarks about the driver of the car. Or the oxymoronic 'police are still investigating the accident '[2]. [1] I wrote this, then searched to find an…

And that's how people usually react when someone is hit on 2 wheeled vehicle: trying to find a reason the rider deserved it. If I’m in a car and disobey the traffic laws and get in an accident with someone who was following the law - by definition, I’m at fault.

What you deserve and what you are at fault for are not the same thing. Fault is a legal concept - as you said, by definition - of who is responsible for the outcome. But that doesn't mean that breaking the law means you deserve broken bones and misery: things you deserve are things you should be rewarded with or punished by for an action. If you deserved it, the punishment for illegal lane splitting (or an equivalent crime, like speeding) would be for the police to take a baton to your knees.

After jumping to blaming the rider, you graciously accepted you were wrong about the law in some jurisdictions. Unfortunately, you then continued trying to blame the rider without taking the lesson that you may not be aware of what's safest for a bike rider to do. The only explanation I see for this is that you place people on bikes in a different mental tribe to your own.

Re: Lethal memory fail: Why drivers see, and then forget motorcyclists

#38

Post by ken » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 1:36 PM UTC

That URL is downright bizarre.

Re: Lethal memory fail: Why drivers see, and then forget motorcyclists

#39

Post by Accujack » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 1:37 PM UTC

ebg13 wrote: post #27

upofadown wrote: post #19

>But he also found that participants were much more likely to miss the motorcyclist than the car driver. Drivers have to sort threats in terms of risk. Cycles, motorized or not, are simply not as much of a threat as cars/trucks. So it makes sense that they would fall off the bottom first. Cars are dangerous to things that are less dangerous than cars and it is inherent I think. At some point we are going to have to s…

> Drivers have to sort threats in terms of risk...At some point we are going to have to stop blaming the driver for stuff like this Missing from your response is that there are both risks FROM and risks TO. We absolutely need to blame dangerous drivers for failing to prioritize the second category.

No, it's part of human nature to be concerned about threats to ourselves above almost everything else. It's not only natural, but it's probably not possible to fully turn off this tendency.

Claiming that people should automatically be as concerned about being a danger to others as they are about danger to themselves is a nice thought... the world would be a good place if that was the way things worked... but it's not. Even the most educated and enlightened people put their own safety first and the threat to others second, because we're all human.

Re: Lethal memory fail: Why drivers see, and then forget motorcyclists

#40

Post by scarface74 » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 1:38 PM UTC

nguoi wrote: post #37

scarface74 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's how people usually react when someone is hit on 2 wheeled vehicle: trying to find a reason the rider deserved it. If I’m in a car and disobey the traffic laws and get in an accident with someone who was following the law - by definition, I’m at fault.

What you deserve and what you are at fault for are not the same thing. Fault is a legal concept - as you said, by definition - of who is responsible for the outcome. But that doesn't mean that breaking the law means you deserve broken bones and misery: things you deserve are things you should be rewarded with or punished by for an action. If you deserved it, the punishment for illegal lane splitting (or an equivalent…

If I drive into oncoming traffic, run a red light, fail to stop at a two way stop, etc. why shouldn’t I expect to be in an accident? I’m intentionally breaking the law and drivers expectations.