Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 189 posts

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

#61

Post by upofadown »

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.

Sure, there are straight up sociopaths driving around and I agree that it would be good to get such people off the roads, but I am claiming that is not really all that important in the long run. We need to stop thinking that the problem is some bad drivers and move on to the idea that all drivers are to some extent irresponsible.

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

#62

Post by bambax »

taneq wrote: post #18

As a motorcyclist and defensive driver I find these kind of articles worrying, because they imply that riders are rolling around trusting other people not to hit them. The first rule of motorcycling, that you accept when you swing your leg over a bike, is that no matter whose fault any collision might be, it is your responsibility and yours alone to anticipate and avoid all such incidents. "But he pulled out in front…

As a fellow motorcyclist (middle aged, and still alive) I completely agree with you. NEVER rely on anyone seeing you. Nobody does see you, and nobody cares. It's your responsibility to see and anticipate what everyone else is doing.

In fact you should know if a car is about to change direction before its driver does. It gets easier with experience; a human driver gives many hints.

In the future, AI-powered cars may not give any hint, or different ones. Just like we advertise new drivers we should absolutely signal self-driving cars.

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

#63

Post by nguoi »

scarface74 wrote: post #40
nguoi wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why shouldn't the other road users expect you to break the law?

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

#64

Post by bagacrap »

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.

That's really not that helpful as a point of view. If it were really the case you'd avoid using nights at light because they'd just draw attention from all these bloodthirsty motorists and you'd be better off in a ninja suit.

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

#65

Post by CaptainZapp »

gowld wrote: post #48
CaptainZapp wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When i saw that for the first time (in a tram in Nagasaki, as I recall) I first thought the driver is a few fries short of a happy meal. It looks so weird to Western eyes. Then later reading up about it it actually makes a lot of sense. Some more material to read up on it: https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/pointing-and-calling-j...

No need for the irrelevant racism. Safety procedures aren't an inherent part of Eastern cultures. Some US transit agencies do the same point and call.

Where on earth do you detect the slightest hint of racism in my comment? Implied or otherwise?

I'm genuinly curious, since bewilderment about cultural differences certainly does not a racist make.

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

#66

Post by phkahler »

fouc wrote: post #3

> "If you're at a junction and you see a motorcyclist coming, just say 'bike,'" he said. "That puts it into an extra form of verbal short-term memory and you know you'll still remember it's there seconds later." It's really nice they can come up with a simple rule to sidestep the issue with our short term memory or attention glitching out like that.

>> It's really nice they can come up with a simple rule to sidestep the issue with our short term memory or attention glitching out like that.

It doesn't say if they tested that idea. I want to know if it actually works.

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

#67

Post by chrisweekly »

alosarv wrote: post #49
imglorp wrote: post #23

There's a second factor at work beyond memory - it's the human visual perceptive system. Bikes are not always moving across the visual field, and they aren't fitting the pattern of a bigger single-color smooth object so it's effectively camouflage. This is an outstanding vid on the whole subject illustrating the problem and some avoidance methods. This should be taught in rider training but it's not (US). https://www…

Also an excellent video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x94PGgYKHQ0 - tongue-in-cheek but highly relevant "invisibility training for motorcyclists" by FortNine

Fantastic video, thanks for sharing!

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

#68

Post by lkbm »

falcolas wrote: post #44
taneq wrote: post #18

As a motorcyclist and defensive driver I find these kind of articles worrying, because they imply that riders are rolling around trusting other people not to hit them. The first rule of motorcycling, that you accept when you swing your leg over a bike, is that no matter whose fault any collision might be, it is your responsibility and yours alone to anticipate and avoid all such incidents. "But he pulled out in front…

It’s interesting to me: As a fellow motorcyclist, I agree with your philosophy wholeheartedly. But most bicyclists (who are arguably at more risk from a car/truck than a motorcyclist) disagree with this just as wholeheartedly. I seriously wonder why this dichotomy exists, especially as bicycles are gaining electric motors capable of propelling them at higher and higher speeds.

As a cyclist, I believe that the driver should be held to the higher standard, but also that I can never trust them to live up to their responsibility, so I gotta be ready to stop and/or dodge any reckless maneuver they make.

We tend to conflate the moral judgement of responsibility/fault with the actual reality of responsibility. If you're driving a deadly vehicle, the moral burden is on you not to kill me, but I still carries the practical burden of not getting killed.

Obviously, if I'm super reckless on my bicycle, I could still be killed by a responsible, blameless driver, but if we're equally careless, I would say I was behaving in a practically irresponsible manner and the driver a morally irresponsible manner. I was stupid, they were negligent.

(I rode a motorcycle occasioanlly for a while, but not enough to get to where I felt other cars were a bigger threat to me than my own inexperience was. "I could die taking this corner.")

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

#69

Post by deschutes »

Accujack wrote: post #39
ebg13 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think a credible threat of serious punishment would go a long way. Unfortunately the justice system and police have completely abdicated any responsibility they might have there.

Maybe instead of attempting to find fault we should roll the dice in accordance with the speed vs lethality tables whenever a driver hits something with another person in it.

Sorry Jim, we're going to have to kill you today. The simulation says you drove right into the maw of a redwood chipper.

That's basically what it feels like using a mode of transportation that carries a high risk of death in a collision.

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

#70

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

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…

"People don't kill people, cars kill people"?
Post reply on HN