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

101–110 of 189 posts

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

#101

Post by jmkd »

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…

While I strongly agree with the spirit of this, I feel there are enough exceptions to this principle for it to be more pragmatically put.

For example: Take a two lane road with no median barrier. Whether cycling, motorcycling or driving I have no choice but to trust that road users coming towards me stay on their opposite side of the road. I have to hope that they are not subject to a moment's distraction, or mechanical failure, or drunk. It's almost impossible to anticipate and avoid incidents like this. If I was a victim of such an incident does that automatically mean I didn't take enough responsibility for my wellbeing? Or does it mean I judged the risks of using a public road and was unlucky, whether due to someone else's dumbassery or otherwise?

My point is that there are many incidents that a diligent, innocent road user simply cannot avoid, and we shouldn't be so quick to apportion responsibility.

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

#102

Post by i_am_proteus »

tbyehl wrote: post #59
i_am_proteus wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> safer than not lane splitting The study itself explicitly states that they don't have the data to reach any conclusions about the relative safety of splitting vs not. What the study shows is that riders who were lane-splitting at the time of an accident sustain fewer injuries than those who weren't. It mentions some differences between the two groups -- lane-splitters are more likely to be commuting and have better…

In my experience, lane splitting is much safer. It has saved me from violent rear-end collisions on several occasions.

I'll also go as far as to say that commuting is certainly more dangerous than most recreational riding (the exception being recreational riding when the drunks are out, e.g. midnight on the weekend) due to traffic density. The text-and-drive crowd is also more active (both on their phones and on the road) during rush hour, perhaps because driving inattentively seems like a safer practice at lower speeds.

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

#103

Post by asjw »

nguoi wrote: post #97
pedanticlawyer wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You also can't brake to avoid a car that goes into the side of you. I wear a biker tailbone protector and a back protector + an helmet when I go snowboarding and I'm an amateur snowboarder at best that rarely goes in the park and rides at mediocre speed. Why I usually don't see cyclists wear some of them protections?

Why don't drivers? Driving is the biggest killer of young people. Any vehicle you use for commuting is for convenience. Strapping into armour makes it harder so we don't expect it of drivers while we do expect it of extreme sports. Supposedly the health benefits of cycling outweigh the dangers of the road but I've never looked into it.

> Why don't drivers?

They do in fact.

This is the list of the mandatory safety measures in Europe for motor vehicles, it's 24 pages long

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32...

> Driving is the biggest killer of young people

It is not driving, it's road traffic injuries, which includes biking.

Anyways it's worse in US than Europe and it's much worse for male than for female.

One could conclude that it's being a young male in the US that is actually dangerous.

> Any vehicle you use for commuting is for convenience

Assuming this is true, it is valid also for bikes or horses.

> Strapping into armour makes it harder so we don't expect it of drivers while we do expect it of extreme sports.

The entire car is literally an armor!

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sites/growth/files/car-safety-fe...

Why are cyclist so afraid of protecting themselves?

> Supposedly the health benefits of cycling outweigh the dangers of the road

They don't.

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

#104

Post by fouc »

phkahler wrote: post #66
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.

They do that kind of thing in other situations, I can't remember off the top of my head though.

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

#105

Post by MrMember »

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…

Riding a motorcycle has made me a better driver in general. On a bike my full concentration is on making sure I don't die. Constantly running through scenarios. What do I do if the car in front of me slams on their brakes? What if the car I'm passing doesn't see me and tries to merge into me? What if there's something on the road and I have to avoid it? These are all things that have happened to me while riding. You have to be fully aware of everything around you when you ride a motorcycle, and for me that has carried over into car driving as well.

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

#106

Post by nguoi »

asjw wrote: post #103
nguoi wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't drivers? Driving is the biggest killer of young people. Any vehicle you use for commuting is for convenience. Strapping into armour makes it harder so we don't expect it of drivers while we do expect it of extreme sports. Supposedly the health benefits of cycling outweigh the dangers of the road but I've never looked into it.

> Why don't drivers? They do in fact. This is the list of the mandatory safety measures in Europe for motor vehicles, it's 24 pages long https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32... > Driving is the biggest killer of young people It is not driving, it's road traffic injuries, which includes biking. Anyways it's worse in US than Europe and it's much worse for male than for female. One could conclude…

>It is not driving, it's road traffic injuries, which includes biking.

It's not from being hit by cyclists.

>This is the list of the mandatory safety measures in Europe for motor vehicles, it's 24 pages long

Quite a lot of it isn't, read articles 6 and 7 and the lists of implementation dates.

>Why are cyclist so afraid of protecting themselves?

After having people maliciously aim their car at you for being in front of them, it's quite patronising to have them assume you're riding unsafely. People in other countries manage much better safety records through infrastructure and education. On the contrary, I don't think there's any safety clothing I can wear that will save me if a car crashes into me. This thread assumes that exists, yet assumes the same doesn't exist for anyone who dies in a car crash. Why don't you wear a helmet when in a car?

Infrastructure doesn't improve where I am because the nasty, tribalist rhetoric swipes any safety issues under the rug by assuming cyclist fault. You've accused cyclists of being afraid of protecting themselves, thus categorising them in a tribe separate from your own. But I'm not separate from you: I'm a driver, too. Yet when I'm in a car with someone and they see a driver do something foolish, I never hear them call 'drivers' idiots, it's always about the singular person. The tribalism makes you think of the other party as less important.

(And the foolish things happen multiple times a day - I can guarantee I'll see someone speed when I drive home tonight)

Accusing me of being afraid of protecting just gives me the impression that you feel I have to earn the right for you to tolerate me in the road. An impression I get every time someone punish-passes me, or manoeuvres assuming a cyclist won't be in their path. And it's so tiring to be told it's my fault when I know how often I see people fail to obey the laws of the road at my expense.

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

#107

Post by imglorp »

falcolas wrote: post #54
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…

Perhaps it’s just my training class, but we did get exposure to the SMIDSY and the Anti-SMIDSY maneuver, including watching that video. This was in Montana, US.

Nice. Who was the provider?

I've been through the MSF's BRC, ERC and ARC and there's a glaring lack of detailed techniques like this. IMHO it should be taught before figure eights and all that parking lot stuff.

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

#108

Post by FussyZeus »

ebg13 wrote: post #100
FussyZeus wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slow people cause traffic jams, which in turn cause accidents. I've read multiple papers and articles about how slow left-lane travel causes safety hazards for everyone involved due to passing on the right, which is objectively less safe, causing more lane changes than is otherwise necessary for those trying to get around them, and the big one, causing deviations in the "norm" speed in a flow of traffic, which is the…

> I've read multiple papers and articles about how slow left-lane travel causes safety hazards for everyone involved due to passing on the right This is a false dichotomy. There is in fact a third, safer alternative when driving already at the speed limit, which is not passing at all. Again you've chosen to prioritize convenience (speeding) over safety.

Speeding is not inherently unsafe. There are numerous places all over the world and even a few in the US where there are no enforced speed limits. When there isn't one, people tend to drive at a speed they're comfortable driving at. Your judgement on the safety of that speed is irrelevant to knowing how safe it is.

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

#109

Post by tbyehl »

i_am_proteus wrote: post #102
tbyehl wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> safer than not lane splitting The study itself explicitly states that they don't have the data to reach any conclusions about the relative safety of splitting vs not. What the study shows is that riders who were lane-splitting at the time of an accident sustain fewer injuries than those who weren't. It mentions some differences between the two groups -- lane-splitters are more likely to be commuting and have better…

In my experience, lane splitting is much safer. It has saved me from violent rear-end collisions on several occasions. I'll also go as far as to say that commuting is certainly more dangerous than most recreational riding (the exception being recreational riding when the drunks are out, e.g. midnight on the weekend) due to traffic density. The text-and-drive crowd is also more active (both on their phones and on the…

> commuting is certainly more dangerous

Commuting being a seemingly more dangerous activity doesn't preclude commuters from being a lower-risk-of-injury group. Age could be another factor -- older riders are more likely to be injured in motorcycle accidents, and might be less likely to commute or lane-split.

The study is crap. It lacks the data to control for other factors and draw meaningful conclusions about much of anything.

https://www.ots.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/67/2019/06/M...

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

#110

Post by bryanlarsen »

FussyZeus wrote: post #108
ebg13 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've read multiple papers and articles about how slow left-lane travel causes safety hazards for everyone involved due to passing on the right This is a false dichotomy. There is in fact a third, safer alternative when driving already at the speed limit, which is not passing at all. Again you've chosen to prioritize convenience (speeding) over safety.

Speeding is not inherently unsafe. There are numerous places all over the world and even a few in the US where there are no enforced speed limits. When there isn't one, people tend to drive at a speed they're comfortable driving at. Your judgement on the safety of that speed is irrelevant to knowing how safe it is.

> Speeding is not inherently unsafe.

It very much is unsafe.

In some studies they find that speeding does not cause more accidents.

But speeding is still unsafe because speeding makes the accidents that do happen much more likely to be fatal.

Post reply on HN