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

121–130 of 189 posts

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

#121

Post by scarface74 »

scarejunba wrote: post #116
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.

No, that's not true. Take the simple case, you're not belted in (therefore disobeying laws, let's choose California, for example) and the light turns green but it turned for both you and the other side because of a malfunction. You would be marked down as no one at fault.

You were both obeying the traffic laws. In the case of lane splitting where it is illegal - one person clearly wasn’t. Not wearing your seat belt didn’t cause the accident.

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

#122

Post by falcolas »

imglorp wrote: post #107
falcolas wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't recall the specifics. It was part of a "pass this course and skip the practicum for getting your license" program. It was 2 days long, with 2 hours of lecture and 6 hours on the bikes.

LATER: It's the Montana Motorcycle Safety Foundation that ran the course, and it was the "MSF Basic RiderCourse".

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

#123

Post by dominotw »

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…

motorcylists here ignore all noise ordinances and try to be as loud as possible to ppl notice them. One motercyclist told me that his loud noise saved his life more than once.

I personally think they should be ticketed for noise.

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

#124

Post by jerf »

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've often said on HN that people are a great deal more rational than we give them credit for. We stink at explaining our rational decisions, but they are often quite rational.

In this case, brutally rational... at least in a very short term sense! I of course agree with everyone here that at the conscious level, I would love to prioritize bikes, motocycles, and pedestrians. But I don't drive at the entirely conscious level, and neither does anyone else. A lot of driving occurs at much lower levels.

This is not all bad; if we were all driving at fully conscious levels, we'd all be driving like student drivers all the time. That's what "fully conscious driving" looks like. It is not a desirable thing. It would be much worse than what we have now. Nevertheless, the fact that the rest of our brain is involved means that we must also consider the negative side effects of using our lower systems, and one of those side effects is that it is going to be, by default, intrinsically focused on avoiding immediate negative effects like pain, and much, much less focused on long-term considerations like "what we did to a stranger" or "how long we'll be in court". These systems just don't have a long time preference. Heck, what we are pleased to call our "conscious" minds aren't always all that great at balancing long term considerations.

You can blame these systems all you want, but that's not going to change anything about them.

My personal cognitive hack is to try to see them as walking lawsuits, and feeding the lower parts of my brain lurid, emotion-laden images of what will happen to me and my family if I do hit one of those things out of negligence. My conscious mind really is rather worried about one moment's negligence wrecking everything. It's... better than nothing. But I'm still not really speaking the subconscious' language. It may be "subconscious" but that doesn't mean it's "stupid"... it knows I'm lying if I try to claim that I'm going to be physically hurt if I hit them.

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

#125

Post by ianai »

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…

I think of it as something like an arms race. Sure, I’d love to have a tiny one seater “car” that is just enough to get me from A to B. But I can only drive that with enough sense of safety for my preferences in a world where I’m reasonably assured to never be hit by a substantially larger vehicle. I’ve been rear ended by a distracted dual axel truck (probably like 3t or something) in the past. I only got bad whiplash, luckily, but just that is enough of an eye opener for a lifetime.

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

#126

Post by muststopmyths »

A few months ago I was in my car, preparing to pull away from the curb. I saw 3 bicyclists, 2 closer and 1 further away in my rear/side-view mirrors coming down the street, so I waited. I was shocked to find myself pulling out after the first two had passed. It was like I'd forgotten the 3rd guy completely.

Luckily I caught myself in time and nothing bad happened, but it scared the crap out of me to realize my brain was being an asshole again.

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

#127

Post by Shivetya »

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…

Fellow motorcyclist here.

visibility. in my case I will ride with the high beams on during the day, if I am directly behind another car in stop and go I will turn them off. I also run small projector/fog lamps down low to form a light triangle which I believe further increases my being noticed. Yet as you imply, I don't trust that I am ever seen.

it isn't just short term memory but people just aren't paying attention to the drive. even in my car I see people on their phone or worse reading their phones display, all in a state that is hands free! the numbers are frightening if you think about it.

it was mentioned in another thread about speed and cars and that the manufacturers have had the ability for many years to keep our cars at legal speeds but none choose to do so and I doubt the public would permit it unless mandated by law. Well the same can be said about smart phones, passenger or not it may well be necessary for them to determine if they are in a vehicle and just not allow the display to be used.

Notice me, hell they have to put their phone down first. People miss light changes and on coming traffic far too often all because of their phones

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

#128

Post by muststopmyths »

kaikai wrote: post #119
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…

I’m a motorcyclist, and I don’t get how this works for you in real life. If I’m riding down the road and there’s a car stopped at a stop sign or intersection, and we make eye contact, yes I assume they see me. I do not come to a full stop in the middle of the road to let them turn just in case they forget we looked at each other. There’s no way to ride that defensively and not get hit by car drivers behind me, or mak…

Well,it's not an absolute rule to follow in every situation but they key is adjust your speed to enable preventive action. In your scenario I don't stop, but maybe I slow down instead of sailing through the intersection. I can come to a stop faster if the other guy does do something stupid, so at least I have a chance.

As the article suggests(and from my own experience), making eye contact is no guarantee.

edited to clarify my point

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

#129

Post by FussyZeus »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #110
FussyZeus wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Source?

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

#130

Post by scatters »

pedanticlawyer wrote: post #78
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 funny because as kids the first thing they teach us is to look around before crossing the streets and make sure that vehicles on the streets saw us and stopped. Adults are so pendatic about it that we develop muscle memory for it. The reason is simple: don't assume other people won't make mistakes just because they were supposed to be careful and protect the weakest. The safer option is to actually be proactive…

So do you wear body armor and a helmet when out walking? If not, why not?
Post reply on HN