Live data from Hacker News

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

cbc.ca

161–170 of 189 posts

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

#161
post #90
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

You've chosen to place your life in jeopardy by riding a push-bike in traffic. Surely that bears some consequence?

"You've chosen to place your life in jeopardy by showing up at school..."

Yeah, well, there was a time that riding a bicycle or going to school wasn't nearly as dangerous. But you're going to blame the victims here?

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

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Here's one: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/highway-417-speed-incr...

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

#163
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> held to the higher standard This I disagree with. For better or worse, we are typically the ones who are riding on roads designed and built for them. We need to be held to the same standards, if not higher standards as motorcyclists and bicyclists, as we're intentionally playing in their turf, without their safety equipment. If a bicyclist is careless, they are both stupid and negligent. If a car driver is careless…

I am not saying this applies to you and GP, but there are those of us who absolutely hate cyclists on the road at all (bike lanes are fine) because many of them have an entitled mentality and indeed, don't seem to care about their own safety, let alone the rules of the road. Just this morning I had two cyclists cut horizontally across at 40 MPH street in front of me and other drivers. Many of them weave between cars…

> Many of them weave between cars or treat traffic signals as suggestions. Basically they want to be treated like normal traffic when it suits them and ignore laws when they want to.

I don't want to defend this but rather explain this. Legally we are neither pedestrians nor normal traffic. But there is no explicit law for cyclists. You have to be both and it depends which situations it you are in, which typically falls under when it is most advantageous (or safest).

Specifically to the traffic signals, I'll illustrate first. The only time I have been struck by a vehicle while on my bike was while I was in a shared space (marked with sharrows) and waiting at a stop sign (I've also had cars come into the bike lane and hit/almost hit me, but that's another story that every cyclist has). Statistically this is actually the most likely place to be hit (motorcyclists know this too!). So why do cyclists not stop at stop signs? Because sitting at a stop sign is dangerous. Because to cross the intersection with momentum takes 2 seconds instead of the 5 that it takes when stopped. You are reducing your chance of being struck. This is why you won't see cops pull them over either (unless they are pulling into traffic, which is a different issue). Having momentum also SIGNIFICANTLY increases your ability to dodge things. You are absolutely the most vulnerable when you are not moving. To be safe on a bike you want to keep moving. We can't accelerate away from dangerous situations like motorcycles or cars. Humans don't have that kind of torque. It isn't just laziness or wanting to get to places faster (I'll give you that this is part). If you aren't moving then you are more vulnerable.

Cyclists that are breaking the law are generally doing it from learned behavior to increase their safety. Another common example is riding close to the middle of the road on shared roads. I cannot tell you how many times someone has opened a door on me. I've hit more than a few (most often when in I'm in a bike lane!). Both in day and night (when I have a fucking light that I directly aim into peoples' mirrors to try to make me more noticeable!). It's just easier to ride closer to the center and deal with the driver behind you that is upset and should be on the main roads anyways. Also, lots of dirt and crap accumulates in the bike lanes, so that's why we frequently move out of them. Frequently there's also gutters that would cause us to go over the handle bars.

Frankly, I value my safety over your convenience. That's what it comes down to.

> [the ones that] drive on the road correctly are merely annoying because they hold up traffic and disrupt speeds, which is dangerous

And we all agree. This is why you should argue for not just bike lanes, but protected bike lanes. But frankly most cars don't care about bike lanes and treat cyclists like second class citizens and disregard their spaces.[0]

There are plenty of cyclists that are idiots and doing dumb things that will make you question how much they value their life. But I want others to also realize that cyclists also develop other patterns that may not be straight forward to drivers. Understanding each other and the vulnerabilities we face is how we make everyone safer and how we inconvenience each other less.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ

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

#164
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've chosen to place your life in jeopardy by riding a push-bike in traffic. Surely that bears some consequence?

"You've chosen to place your life in jeopardy by showing up at school..." Yeah, well, there was a time that riding a bicycle or going to school wasn't nearly as dangerous. But you're going to blame the victims here?

> But you're going to blame the victims here?

I think this needs to be emphasized more. Saying that a bicycle is more dangerous than a car is equivalent to saying that being a bank teller is more dangerous than a gunman. Sure, that may be true, but are we really going to blame the bank teller here?

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

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If I walked at 30km/h on the streets I would definitely wear one

The poster in another comment says he wears helmet and body protections when skying, I think it's just common sense and not wanting to suffer sever consequences for no real reason.

I used to wear an helmet when skating.

Why bikers think they are the only immortal beings on this planet?

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

#166

>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 don't think the average driver employs rationality when scanning the road. I think their attention is governed simply by probability.

99% of activity on the road are moving cars and trucks. So drivers look for moving cars and trucks, not fast mcyclists or slow bcyclists, and they largely ignore stationary objects like pedestrians (unless they're present in likely places like crosswalks).

It's the norm for anyone to see what you most expect to see and overlook the less salient stuff as "noise". For outliers like cyclists and pedestrians, I think the only solution is deliberately to become harder to overlook.

Personally, I suggest blinking lights on bcycles and pedestrians, and pulsing headlights (daytime) on mcycles.

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

#167
I've fired up the laptop for this one and it'll be my final comment of too many today.

I rode a motorcycle as my only transportation for years, in Florida, throughout many Summers and tourist seasons. I've also driven extensively on four wheels for local delivery and on eighteen for interstate freight. I have come to a holistic view of a problem that I believe encompasses all motor vehicles. I'll take this opportunity to express it, in no particular order.

First, the issuance of a driver's license needs to depend on more than the applicant merely having a pulse. Ideally, a full semester, comprehensive course on the principles of driving should be prerequisite for graduating highschool, else a third party alternative equivalent ought be required. The vast number of avoidable deaths and injuries exceeds any alternative. The constituent issues are many. Here are some observations.

Enforcement: LE needs reform. The emphasis on traffic citations seems overwhelmingly directed at revenue generation rather than practical safety, eg erratic, inconsistent speed enforcement; seatbelt violations (I'll get back to this *1); and automated traffic light citations are emphasized over myriad moving violations and generally irresponsible vehicle operation. This gets a bit complex for various reasons. Speeding is, regardless of reason, socially acceptable, even perceived as a right. In the right lane, I am perpetually tailgated even when traveling 5mph over the limit. It's often worse when precisely at the limit. I have never seen (or heard of) anyone ticketed for tailgating. It isn't infrequent for drivers to even display marked hostility to a driver obeying the speed limit, in any lane. Yet, speed traps (all those I've observed) are primarily effective at collecting fines, but not in long-term discouragement of speeding. I've seen school-zones that if regularly monitored, could dent the national debt in fines. But no consistency. I've yet to observe an officer pursue anyone for failure to signal, reckless maneuvers or irresponsible cellphone usage. I understand that this varies elsewhere, to some extent. While there are obviously difficulties involved in effective enforcement of such examples, effort could help.

Ignorance: I propose this be dealt with mostly through required education, which needs many amendments. Psychology is a neglected component of driver ed. There are many who simply don't care. There are many who simply don't know any better. There are more than a few that are much worse and more difficult to address passively. However, if the tremendous volatility of the mechanics involved was more pervasively understood through quality education, people would make different decisions. Silly it may seem, some can actually learn that they are not the only important driver on the road and that the infrastructure itself has inevitable limitations that cannot be bypassed through selfishness. This is hard to teach. The mechanics/physics are a bit easier. Looking before turning is not an elite skill -- people can do this, but often don't. Signaling certainly helps broadcast intent, but is often neglected. That we should do such not just for ourselves, but for the safety of others is frightfully esoteric.

Intersections: In Florida, it is legal to creep beyond the white line in a turning lane with or without an arrow light, then complete the turn after the light has gone red. I typically don't do this and it has enraged many to the point of violence. Similar with accelerating on yellow lights. One might argue that in the first example, I am at fault, though certainly not with the latter. There is a pathology here, one that could be lessened but isn't. Right turns on red are legal in Florida. Many intersections have visual obstructions which cause drivers to lurch beyond the white line to verify clearance of oncoming. Traffic cameras are fond of this, though I've never observed an officer pursue any such instance. This is an example of...

Ambiguity: There needs to be less ambiguity and more consistency.

Motorcycles are not invisible. They are legal motor vehicles and very few people are incapable of seeing them through exerting a standard effort. I reject any mystical cognitive excuses. If motorcycles had a reputation for obliterating cars that crashed into them, they'd become substantially easier to see. Driving large vehicles ranging from pickups to combination trailers, I've seen beyond a doubt a greater tendency to be 'respected' on the road, with expected exceptions. There is a pecking order to some extent.

Consequences of Error: This is a complex issue. If someone punches a stranger in the face, especially under surveillance, the consequences are typically severe. When someone kills or injures another driver, particularly a motorcyclist, there is a general tendency to go through the paperwork, clean up the mess, and place the responsibility on a third party, ie insurance and legal system, which often does little. An 'accident', however atrocious, is often given the benefit of the doubt if no overtly criminal activity is present. This is in part for good reason, because it is presumed accidental, but also makes atrocities remarkably easy where otherwise more difficult. Unfortunately, intoxicated driving gets most of the attention, while soberly bad decisions and brazen irresponsibility is systematically forgiven.

There is almost never a good excuse for hitting a law abiding motorcyclist. Most vehicle accidents are preventable. Our priorities are deranged.

1. Seat belts are safety features and worth using, for sure. Motorcycles don't have them, thankfully. It can be argued that a seatbelt could, in some rare instances, prevent an otherwise unsecured driver from harming others. I am quite convinced, however, that in most cases, the seatbelt protects only the user. Therefore, it would seem more productive in the conquest of safety (and revenue) that officers focused less on what drivers were willing to do to themselves and more on what they are willing to do to others. At the very least, proportionately. Much more to say. Too much said for a comment.

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

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bicyclists suffer political disability under [typical US] traffic laws. Bicyclists are not afforded a full traffic lane when traveling. Bicyclists are prohibited from the highest quality roads. Bicyclists are required to ride on the shoulder. Even the best laid bike lanes don't give cyclists the right of way. Many many bike routes are shared with pedestrians. Motorcyclists on the other hand enjoy first class status u…

> Bicyclists are required to ride on the shoulder

Where all the dirt and glass accumulate. Where cars pull over (even if not allowed). Where parked vehicles open doors without looking.

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

#169
post #160
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you claim that most bicyclists espouse some extremely specific philosophical viewpoint? Have you surveyed a representative sample of cyclists or something? It's just extremely weird to me to make such a sweeping claim about a large group you don't count yourself in.

Not the OP, but I’m pretty sure they are basing it on the same observations I have. The vast majority of motorcyclists I encounter are riding defensively, while the majority of cyclists I see in city traffic are aggressive and ignore most traffic laws.

This is likely selection bias though. The cyclists that you notice the most are bad actors. You don't notice good acting cyclists as often because they don't inconvenience you. This is basically the classic example of selection bias.

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

#170
One of the most annoying aspects of this, minus the whole dying part, is the reactions it leads to after near-misses. Since people effectively "don't see" motorcyclists, they often assume we're "riding crazy" if there's a near miss, since from their POV we just warped into being a moment previous to the incident. People are already biased towards not blaming themselves, so this just makes it worse.

It's even worse in "accidents", where the motorcyclist might not be able to give their side of the story immediately due to injuries. Now the police report is heavily biased (in practice), which makes sure there will be future insurance issues.

Post reply on HN