TRC is primarily funded by ad revenue. If you like the content you find here, don't block the ads check them out instead. Thank you.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 29 of 29

Thread: Interesting article about bike accidents

  1. #16
    Should Get Out More slowsider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    RoI
    Posts
    9,859
    Like
    404
    Liked 2,575 in 1,678 posts

    Default Re: Interesting article about bike accidents


    TRC is primarily funded by ad revenue. If you like
    the content you find here, don't block the ads check
    them out instead. Thank you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Supermofo View Post

    Essentially no matter what the punter is doing, where they are looking etc is that you act as though they haven't seen you and try to
    A. get them to see you
    B. act so that if they don't do what you expect you don't get hurt/hit.


    .
    I see how your B follows on from A, but it may be that they HAVE seen you, and have dismissed you as not being a threat to them. (I suspect this feeds into the article raised by the OP about 'forgetting' - memory being limited, a bit like Keith Code's $10 of attention)

    Thus if you think they have seen you, your prediction (B) about what they might do is skewed.

  2. #17
    Should Get Out More Supermofo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,953
    Like
    3,207
    Liked 1,863 in 1,221 posts

    Default Re: Interesting article about bike accidents

    Quote Originally Posted by slowsider View Post
    I see how your B follows on from A, but it may be that they HAVE seen you, and have dismissed you as not being a threat to them. (I suspect this feeds into the article raised by the OP about 'forgetting' - memory being limited, a bit like Keith Code's $10 of attention)

    Thus if you think they have seen you, your prediction (B) about what they might do is skewed.
    But that was my point. Always ride as if they haven't, even if you think they have. B is a given, A is a nice to achieve but it never stops you doing B

  3. #18
    Should Get Out More slowsider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    RoI
    Posts
    9,859
    Like
    404
    Liked 2,575 in 1,678 posts

    Default Re: Interesting article about bike accidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Supermofo View Post
    But that was my point. Always ride as if they haven't, even if you think they have. B is a given, A is a nice to achieve but it never stops you doing B
    Why bother with A then?

  4. #19
    Should Get Out More Horse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Always Sunny Central Southern England
    Posts
    22,189
    Like
    2,674
    Liked 3,509 in 2,326 posts

    Default Re: Interesting article about bike accidents

    Quote Originally Posted by slowsider View Post
    Why bother with A then?
    Possibly because a bit of planned low level effort might prevent sudden requirement for urgent high effort evasive action?

    I don't see planning to prevent and planning to avoid as exclusive. In fact, they're two parts of planning for a situation.

    If I do X (ZLine) then Y (car emerging) may be less likely, but if Y happens I have Z1, Z2 and Z3 options pre-planned (eg brake, swerve, jump) and as part of my plan I will also (cover the brakes, reduce speed, toot/long headlamp flash, etc.)

  5. The following user liked this post made by Horse:


  6. #20
    Should Get Out More Supermofo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,953
    Like
    3,207
    Liked 1,863 in 1,221 posts

    Default Re: Interesting article about bike accidents

    Quote Originally Posted by slowsider View Post
    Why bother with A then?
    Cos it's better they see than not surely? I'm gonna do B regardless so maybe belt and braces but if they see you it's an extra bit of safety.

  7. #21
    Should Get Out More slowsider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    RoI
    Posts
    9,859
    Like
    404
    Liked 2,575 in 1,678 posts

    Default Re: Interesting article about bike accidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Horse View Post
    Possibly because a bit of planned low level effort might prevent sudden requirement for urgent high effort evasive action?

    I don't see planning to prevent and planning to avoid as exclusive. In fact, they're two parts of planning for a situation.

    If I do X (ZLine) then Y (car emerging) may be less likely, but if Y happens I have Z1, Z2 and Z3 options pre-planned (eg brake, swerve, jump) and as part of my plan I will also (cover the brakes, reduce speed, toot/long headlamp flash, etc.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Supermofo View Post
    Cos it's better they see than not surely? I'm gonna do B regardless so maybe belt and braces but if they see you it's an extra bit of safety.
    How do you know they've seen you ? According to the OP, they don't always know they've seen you. If you think they have, you are likely to lower your guard.

    H - your 'low-level effort' doesn't reduce the level of attention/arousal required to be able to react if evasion is necessary. One element of your Z -line iirc is moving away from the closer impact zone in case they don't see you, so you have begun to evade already.

  8. #22
    Should Get Out More Supermofo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,953
    Like
    3,207
    Liked 1,863 in 1,221 posts

    Default Re: Interesting article about bike accidents

    Quote Originally Posted by slowsider View Post
    How do you know they've seen you ? According to the OP, they don't always know they've seen you. If you think they have, you are likely to lower your guard.
    That's the point thought isn't it? You don't know. But you make an effort for them to see you.

    Why? Because 'if' they do see you they won't pull out. You'll do B option regardless, but you've just built in an extra bit of safety.

  9. #23
    Should Get Out More Horse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Always Sunny Central Southern England
    Posts
    22,189
    Like
    2,674
    Liked 3,509 in 2,326 posts

    Default Re: Interesting article about bike accidents

    Quote Originally Posted by slowsider View Post
    . . . so you have begun to evade already.
    Depends on where you are relative to the junction if they emerge. If still a way off, you may need to swerve left, so would have further to go.

    The first benefit of the Z is movement attracting attention. The second is that, if they do go, and you continue on the same line, they have to go further to get you, which gives you more reaction time.

  10. #24
    Should Get Out More
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Your friendly local advanced trainer :)
    Posts
    8,616
    Like
    689
    Liked 995 in 587 posts

    Default Re: Interesting article about bike accidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Supermofo View Post
    I was only commenting on the seeing and then forgetting, rather than do they see at all and that whole broader issue. Having said that the broad point I'm making is act as though no one has seen you even if they have locked eyes with you.

    Ok the 'We all know' is more aimed at the old bastid's on here who've been riding for donkey's years (most of us) so my bad. And whilst I explained it poorly I think most of us on here would recognise what I’m saying and the point behind it is valid even if the explanation may be lacking.
    Fair do's... but the point I was trying to get at is that us bikers have assumed for far too long that either "drivers don't look hard enough for bikes" or that they deliberately pull out in front of them.

    The first idea is faulty, as the numbers show - collisions are actually rare events. As the referenced paper itself explains (I found a moment to sit down and read it carefully this morning) there are "approximately 90 deaths [from junction collisions] in the UK per annum". If that sounds shocking, put it in context with between one and two million active motorcyclists, travelling several billion miles each year and meeting around 40 million drivers at junctions. Clearly, drivers DO pay sufficient attention on nearly every single occasion, or we bikers wouldn't get much further than the end of our own road.

    I spent quite a while looking for evidence for the second issue - it's one that's popular with bikers. I eventually found one article written by a US bike claims company - a source you might have thought would have a vested interest in persuading downed bikers to give them a case to pursue and they said that couldn't find any evidence that hit happens. So that once seems to be more to do with bikers' and our collective 'they're all out to get us' victim mentality than real life.

    I'm not going to pretend that I know as much as you, or that I've studied it anywhere near as much as you, or that there isn't more I can learn. I can see from your point of view that my "That car drivers do see you, but for whatever reason don't 'process' you" lacks nuance. Of course the driver doesn't always see for example even if they are looking, but my point was largely in response to the ITV article where they say the driver sees you but 'forgets'. I did say I don't understand the mechanics and it's very complex, but I'd stand by at times the processing part as well and I'd imagine it's not far off being any more wrong than them 'forgetting'. So I’m more talking about the seeing and forgetting rather than not seeing at all.
    Again, fair enough...

    As I said, I sat down this morning and read that paper in the context of what I do know about the SMIDSY crash, and the 'looked but failed to see' error, and what the paper reveals is a 'missing link' as it were. There are plenty of reasons that drivers do look, then fail to see, an approaching motorcycle - motion camouflage (because we're not moving laterally), contrast and disruptive camouflage (where we blend or vanish against the background), saccadic masking when looking left and right (with the bike unseen as the visual feed shuts down) and more... but this paper suggests that what I've proposed about 'workload' saturating the brain's processing channels appears to be on the right lines. Their results suggest that the more the driver turns their head AFTER fixating on - and presumably SEEING - the bike, the more likely it is that the memory of seeing the bike gets 'flushed' by new visual information. The driver 'saw but forgot'.


    Again I haven't put as much thought into it as you, but it seems to me the broad response to all of the above is largely the same.

    Essentially no matter what the punter is doing, where they are looking etc is that you act as though they haven't seen you and try to
    A. get them to see you
    B. act so that if they don't do what you expect you don't get hurt/hit.
    I wouldn't disagree with that at all.

    What drives me demented is the "drivers should look harder for me" argument. It's simply abdicating responsibility for what is often a totally avoidable collision. So I'm definitely with you when you say...

    At a base level I approach other vehicles on the basis that no matter the rights and wrongs and what people should do, being on a bike means that it'll be me screaming in pain on the floor or even worse silent. So I'll take responsibility for trying to ensure that we don't make contact and put as little onus on them as possible. My view is probably a bit off as I tend to ride with people who have been riding for 20+ years but all of us seem to ride instinctively with a view of points A and B.

    I reckon you'd pull me to bits on it or tell me better ways of doing it but for example with a car waiting to pull out I find I do the following pretty instinctively

    1. what's going on ie Am I in traffic or is my lane clear, is someone following me, is the opposite lane clear and therefore the driver more likely to go, or worse a tempting gap that they might go for.
    2. I tend to slow/check my speed and move to the right whilst thinking about going left or being able to stop if they do dive out.
    3. I look at the driver to see where they are looking, what they are doing and I also check the front wheels. Any movement is a massive alarm bell
    4. At a certain point I tend to speed back up again as I'm now thinking if they come I'm better off trying to be gone rather than in the firing line but this is right at the last knockings.

    I'll take a look at the link ta.
    Works for me... it's all about being pro-active, rather than hoping 'the other fellow' will prevent us from ending up in a heap.

  11. The following user liked this post made by The Spin Doctor:


  12. #25
    Should Get Out More
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Your friendly local advanced trainer :)
    Posts
    8,616
    Like
    689
    Liked 995 in 587 posts

    Default Re: Interesting article about bike accidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Horse View Post

    I don't see planning to prevent and planning to avoid as exclusive. In fact, they're two parts of planning for a situation.
    Years ago, I was on a forum somewhere (no, not VD) and an interested spectator in a toe-to-toe bout between a UK bike cop and a CHiPs cop.

    The UK cop was laying into the American about their focus on collision avoidance. He was saying that the right technique was Roadcraft style evasion where you don't put yourself in the position of needing to avoid.

    The US cop was laying into the Brit just as hard saying that if your evasion technique doesn't work, you need collision avoidance skills so those are much more important.

    I said very quietly "doesn't that mean we really need BOTH sets of skills?"

    They both told me I wasn't a cop and didn't know what I was talking about.

  13. #26
    Should Get Out More Horse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Always Sunny Central Southern England
    Posts
    22,189
    Like
    2,674
    Liked 3,509 in 2,326 posts

    Default Re: Interesting article about bike accidents

    When we had access to the MSF Experienced RiderCourse, putting both together was common feedback.

    Worth noting that in the late 1980s they had training on mental skills and a process (then, altered now) of Search, Predict Act - a decade before Roadcraft had something similar.

  14. #27
    Should Get Out More
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Your friendly local advanced trainer :)
    Posts
    8,616
    Like
    689
    Liked 995 in 587 posts

    Default Re: Interesting article about bike accidents

    Quote Originally Posted by Horse View Post
    When we had access to the MSF Experienced RiderCourse, putting both together was common feedback.

    Worth noting that in the late 1980s they had training on mental skills and a process (then, altered now) of Search, Predict Act - a decade before Roadcraft had something similar.
    It's logical, isn't it?

    I've never bought into the 'riders with superior skills don't need to use them' argument.

  15. #28
    Should Get Out More Taipan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boerthal's hill
    Posts
    48,225
    Like
    16,492
    Liked 10,334 in 5,387 posts

    Default Re: Interesting article about bike accidents




  16. The following 2 users liked this useful post by Taipan:


  17. #29
    Should Get Out More Horse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Always Sunny Central Southern England
    Posts
    22,189
    Like
    2,674
    Liked 3,509 in 2,326 posts

    Default Re: Interesting article about bike accidents

    Kids being strapped into child seats in cars is bad for safety. Ours, that is. Much better when they were kneeling on the seat, looking out of the back window, and when you waved at them they'd wave back then yell "daddy daddy daddy it's a motorbike!"

  18. The following 3 users liked this useful post by Horse:


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Go Back to Forum My Forum

TRC Affiliates - Help TRC make a small amount of commission