PlanoFuji

red short or blue bike are details. More importantly what makes them even less likely to be remembered by someone driving properly is that they aren't relevant details to their task when driving. A better test would be something like this. Wait for the driver to pass a cyclist in the same lane. If they didn't show any reaction, such as moving even slightly to the left, ask them "Why didn't you give the cyclist more room?" If you get a "What cyclist response, then you have cause to worry. And I would give them a lecture as well at that point.

CB HI

It must be part of the Schrödinger wave equation.

FrenchFit 

When I taught my kids to drive I tested them on the potential risks, traffic, and the location of the cars in back of them as a running narrative. I taught them to be active drivers, always scanning, noticing, evaluating, anticipating trouble. Downside, they all started "talking" to all the other vehicles while dirving, like "What the hell are you doing..., are you serious?", etc. Knock on wood, 3 kids with 20 years combined driving experience, no accidents. Let's hope we all stay attentive. Note: When my son passes a cyclist I suspect he'd notice what gear the bike's in.

buzzman

I would love it if drivers waved at me, let alone noticed me but I seem to reside in the uncertainty principal.

CB HI

I know that to many motorist, I am nothing more than a spacetime singularity, unable to be seen but with extreme gravitational attraction affinity.

buzzman

I hear ya'. Some days a wave, the next a particle and then I feel like I don't exist at all! It's all relative, I guess.

contango 

Not necessarily, sometimes I'll be aware that there's a cyclist without particularly registering exactly what s/he is wearing in any detail at all. I have to agree with Planofuji here, if someone doesn't give a cyclist much space and you ask why they didn't, and they respond in a way that makes it clear they didn't see the cyclist then there's a problem. If they give the cyclist space but don't register whether they had a red shirt or a blue bike it's not a problem, because they registered the cyclist's presence and gave them some space.

I just wouldn't move to the left if I saw a cyclist or I really would run them over, but that's a geographical issue

genec

Your test is better, but doesn't do much if a cyclist is in a BL and the driver passed without having to move left, but then the driver proceeds to "fail" and makes a right hook. (didn't see the cyclist)

My test just checks for observation... are they aware of others on the road, or do they have lane blindness... Far too many drivers assume that as long as they are glued to the car in front, and stay in their lane, they can get away with anything... such as texting on a cell phone. The problem is, those drivers are not planning ahead, and often react late.

Granted a motorist may not have need to be concerned about a cyclist 2 lanes over and that is reasonable, but if someone just passed a cyclist on their immediate right, it would be nice to know the cyclist was in some manner "registered," even if no reaction is required.

genec

I do much the same thing... noting all the potentials, driving actively. My son picked up on it and often will point out some possible pending problem ahead on the road when we are driving together.

PlanoFuji

Your outlining a major problem with bike lanes as we tend to implement them, not necessarily the motorist. A driver does not need to notice anything about cars in lanes adjacent to them, unless they plan to merge into that lane. Right hooks occur because they are set-up to require motorists to do something they normally are not allowed to do, which is make a right turn across an adjacent lane of traffic. I know that many places (but not all) have change the law to require a turning driver to first merge into the bike lane, but that isn't really something covered when the vast majority learned to drive. Compound that with the normal tendency of non-cyclists to under estimate cyclists speed and it is all too easy for right hooks to happen. The problem is that we are installing cycling infrastructure just to do so, without consideration to how to integrate the travel on these new facilities safely or to put the effort into ensuring that the large number of drivers who are currently licensed and will have no requirement to get tested on the changed laws since they first got licensed get trained into how to properly drive in regard to these facilities.

I have the same issue with other new (to the US at least) infrastructure designs such as traffic circles. When I first learned to drive many years ago there were no traffic circles in my state or any other state I had to take a test to get licensed. I doubt that the vast majority of currently licensed drivers have ever even seen a description of how they are supposed to navigate these new traffic control devices. And we didn't make re-testing a requirement when implementing such new control devices. Heck, I doubt most cops can tell you what is a legal and correct operation for many of these new fangled configurations.

A motorist is supposed to know, even if they were never required to learn it; however, the problem is that we have taken the easy way out (instead of requiring training and re licensing) so the result will be dead and injured cyclists.

P.S. asking about cyclists in a bike lane next to the car's travel lane would be a good addition to the test and the lecture you can give them after they give you the wrong answer.

goldfinch

Or maybe it is the motion of turning quickly which catches another person's eye.

And of course they might be missing all sorts of people who are staring at them.

And their memories may be incorrect. Memories are notoriously unreliable and certainty about accuracy of a recollection does not correlate with actual accuracy.

PlanoFuji

There memories are certainly incorrect. That was what I was trying to tell the OP in my first post about the logical fallacy. People only remember the occasions when they felt like being watched and then noticed something that seemed to confirm it. All of the other times they have that feeling and don't get any confirmation, they forget about. So they create evidence in their minds. Unrecorded human perceptions (and the memories thereof) are notoriously unreliable.

That is why I referenced the magazine articles (Skeptic) to the actual scientific studies, so that anyone who is interested in approaching the concept with an open mind can see what the evidence says. No such 'sixth sense' exists, belief in it is like believing in the tooth fairy or those copper bracelets they sell the gullible.

FrenchFit 

I'll just mention that notion has become so hackneyed, worn-out, trite itself...I've read this a hundred times the last ten years and it's the theme of several books. Yes, we selectively observe to match world view, we remember what connected our perceptial dots. We identify patterns in randomness. So effing what..., that notion was not meant to be an excuse for a lack of continuous investigation and ignoring empirical data. Hobgoblins!

genec

Can't really disagree with most of what you've said... in fact I think the problem is that we don't train either cyclists or motorists enough... and I think the best way is to do it is in public schools... "Riding the Roads, or Road use, along with Reading, (W)Riting, and (A)Rithmetic. (I don't know where history comes in... LOL)

As far as traffic circles... little chuckle here... I grew up in Fort Worth... Where the Weatherford traffic circle has existed for as long as I can remember... and it has some real F'ed up rules... There is also the Bluebonnet Traffic circle. I really don't recall the rules for using it though. I think it is a real traffic circle... but I really don't remember. You can see it here: https://goo.gl/maps/lWnJB

BTW a good defensive driver knows what is going on in the lanes next to them... drivers do not always signal nor look before they move, it is prudent to be aware of the drivers adjacent to you.

PlanoFuji

Your kidding about ignoring empirical data right? I pointed you to where you can find the empirical data that proves no one has the ability to 'sense' when someone is watching them unless they can detect it with one of their normal five senses... Go ahead. Look up the articles, and if you still have doubts the original research they discuss...


Yours (or anyone elses) personal beliefs that they have 'sensed' when they were being watched is not actually empirical data, you do realize that right?

PlanoFuji

I only recently moved to Texas (a decade or so), I've taken written driving exams in three states; New York, Florida, and Texas. None of the drivers manuals I reviewed before the tests covered any of these unusual and new (relatively) devices. The first time I encountered a traffic circle was over seas. And that wasn't as difficult as adjusting to driving on the wrong side of the road.

P.S. I think we might as well stop teaching history, after all we are doomed to repeat it!

contango 

That's interesting - I find adjusting to driving on the wrong side of the road to be almost totally trouble-free. I say "almost" because if there's a particularly complex junction with lots of traffic islands I sometimes have to slow and figure just which bit I'm supposed to be driving on, whereas it's very rare that I have to do that in the UK. Aside from that driving on the right, turning left across traffic etc doesn't cause me any problems at all. The one time I drove on a roundabout in the US it was a very quiet one and going the wrong way around it felt vastly more unusual than driving on the wrong side of the road - when you drive on the right it's perfectly logical to go anticlockwise round a roundabout but it still felt totally wrong to do it that way.


On the other topics of the evolution of driving it's a hard one to call - for all it's fine in theory to require retesting there's the question of whether the infrastructure can cope with retesting everybody, especially if it's done every time something changes. It might make more sense to have licenses reissued every 5 years or so, with a re-test mandatory if the driver has been involved in at-fault accidents, accidents where someone was seriously injured regardless of fault, or committed more than a token number of driving offences (e.g. it might be excessive to require a re-test for a single speeding ticket but multiple speeding tickets and a DUI would warrant a re-test).

Part of the reason I dislike a lot of bike lanes is because they are so often nothing more than an afterthought to make some token provision for cyclists. It's all very well having a bike lane painted down one side of the road but that really is only a small part of the provision cyclists need. I recently had a verbal altercation with a motorist unhappy with me because I was all the way to the right of the lane and wasn't using the bike lane (which was to the far left). The reason was simple - I was turning right at the lights maybe 200 yards ahead and using the bike lane would have left me trying to merge right across three lanes of traffic, so I moved right as soon as I negotiated the previous junction. In a lot of other places the bike lane is so narrow it's not possible to fit a bike inside it (and by trying to stay inside it cars are encouraged to pass because you're "not in their lane", yet if you take the lane you upset the drivers who expect you to stay in the bike lane). Other times bike lanes do really useful stuff, like providing a space on a wide road only to disappear when the road narrows, and guiding cyclists round a roundabout by having to cross (and therefore yield) at every single road feeding into the roundabout. It does rather raise the question of whether the bike lanes are there to provide a safe facility for cyclists or just to pay lip service to cyclists while getting us out of the way of cars.

Going back to the question of passing a cyclist who is in a bike lane without seeing them, even this isn't necessarily an issue as long as the driver checks the way is clear before turning across the lane. Obviously if the driver has registered that they just passed a cyclist they will hopefully be aware that s/he could still be nearby and to make sure it's safe before turning but realistically speaking they should be checking that kind of thing anyway. I'm always aware when driving in an urban area that it only takes me a few seconds of being slowed by a car in front for a cyclist to have gained a significant distance on me, a cyclist who potentially wasn't even there when I last checked my inside mirror maybe 15 seconds ago - a cyclist going 20mph will cover approximately 30 feet in a second so in 15 seconds will cover about 450 feet, making it entirely possible that in the few seconds I'm stopped behind someone waiting to turn across traffic a cyclist could have turned out of a side road behind me, got up to speed, and be preparing to pass on my inside using the cycle lane. When my inside mirror failed on my car I found driving in town to be particularly stressful until I got it fixed, simply because I was so conscious that before turning left I needed to look around me far more thoroughly to make sure I wasn't about to left-hook someone (with the mirror I still need to check blind spots but can otherwise see a long way behind the car)

FrenchFit 

Well, I appreciate this is beating a dead horse but:

Classic skeptics believed they didn't know the answers. So, they investigated based on empirical data points and observations, scientifically proved or were unable to prove. Modern skeptics debunk, based on what they consider irrefutable science. Your Skeptic Magazine is a good example, adding to the world knowledge base with such lofty subjects as 'big foot DNA', 'steven jobs caused his own death', 'evolution is proven'. To this observer, your Skeptic Magazine is to science as Fox News is to journalism.

I said, I have an open mind, what do you think?. Your response is, it's proven, your observations are fallacy. Perhaps you are engaging in a logical fallacy, i.e. you have all the answers.

PlanoFuji

The magazine was a pointer to a layman's explanation of the science. Something I thought you might need. I also mentioned that it provided references that you could use to lookup the studies which collected actual empirical data. Another term that it sounds like you could use a refresher on.

BTW, Classically an open mind meant that someone was open to believing something if presented with PROOF it existed, not that one believes something is possible because they refuse to examine the evidence that indicates it isn't...

Also perhaps I didn't explain why I was stating you were wrong clearly enough. The experiments which attempted to isolate how people could perceive being watched isolated possible senses. When the physical possibility that the normal five senses could not be supplying the cues; the subjects could no longer identify being watched in a manner that deviated from random chance. That is the empirical evidence you claim to place faith in--even though you have clearly never even examined it. Instead relying on your anecdotal evidence (yours and others selective memories)...

goldfinch

I really disagree with you. Modern skeptics I know and have read have an incredible curiosity about how the world works and they follow the evidence. An open mind must not be so open that all sense falls out. We are in fact able to know things about the world. Skeptics do not say they have all the answers. But some things have been looked at so much that provisionally you can say that the weight of the evidence tells us something exists or alternatively, that there is no good evidence that it does exist. Psi phenomena has been looked at over and over and over again and no well designed study has shown its existence. But a skeptic would not say that there is no such thing as Psi. They would say there is no good evidence for psi. We also have a fair amount of evidence about how people think and we know the power of cognitive biases. There are good alternative explanations for people's supposed experiences of psi. These explanations do not require hypothesis's that violate what we know about the physical world.

I do agree that sometimes skeptics get tired of the same old refuted arguments about a particular topic and can come across as dismissive. It is understandable when faced with stubborn ignorance.

It is important to know that there are differences between facts, theories and hypothesis's. Evolution is both fact and theory. We know that organisms evolve. We have solid proof. For example, genetic evidence and evidence of speciation through the fossil record. We can actually watch organisms evolve, for example bacteria which become resistance to antibiotics. How evolution operates is based on theories which explain the facts. Theories summarize a group of hypothesis that have been validated through repeated testing so that it becomes accepted as the explanation for what is observed.

A hypothesis in contrast is a proposed explanation that needs further testing before it can result in a theory.

Your observations are not a fallacy. The fallacy is the conclusions you draw from the observations.

Strongly held beliefs (like that evolution must not be true or that psi must be true) is evidence of nothing. Certainty is an emotion and can lead anyone down the wrong path. This is why we have the scientific method.

corvuscorvax

Evolution is proven, as much as anything in science can be considered to be proven. That is, there are nearly two centuries of accumulated, detailed evidence supporting evolution, and not a single credible piece of evidence contradicting it. Evolution is as proven as gravity (and please don't give me some ill-informed "Einstein proved Newton wrong" discourse; Einstein's theory extended and supported Newton's). If you think that evolution is the equivalent of Fox News journalism, you are so steeped in irrationality that there is very little point in trying to reason with you. (And it's an especially odd comparison, because Fox News promotes anti-evolutionary nonsense constantly.)

As a side note, there should be a rule somewhere that nobody is allowed to invoke quantum mechanics in philosophy unless they can define the words "Hamiltonian" and "eigenvalue", and explain the significance of a complete linearly independent basis in Hlbert Space. If you can't do these things, then you don't understand quantum mechanics well enough to pontificate about observer dependence. Really.

FrenchFit 

ROFL. Saying anything substantive in response would reduce the absolute splendor of your post. Brilliant.

Keith99

I take it that saying "You mean the one who can't hold his line" would disqualify me as an observer.

FrenchFit 

I kinda agree with you, though I'm not convinced strongly held beliefs are evidence of nothing. The works of Otto come to mind in this respect, he spoke to that unaccountable and unforeseeable intimate personal experience that imparts a knowing and, as discussed for centuries, forms the basis of the human religious and spiritual experience. I'm not so quick to throw this line of thinking, or future science perhaps, in the crapper; at the end of the day it may be one of the essential components of being human. Time will tell...perhaps this innate knowing will be the final human standout in the Turing test.

Anyway, I think this thread is played out. Best -

PlanoFuji

Especially when that stubborn ignorance is wrapped in a cloak of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. It someone wants to discuss beliefs, then treat them as beliefs, but the nature of reason and science require that attempts to use those fields to give legitimacy to metaphysical beliefs require refutation.

Unfortunately the trillions of dollars and decades of public education spending have done nothing but teach the superficial form of science without conveying any real understanding of its methods and how they are properly used.