Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 8 of 22 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 534
  1. #176
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    23,052
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Was the cyclist in the bike lane when he was killed? YES
    Was he killed by a motorist who, apparently unintentionally (inadvertently) drifted into the bike lane? YES

    That makes it a bike lane death in this thead.
    So are you also keeping track of deaths that occur out of bike lanes... or is the fact that since most cyclists will ride in a bike lane, so therefore that is where they might be likely to be encountered, have any bearing on your "data."

    As I mentioned before... every cyclist reported here was also clothed... so perhaps we should ride naked instead.

    People die in hospitals too... if we stay out of hospitals when we are sick, will that keep us from dying?

  2. #177
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes, I note other types of deaths, though not in a thread titled "bike lane deaths".

    I will say that the number of deaths of cyclists in regular lanes seems to be very small, despite the prevalance of such roads and the numbers of cyclists on them.

    Klokow was the last one I can recall, and that arguably was an intersection death.

    But between intersections, deaths to sensory conspicuous cyclists (meaning daylight not blinded by the sun, or in the dark and cyclist is properly outfitted with lights) occur almost exclusively in bike lanes and shoulders, despite the wide prevalence of roads without bike lanes and shoulders, and the large numbers of cyclists who ride on them.
    How do you explain that? The naked analogy does not work, because there aren't large numbers of cyclists who cycle naked.

  3. #178
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Order
    HH, why is it that the inattentive drifting motorist always seems to drift right into a cyclist? I mean, there's a lot of road out there, and not so many cyclists, so one would assume that when an inattentive motorist drifts, they'd be more likely to drift into an empty bike lane. Now I know that happens too, but most cars hold their lane, and the number of collisions suggests that there's something more at work than random drifting meeting up with a wrong place, wrong time cyclist.
    I disagree. I think most cyclists ride near the stripe, and drift across the stripe is much more prevalent than most people realize.

    But if you're not looking for it, then, ironically, inattentional blindness is probably preventing you from noticing it.
    Start looking for it, and you'll be surprised at how often you'll notice it. I see it all the time.

  4. #179
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    I disagree. I think most cyclists ride near the stripe, and drift across the stripe is much more prevalent than most people realize.

    But if you're not looking for it, then, ironically, inattentional blindness is probably preventing you from noticing it.
    Start looking for it, and you'll be surprised at how often you'll notice it. I see it all the time.
    I agree that motorists drift within their lane, and will skirt the lane markings. That doesn't explain how a boy riding in the bike lane gets his backpack embedded in the grill of an SUV when he's hit square on. There's more at work there than just skirting the white line.

  5. #180
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Order
    I agree that motorists drift within their lane, and will skirt the lane markings. That doesn't explain how a boy riding in the bike lane gets his backpack embedded in the grill of an SUV when he's hit square on. There's more at work there than just skirting the white line.
    Why? If the boy was riding on or near the stripe, as cyclists often do, and the SUV drifted into the bike lane a foot or two, as motorists often do, the strike could easily have flung the boy to his left, closer to the center of the grill.

    In some places drift is more likely than in others. You can see this by how much painted stripe wear differs from place to place. In one place on my commute, about 20 feet of BL stripe has been completely worn away.

  6. #181
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,851
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Based on sbhikes's pictures in her "static lane positioning" thread, the boy was almost certainly riding right next to the line, otherwise he would have been biking through a LOT of sand. The motorist in that situation would not have had to drift very far at all to hit him.

  7. #182
    Senior Member John C. Ratliff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon
    My Bikes
    Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
    Posts
    1,910
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Order
    HH, why is it that the inattentive drifting motorist always seems to drift right into a cyclist? I mean, there's a lot of road out there, and not so many cyclists, so one would assume that when an inattentive motorist drifts, they'd be more likely to drift into an empty bike lane. Now I know that happens too, but most cars hold their lane, and the number of collisions suggests that there's something more at work than random drifting meeting up with a wrong place, wrong time cyclist.
    Why do cars always drift right; actually, they don't. In 1976 I was a paramedic for the Eugene-Springfield Ambulance, and was working out of the Springfield location when we got a Code 3 alarm on the McKenzie Highway.

    We went up as fast as we dared, but it took us almost 45 minutes to make it to the scene of the accident. There, we found a large American car had drifted over the center line, and hit a Volkswagen beetle head-on (two-lane road). In it, a mother and father were in their seats, dead. In the back, a two-year old was also dead. But a baby in a car seat survived. The driver of the large American car had been driving after working all night, fallen asleep, and drifted over the center line. He woke up after the crash, and was trapped in his car. We extricated him, and I plugged an IV into his arm, using an 18 gauge needle, and putting fluids into him quickly. We had to transport him and the newly-orphaned baby in the same ambulance.

    When we got to the hospital, the first thing the ER doc did was to pull out my IV. He looked at the needle, and said, "Oh, I thought that was a 21 gauge needle." (Other paramedics will get this one, and I'll let you figure it out.) It took him about 8 pokes in both arms to re-establish that IV line in his arm, and you know what...I didn't care. This @#$% guy had just killed three people, wiped out a family.

    Now, I'll tell you what. If a Volkswagen beetle in the lane failed to stop this guy, imagine thinking that a bicyclist would somehow be more conspicuous to this driver as he drifted off into oblivion. It could have been a Mac truck and the driver would not have seen it (actually, in my mind a log truck would have been preferable to the VW with a family; at least the driver would have been the one killed, and not the family).

    So if it seems at times that I've got something behind my discussion of this concept of DLLP that Helmet Head keeps bringing up, I do...several dead people that I've attended to.

    A couple of other points that have not come out in discussions.

    --If a road turns a bit to the left, then the bicyclist in a bike lane is right in front of the driver, and the person riding in the lane is somewhat outside the driver's view forward. In these circumstances, wouldn't the bicyclist in the bicycle lane be more visible to the driver, if we accept the DLLP hypothesis?

    --I think that I'll start a thread titled "Road Fatalities involving Bicycles," and use the same discussions used here to prove that roads kill bicyclists, and therefore we should work to remove roadways from our cities. I could post all the fatal accidents that happened on roads there, and we could discuss why that road killed the bicyclist. That way, we would reduce fatal accidents involving cars and bicycles, as the cars would not have anywhere to drive. Actually, I don't need to do that, as it is already obvious. So instead of removing bike lanes, lets simply push to remove roads from this country. If we did, we could keep about 40,000 people alive each year, as everyone knows that all these auto/truck/bicycle accidents happen on roads (or at least 99.95% of them)

    John
    Last edited by John C. Ratliff; 10-04-06 at 01:21 AM.
    John Ratliff

  8. #183
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    23,052
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    From the "Another Portland Fatality" thread:


    What if in some significant percentage of alcohol-related cycling deaths, the factor of the drunk driver not noticing the cyclist up ahead in the bike lane or shoulder was so significant, that use of DLLP in those collisions would have prevented the crash and fatality?
    What if a metor fell out of the sky and hit a cyclist in the bike lane...

  9. #184
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
    Why do cars always drift right; actually, they don't. In 1976 I was a paramedic for the Eugene-Springfield Ambulance, and was working out of the Springfield location when we got a Code 3 alarm on the McKenzie Highway.

    We went up as fast as we dared, but it took us almost 45 minutes to make it to the scene of the accident. There, we found a large American car had drifted over the center line, and hit a Volkswagen beetle head-on (two-lane road). In it, a mother and father were in their seats, dead. In the back, a two-year old was also dead. But a baby in a car seat survived. The driver of the large American car had been driving after working all night, fallen asleep, and drifted over the center line. He woke up after the crash, and was trapped in his car. We extricated him, and I plugged an IV into his arm, using an 18 gauge needle, and putting fluids into him quickly. We had to transport him and the newly-orphaned baby in the same ambulance.

    When we got to the hospital, the first thing the ER doc did was to pull out my IV. He looked at the needle, and said, "Oh, I thought that was a 21 gauge needle." (Other paramedics will get this one, and I'll let you figure it out.) It took him about 8 pokes in both arms to re-establish that IV line in his arm, and you know what...I didn't care. This @#$% guy had just killed three people, wiped out a family.

    Now, I'll tell you what. If a Volkswagen beetle in the lane failed to stop this guy, imagine thinking that a bicyclist would somehow be more conspicuous to this driver as he drifted off into oblivion. It could have been a Mac truck and the driver would not have seen it (actually, in my mind a log truck would have been preferable to the VW with a family; at least the driver would have been the one killed, and not the family).

    So if it seems at times that I've got something behind my discussion of this concept of DLLP that Helmet Head keeps bringing up, I do...several dead people that I've attended to.

    A couple of other points that have not come out in discussions.

    --If a road turns a bit to the left, then the bicyclist in a bike lane is right in front of the driver, and the person riding in the lane is somewhat outside the driver's view forward. In these circumstances, wouldn't the bicyclist in the bicycle lane be more visible to the driver, if we accept the DLLP hypothesis?

    --I think that I'll start a thread titled "Road Fatalities involving Bicycles," and use the same discussions used here to prove that roads kill bicyclists, and therefore we should work to remove roadways from our cities. I could post all the fatal accidents that happened on roads there, and we could discuss why that road killed the bicyclist. That way, we would reduce fatal accidents involving cars and bicycles, as the cars would not have anywhere to drive. Actually, I don't need to do that, as it is already obvious. So instead of removing bike lanes, lets simply push to remove roads from this country. If we did, we could keep about 40,000 people alive each year, as everyone knows that all these auto/truck/bicycle accidents happen on roads (or at least 99.95% of them)

    John
    • No one has suggested drivers always drift RIGHT; that they never drift left. That would be absurd, as is the bulk of your post that is based on the assumption that someone has suggested that.
    • If you accept and UNDERSTAND the DLLP hypothesis, then you would know that the hypothesis is based on the assumption that relevance depends on intended path (cognitive conspicuity) as well as line of sight (sensory cognitivity). Even on a slight left turn, the cyclist in the bike lane, while directly in the drivers line of sight, is still not in the driver's intended path, since the driver almost certainly intends on staying in the main traffic lane (if not encroaching into the oncoming lane), and not traveling in the adjacent bike lane, as he rounds the curve. So the cyclist is likely to be (not certainly) less relevant to the driver then he would be if he was further left. Having said that, since drivers tend to cut curves on the inside, a cyclist's risk to inadvertent drift on a left curve is probably even less than the already extremely low risk he is exposed to elsewhere.
    • If you need a study to prove that cyclists are more likely to die when riding on roads shared with cars than when riding on, say, mountain bike trails where they never encounter motor vehicles, you're in worse shape then I thought. If you think such a study would be analogous in any significant way to one that determines whether cyclists using SLLP (static lateral lane positioning) in bike lanes are more or less likely to get hit by same-direction traffic, then cyclists who use DLLP on the same roads, then you just don't get it. Anyway, the vast majority of roads in America do not have bike lanes, and yet most overtaking collisions of cyclists seem to be occuring to cyclists riding in bike lanes. Hmm...

  10. #185
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    What if in some significant percentage of alcohol-related cycling deaths, the factor of the drunk driver not noticing the cyclist up ahead in the bike lane or shoulder was so significant, that use of DLLP in those collisions would have prevented the crash and fatality?
    What if a metor fell out of the sky and hit a cyclist in the bike lane...
    That would be a tragedy. Are you suggesting that the random behavior of meteors is comparable to the behavior of drivers?

    Note: The order of the posts are all screwed up because the system is currently stamping new posts with the wrong date/time (it's 5 hours early).

  11. #186
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    From the "Another Portland Fatality" thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
    When you look at all alcohol-related fatal bicycle crashes, it can happen whether in, or out, of a bike lane.

    Ken Kifer was killed by a drunk coming from the opposite direction, on the opposite side of the road, when the driver swerved completely across the road to hit Ken. There was no bike lane, just a drunk driver who lost control of his vehicle.

    If we mistakenly attribute this, or any other, alcohol-related cycling death to a bike lane or some other unrelated reason, we will miss the point of cracking down on driving under the influence of drugs/alcohol, and others will pay the price.
    What if in some significant percentage of alcohol-related cycling deaths, the factor of the drunk driver not noticing the cyclist up ahead in the bike lane or shoulder was so significant, that use of DLLP in those collisions would have prevented the crash and fatality?
    Last edited by Helmet Head; 10-04-06 at 02:19 PM.

  12. #187
    Dominatrikes sbhikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Still in Santa Barbara
    My Bikes
    Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
    Posts
    4,920
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Some people naturally drift to the center. My boyfriend is one of them. It bothers (more like frightens) me to no end.
    ~Diane
    Recumbents: Lightning Thunderbolt, '06 Catrike Pocket. Upright: Trek Mountain Bike.
    8.5 mile commute. I like bike lanes.

  13. #188
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    From the "Another Portland Fatality" thread:


    What if in some significant percentage of alcohol-related cycling deaths, the factor of the drunk driver not noticing the cyclist up ahead in the bike lane or shoulder was so significant, that use of DLLP in those collisions would have prevented the crash and fatality?
    In other words, there's no difference between a drunk driver, and all other drivers, who, according to your theory, all fail to notice the cyclist up ahead in the bike lane?

    In other words, drunkeness is not a factor?

    What if that Nigerian money transfer deposits to my bank account tonight?

  14. #189
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Order
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    What if in some significant percentage of alcohol-related cycling deaths, the factor of the drunk driver not noticing the cyclist up ahead in the bike lane or shoulder was so significant, that use of DLLP in those collisions would have prevented the crash and fatality?
    In other words, there's no difference between a drunk driver, and all other drivers, who, according to your theory, all fail to notice the cyclist up ahead in the bike lane?

    In other words, drunkeness is not a factor?
    Not at all. The fact that overlooking the presence of a cyclist up ahead because he is in a bike lane CAN be a significant contributory factor in a crash whether the driver is sober or drunk does not mean drunkeness is not a factor.

    Does the fact that lights at night can help a cyclist be seen and not hit by drunk as well as sober drivers mean drunkeness is not a factor? Of course not.

    Time to sharpen your logic knife. It's a bit dull.

  15. #190
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Not at all. The fact that overlooking the presence of a cyclist up ahead because he is in a bike lane CAN be a significant contributory factor in a crash whether the driver is sober or drunk does not mean drunkeness is not a factor.
    If the driver is sober and doesn't notice the cyclist because of inattentional blindness, and another driver is drunk and doesn't notice the cyclist because of inattentional blindness, in what way is drunkeness a factor in not noticing the cyclist?

    Does the fact that lights at night can help a cyclist be seen and not hit by drunk as well as sober drivers mean drunkeness is not a factor? Of course not.
    Wow. You really think that's analogous? Because it's not. Not even close.

    Time to sharpen your logic knife. It's a bit dull.


    You're so lacking in logic I can't take anything you say seriously. And I'm not the only one, in case your inattentional blindness has caused you to miss that fact...

  16. #191
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Order
    If the driver is sober and doesn't notice the cyclist because of inattentional blindness, and another driver is drunk and doesn't notice the cyclist because of inattentional blindness, in what way is drunkeness a factor in not noticing the cyclist?
    Because the drunk driver is more prone to inattentional blindness.

    Wow. You really think that's analogous? Because it's not. Not even close.
    Of course it is. Because the drunk driver is more prone to overlooking the cyclist whether he has lights or not.

    You're so lacking in logic I can't take anything you say seriously. And I'm not the only one, in case your inattentional blindness has caused you to miss that fact...
    The only ones who have shown a consistent understanding of logic in A&S lately are Galen and JoeJack, and I'm not saying that merely because they happen to agree with me much of the time. They agree with me much of the time because they can think and analyze logically.

    Look at this sequence of posts between us. Your entire "argument" consists of empty assertions. No logic at all.

    You contended (rhetorically, without any logical explanation): drunkeness is not a factor.

    I explained (logically): Not at all. The fact that overlooking the presence of a cyclist up ahead because he is in a bike lane CAN be a significant contributory factor in a crash whether the driver is sober or drunk does not mean drunkeness is not a factor.

    You missed the point, and asserted (again rhetorically): "If the driver is sober and doesn't notice the cyclist because of inattentional blindness, and another driver is drunk and doesn't notice the cyclist because of inattentional blindness" [then drunkeness is not a factor in not noticing the cyclist].

    You're illogically and irrationally ignoring the role drunkenness plays in making someone more prone to not being attentive. And then you have the audacity to contend that I'm so lacking in logic that you can't take ME seriously?

  17. #192
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Tell you what, I have work to do. I'll let one of the other logic-impaired denizens of A&S (aka anybody who disagrees with you) have at you tonight.


  18. #193
    BF's Level 12 Wizard SingingSabre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    My Bikes
    Diamondback Sorrento turned Xtracycle commuter
    Posts
    1,425
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Because the drunk driver is more prone to inattentional blindness.
    No, a drunk driver isn't more prone to inattentional blindness...a drunk driver has a lack of depth perception, time, space, and judgement.

    Of course it is. Because the drunk driver is more prone to overlooking the cyclist whether he has lights or not.
    Actually, I learned in Driver's Ed years ago that drunk drivers tend to drift towards bright spots, but my teacher didn't have anything to back up that idea with.

    I'm more inclined to believe that a drunk driver is more likely to avoid a very bright thing than to go towards a very bright thing (i.e. mechBgone cycling ).

    The only ones who have shown a consistent understanding of logic in A&S lately are Galen and JoeJack, and I'm not saying that merely because they happen to agree with me much of the time. They agree with me much of the time because they can think and analyze logically.
    That has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Heck, a story I wrote in 2nd grade, while learning cursive, which was about a roadrunner eating a snake had more clout than what you just said.

    Look at this sequence of posts between us. Your entire "argument" consists of empty assertions. No logic at all.
    You = pot. Stop calling the kettle black. Especially when the kettle is a brightly lit and easily noticible entity off to the right side of the road.

    You contended (rhetorically, without any logical explanation): drunkeness is not a factor.

    I explained (logically): Not at all. The fact that overlooking the presence of a cyclist up ahead because he is in a bike lane CAN be a significant contributory factor in a crash whether the driver is sober or drunk does not mean drunkeness is not a factor.
    Speaking of missing the point...oh, I'll wait. Go on, please.

    You missed the point, and asserted (again rhetorically): "If the driver is sober and doesn't notice the cyclist because of inattentional blindness, and another driver is drunk and doesn't notice the cyclist because of inattentional blindness" [then drunkeness is not a factor in not noticing the cyclist].

    You're illogically and irrationally ignoring the role drunkenness plays in making someone more prone to not being attentive. And then you have the audacity to contend that I'm so lacking in logic that you can't take ME seriously?
    He was simply stating that inattentional blindness can happen to both drunk and sober drivers. Either way, a collision could kill ya.
    Shameless plug (my sites):
    Work
    Photography
    Vanity
    Quote Originally Posted by Bklyn
    Obviously, the guy's like a 12th level white wizard or something. His mere presence is a danger to mortals.

  19. #194
    Sumanitu taka owaci LittleBigMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    8,945
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    What if in some significant percentage of alcohol-related cycling deaths, the factor of the drunk driver not noticing the cyclist up ahead in the bike lane or shoulder was so significant, that use of DLLP in those collisions would have prevented the crash and fatality?
    I'm with you in spirit, HH, but I can't justify the use of any special cycling technique (or separated bike lane, for that matter) that could mitigate the danger imposed by drunk driving on cyclists.

    If you had some significant evidence to support your proposition that "DLLP" protects cyclists from drunk drivers (which I'm sure you can't at this stage, since as far as I am aware, "DLLP" is not widely adopted yet,) then we could talk.

    But HH, I honestly support your efforts to make cycling safer and admire your courage to be vocal about what you believe is right. I'm not trying to patronize you by saying that. I don't reject the merits of "DLLP" outright, I am just not fully convinced, yet.
    No worries

  20. #195
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SingingSabre
    He was simply stating that inattentional blindness can happen to both drunk and sober drivers. Either way, a collision could kill ya.
    Yes, inattentional blindness can happen to both drunk and sober drivers.

    But, because, as you say, drunk drivers have a lack of depth perception, time, space, and judgement, don't you think they are significantly more prone to inattentional blindness?

    In fact, I recently heard a couple talk about how in the old days whenever they were driving home from a party after drinking, he would request that she not talk to him, because he needed to especially minimize all distractions when driving drunk.

    The point is, a drunk driver is particularly likely to overlook a cyclist up ahead who is off to the side out of his path, and more likely to overlook such a cyclist than to overlook a cyclist up ahead in his intended path.

    Remember, even the vast majority of drunk drivers pay enough attention to where they are going to get home without incident.

    It's about likelihoods and improving odds, not absolutes.

  21. #196
    BF's Level 12 Wizard SingingSabre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    My Bikes
    Diamondback Sorrento turned Xtracycle commuter
    Posts
    1,425
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Yes, inattentional blindness can happen to both drunk and sober drivers.

    But, because, as you say, drunk drivers have a lack of depth perception, time, space, and judgement, don't you think they are significantly more prone to inattentional blindness?
    No one said they weren't.
    Shameless plug (my sites):
    Work
    Photography
    Vanity
    Quote Originally Posted by Bklyn
    Obviously, the guy's like a 12th level white wizard or something. His mere presence is a danger to mortals.

  22. #197
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SingingSabre
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    But, because, as you say, drunk drivers have a lack of depth perception, time, space, and judgement, don't you think they are significantly more prone to inattentional blindness?
    No one said they weren't.
    Then I misunderstood. What did you mean in #193 when you wrote:

    Quote Originally Posted by SingingSabre
    No, a drunk driver isn't more prone to inattentional blindness...
    I interpreted that to mean that you were saying drunk drivers are not more prone to inattentional blindness.

  23. #198
    BF's Level 12 Wizard SingingSabre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    My Bikes
    Diamondback Sorrento turned Xtracycle commuter
    Posts
    1,425
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Good job on removing context!

    Basically, I was stating that the drunk driver is just as prone to "inattentional blindness" (which, by the way, isn't a real term) the sober driver. What makes them more dangerous are slowed reflexes, lack of depth perception, lack of good judgement, etc.
    Shameless plug (my sites):
    Work
    Photography
    Vanity
    Quote Originally Posted by Bklyn
    Obviously, the guy's like a 12th level white wizard or something. His mere presence is a danger to mortals.

  24. #199
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SingingSabre
    Good job on removing context!
    Removing context? I'm just trying to understand what you're saying, despite the apparent contradictions.

    Basically, I was stating that the drunk driver is just as prone to "inattentional blindness" (which, by the way, isn't a real term) the sober driver. What makes them more dangerous are slowed reflexes, lack of depth perception, lack of good judgement, etc.
    Right. Inattentional blindness is not a real term and is not influenced by drinking alcohol. Is everyone just playing stupid today?


    Blind Drunk: The Effects of Alcohol on Inattentional Blindness

    SEEMA L. CLIFASEFI, MELANIE K. T. TAKARANGI and
    JONAH S. BERGMAN

    University of Washington, USA

    Victoria University of Wellington, NewZealand

    SUMMARY
    Alcohol consumption is a major contributor to road accidents. While it is likely that perceptual
    processing deficits contribute to poorer driving performance among intoxicated individuals, we know
    little about alcohol’s role in particular perceptual processes. For instance, we know that even sober
    individuals can fail to detect unexpected salient objects that appear in their visual fields, a
    phenomenon known as inattentional blindness (IB; Mack & Rock, 1998). We were interested in
    whether these visual errors become more or less likely when subjects are under the influence of
    alcohol or just think that they are drunk. We told half our subjects that they had received alcohol,
    and half that they had received a placebo. This information was either true or false. Intoxicated
    subjects (regardless of what they were told) were more likely to show ‘blindness’ to an unexpected
    object in their visual field.
    This finding has practical implications for human performance issues
    such as driving and eyewitness memory, and theoretical implications for visual cognition.
    Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


    http://http://www.arrivealive.co.za/...blinddrunk.pdf

  25. #200
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SingingSabre
    Basically, I was stating that the drunk driver is just as prone to "inattentional blindness" (which, by the way, isn't a real term) the sober driver.

    Alcohol

    Inattentional blindness more likely under influence of alcohol
    By Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology
    Jun 30, 2006, 13:06

    The study showed that subjects who were mildly intoxicated (at half the legal intoxication limit in the US) were heavily compromised in their ability to notice an unexpected visual object when they were focused on another simple task.

    The phenomenon, known as 'Inattentional blindness' – where unexpected, yet salient objects appear in the visual fields but fail to be detected while subjects are focused on another task– has been demonstrated under various conditions, but this is the first instance to show that these visual errors become even more likely under the influence of alcohol.

    The experiment involved giving subjects 10 minutes to consume beverages which, unbeknownst to them either contained alcohol or did not. The subjects then watched 25 seconds of a video clip showing two teams of three people playing with a ball and were instructed to count the ball passes. Part way through the video clip, an individual dressed in a gorilla suit appeared on the screen, walked directly through the players, beat its chest and then walked away.. Subjects who were mildly intoxicated were twice as likely to miss seeing the gorilla, even though it had screen time of over a third of the video.

    Although the research did not directly test driving aptitude, the implications for driving could be serious. "We rely on our ability to perceive a multitude of information when we drive (speed limit, road signs, other cars, etc.) If even a mild dose of alcohol compromises our ability to take in some of this information, in other words, limits our attention span, then it seems likely that our driving ability may also be compromised." Says study lead author Dr. Seema Clifasefi of the University of Washington.

    "If you've had one drink, you may be so focused on paying attention to your speed so as not to get pulled over, that you completely miss seeing the pedestrian that walks directly in front of your car."

    All rights reserved by www.rxpgnews.com

    http://www.rxpgnews.com/article_4592.shtml

Page 8 of 22 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •