Simon & Garfunkel wrote, "...a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

I suspect that when we see a car pull out in front of us, nearly hitting us, and the driver then sees us and is truly apologetic, that there is obviously something psychological, latent and unaddressed, at work here.

Can we go deeper into the psychology of motorists "not seeing" cyclists? It seems to me that this phenomenon needs to be examined, perhaps through deep hypnosis, to find out some of the underlying reasons why some drivers (too many drivers) somehow find it necessary to exclude cyclists from their consciousness.

Once we know the inner dynamics of this, we can set about creating public service messages that rectify the errant beliefs, emotions and thoughts that can cause a person in full-view, in broad daylight, to be "invisible" to some drivers.

This seems to me a valid study that colleges and universities could afford to conduct. Freud had a great deal to say on the "psychology of errors", and I'm sure that contemporary psychologists have sought to understand glaring and selective inconsistencies in people's observational skills. Perhaps expectation plays a role in it. There also might be a certain element of subconscious derision or apathy directed to us, as a group.

While I feel that hypnosis could be a major way of elucidating the inner dynamics of abnormal or harmful errors in either omission of commission, the methods need be chosen by the experts.

1.) Have any formal studies or published research ever taken-place that have dealt specifically with the phenomenon of motorists "not seeing" cyclists and 2.) Would it be promising to petition schools of psychology to initiate and conduct such research?

Read the book "Traffic" by Tom Vanderbilt.

I must be lucky -- this has never happened to me once in about 25,000 miles. And almost all my riding is on roads in Southern California. And none of the guys I ride with have ever mentioned having such a near miss. Maybe Southern California drivers are just accustomed to seeing cyclists since we have so many? Maybe if I was a bike commuter with a lot more miles and riding during rush hour, I might experience the problem?

It might be unpopular for me to suggest we cyclists take an interest and some personal responsibility in making sure we are seen, given that we disproportionately suffer the effects of collisions. But as long as we're talking about psychoanalyzing motorists, perhaps we could also hypnotize cyclists to understand why some self-identify as infants in the presence of motorists, who, in their role as adults bear sole responsibility for all transactions. We could also study cyclists to discover why some are so anxious to adopt the mantle of victimhood. But today's universities are probably the wrong place to conduct these studies given that pathetic victimhood is such valuable currency there. Too much competition with obese blue-haired viragos.

It may be an unwelcome digression, but might it be constructive to describe the techniques we can use to mitigate the risk of not being seen?

• Daytime flashing headlight - the brighter the better
• Don't hug the curb - get out into the field of view where motorists are already looking for cars
• Eye contact with waiting drivers -- why in the hell would you ride in front of a motorist that you are not positive has seen you? Jesus, you could get yourself killed.

It is very easy not to be seen, and that applies to everybody. I was almost in a collision (driving) when I didn't see a truck before starting to enter the road. Let's face it, a truck is pretty hard to miss, but I managed to do so as I turned my head to check in both directions.

Anyway there are all sorts of reasons drivers may not see bicyclists, starting with their not being "looking" for one. Add, poor sight lines, lack of contrast with the background, and seeing us, but not properly ranging our speed and distance.

You might enjoy this article which delves into other factors.

So, it's not a question of blame, or intentional or subconscious hatred of bicyclists, it's simply one of the realities we learn to deal with.

I had an aha moment when I rode across town with some garden tools. Suddenly, every motorist gave me abundant room when they passed, which was quite unusual on the route I took. It occurred to me that motorists really only mentally process those things that they perceive to be threats to them and a shovel, rake and hoe held high on the left side fall into that category. When my town bike was an upside-down bike (early version of what is known today as a tall bike) which put my cranks five feet off the ground and my arse seven feet up, I also got a lot of space.

Then again, I did have a woman pull up to a stop sign, actually stop, appear to look right at me as I approached along the top of the T (no stop sign for me), wait a couple of seconds and then pull out right in front of me. I was driving a seventy-five foot long big rig with double trailers full of tomatoes, so I was definitely a threat to her and her two children. (We somehow managed to not collide, but it was waaaay to close for comfort.)

I guess driving is just harder than most people like to admit. We will all make mistakes, but since we don't give it the effort required, we make a lot more than is acceptable to those of us with skin in the game.

Also, we learn to drive as adolescents, and bring those habits along for many years. Then, seemingly out of the blue, we're old, slow, hard of hearing and with poor vision but we still think we see everything and react like a champ. (If you do nothing else, arrange for a younger relative to tell you when it's time to stop driving and commit up front to stopping immediately.)

First off, your mileage ridden is trivial. Come back when you've got twenty times that and let us know how it went. Yes, you do need to ride during commute times and get out of your little bubble and ride in other places if you want to be taken seriously. There are lots of roads, go ride them before you make silly generalizations.

As far as the victim mind set you mention, when one is riding along obeying the law and a scofflaw breaks the law in such a way as to put one at risk of death or serious injury, one is actually a victim. It doesn't require any prior condition. Sometimes, one can take steps to mitigate things, but not always. Surely you remember the dear doctor in SoCal who nearly killed two riders with his brake check attack. There's not a lot one can do when someone is intent on harming you.

Oh, and do share how one can ever be certain every motorist has seen you (as in actually processed your existence in their brain). With all the tinted glass, glare and night riding (necessary up here where the sun sets before 4:00 PM much of the year, which you'll learn about when you get more experience), there's just no way I can see many drivers' faces. I also don't want to focus so intently on one threat that I miss the others. If I were to never proceed until I had unequivocal evidence that every motorist has seen me, I'd never get off my street.

This says it all. Yup, try getting out there when everbody is in a hurry to get somewhere and see just how invisible you become.

I suspect most "accidents" and near misses are the result of a combination of:

1. Passive-aggressive behavior.
2. A threat/no-threat attitude, rather than a "safety first" attitude.
3. The remarkable human capacity for self delusion.

I've never been able to convincingly lie to myself about anything (not to say I haven't lied -- but I always knew I was lying), so I was always skeptical of the assertions by psychologists that many humans are very capable of fooling themselves so convincingly that they actually believe obvious lies, even when confronted with the evidence.

Most of us have observed or experienced common examples of passive-aggressive behavior by other drivers, particularly when driving our own vehicles or riding as passengers:

1. We signal our intention to change lanes. There's plenty of room to do so if the driver behind us maintains his/her current speed. But as soon as we signal that driver speeds up to cut us off.
2. We're at a stop sign checking both ways for traffic that doesn't have a stop sign. We see an opening with a car approaching but 100 yards or more distance at a speed slow enough that we should be able to safely cross or turn. But that car speeds up when we enter the lane and forces a close call or near collision.

Pretty familiar, right?

Combine that passive-aggressive behavior with the threat/no-threat attitude. In other words, the driver regards all other road users -- motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians -- as competition, opponents and either threats to their person or property, or non-threats. A bicycle or pedestrian is a low threat. If they "accidentally" hit us or cause us to panic and crash or fall, the passive-aggressive driver justifies it as "not my fault, not my problem."

Rather than speeding up, they can choose to continue at their previous speed. But they don't. They could choose to change lanes -- something I occasionally encounter taking the rightmost lane on a three lane boulevard with little traffic and two clear middle and leftmost lanes -- but they don't. They'll roar up on my tail before passing at the last moment. They choose to force confrontations. And if anyone makes the slightest error in judgment, or something unforeseen occurs -- road debris, another driver pulling into traffic, a bird smashing into my face or the driver's windshield -- they've left no margin for error. It was unnecessary, but they chose a more aggressive stance.

These drivers often express overt road rage as well. I've ridden with more than a few, carpooling to work, etc. Never more than once, however. I won't continue riding with someone who can't control their tempers, or who drive aggressively.

All of that is pretty familiar to most of us. We've seen it, possibly even experienced some of it in ourselves at times, at least in bad moments.

Now, add to that the capacity for self-delusion. This is foreign to me, but apparently many people are capable of immediately rewiring their memories to believe anything they want.

So it's entirely plausible that a careless, reckless or hostile driver may provoke a near miss or collision and also be able to immediately create a new reality, embedded in memory, that enables them to actually believe they "didn't see us".

Whatever psychology may be involved, don't assume drivers can't see you. Assume they CAN see you and want to kill you. At least that's what I do.

Here is a test discussed in the book I mentioned:

I find this statement incredibility hard to believe. I cycle in Southern California as well and ride about 30-40 miles a day, all in City traffic. I am almost hit on a daily basis at least once, sometimes more. My bike is a very visible lime green and I wear several different variations of lime green / safety yellow and very visible cycling shirts.

So cal drivers are terrible! Texting, eating, distracted and road rage from waiting in traffic jams for hours. I have people routinely pass me on the right, in the bike lane!

Anyways, I find it rather hard to believe but if true then you and the people you spoke with must have incredible luck or ride with a lucky rabbits foot..

Motorists don't even see other motorists or even AmTrak/Freight trains. One motorist dies ever 13 minutes as a result of this. What chance do cyclists have?

Motorists most certainly do not see me because a couple of years ago I gave up recreational cycling thanks to the smartphone craze. Motorists not seeing me is actually a life saving good thing in my case. They are not seeing me because I am NOT THERE.

Motorists not seeing cyclists is a given and there are no foolproof solutions. Live with it, or take up tennis.

It is likely more has been written on the psychology of safety than there is time to read it all or even a small fraction. https://safetyrisk.net/understanding...sk-and-safety/

We are obviously having different experiences, and you have a lot more annual mileage on the bike than me. In my original post, I acknowledge I am not a bike commuter and may not be seeing the worst of it. On the other hand, I occasionally witness cyclists having close calls, and invariably these cyclists' actions are causing or contributing to their dangerous situations.

It sounds like you may be riding in the more congested areas of Los Angeles county? I'm riding in Long Beach and Orange County where the roads and drivers are very friendly to cyclists. I drive as a motorist about 25,000 miles per year and I do find Los Angeles County to be more frenetic. But, I almost never see road-rage compared to 20 years ago, when it was an epidemic.

I wish I could ride 30 to 40 miles per day in the course of my everyday life - you must be extremely fit and will probably live into your 90's assuming you don't get run over. I would suggest that if you are experiencing daily close calls, your current risk of accidental death is very high, and I'd be looking for ways to lower it. Expecting that the entire motoring public will somehow change their behavior to increase your safety is not an adaptive strategy.

How to lower risk? You mention that you are already wearing bright clothing. Don't know if this describes you, but I'm amazed at the number of cyclists who do not use mirrors and headlights - this strikes me as an abdication of personal responsibility. I mean, it's only their life they are risking, so why wouldn't they maximize their visibility and visual awareness?

If you are experiencing close calls daily, these have to fall into patterns (right hooks, left cross-overs, etc.) -- you are probably already doing this, but these are worth analyzing and understanding what, if any, your role could be in preventing/reducing them. Again, you may feel it is the responsibility of other people to ensure your safety, but it is your life we're talking about. You have a dog in this fight, and it's a one-dog fight.

Finally, and I'm telling you what you already know, but I'm surprised how many cyclists choose hairy routes. For example, I frequently see cyclists in Long Beach crossing over the 405 on the very congested Cherry Avenue, when the completely empty Walnut Avenue is only one block to the west. These guys are voluntarily increasing their level of risk and are just going to have more accidents and close calls over time. You may feel you cannot avoid congestion, but I'd say as a Waze user, I drive on a lot of empty streets in Los Angeles.

Here is the reality as I see it: every car in the United States is involved in a collision once every 8 years on average. Every one of these is potentially fatal to a cyclist. This is not going to significantly decrease as long as drivers are humans, angry postings to BikeForums notwithstanding. This is the environment in which we ride. Now, we can complain about it to no effect, or we can seek to better understand it and adjust our actions accordingly. I notice that 95% of BikeForum safety posts exonerate cyclist behavior and complain about motorist behavior, when (1) motorists don't read or care about BikeForums, and (2) motorists don't die when colliding with cyclists. I'd suggest there is room for the 5% opinion that is curious about what we as cyclists can actually do to increase our life expectancy. In other words, exercising our personal agency to improve our outcomes, an offensive concept to many, I know.

This is exactly why I gave up riding a motorcycle about 35 years ago, when I felt like everyone in a car was out to kill me or at least make me lay down my cycle.

I must say that I am staggered by the faith of cyclist who choose to ride in traffic on busy streets because they display a level of faith that many religious people don't have. They trust that every vehicle coming behind them, often traveling 35 mph or faster, will give them the 3 foot clearance that the law demands. They trust that all of those motor vehicles will actually see them and that they are not distracted by all sorts of things including talking on their cell phones and texting. For every passing vehicle that cyclist trust and faith is put to the test because any up-close and personal encounter between a motor vehicle and a person on a bike invariably ends up badly...for the cyclist. And don't forget that pick-up that is sure he is giving the cyclist enough space but forgets about that big mirror sticking way out to the right.
Yes, not many who claim to be religious put their faith to the test the way many cyclists do every day. Motorists have nothing to fear being surrounded by all that steel, with airbags and seat belts.
And if they hit a cyclist there's always that tried and true standby: "I never saw them!" Meanwhile, the cyclist, protected by their helmet, is about as vulnerable as a grape on the sidewalk, potential roadkill. So it's the cyclists that must go out each day and do battle with motor vehicles, risking their lives and safety. So who really are the brave ones?

I guess it depends on you define "almost".

If you count every time you might conceivably have been hit, or close passes where you weren't hit, or every time you've felt you needed to react to another person's action, then yes.

But I define "almost" hit as being a truly close call where a collision would have been the most likely result had I not had fast reflexes and reacted correctly. Those have happened, but they've been very rare. Rare enough for each one to stand out individually in memory.

Also, assuming a typical distribution curve of incidents based on "almostness", I suspect that it would be near impossible to have a high number of truly close calls without also having some actual collisions.

As they say, "close only counts in horseshoes". So using that analogy, I doubt you'll ever find anyone routinely scoring "leaners" who doesn't also score a decent number of ringers.

BTW- if you truly are having large numbers of close calls, you might want to revisit your riding habits because the numbers are working against you as it is.

I guess I have plenty of faith, but to be clear I don't expect every car to pass outside of 3' clearance. I only expect them to pass without hitting me, which is very different.

However I don't believe that my faith is that misplaced. Despite all the arguments to the contrary, drivers are damn good at avoiding crashes. Despite riding and driving actively for 50+ years, and what must be millions of encounters over tens of thousands of hours, I haven't seen that many accidents. Yes, I passed them afterwards, but can count on one hand the number I've actually witnessed or been involved in one, and none of those resulted in serious injury to anybody.

Yeah because it's always the cyclist fault...

Not what I said or implied. Just talking about the numbers and probabilities. If you have lots of close calls, odds are that eventually one of those will be too close.

I am not in control of what other driver do. I control myself, I follow the law and I ride safely. I've only had one accident in 20+ years of cycling of which the last 8 I've been retired and ride daily. The one accident I had, the driver hit me from behind with his extended truck mirror (distracted driver), knocking me down. My bike was then ran over by his trailer.

It easy to throw out blanket statements and blame the cyclist but the cyclist does not control drivers who buzz, left hook, pull out in front, are distracted, or fling door open from parked cars in front of them. In So Cal there is a lot of road ragers as well..

You keep feeling blamed, but I've not done so.

I simply spoke about odds, saying that if you have as many close calls as you say, then the numbers are against you.

This has nothing to do with blame, it's simply a numbers statement based on your implication that the streets are so dangerous. OTOH - maybe they're not so dangerous after all.

BTW - I have a friend with whom I rode for years. Like you, he started feeling that there were too many problem drivers on the road. Having decided that roads were unreasonably dangerous, he opted to quit while he was ahead. If and when, I start having enough close calls to agree with his opinion, I'll probably do likewise.

Not feeling blamed at all. I reacted to your false accusation / statement.
I, nor any other cyclist, can control drivers. They do what they want and we react to that action. In some instance, like when you are hit from behind, you might not even be able to react.

Blaming the cyclist or saying someone needs to adjust their riding habbits that you do not know and / or know the environment they cycle in, is wrong.

Someone cycling in a town of 5000 people will have far less instances than someone cycling in a metro area with populations in the millions.

Have it your way. But truly, not everything that I or others post is about you.

I'm out. Readers of this micro debate can look for where I blamed anyone, and draw their own conclusions about what was said.

Your post is very thought-provoking to me on a personal level, as it causes me to recall some painful lessons I have learned, and from which I have been forced (enabled?) to grow. Hopefully. (How do you avoid mistakes? Experience. How do you get experience? Mistakes)

First, as to the idea that you are personally immune to self-deception, were you to feel that way and it not be the case, could that be an example of self-deception? (Granted, there is a logical fallacy in this argument -- alcoholics deny they are alcoholics, tee-totaling Trump denies he's an alcoholic, but that doesn't mean he is an alcoholic). The reason why I challenge you on this is that I strongly felt I was immune to self-deception and I discovered a little late in life that I was most assuredly wrong. If you were willing to open your heart and mind to the possibility that you too could be human in this regard, you may find some enlightenment that could be of value in your future interactions. Google Jordan Peterson and Scott Adams for some excellent YouTubes that posit everybody is subject to self-deception to a lesser or greater extent.

What prompted me to respond to your post was your example of passive-aggressive behavior wherein motorists will cut you off in response to your turn signal. I used to frequently experience this up until a painful experience 22 years ago, after which I have never experienced it since. And I drive 25,000 to 30,000 miles per year in Southern California.

The painful event was a 4 car pile-up that I provoked due to my own passive-aggressive behavior. I was "in the right", and was asserting my right of way. The other driver, the object of my passive-aggression, was found 100% at fault. It was a textbook black and white case where he was 100% in the wrong and I was 100% in the right according to both the letter and spirit of the law. Everybody on the scene, including the CHP agreed. He had been driving like a prick, I showed him and he paid for it. Fortunately, no injuries (but my beautiful sedan that I had planned to log 1M miles on was totaled). So, while I could have felt a measure of retribution, I rather was consumed with guilt that the whole episode would never have occurred but for my vindictive and immature behavior. I vowed then I would always try to find my part in conflict and stop engaging in passive-aggressive behavior.

While I've not been perfect, life immediately changed for the better. Amazingly, from that day 22 years ago, I have never since had anyone intentionally cut me off in traffic. Not once. I still drive, merge, and use my signals as much as before. So either the entire driving world changed, or the way I interact with and affect it has changed.

Turns out, if you put on your signal and start to merge over as though you are entitled to the lane change, you will provoke an oppositional response in some drivers. I think they feel "owned" if they let you get away with it. If, however, you match speed to the gap, turn on your signal but stay in your lane making it clear you are not going to merge until it's OK with them, you appeal to their generosity. Rather than feeling taken advantage of, they feel empowered. Occasionally, I'll put on my signal, somebody will initially speed up to assert their ownership of the lane, and then back off to let me in when they realize I didn't try to jam into the space. It's like the voice in their head is saying, "stop being a dick and let the guy change lanes already". This might not work in New Jersey, but Californians are pretty courteous and great drivers. Until it rains.

Anyway, thanks for your post and for indulging me in such a verbose response!