Bike Lane deaths
#501
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Yes. I've noticed that I pay much more attention to what's going on in the "zone of maximum surveillance" (John Franklin, Cyclecraft) - my intended path up ahead in front of me - than I do elsewhere. As I normally intend on remaining between the stripes to my left and right, the zone of maximum surveillance is naturally defined by those stripes.
That's not to say that I pay NO attention to that which is outside of that zone, just that I give much more priority to that zone. Of course, at intersections the relevance of potential hazards coming from other directions gets high priority too. But parallel same-direction traffic in adjacent space separated by a guiding stripe is a relatively low priority in terms of where I pay attention.
That's not to say that I pay NO attention to that which is outside of that zone, just that I give much more priority to that zone. Of course, at intersections the relevance of potential hazards coming from other directions gets high priority too. But parallel same-direction traffic in adjacent space separated by a guiding stripe is a relatively low priority in terms of where I pay attention.
#502
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
So how does one demonstrate whether this is true or not?
If I'm further left, motorists will react earlier to my presence, often slowing down and moving over earlier compared to when I'm further right. I feel that this observed driver behavior justifies me riding further left in certain circumstances.
But all this doesn't necessarily mean that I am noticed sooner by being further left. It could be that cyclists in both positions are noticed at the same time, but the motorist seeing the cyclist further left instantly knows that he has to slow down or make a lateral movement, while the motorist seeing the cyclist further right has a little delay time because he's trying to figure out whether or not he should keep the same course.
If I'm further left, motorists will react earlier to my presence, often slowing down and moving over earlier compared to when I'm further right. I feel that this observed driver behavior justifies me riding further left in certain circumstances.
But all this doesn't necessarily mean that I am noticed sooner by being further left. It could be that cyclists in both positions are noticed at the same time, but the motorist seeing the cyclist further left instantly knows that he has to slow down or make a lateral movement, while the motorist seeing the cyclist further right has a little delay time because he's trying to figure out whether or not he should keep the same course.
One idea is with a study where randomly selected drivers are put in test vehicles with video cameras and audio recorders. They will be asked to drive a certain route and told to say "green car", "motorcycle", "bus", "taxi" and "bike" whenever they notice one of those. They will also be told that noticing a green car, motorcycle, bus or tax is worth 10 points, and noticing a bike is worth 1 point. This simulates driver distraction with relatively low priority given to noticing bikes. On the route will be bicyclists riding in various lane locations. Do this with enough drivers, and maybe a trend will be shown as to whether centered vs. right-biased cyclists are noticed more often and/or sooner.
The problem is how do you test whether a driver noticed a cyclist without requiring him to indicate somehow when he has noticed one, thus biasing him towards noticing bicyclists more than he would otherwise?
Maybe you could instruct them to look for people with red hair, and them have red headed bicyclists riding in various positions and see which if any is more likely to be noticed based on where they are riding. But even then because the driver is setup to look for people, he is less likely to consider a bicyclist irrelevant than he would otherwise.
Maybe sometime in the future we will be able to identify the part of the brain that becomes active in a given person when he notices a bicyclist with a portable brain scan machine that could be strapped to the heads of driver test subjects?
So you would calibrate the machine to a particular test subject in the lab, perhaps watching video. Or maybe it has to be calibrated on the road. Anyway, find out what happens when he sees a pretty girl, a Ferrari, a bicyclist, etc., then put him on the road on a route with bicyclists riding in various positions on the roadway. That way you never have to tell him we're looking for bicyclists. Any idea how far we are from technology like that?
#503
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
I don't know.
One idea is with a study where randomly selected drivers are put in test vehicles with video cameras and audio recorders. They will be asked to drive a certain route and told to say "green car", "motorcycle", "bus", "taxi" and "bike" whenever they notice one of those. They will also be told that noticing a green car, motorcycle, bus or tax is worth 10 points, and noticing a bike is worth 1 point. This simulates driver distraction with relatively low priority given to noticing bikes. On the route will be bicyclists riding in various lane locations. Do this with enough drivers, and maybe a trend will be shown as to whether centered vs. right-biased cyclists are noticed more often and/or sooner.
The problem is how do you test whether a driver noticed a cyclist without requiring him to indicate somehow when he has noticed one, thus biasing him towards noticing bicyclists more than he would otherwise?
Maybe you could instruct them to look for people with red hair, and them have red headed bicyclists riding in various positions and see which if any is more likely to be noticed based on where they are riding. But even then because the driver is setup to look for people, he is less likely to consider a bicyclist irrelevant than he would otherwise.
Maybe sometime in the future we will be able to identify the part of the brain that becomes active in a given person when he notices a bicyclist with a portable brain scan machine that could be strapped to the heads of driver test subjects?
So you would calibrate the machine to a particular test subject in the lab, perhaps watching video. Or maybe it has to be calibrated on the road. Anyway, find out what happens when he sees a pretty girl, a Ferrari, a bicyclist, etc., then put him on the road on a route with bicyclists riding in various positions on the roadway. That way you never have to tell him we're looking for bicyclists. Any idea how far we are from technology like that?
One idea is with a study where randomly selected drivers are put in test vehicles with video cameras and audio recorders. They will be asked to drive a certain route and told to say "green car", "motorcycle", "bus", "taxi" and "bike" whenever they notice one of those. They will also be told that noticing a green car, motorcycle, bus or tax is worth 10 points, and noticing a bike is worth 1 point. This simulates driver distraction with relatively low priority given to noticing bikes. On the route will be bicyclists riding in various lane locations. Do this with enough drivers, and maybe a trend will be shown as to whether centered vs. right-biased cyclists are noticed more often and/or sooner.
The problem is how do you test whether a driver noticed a cyclist without requiring him to indicate somehow when he has noticed one, thus biasing him towards noticing bicyclists more than he would otherwise?
Maybe you could instruct them to look for people with red hair, and them have red headed bicyclists riding in various positions and see which if any is more likely to be noticed based on where they are riding. But even then because the driver is setup to look for people, he is less likely to consider a bicyclist irrelevant than he would otherwise.
Maybe sometime in the future we will be able to identify the part of the brain that becomes active in a given person when he notices a bicyclist with a portable brain scan machine that could be strapped to the heads of driver test subjects?
So you would calibrate the machine to a particular test subject in the lab, perhaps watching video. Or maybe it has to be calibrated on the road. Anyway, find out what happens when he sees a pretty girl, a Ferrari, a bicyclist, etc., then put him on the road on a route with bicyclists riding in various positions on the roadway. That way you never have to tell him we're looking for bicyclists. Any idea how far we are from technology like that?
#504
Part-time epistemologist
I think that it is plausible. I conjecture that the way to test the hypothesis would be through simulations. While at the Census Bureau some colleagues worked on web design. They had a device that measures where eyes are tracking on the screen. I imagine that something similar could be done with an auto simulation.
__________________
A narrative on bicycle driving.
A narrative on bicycle driving.
#505
Part-time epistemologist
I just noticed the "Mr. Fearful" ... you are a naughty, naughty man, PF!
__________________
A narrative on bicycle driving.
A narrative on bicycle driving.
#506
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#507
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I think that it is plausible. I conjecture that the way to test the hypothesis would be through simulations. While at the Census Bureau some colleagues worked on web design. They had a device that measures where eyes are tracking on the screen. I imagine that something similar could be done with an auto simulation.
#508
Software for Cyclists
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Redding, California
Posts: 4,618
Bikes: Trek 5200, Specialized MTB
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#509
Part-time epistemologist
Good idea except inattentional blindness is all about not noticing things that are plainly within one's field of view - the individual may be looking right at it and still not notice it (because, perhaps, his subconscious consider it to be irrelevant to him - not worthy of bringing to the attention of his conscious mind). This is because the "blindness" occurs in the cognitive processing, not in the sensoral processing.
__________________
A narrative on bicycle driving.
A narrative on bicycle driving.
#510
Part-time epistemologist
But the evidence for or against many of these ideas is incomplete.
__________________
A narrative on bicycle driving.
A narrative on bicycle driving.
#511
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,973
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
Incomplete? Don't you mean the evidence for HH's theories/"ideas" is non-existent and/or fabricated from the whole cloth of HH's imagination? There is no need for anyone to produce evidence disproving HH's fanciful theories; the burden of producing credible evidence is his alone in order to support his claims of the safety benefits of his unique lane swerving theories.
#512
Devilmaycare Cycling Fool
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wynnum, Australia
Posts: 3,819
Bikes: 1998 Cannondale F700
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Yes. I've noticed that I pay much more attention to what's going on in the "zone of maximum surveillance" (John Franklin, Cyclecraft) - my intended path up ahead in front of me - than I do elsewhere. As I normally intend on remaining between the stripes to my left and right, the zone of maximum surveillance is naturally defined by those stripes.
That's not to say that I pay NO attention to that which is outside of that zone, just that I give much more priority to that zone. Of course, at intersections the relevance of potential hazards coming from other directions gets high priority too. But parallel same-direction traffic in adjacent space separated by a guiding stripe is a relatively low priority in terms of where I pay attention.
That's not to say that I pay NO attention to that which is outside of that zone, just that I give much more priority to that zone. Of course, at intersections the relevance of potential hazards coming from other directions gets high priority too. But parallel same-direction traffic in adjacent space separated by a guiding stripe is a relatively low priority in terms of where I pay attention.
So, granted that your scanning of the road is less than exemplary, do you still manage to see cyclists in the bikelane and pass them safely, or do you inadvertantly drift into them?
And you of all people should know better than to let mere paint dictate where you should look or drive.
Last edited by Allister; 09-26-07 at 11:48 PM.
#514
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Yeah, so I'm zealous about the idea of discovering, developing, refining and advocating cyclist best practices that avoid crashes and save cyclist lives. So what?
#515
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#516
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Yes. I've noticed that I pay much more attention to what's going on in the "zone of maximum surveillance" (John Franklin, Cyclecraft) - my intended path up ahead in front of me - than I do elsewhere. As I normally intend on remaining between the stripes to my left and right, the zone of maximum surveillance is naturally defined by those stripes.
That's not to say that I pay NO attention to that which is outside of that zone, just that I give much more priority to that zone. Of course, at intersections the relevance of potential hazards coming from other directions gets high priority too. But parallel same-direction traffic in adjacent space separated by a guiding stripe is a relatively low priority in terms of where I pay attention.
That's not to say that I pay NO attention to that which is outside of that zone, just that I give much more priority to that zone. Of course, at intersections the relevance of potential hazards coming from other directions gets high priority too. But parallel same-direction traffic in adjacent space separated by a guiding stripe is a relatively low priority in terms of where I pay attention.
At least you admit you're a sh1tty driver. I guess that's where your paranoia about other drivers doing the same thing comes from.
That aside, I've driven safely without a single collision and very few close calls for hundreds of thousands of miles over 30 years.
So, granted that your scanning of the road is less than exemplary, do you still manage to see cyclists in the bikelane and pass them safely, or do you inadvertently drift into them?
And you of all people should know better than to let mere paint dictate where you should look or drive.
And you of all people should know better than to let mere paint dictate where you should look or drive.
As far as I know I manage to notice all cyclists in bike lanes. But, then, if I didn't notice one I wouldn't know that I didn't notice him.
When I'm a passenger in a car I do like to ask the driver when was the last time he noticed any cyclists seconds after we pass one. You should try it some time, then you might know where I'm coming from.
#517
Software for Cyclists
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Redding, California
Posts: 4,618
Bikes: Trek 5200, Specialized MTB
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
(1) and (2) contradict each other, (2) supports the idea that I would accept the results of such a study and refine my theories accordingly, and (3) is irrelevant.
Yeah, so I'm zealous about the idea of discovering, developing, refining and advocating cyclist best practices that avoid crashes and save cyclist lives. So what?
Yeah, so I'm zealous about the idea of discovering, developing, refining and advocating cyclist best practices that avoid crashes and save cyclist lives. So what?
2) With the amount of time you've spent attempting to promulgate your theory, you have a psychological "vested interest" in it, to the exclusion of all others. For example, your theories have been skewered by noted authorities in this field, and yet you persist in promulgating them despite any evidence as to their efficacy or necessity.
3) Is relevant - zealots typically ignore contradictory evidence. It's one of the hallmarks of zealotry.
Last edited by SSP; 09-27-07 at 09:28 AM.
#519
Senior Member
A better experiment would be to ask said driver a second before passing the cyclist about said cyclist. This would indicate whether the information is in the driver's brain at a time when it is relevent.
For instance, if you asked me about blue Honda Accords 4 seconds after I just passed one going the other direction, I couldn't tell you if I had passed one or not. If you asked 2 seconds before I passed it, I could tell you. Similarly, if you asked me whether I passed a cyclist 4 seconds after the fact, even being a cyclist I couldn't say whether that notice would be stored in my brain. It's simply not relevent information anymore, and there is a constant stream of relevent information coming at me to contend with. Moreover, if I did keep the information in my brain, it is not because of anything to do with the passing event, it would be because I have a special interest in cycling and something about the cyclist caught my eye for asthetic reasons.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
#520
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
This "experiment" is of little relevence. Information doesn't need to be stored in the brain after the fact for the brain to recognize and adjust to a sensory object. The information of a cyclist (or car, or anything else) is relevent to the driver only in the seconds leading up to and during a passing action. As soon as the passing action is completed, the information can be discarded with no consequence to the driver. This is how humans filter their sensory experience and avoid information overload.
A better experiment would be to ask said driver a second before passing the cyclist about said cyclist. This would indicate whether the information is in the driver's brain at a time when it is relevent.
For instance, if you asked me about blue Honda Accords 4 seconds after I just passed one going the other direction, I couldn't tell you if I had passed one or not. If you asked 2 seconds before I passed it, I could tell you. Similarly, if you asked me whether I passed a cyclist 4 seconds after the fact, even being a cyclist I couldn't say whether that notice would be stored in my brain. It's simply not relevent information anymore, and there is a constant stream of relevent information coming at me to contend with. Moreover, if I did keep the information in my brain, it is not because of anything to do with the passing event, it would be because I have a special interest in cycling and something about the cyclist caught my eye for asthetic reasons.
A better experiment would be to ask said driver a second before passing the cyclist about said cyclist. This would indicate whether the information is in the driver's brain at a time when it is relevent.
For instance, if you asked me about blue Honda Accords 4 seconds after I just passed one going the other direction, I couldn't tell you if I had passed one or not. If you asked 2 seconds before I passed it, I could tell you. Similarly, if you asked me whether I passed a cyclist 4 seconds after the fact, even being a cyclist I couldn't say whether that notice would be stored in my brain. It's simply not relevent information anymore, and there is a constant stream of relevent information coming at me to contend with. Moreover, if I did keep the information in my brain, it is not because of anything to do with the passing event, it would be because I have a special interest in cycling and something about the cyclist caught my eye for asthetic reasons.
For instance, while I might recall a blue bicycle, my wife might remember "that awful shirt." My son on the other hand may notice the "cool backpack." So while each one of us may remember seeing someone, and being aware of them, indeed their relevance is unique to the individual.
#521
Part-time epistemologist
Incomplete? Don't you mean the evidence for HH's theories/"ideas" is non-existent and/or fabricated from the whole cloth of HH's imagination? There is no need for anyone to produce evidence disproving HH's fanciful theories; the burden of producing credible evidence is his alone in order to support his claims of the safety benefits of his unique lane swerving theories.
In the context of whether HH would accept or reject definitive proof that rejects his priors on cycling, I don't think that one can use HH's prior actions as a strong indicator since any evidence presented so far for many of the hot button topics has been pretty weak and subject to a high degree of interpretation. We should expect a good deal of resistance from people already taking the extreme positions.
Anyway, whenever this mythical definitive proof shows up, we can all observe how people react.
-G
__________________
A narrative on bicycle driving.
A narrative on bicycle driving.
#522
Devilmaycare Cycling Fool
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wynnum, Australia
Posts: 3,819
Bikes: 1998 Cannondale F700
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
A little.
Way to go, champ. Have a cookie.
Is that a trick question? If there's a chance things could come from outside that path and cross it, of course they should. What you describe doing is called 'tunnel vision'. Look it up.
I figure if you run into one, you're gonna notice them eventually (although anything's possible), and that's the danger you are oh so concerned about. The point is, how soon do you notice them? If you do somehow manage to pass them safely despite not actually noticing them, I don't really see a problem.
You seem to take every opportunity to tell us what 'most drivers' or 'most cyclists' do. Why not just tell us what you do, and we can learn by your fine example.
So tell us, in your considerable driving experience, how do you respond to cyclists on the bikelane?
If, as you say, you aren't an atypically skilled driver, is it so unreasonable to expect a similar response from others?
What do you observe other drivers actually doing? Don't bore us with more drivel about what some book tells you they're thinking, tell us what you actually see.
The only other people I get in cars with are also cyclists, so probably not your ideal sample. Why don't you just tell us what they said, and save us all a bit of time.
You seem to take every opportunity to tell us what 'most drivers' or 'most cyclists' do. Why not just tell us what you do, and we can learn by your fine example.
So tell us, in your considerable driving experience, how do you respond to cyclists on the bikelane?
If, as you say, you aren't an atypically skilled driver, is it so unreasonable to expect a similar response from others?
What do you observe other drivers actually doing? Don't bore us with more drivel about what some book tells you they're thinking, tell us what you actually see.
The only other people I get in cars with are also cyclists, so probably not your ideal sample. Why don't you just tell us what they said, and save us all a bit of time.
Last edited by Allister; 09-27-07 at 06:18 PM.
#523
Devilmaycare Cycling Fool
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wynnum, Australia
Posts: 3,819
Bikes: 1998 Cannondale F700
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#524
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This "experiment" is of little relevence. Information doesn't need to be stored in the brain after the fact for the brain to recognize and adjust to a sensory object. The information of a cyclist (or car, or anything else) is relevent to the driver only in the seconds leading up to and during a passing action. As soon as the passing action is completed, the information can be discarded with no consequence to the driver. This is how humans filter their sensory experience and avoid information overload.
A better experiment would be to ask said driver a second before passing the cyclist about said cyclist. This would indicate whether the information is in the driver's brain at a time when it is relevent.
For instance, if you asked me about blue Honda Accords 4 seconds after I just passed one going the other direction, I couldn't tell you if I had passed one or not. If you asked 2 seconds before I passed it, I could tell you. Similarly, if you asked me whether I passed a cyclist 4 seconds after the fact, even being a cyclist I couldn't say whether that notice would be stored in my brain. It's simply not relevent information anymore, and there is a constant stream of relevent information coming at me to contend with. Moreover, if I did keep the information in my brain, it is not because of anything to do with the passing event, it would be because I have a special interest in cycling and something about the cyclist caught my eye for asthetic reasons.
A better experiment would be to ask said driver a second before passing the cyclist about said cyclist. This would indicate whether the information is in the driver's brain at a time when it is relevent.
For instance, if you asked me about blue Honda Accords 4 seconds after I just passed one going the other direction, I couldn't tell you if I had passed one or not. If you asked 2 seconds before I passed it, I could tell you. Similarly, if you asked me whether I passed a cyclist 4 seconds after the fact, even being a cyclist I couldn't say whether that notice would be stored in my brain. It's simply not relevent information anymore, and there is a constant stream of relevent information coming at me to contend with. Moreover, if I did keep the information in my brain, it is not because of anything to do with the passing event, it would be because I have a special interest in cycling and something about the cyclist caught my eye for asthetic reasons.
After all, just asking the question brings attention to whatever you're asking about, and makes it relevant.
Being able to answer such a question doesn't really tell us where that cyclist was in the driver's awareness, especially with respect to whether he was sufficiently aware of his presence to inhibit him from choosing to attend to a distraction until after he passed him.
#525
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
But maybe if you get them to look for other things too, and make the cyclist's a relatively low priority, it would work.
For example, consider giving them points as follows depending on what they notice:
- A green Accord - 10 points
- A nun - 15 points.
- A cow - 20 points
- A tractor 10 points
- A mailbox - 15 points
- A female pedestrian or jogger - 20 points
- A male pedestrian or jogger - 10 points
- Any bicyclist - 1 point