Helmet Head

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.

Helmet Head

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?

genec

Perhaps a better question is would you accept the results of such a study if it were made, and did not show your assumptions to be true?

invisiblehand

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.

invisiblehand

I just noticed the "Mr. Fearful" ... you are a naughty, naughty man, PF!

Helmet Head

Of course I would accept the results of such a study. Why wouldn't I?

Helmet Head

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.

SSP

1. Cognitive dissonance.
   
2. The fact you've posted hundreds of thousands of words developing, refining, and defending your unproven theories.
   
3. Your history of zealotry.

invisiblehand

But then the driver would run over the simulated cyclist at a higher frequency. In other words, we could test different lateral placements, what the eyes physically notice, and the empirical results.

invisiblehand

But the evidence for or against many of these ideas is incomplete.

I-Like-To-Bike

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.

Allister

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.

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.

randya

like a puppet on a string

Helmet Head

(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?

Helmet Head

Proof?

Helmet Head

Do you feel better when you insult others?

That aside, I've driven safely without a single collision and very few close calls for hundreds of thousands of miles over 30 years.

What makes you think my "scanning of the road is less than exemplary"? You think a driver should give just as much priority to what is outside of his path as to what is directly in front in his path?

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.

SSP

1) Cognitive Dissonance is relevant, as it is "the filtering of information that conflicts with what you already believe, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce your beliefs."

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.

ghettocruiser

How does this fit in the with your "a cyclist is more attention-getting than a bus" sidebar?

Brian Ratliff

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.

genec

My wife, son, and I do this to each other when traveling... it is amazing what becomes relevant to whom.

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.

invisiblehand

I don't know enough regarding whether JF's data was fabricated; but I recall some of your detailed characterizations and would agree that at a minimum, there are issues to be resolved. However, there are other theories running around A&S that avoid the acerbic challenges that HH encounters. Then again, HH jumps into the "pool" more often then others.

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

Allister

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.

Allister

Better yet, ask them to mention each time they notice a cyclist as soon as they see them. Just how much later do they see them if they're in the bikelane?

Helmet Head

Good point. But I don't know if your test is any better.

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.

Helmet Head

What skews this test is the same thing that skews cycling enthusiasts (who are driving) from non-cyclist motorists. That is, people who are looking for bicyclists (because of the test, because they are cycling enthusiasts) have a different likelihood of noticing cyclists than are others.

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:

1. A green Accord - 10 points
2. A nun - 15 points.
3. A cow - 20 points
4. A tractor 10 points
5. A mailbox - 15 points
6. A female pedestrian or jogger - 20 points
7. A male pedestrian or jogger - 10 points
8. Any bicyclist - 1 point

In other words, a list of things that will keep them busy, and you still measure how soon they notice each (relatively unimportant) cyclist, and correlate that with whether they are in a bike lane, shoulder, margin of a wide lane, or in the driver's path. Huh. That might work.