
Lethal memory fail: Why drivers see, and then forget motorcyclists - pseudolus
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/sep-28-2019-plastic-tea-bag-particles-venus-was-habitable-driver-memory-fail-and-more-1.5298362/lethal-memory-fail-why-drivers-see-and-then-forget-motorcyclists-1.5298381
======
taneq
As a motorcyclist and defensive driver I find these kind of articles worrying,
because they imply that riders are rolling around trusting other people not to
hit them.

The first rule of motorcycling, that you accept when you swing your leg over a
bike, is that no matter whose _fault_ any collision might be, it is _your
responsibility_ and yours alone to anticipate and avoid all such incidents.

"But he pulled out in front of me" is never a valid excuse for hitting a car.
You should have seen them. You should have slowed to a speed where you could
evade or stop in time. You should have anticipated their dumbassery and
accounted for it.

If you're not willing to accept responsibility for your own wellbeing you
should not be on a bike, full stop.

~~~
falcolas
It’s interesting to me: As a fellow motorcyclist, I agree with your philosophy
wholeheartedly. But most bicyclists (who are arguably at more risk from a
car/truck than a motorcyclist) disagree with this just as wholeheartedly.

I seriously wonder why this dichotomy exists, especially as bicycles are
gaining electric motors capable of propelling them at higher and higher
speeds.

~~~
lkbm
As a cyclist, I believe that the driver should be held to the higher standard,
but also that I can never trust them to live up to their responsibility, so I
gotta be ready to stop and/or dodge any reckless maneuver they make.

We tend to conflate the moral judgement of responsibility/fault with the
actual reality of responsibility. If you're driving a deadly vehicle, the
moral burden is on you not to kill me, but I still carries the practical
burden of not getting killed.

Obviously, if I'm super reckless on my bicycle, I could still be killed by a
responsible, blameless driver, but if we're equally careless, I would say I
was behaving in a practically irresponsible manner and the driver a morally
irresponsible manner. I was stupid, they were negligent.

(I rode a motorcycle occasioanlly for a while, but not enough to get to where
I felt other cars were a bigger threat to me than my own inexperience was. "I
could die taking this corner.")

~~~
falcolas
> held to the higher standard

This I disagree with. For better or worse, we are typically the ones who are
riding on roads designed and built for them. We need to be held to the same
standards, if not higher standards as motorcyclists and bicyclists, as we're
intentionally playing in their turf, without their safety equipment.

If a bicyclist is careless, they are both stupid and negligent. If a car
driver is careless, they are both stupid and negligent. The difference is that
being careless on a bike of any type is more dangerous to you than being
careless in a car, meaning that a biker _can 't afford to be careless_ if they
want to go home at night.

~~~
godelski
>> held to the higher standard

> This I disagree with.

Well the law and society disagree with you. The type of reasoning is very
ubiquitous too. The more dangerous thing you are operating the more
responsibility you have. We generally have morals that align to it being worse
to take someone else's life than your own, though we don't encourage either. A
car can do much more damage to others than a motorcycle can. A motorcycle can
do more damage than a bicyclist can. A bicyclist can do more damage than a
pedestrian. It isn't surprising that the right of way follows the inverse of
this; those that are most vulnerable have a higher right of way.

I think you are also conflating two different things. Legally and socially we
consider the car to be held to a higher standard because it is more dangerous.
Practically when I'm on a bike I have to be more vigilant because I'm more
vulnerable and I value my life. But when we say that someone should be held to
a higher standard we can take an inverse to check our understanding.
Disagreeing that cars should be held to a higher standard is equivalent to
saying "cars should be held to less (or equal) standards as bicyclists", which
I think sounds kinda absurd.

> The difference is that being careless on a bike of any type is more
> dangerous to you than being careless in a car

And I think this demonstrates that confusion. The bike is not more dangerous,
the car is. There is more danger involved when riding a bike, but the car is
definitely more dangerous. There is no way you can argue that a bike can do
more damage than a car can. The car is more dangerous, therefore it has more
responsibility. But that doesn't mean you should trust them to be responsible.
Different things.

~~~
falcolas
First, I'm in no way advocating for taking responsibility away from car
drivers. I'm saying that _it doesn 't matter_ when there is an incident
between a bike and a car.

At the end of the day, the only person you can depend upon to keep yourself
safe is you. You can hope everyone else is doing what they can to avoid
injuring you, but the most you can do is hope. The responsibility for
remaining safe ultimately falls to you (regardless of your mode of
transportation - there's always a bigger vehicle).

We can argue legal and moral responsibility until we're blue in the face, but
at the end of the day it won't make a dead cyclist any less dead.

The motorcyclist idiom "The car always has the right of weight." is spread
about for a reason.

------
fouc
> "If you're at a junction and you see a motorcyclist coming, just say
> 'bike,'" he said. "That puts it into an extra form of verbal short-term
> memory and you know you'll still remember it's there seconds later."

It's really nice they can come up with a simple rule to sidestep the issue
with our short term memory or attention glitching out like that.

~~~
FigmentEngine
like shisa kanko or "pointing and calling"
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing_and_calling](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing_and_calling)

~~~
CaptainZapp
When i saw that for the first time (in a tram in Nagasaki, as I recall) I
first thought the driver is a few fries short of a happy meal. It looks so
weird to Western eyes.

Then later reading up about it it actually makes a lot of sense.

Some more material to read up on it:

[https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/pointing-and-
calling-j...](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/pointing-and-calling-
japan-trains)

~~~
gowld
No need for the irrelevant racism. Safety procedures aren't an inherent part
of Eastern cultures.

Some US transit agencies do the same point and call.

~~~
CaptainZapp
Where on earth do you detect the slightest hint of racism in my comment?
Implied or otherwise?

I'm genuinly curious, since bewilderment about cultural differences certainly
does not a racist make.

------
upofadown
>But he also found that participants were much more likely to miss the
motorcyclist than the car driver.

Drivers have to sort threats in terms of risk. Cycles, motorized or not, are
simply not as much of a threat as cars/trucks. So it makes sense that they
would fall off the bottom first. Cars are dangerous to things that are less
dangerous than cars and it is inherent I think. At some point we are going to
have to stop blaming the driver for stuff like this and place the blame
directly on the use of cars. The only real mistake a driver makes is to decide
to drive somewhere in the first place.

~~~
ebg13
> _Drivers have to sort threats in terms of risk...At some point we are going
> to have to stop blaming the driver for stuff like this_

Missing from your response is that there are both risks FROM and risks TO. We
absolutely need to blame dangerous drivers for failing to prioritize the
second category.

~~~
FussyZeus
I mean, it's their fault to be sure, but can you blame them? Drivers have had
nearly a century of society bending over backwards to suit them. We rewrote
pedestrian law to give cars the right of way in all but a few select spots. We
built a highway system and cut neighborhoods square in half to make road
travel easier.

Driving has become far too casual, too "just a thing you do." People don't
respect it anymore. I'm a car guy and I see it every day, people rolling
around in cheap, crappy cars who have no respect and no interest in driving;
driving is the thing they have to do to get to the thing they actually
want/need to do. That's it to them. Because of that they see it as something
that needs to be tolerated, an accepted nuisance, and because of _that_ , they
purposely distract themselves, try and pass the time. Make this boring,
arduous task go quicker so they can get their shit done and move on to more
interesting things.

It doesn't matter how good you are or not behind the wheel; if you just don't
care, you're a fucking danger to everyone around you. That's something not
nearly enough people appreciate anymore.

Edit: Tucking fypo.

~~~
gowld
It's wrong to conflate conspicuous consumption with quality. Expensive cars
are usually bigger and more dangerous. It's also wrong to conflate cars and
driving. Loving cars doesn't make you a safer driver, and may well be the
opposite, since it focuses your attention on your vehicle and not the social
interaction of driving.

~~~
FussyZeus
Maybe it's just my experience, but near every time I see someone pull a
boneheaded move, it's a Kia, or a Nissan, or a Hyundai. I'm not saying buying
an expensive car means you drive better, there's no link there, but what I
will say there is drivers of expensive cars are often more aggressive,
occasionally to a dangerous degree, but honestly? I'm relatively okay with
that, because they'll cut you off in traffic but then they race off and that's
that. Meanwhile somebody in a shitty Kia SUV is doing the speed limit in the
left lane and holding up 4 miles of traffic. _shrug_

Maybe it's a socio-economic thing. Maybe they're stressed out from working
low-paying jobs. I dunno. This is my experience and I know it isn't scientific
data.

And to be clear, when I say I'm a car guy, what I mean is I enjoy both cars
and the act of driving. Not to toot my own horn here but I'm going on 12 years
of driving with nothing beyond a speeding ticket.

Edit: As an aside, I don't drive a particularly expensive car either so I'm
not snobbing here. Most of the time I'm in my F-150 which is a little posh I
suppose but hardly the most expensive thing on the road most of the time.

~~~
ebg13
> _I 'm not saying buying an expensive car means you drive better, there's no
> link there, but what I will say there is drivers of expensive cars are often
> more aggressive, occasionally to a dangerous degree, but honestly? I'm
> relatively okay with that, because they'll cut you off in traffic but then
> they race off and that's that. Meanwhile somebody in a shitty Kia SUV is
> doing the speed limit in the left lane and holding up 4 miles of traffic._

What you just said is that you're OK with reckless endangerment and not OK
with inconvenience. I would ask you to please reconsider your feelings here.

~~~
FussyZeus
Slow people cause traffic jams, which in turn cause accidents. I've read
multiple papers and articles about how slow left-lane travel causes safety
hazards for everyone involved due to passing on the right, which is
objectively less safe, causing more lane changes than is otherwise necessary
for those trying to get around them, and the big one, causing deviations in
the "norm" speed in a flow of traffic, which is the single best indicator for
where accidents will occur.

I'd be happier still if we could not have people who go too slow or too fast,
but failing that and given the choice between, if fast people are left to
their business to cruise at whatever speed in the left lane, unobstructed by
slow drivers, everyone is demonstrably safer. But because people conflate
moving slowly with moving safely, it's considered taboo to say that out loud.

~~~
ebg13
> _I 've read multiple papers and articles about how slow left-lane travel
> causes safety hazards for everyone involved due to passing on the right_

This is a false dichotomy. There is in fact a third, safer alternative when
driving already at the speed limit, which is not passing at all. Again you've
chosen to prioritize convenience (speeding) over safety.

~~~
FussyZeus
Speeding is not inherently unsafe. There are numerous places all over the
world and even a few in the US where there are no enforced speed limits. When
there isn't one, people tend to drive at a speed they're comfortable driving
at. Your judgement on the safety of that speed is irrelevant to knowing how
safe it is.

~~~
bryanlarsen
> Speeding is not inherently unsafe.

It very much is unsafe.

In some studies they find that speeding does not cause more accidents.

But speeding is still unsafe because speeding makes the accidents that do
happen much more likely to be fatal.

~~~
FussyZeus
Source?

~~~
bryanlarsen
Here's one: [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/highway-417-speed-
incr...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/highway-417-speed-increase-
could-mean-more-dangerous-crashes-1.5302491)

------
k_
I had an accident two months ago where something similar happened:

I was waiting on my bike for an opening at a roundabout (rotary for US?) and
the car behind me who saw me (he later confirmed it) started looking for a
good timing to drive into the roundabout too and forgot about me.

He then started accelerating to drive into the roundabout just behind another
car while I was still right in front of him. He completely destroyed my bike
(which fell under me so I could walk aside and be safe) without noticing
anything.

So.. yeah, the "see bike, say bike" rule seem nice and not a big deal. Please
consider trying it :)

------
chrisweekly
As a motorcyclist -- and lifelong learner w/ a degree in cognitive psychology
-- I really appreciate demonstrations like this one^1 from Daniel Simons. It's
a short video (< 90s), but for many first-time viewers, it's an eye-opening
experience.

^1. [https://youtu.be/vJG698U2Mvo](https://youtu.be/vJG698U2Mvo)

Edit: just saw @elosarv's link to a longer but more relevant "motorcycle
invisibility training" video
([https://youtu.be/x94PGgYKHQ0](https://youtu.be/x94PGgYKHQ0)

------
scarface74
My first thought was that the motorcyclist in the picture almost deserves to
be hit for driving illegally and dangerously between two cars - ie lane
splitting.

But from the comments, it does seem to be legal some places. But, in all other
states in the US besides CA, it is explicitly illegal. It still seems unsafe
even it is legal.

~~~
i_am_proteus
Lane splitting is safe (safer than _not_ lane splitting, in congestion)
provided the motorcycle doesn't go too much (ca. 15 mph) faster than traffic.

[https://news.berkeley.edu/2015/05/29/motorcycle-
lanesplittin...](https://news.berkeley.edu/2015/05/29/motorcycle-
lanesplitting-report/)

~~~
tbyehl
> safer than _not_ lane splitting

The study itself explicitly states that they don't have the data to reach any
conclusions about the relative safety of splitting vs not.

What the study shows is that riders who were lane-splitting at the time of an
accident sustain fewer injuries than those who weren't. It mentions some
differences between the two groups -- lane-splitters are more likely to be
commuting and have better safety gear -- but glosses over how that impacts the
injury rates.

I don't have another study to cite but _motorcyclists who commute are likely a
much less injured group than recreational riders._ For a host of reasons, from
not engaging in as much risky behavior -- who wants to die on the way to work?
-- to being more skilled on average due to experience.

~~~
i_am_proteus
In my experience, lane splitting is _much_ safer. It has saved me from violent
rear-end collisions on several occasions.

I'll also go as far as to say that commuting is certainly more dangerous than
most recreational riding (the exception being recreational riding when the
drunks are out, e.g. midnight on the weekend) due to traffic density. The
text-and-drive crowd is also more active (both on their phones and on the
road) during rush hour, perhaps because driving inattentively seems like a
safer practice at lower speeds.

~~~
tbyehl
> commuting is certainly more dangerous

 _Commuting_ being a seemingly more dangerous activity doesn't preclude
_commuters_ from being a lower-risk-of-injury group. Age could be another
factor -- older riders are more likely to be injured in motorcycle accidents,
and might be less likely to commute or lane-split.

The study is crap. It lacks the data to control for other factors and draw
meaningful conclusions about much of anything.

[https://www.ots.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/sites/67/2019/06/M...](https://www.ots.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/sites/67/2019/06/Motorcycle-Lane-Splitting-and-
Safety-2015.pdf)

------
imglorp
There's a second factor at work beyond memory - it's the human visual
perceptive system. Bikes are not always moving across the visual field, and
they aren't fitting the pattern of a bigger single-color smooth object so it's
effectively camouflage.

This is an outstanding vid on the whole subject illustrating the problem and
some avoidance methods. This should be taught in rider training but it's not
(US).

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqQBubilSXU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqQBubilSXU)

~~~
alosarv
Also an excellent video here
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x94PGgYKHQ0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x94PGgYKHQ0)
\- tongue-in-cheek but highly relevant "invisibility training for
motorcyclists" by FortNine

~~~
chrisweekly
Fantastic video, thanks for sharing!

------
johnr2
> (taneq) I'd amend it to "anything that you could reasonably have anticipated
> is your fault"

I agree with your amended comment. In 30 years of motorcycling I managed to
avoid hitting cars that pulled out in front of me. I lost count of the drivers
that would pull up to a side junction, look in my direction, actually lock
eyes with me and then pull out in front of me.

Eventually I encountered a van driver who had perfected the maneouver so that
I relaxed at the last second, just before he accelerated into my path. I hit
the side of the van. Fortunately I got away with a few bruises and a bent
bike, but it could have been a lot worse.

The incident made me realise that caution and good reactions aren't enough to
guarantee accident avoidance. I no longer ride every day, which is a pity as I
still love motorcycles.

------
pkalinowski
Driver is used to look for wide vehicles with two headlights. It’s easy to
overlook a motorcycle. I have something similar with street lights - sometimes
after passing through intersection I realize I had no idea if it was red or
green light. It was green obviously, but processing happened in my lizard
brain, not the conscious one.

Since I know how this works, I’m more vigilant on my motorcycle. I _always_
slow down before the intersection, sometimes well below the speed limit if
it’s crowded. I don’t look at drivers, I look at wheels. I can see wheel
rotation quicker than whole car movement.

Didn’t die yet, so I assume it works.

------
simonblack
I think it possibly all boils down to our built-in instincts. We have evolved
to be on the lookout for things which constitute a personal danger. (Those
people who don't/can't are quickly allocated to the Darwin Awards
competition.)

As a driver, a huge 20-ton truck is a very noticeable personal danger. Once
seen, you make sure that you know where it is at all times when you're near
enough to be 'damaged' by it.

On the other hand, a cyclist/motorcyclist, even when seen, is assessed as a
'negative danger'. That is, the cyclist is more at risk from you, rather than
you from him, whether or not a collision actually occurs.

This means that a cyclist can be disregarded as a danger threat, and may be
'blocked out' to some extent. The amount of blocking out, I would expect, is a
function of gradation amongst other present threats. In other words, if a huge
truck is present, you're more likely to 'unsee' the cyclist.

This all happens subconsciously, and is just part of our evolution over
millions of years as a species. As such, it probably means that we need to
find ways to produce an 'un-natural' outcome rather than the current 'natural'
situation..

------
muststopmyths
A few months ago I was in my car, preparing to pull away from the curb. I saw
3 bicyclists, 2 closer and 1 further away in my rear/side-view mirrors coming
down the street, so I waited. I was shocked to find myself pulling out after
the first two had passed. It was like I'd forgotten the 3rd guy completely.

Luckily I caught myself in time and nothing bad happened, but it scared the
crap out of me to realize my brain was being an asshole again.

------
hosh
The "see bike, say bike" reminds me of this:
[https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/pointing-and-
calling-j...](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/pointing-and-calling-
japan-trains)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing_and_calling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing_and_calling)

------
vgoh1
A few tips from a long-time motorcycle rider...

1\. When crossing a car that could potentially accelerate into your path,
train yourself to keep a hand on your front brake.

2\. Get better at emergency stops. Train your self to "wait for the weight",
meaning progressively apply front brake so that the weight of the bike
transfers to the front tire before full application. Practice emergency stops
so you don't end up with a fist full of brake or over-hammer the rear. Try to
train yourself to at least glance in the mirror when doing an emergency stop,
to see if what is behind you could be more dangerous than what's in front.

3\. Get your bike ready for emergency stops. Buy a bike with ABS, if possible.
In the states, ABS is not yet the law for new bikes, but the decrease in
insurance premiums usually means that ABS is practically free. Also, don't
cheap out on tires - get high quality tires that match your riding (warm/cold,
wet/dry, etc.)

4\. Buy a tail light blinker - when your brakes are applied, it blinks the
tail lights, and makes it much more obvious that you are stopping.

5\. This may be a bit contriversial - I try to get near one side of the lane
when I stop. My theory is that if a car is coming in "too hot", it gives them
the chance to swerve and hit the car in front of you.

6\. Be seen. I don't think that guy got the huge bike for visibilility like
the caption said, I think he just likes Honda Goldwings. The real way to be
seen is to wear neon (or at least loud colors) and add running lights to your
bike.

7\. After reading tons of accident reports in my area, I can say to be
extremely careful when taking a passenger. There seems to be a lot of
accidents on country roads with riders 2-up that get hit by cars or deer. My
theory (also from taking on riders) is that the 2nd rider is a significant
detriment to manuverability, and manuverability is the motorcycle rider's main
positive safety attribute. Just take it slow when 2-up, and stay off the road
when the deer are out.

8\. This one I can't stress enough - don't become complacent. The majority of
rider deaths are those over 50 in the U.S. Always look at cars like they are
going to try to turn on you. Look at cars in the oncoming lane - are they
slowing down? They could try to turn on you, cover the brake. I have found
that this mindset gets pretty exhausting in urban traffic, and I have changed
my riding habits to ride out in the country roads more than urban.

9\. Wear a helmet and use the strap! I can't count how many YouTube videos of
crashes that I have seen where the helmet ways lying 15 feet from the accident
because the rider didn't strap it down.

10\. Buy an appropriate bike. Smaller bikes are safer. It's in the U.S. safety
statistics (DOT? can't remember which one) that the larger the bike, the more
dangerous. My theory is that large bikes are less manuverable, which accounts
for a lot of it. I'm not going to try to talk anyone of their liter bike, but
please be realistic with your skills, and remember you can always trade up to
more powerful as you gain skills. It took me 10 years of riding before I felt
comfortable on my 125HP Kawi Z900. More a thing of maturity and restraint than
the ability to control the bike (which has a great progressive powerband, easy
to go slow).

~~~
rantwasp
here is a tip: just drive a car. I understand that there are things you can do
to lower the chances of getting hit, but at the end of the day there is way
more risk associated with this mode of transportation.

~~~
bagacrap
Only safer because of all the other motorists. So we're stuck in a
transportation arms race now and the only way to win is to pilot larger and
heavier hunks of steel. Ok I'll start driving an APC so I don't even notice my
next high speed collision with a car, maybe then I'll drag the flaming wreck
behind my war machine for a few miles without realizing it. The visibility out
of this contraption just isn't that great. I trust you'll understand that I
just didn't see you!

Btw sorry it takes up 4 parking spots and gets 2mpg. Y'see, we're also in a
competition to use the greatest amount of shared resources possible before we
die.

~~~
rantwasp
i don’t think like that. I am saying that pragmatically if you want to live
longer you should not ride a bike.

we are all make mistakes on the road. small or big, the consequence of that
mistakes are far greater when you are on 2 wheels. It’s not even about size or
mass, it’s about the fact that your body is going to be projected into a
tree/a car/sidewalk etc.

------
johnbrodie
One of the most annoying aspects of this, minus the whole dying part, is the
reactions it leads to after near-misses. Since people effectively "don't see"
motorcyclists, they often assume we're "riding crazy" if there's a near miss,
since from their POV we just warped into being a moment previous to the
incident. People are already biased towards not blaming themselves, so this
just makes it worse.

It's even worse in "accidents", where the motorcyclist might not be able to
give their side of the story immediately due to injuries. Now the police
report is heavily biased (in practice), which makes sure there will be future
insurance issues.

------
timwaagh
i'm a lifelong (nonmotor) cyclist finally learning to drive. what i notice is
that driving is a lot more complex than cycling. you have so little space and
so much vehicle. you have to stay in lane, take care when cornering. you are
ultimately relying on cyclists or pedestrians not to do anything rash because
the chances of you being concentrated on something else when a sudden crossing
happens are significant. In which case you will definitely not see them.

~~~
rantwasp
you have to stay in your lane and pay attention even as a cyclist.

the consequences of a mistake are the ones that are really different - but on
the upside you way less likely to get seriously hurt in a car vs riding a
bike.

on top of that: it’s really fascinating for me to see people putting the
burden of their own physical safety on other (ef if you know that a driver has
practically a zero chance of seeing you in a situation why not protect
yourself? it doesn’t matter that you’re right if you’re dead)

~~~
lkbm
> you have to stay in your lane and pay attention even as a cyclist.

Sure, but my lane is 2x+ my width, and my body spans the width of my vehicle.

When I drive a car I'm not familiar with, it takes some time to get a sense
for how wide it is. With a new bicycle, it doesn't--it spans from my left hand
to my right hand. (My last driving experience was a short bus for the first
time ever, after several years of not driving at all. A normal sized car is a
lot less tricky, but still wider than and not centered on my body.)

------
dsfyu404ed
I don't see anything in the article about how they differentiated instances of
"saw but failed to remember" from constant bearing decreasing range accidents
which are well known. How is this different?

Edit: Why the downvotes? Is my question probing at something people find
incompatible with their ideology?

~~~
nomadluap
from the article:

> Chapman always sent two vehicles from opposite sides of the road during
> those trials — either a car and a car, or a car and a motorcycle. Then,
> right after the participant pulled out, he would stop the test and ask them
> to use a laser pointer to point where the oncoming vehicle(s) had been on
> the screen.

> What Chapman found was that, every once in a while, there were instances
> where the driver had failed to report seeing the motorcycle and the car,
> even though an eye tracking device showed that they clearly looked at the
> oncoming vehicles. But he also found that participants were much more likely
> to miss the motorcyclist than the car driver.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
I read TFA (hence my question). That passage you quoted (nor any other part of
the article) does not answer my question as for how this is different than
constant bearing decreasing range accidents which also happen more with
"smaller than the observer is used to" objects. Basically your brain thinks
the object is static (or slow moving enough to be static for all practical
purposes) and stops processing there. I still fail to see this is not just a
subset of that.

~~~
bryanlarsen
The picture shows clear target fixation on the motorcycle. So active
processing, and common sense indicates that a motorcycle in the middle of a
street is actually moving.

Later when the motorcycle is only in peripheral vision, it's quite likely that
constant bearing decreasing range contributes to the motorcycle being
forgotten.

But this doesn't change the thesis, which says that the motorcycle is more
likely to be forgotten because it's smaller. Because it's smaller, it's more
likely to have the constant bearing decreasing range error, which means it's
more likely to be forgotten.

To summarize: the effect may be useful in understanding why this happens, but
doesn't change the thesis.

------
ken
That URL is downright bizarre.

------
acl777
It's not: Right of Way, but:

Right of Weight

------
eth0up
I've fired up the laptop for this one and it'll be my final comment of too
many today.

I rode a motorcycle as my only transportation for years, in Florida,
throughout many Summers and tourist seasons. I've also driven extensively on
four wheels for local delivery and on eighteen for interstate freight. I have
come to a holistic view of a problem that I believe encompasses all motor
vehicles. I'll take this opportunity to express it, in no particular order.

First, the issuance of a driver's license needs to depend on more than the
applicant merely having a pulse. Ideally, a full semester, comprehensive
course on the principles of driving should be prerequisite for graduating
highschool, else a third party alternative equivalent ought be required. The
vast number of avoidable deaths and injuries exceeds any alternative. The
constituent issues are many. Here are some observations.

Enforcement: LE needs reform. The emphasis on traffic citations seems
overwhelmingly directed at revenue generation rather than practical safety, eg
erratic, inconsistent speed enforcement; seatbelt violations (I'll get back to
this *1); and automated traffic light citations are emphasized over myriad
moving violations and generally irresponsible vehicle operation. This gets a
bit complex for various reasons. Speeding is, regardless of reason, socially
acceptable, even perceived as a right. In the right lane, I am perpetually
tailgated even when traveling 5mph over the limit. It's often worse when
precisely at the limit. I have never seen (or heard of) anyone ticketed for
tailgating. It isn't infrequent for drivers to even display marked hostility
to a driver obeying the speed limit, in any lane. Yet, speed traps (all those
I've observed) are primarily effective at collecting fines, but not in long-
term discouragement of speeding. I've seen school-zones that if regularly
monitored, could dent the national debt in fines. But no consistency. I've yet
to observe an officer pursue anyone for failure to signal, reckless maneuvers
or irresponsible cellphone usage. I understand that this varies elsewhere, to
some extent. While there are obviously difficulties involved in effective
enforcement of such examples, effort could help.

Ignorance: I propose this be dealt with mostly through required education,
which needs many amendments. Psychology is a neglected component of driver ed.
There are many who simply don't care. There are many who simply don't know any
better. There are more than a few that are much worse and more difficult to
address passively. However, if the tremendous volatility of the mechanics
involved was more pervasively understood through quality education, people
would make different decisions. Silly it may seem, some can actually learn
that they are not the only important driver on the road and that the
infrastructure itself has inevitable limitations that cannot be bypassed
through selfishness. This is hard to teach. The mechanics/physics are a bit
easier. Looking before turning is not an elite skill -- people can do this,
but often don't. Signaling certainly helps broadcast intent, but is often
neglected. That we should do such not just for ourselves, but for the safety
of others is frightfully esoteric.

Intersections: In Florida, it is legal to creep beyond the white line in a
turning lane with or without an arrow light, then complete the turn after the
light has gone red. I typically don't do this and it has enraged many to the
point of violence. Similar with accelerating on yellow lights. One might argue
that in the first example, I am at fault, though certainly not with the
latter. There is a pathology here, one that could be lessened but isn't. Right
turns on red are legal in Florida. Many intersections have visual obstructions
which cause drivers to lurch beyond the white line to verify clearance of
oncoming. Traffic cameras are fond of this, though I've never observed an
officer pursue any such instance. This is an example of...

Ambiguity: There needs to be less ambiguity and more consistency.

Motorcycles are not invisible. They are legal motor vehicles and very few
people are incapable of seeing them through exerting a standard effort. I
reject any mystical cognitive excuses. If motorcycles had a reputation for
obliterating cars that crashed into them, they'd become substantially easier
to see. Driving large vehicles ranging from pickups to combination trailers,
I've seen beyond a doubt a greater tendency to be 'respected' on the road,
with expected exceptions. There is a pecking order to some extent.

Consequences of Error: This is a complex issue. If someone punches a stranger
in the face, especially under surveillance, the consequences are typically
severe. When someone kills or injures another driver, particularly a
motorcyclist, there is a general tendency to go through the paperwork, clean
up the mess, and place the responsibility on a third party, ie insurance and
legal system, which often does little. An 'accident', however atrocious, is
often given the benefit of the doubt if no overtly criminal activity is
present. This is in part for good reason, because it is presumed accidental,
but also makes atrocities remarkably easy where otherwise more difficult.
Unfortunately, intoxicated driving gets most of the attention, while soberly
bad decisions and brazen irresponsibility is systematically forgiven.

There is almost never a good excuse for hitting a law abiding motorcyclist.
Most vehicle accidents are preventable. Our priorities are deranged.

1\. Seat belts are safety features and worth using, for sure. Motorcycles
don't have them, thankfully. It can be argued that a seatbelt could, in some
rare instances, prevent an otherwise unsecured driver from harming others. I
am quite convinced, however, that in most cases, the seatbelt protects only
the user. Therefore, it would seem more productive in the conquest of safety
(and revenue) that officers focused less on what drivers were willing to do to
themselves and more on what they are willing to do to others. At the very
least, proportionately. Much more to say. Too much said for a comment.

