Near Miss of the Day 96: Driver fails to see cyclist on roundabout

OldMixte wrote:

Of course all of those who have never made a mistake will jump on me with abuse but I suggest you look at this report. The frequency of these problems suggest that there is some fundamental problem with how the Human brain is processing information. Not much  comfort to those who have suffered. Motorcyclists, who are a larger profile than cyclists, suffer also from SMIDSY, Sorry Mate I Didn't See You.

 

Strikes me that Sorry Mate I Don't Give A Fuck would be more accurate. Together with Looked but Failed to Care as a better description of what follows. Since most of our legal system (indeed much of our population) appears to regard killing someone with a car as less important than a bit of shoplifting it's hardly surprising most drivers can't be arsed looking properly. Which won't improve unless dangerous driving has real consequences for the perpetrator. Since the law won't do this maybe the ballistic redundant crank should reappear?

Quote:

From personal experience I always try to look twice and it worked really well on one particular occasion . Perhaps we need the dept for transport to resurrect the adverts, look once look twice think bike?

Project: Looked But Failed To See Accident Causation Factor
Objectives
The project objectives are: to review the accident literature in order to estimate the magnitude of the problem and to investigate the types of road user and the road and traffic situations with which it is likely to be associated; to evaluate the probability that the reported problem represents a genuine psycological phenomenon of attention, perception and cognition, relative to a number of alternative predictable possibilities; and to consider whether the phenomenon, if genuine, is researchable and, if so, to recommend methods by which its psychological basis may be most satisfactorily understood and appropriate countermeasures developed.

Description
In-depth surveys of road traffic accidents have shown that a number of them are attributed to one or more of the involved road users having looked in the appropriate direction(s) but failing to see the person or vehicle with whom/which they collided.

Evidence has shown that Looked but failed to see (LBFTS) accidents contributed to upwards of 10% of accidents in surveys conducted in a number of countries. The problem is seen to be important and researchable. Recommendations are made for ways of improving the quality of LBFTS data from the contributory factors system and for on-raod and laboratory studies aimed at identifying training and engineering countermeasures against the phenomenon.

 

CXR94Di2 wrote:

I was never taught this keep rolling method, just too dangerous and easy to miss small objects like cyclists pedestrians etc.

I was only taught the 'keep rolling' method as part of my advanced driving course... not the normal test.

Steve Cooper wrote:

I had one do the same the other day.   

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPr_fmxbjMw

(30 seconds in)

I swore also.

Ha - thanks for the heads up!

I presume both were reported to WM Constabulary? I'd hope so, the second one was terrifying!

Steve Cooper wrote:

I had one do the same the other day.   

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPr_fmxbjMw

(30 seconds in)

I swore also.

I metaphorically shat myself on the second one.

brooksby wrote:

OldMixte wrote:

brooksby wrote:

OldMixte wrote:

As to moving your head around a screen pillar, in my bog standard family car the only way to do that is to get out of the seat, so I don't understand that comment.

So, you're happy to drive your bog standard family car around knowing full well that your car (just a bl**dy car, not an HGV!) has such enormous blind spots? ​

I'm pretty sure that car manufacturers don't make cars where you have to get out of the seat to see out of the windows...

Didn't take long for the abuse.

I suggest you look at the URL above which shows blindspots and apart from finding a car with different screen pillars there isn't much I can do about it, except look twice.

Look at the evidence instead of throwing abuse. There is a problem with not seeing smaller objects, it's no use complaining, you have to do something about it.

i really don't think that was abuse. I'm genuinely concerned about you driving around in a car that you admit you can't see properly out of.

I didn't say I can't see properly but there is a problem with door pillars and if you can't digest the evidence don't blame me. My bog standard car is the same as thousands of others, so if you think mine is unsafe I suggest you write to the government or the safety authorities asking them to ban most of the cars on the road.

cyclisto wrote:

Paul_C wrote:

they may have looked, but they have failed to move their heads to clear that massive blindspot caused by the door pillar...

This is a big problem. Car manufacturers brag about their EuroNCAP results but visibility has got much worse the last 30 years.

I agree and one thing I have noticed is that front indicators are poorly located and difficult to see next to a very bright daytime driving light.  Years ago there was a trend to thinner door pillars but now we have very steeply raked screens which makes the problem worse.

don simon wrote:

Quote:

Of course all of those who have never made a mistake will jump on me with abuse but I suggest you look at this report. The frequency of these problems suggest that there is some fundamental problem with how the Human brain is processing information. Not much  comfort to those who have suffered. Motorcyclists, who are a larger profile than cyclists, suffer also from SMIDSY, Sorry Mate I Didn't See You.

Yes, it's called being a selfish twat.

That is the onkly way I can describe the truck driver on this afternoon's drive home. Wide road, cars parked either side and comfortable for cars to pass on each carriageway. Anything larger should, IMHO, wait in order to proceed safely. This twat obviously had a fundamental problem in that he couldn't see 1500-2000kg vehicle heading towards him, he probably had a fundamental failure when he didn't see my headlights and had a fundamental failure when he broke the speed limit.

No, he was a selfish twat who drives like a twat because he's in a truck and probably will get away with it until he has a collision (it won't be an accident), at that point he'll be safe in the knowlege that he can pull the SMIDSY card, fully supported by people saying it's a fundamental problem with how the human brain processes information.

For the love of god! Driving is a full time occupation, and if you think that you mind has a fundamental flaw, I suggest that you give up your fucking licence.

 

Abuse again, hardly a subsitute for proper discussion.

The evidence and research shows there is a problem, if you can't understand it that's your problem.

ktache wrote:

OldMixte, no abuse from me, but just try moving your head and neck a bit.

I believe that you may had been exagerating when you claimed you need to get out of your vehicle to see around the A piller, but if it really the case, then you have the wrong vehicle, it would seem to me it should probably not be on the road.

It's the same as thousands of others out there and moving my head a bit doesn't help get round the blind spot, check the subtended angles. As I said previously the best solution is probably the look twice maxim.

oldstrath wrote:

OldMixte wrote:

Of course all of those who have never made a mistake will jump on me with abuse but I suggest you look at this report. The frequency of these problems suggest that there is some fundamental problem with how the Human brain is processing information. Not much  comfort to those who have suffered. Motorcyclists, who are a larger profile than cyclists, suffer also from SMIDSY, Sorry Mate I Didn't See You.

 

Together with Looked but Failed to Care as a better description of what followsStrikes me that Sorry Mate I Don't Give A Fuck would be more accurate. . Since most of our legal system (indeed much of our population) appears to regard killing someone with a car as less important than a bit of shoplifting it's hardly surprising most drivers can't be arsed looking properly. Which won't improve unless dangerous driving has real consequences for the perpetrator. Since the law won't do this maybe the ballistic redundant crank should reappear?

Quote:

From personal experience I always try to look twice and it worked really well on one particular occasion . Perhaps we need the dept for transport to resurrect the adverts, look once look twice think bike?

Project: Looked But Failed To See Accident Causation Factor
Objectives
The project objectives are: to review the accident literature in order to estimate the magnitude of the problem and to investigate the types of road user and the road and traffic situations with which it is likely to be associated; to evaluate the probability that the reported problem represents a genuine psycological phenomenon of attention, perception and cognition, relative to a number of alternative predictable possibilities; and to consider whether the phenomenon, if genuine, is researchable and, if so, to recommend methods by which its psychological basis may be most satisfactorily understood and appropriate countermeasures developed.

Description
In-depth surveys of road traffic accidents have shown that a number of them are attributed to one or more of the involved road users having looked in the appropriate direction(s) but failing to see the person or vehicle with whom/which they collided.

Evidence has shown that Looked but failed to see (LBFTS) accidents contributed to upwards of 10% of accidents in surveys conducted in a number of countries. The problem is seen to be important and researchable. Recommendations are made for ways of improving the quality of LBFTS data from the contributory factors system and for on-raod and laboratory studies aimed at identifying training and engineering countermeasures against the phenomenon.

 

Together with Looked but Failed to Care as a better description of what followsStrikes me that Sorry Mate I Don't Give A Fuck would be more accurate.

Look at the evidence and research, but then I guess you have never made a mistake in your life.

OldMixte wrote:

I am surprised that many of the commentators here don't seem to have accepted that there is a problem which is well researched and just want to take a high and mighty opinion and throw abuse.

As I said earlier I spent much of my time on root cause analysis which taught me a lot about systems and the human failings.

And as to looking around the screen pillars, again I suggest you check out just how limited your vision is in modern cars with deeply raked, thick pillars.

There's a difference between knowing there are limits to our physiological responses and actually doing something to mitigate them. Anyone assuming that their senses, especially whilst in a sealed virtually sound-proof box with poor visibility, are perfect is a numpty and potentially lethal.

May I ask what car you drive? I drive a modern Golf and whilst the pillar is larger than on older cars, I can easily lean forward and to my left or straight across to the side window on my right to get to see what's behind it. Do you actually lift your back off your chair and crane your neck, or do you turn your head from right to left and go "Ah, that dang pillar. Oh well, fingers crossed!"?