More than one in five cyclists go unseen by motorists on the road, according to an experiment using eye tracking technology conducted for the insurance company Direct Line, confirming the extent of the ‘SMIDSY’ – ‘Sorry mate, I didn’t see you. Younger drivers missed spotting nearly one in three riders, and female motorists one in four. By contrast, just 4 per cent of what Direct Line terms "jaywalking" pedestrians were not seen, and 15 per cent of motorcyclists.
Motorists who took part in the experiment wore “specialist glasses that pinpoint the exact focus of the eye by tracking microscopic movements in the cornea,” said the company, adding that film footage “enabled researchers to establish exactly where drivers focus their vision, which was often at clouds, buildings and passers-by.” Here’s a short video of it in operation.
The experiment was conducted in three cities – London, Oxford, and Sheffield – and according to Direct Line the issue is most prevalent in the capital, where motorists fail to see three in ten cyclists.
That’s despite the growth in cycling in the city in recent years, that suggests we’re some way from seeing a ‘Safety in numbers’ effect kick in there, whereby the more people there are on bikes, the more motorists are likely to register their presence and drive accordingly.
In Oxford, which has the second highest levels of cycling in England after Cambridge, 20 per cent of riders went unseen, and in Sheffield, 15 per cent.
Researchers found examples of motorists taking their eyes of the road to adjust sat-nav devices and in one case navigate using a hand-held smartphone, and Direct Line says that 24 per cent of riders are “invisible” to drivers using a sat-nav device, compared to 19 per cent where the motorist does not use one.
The biggest difference in the proportion of drivers registering the presence of cyclists was by age. Some 21 per cent of cyclists were unnoticed by those aged 50 or over, but 31 per cent among motorists aged between 20 and 29 years. Again, that’s a cause for concern given that younger people have better eyesight on the whole.
Vicky Bristow, spokesperson for Direct Line car insurance said “For the first time we know exactly where people focus their eyes when driving and the results are frightening.
“UK roads are busy and congested and as a result millions of cyclists are going unseen.
“Blaming motorists seems like an easy option, but this issue can only be really addressed if both motorists and cyclists accept responsibility.
“Encouraging all road users to be extra vigilant will certainly improve road safety but tackling an issue of this scale really requires top-down change.
“Successive governments have encouraged local authorities to adopt policies to make cycling safer in the past but our research highlights that this issue is still widespread.”
Drivers % that failed to spot cyclists Sat nav drivers 23.7 Non-sat nav drivers 19.0 Female drivers 25.6 Male drivers 17.1 Drivers aged 20-29 31.1 Drivers aged 30-39 20.7 Drivers aged 40-49 21.6 Drivers aged 50-59 20.9 All drivers 22.0
Source: Direct Line Motor Insurance
One thing we wondered was whether the cyclist wearing hi-viz clothing had any impact on their visibility to motorists – a subject of some debate in comments to stories here on road.cc – so we asked Direct Line whether the clothing cyclists sported had any impact.
The company told us that the study considered a lot of data, including speed cameras, pedestrians, road signs etc, and the lack of vigilance motorists display towards cyclists was what it chose to focus on.
It added that had the survey been commissioned specifically into cyclists, then that would have been one of the areas it would have looked at, and that it is likely to undertake such research in the future.
As for that comment in the first paragraph about "jaywalking" pedestrians, the term of course is widely used in the United States where there are much more severe restrictions on where pedestrians can legally cross a road compared to England, Wales and Scotland; here, pedestrians are not allowed on motorways, but other than that can cross the road except where a specific 'no pedestrians' sign is in place, although official advice is for them to wait until it is safe to do so. Jaywalking is an offence in Northern Ireland, but one that is rarely enforced.




















45 thoughts on “Invisible cyclists: Eye-tracking experiment finds drivers don’t see more than 1 in 5 riders (+ video)”
Funny, I’ve often thought
Funny, I’ve often thought about how/when an experiment like this would be conducted while I’ve been out riding – the results are pretty much identical to what I expected!
Sorry still trying to align
Sorry still trying to align these two phrases in my head
“… Blaming motorists seems like an easy option …”
and
“… drivers focus their vision, which was often at clouds, buildings and passers-by …”
It’s just not working
mad_scot_rider wrote:Sorry
That’s what I was thinking. What are we supposed to do? Other than disguising myself as a cloud, obviously.
quote: Blaming motorists
quote: Blaming motorists seems like an easy option, but this issue can only be really addressed if both motorists and cyclists accept responsibility.
How exactly can a cyclist be responsible for a driver watching a cloud, looking at someone waling by instead of the road? If i’m wearing lights and/or bright clothing, or it is day time. What else can I be expected to do? seriously, I am interested…any ideas other than drive a car?
No surprises but good to see
No surprises but good to see it studied. I have done exactly the same kind of testing on websites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade
Short version – your brain makes stuff up as your vision skips around. And mostly makes up a picture between states of vision and *may* completely skip the cyclist/pedestrian/motorbike in the middle ‘frame’.
Once you know that everything kinda makes sense – they really didn’t see you! However good and careful driving can compensate for this obviously.
The fact it’s based on eye
The fact it’s based on eye tracking shows it’s not about cyclists not making themselves visible, it’s about drivers not looking.
Riding defensively puts you in a driver’s eyeline, no amount of hi-vis will get you seen if you’re riding along the kerb.
Surely you don’t need to look
Surely you don’t need to look directly at a cyclist or even completely focus on them to know that they are there. I focus on things other than the road when I’m driving (e.g. spring lambs) but my field of vision is quite enough to passively take in the road and what’s on it too.
bohrhead wrote:Surely you
But human peripheral vision is not good, and we have a tendency to make up things which we expect to see (see pilot link above). You cannot, and should not rely on peripheral vision while driving. It only take a moment to move your eyes or head.
In any case, it doesn’t explain the discrepancy with pedestrians.
It would be interesting to do
It would be interesting to do the experiment with cyclists. I would guess that cyclists are much less likely to fail to see motor vehicles. If so, why?
felixcat wrote:It would be
‘cos they’re bigger, and so less likely to fall into a ‘saccade’: http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/
nuclear coffee wrote:felixcat
The cyclist is usually travelling more slowly, expecting to give way or stop and, being more vulnerable, watching for danger.
Slowing cars allows drivers more time to look, which means they are more likely to see cyclists and peds. Forcing drivers to take longer at junctions, as described in Chris Boardman’s article in The Times (and illustrative Street View link in a tweet), means they have to look more than if they just glide through. Everyone does it – it’s easier if you can keep rolling and not stop completely. But it is more difficult to scan the scene effectively while the car is moving than if you stop completely.
Riding further into the road means you are more obvious to other road users, including those on side roads. It also reduces (but doesn’t prevent) the chance of too-close passes by impatient, selfish idiots. I usually ride at least 18″ and sometimes 2 feet from the edge of the road.
Wobbling is apparently a good way to get the attention of following traffic – your trajectory becomes unpredictable.
I have been saying it for a long time now, but there should be a restriction on in-car gizmos, touch-screens and most definitely satnav, but sadly manufacturers think these are great selling points and buyers are seduced by gadgets. Many drivers also have a false sense of just how good (i.e. safe) their driving is.
nuclear coffee wrote:
i would guess that it may also be because cars pretty much drive themselves (the clue is on the word ‘automobile’) so do not require as much attention as riding a bike, which isn’t going anywhere without some effort from the rider, and because in general cyclists are looking out for themselves more than drivers because of the greater damage likely in an unpremeditated shared space situation.
felixcat wrote:It would be
I think the most interesting test would be “are drivers who cycle a lot noticeably better at picking up cyclists visually”?
i.e. can noticing/not noticing be improved with “training”. If so, then obviously that training is required for all drivers.
“Blaming motorists seems like
“Blaming motorists seems like an easy option, but this issue can only be really addressed if both motorists and cyclists accept responsibility.”
Try telling that to a judge! oh.. wait..
Blaming motorists seems like
I give up, really I do. Jesus H Christ. 😐
Quote:
Blaming motorists
Bloody hell, did she even read the study?
It’s also worth pointing out that there are pretty shocking stats for motorcycles too, lets not pretend this is limited to cyclists.
Another point is that the use of the term jaywalker, meaning a person crossing illegally (not possible in the UK AFAIK) or irresponsibly (of course, possible anywhere) is in my view pushes responsibility from the car driver onto the pedestrian crossing. What constitutes a jaywalker? Anyone crossing the road?
jackh wrote:
Another point is
Would guess a pedestrian crossing where there is no crossing, or crossing against the lights. Which is more of a mouthful.
But yes, not really relevant terminology in UK.
This
This article:
http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/ was also a very interesting read on what drivers do and don’t see – it came form the perspective of an RAF fighter pilot, someone who knows a thing or two about seeing hazards and reacting in microseconds! Very similar conclusions to this study.
Typo in the headline on
Typo in the headline on homepage, FYI: CYLISTS rather than cyclists, presumably?
The only thing about this is
The only thing about this is how do you know what the brain is recieving on the peripehery? From the video there’s a cyclist heading in the same direction as the car and they never recieve a red dot of attention but it doesn’t mean that the driver doesn’t know they are there.
Hey Crazy-Legs, thanks for
Hey Crazy-Legs, thanks for posting the pilot article…well worth a read.
Makes me much more inclined to have flashing lights during the day as well as night.
Well they can’t very well
Well they can’t very well blame the people who pay them their wages can they so the two wheeled demons, who apparently don’t even pay for the roads, can take some responsibility for their own injuries. I do despair X(
That film footage is bloody
That film footage is bloody terrifying
It seems like allowing sat
It seems like allowing sat navs into the car has normalised the use of gadgets at the wheel, I think a lot of people think it is perfectly ok to use a smartphone while driving. after all its just a box with a screen on
Also astonished to see promotion for ‘in car wifi’ or ‘google send to car’ features in new cars and a whopping great touchscreen in the centre console – it’s just insane putting those kind of distractions in front of a driver. Surely there must be some legislation about what can and can’t be placed there?
Agree. I tested some new
Agree. I tested some new cars recently and was shocked at the new touch screen functionality. firsty its distracting as there is a vast amount of functionality and secondly its positioned so badly it takes your eye completely off the road. Yes VW Golf, a terrible piece of design. I refused to buy on these grounds.
Simmo72 wrote:Agree. I
I second this, i drove a new golf on hire and the touch screen was a nightmare to use. It might be intuitive once you’re used to it but trying to do it while unfamiliar and driving just felt dangerous.
kitkat wrote:Simmo72
I drive a VW Passat and can relate to these comments however I think that the problem is not with the technology itself but the way that it is used. I use the Sat Nav a lot but would never try to program it whilst actually driving the car and the same goes for all Sat Nav systems. The same goes for the other functionality; I wouldn’t adjust the levels on the stereo or seach for a previously undicovered DAB radio station whilst driving either. The point about screen location is a fair one but I question if windscreen monuted Sat Navs are any better as they block the view of the road. Overall I think that Sat Nav is much better than the alternative: a map book open on the passenger seat. There should be much better education on how to use these systems. Points could include:
1. Program Sat Nav only when parked
2. LISTEN to the Sat Nav. Avoid visually consulting the screen where possible
3. Look at road signs! Sat Nav is only one aid to navigation and shouldn’t be followed blindly.
So who wants to brainstorm
So who wants to brainstorm ways of making drivers look at cyclists instead of clouds, buildings or what was likely lovely lassies? Its obviously my responsibility to make sure drivers pay attention to their driving.
Its also worth noting that
Its also worth noting that drivers are almost equally not noticing motorcyclists. I’ve always thought that drivers only look for big boxes of metal.
They will happily see a ‘cyclist but just not register their existence.
euanlindsay wrote:Its also
“look for big boxes of metal”
You would think that would be the case but I know two people, one personally and the other a BBC radio presenter, who failed to notice a skip in the road and drove into it.
What chances do we cyclists have if there are drivers who cannot even see a skip!
it’s clear that we are often
it’s clear that we are often not seen. However, I would question the test based on peripheral visison. If I am looking at the car as the user was doing – I see the cyclist in my peripheral vision – that doesn’t mean I don’t register that they are there [just because I don’t look directly at them]. Best advice is to ride with purpose and make your self seen – also don’t ride very close to the curb as this will lead to motorists coming way too close (attemting to stay in lane whilst passing you).
and that is probably the
and that is probably the belief of most people, which is part of the problem, are huge overestimation of the functionality of their own vision. In fact, as others have pointed out a large part of what you think you see in your peripheral vision is simply the creation of your mind. If you read a scientific description of how your vision actually works, and how limited it is, you will be shocked.
I wandered lonely as a cloud
I wandered lonely as a cloud
That floats on high o’er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host of oh bloody hell where did those nuns on bikes come from?
Clouds? I mean, seriously, clouds?
I would like to the see the
I would like to the see the make/model of vehicle involved in an accident with a cyclist. I would wager a fecking great big 4×4;s are right up there as the owners are incapable of driving safely
Ride in the driver’s eyeline
Ride in the driver’s eyeline rather than over to the left, and turn your head to look behind you periodically (make sure the road is clear ahead). The latter can make the driver become aware of you and pass you safely, or will give you a clue if they are on autopilot and so you might need to take action.
i guess one solution is to
i guess one solution is to slow cars down, at least if they do hit something they will do it slowly and cause less damage.
bring back the red flag man!
So all that hi-vis fashion
So all that hi-vis fashion only works at 80% 🙁 http://innercitymobility.blogspot.de/2013/04/london-fashion-visibility-ii.html
Certainly not a ‘cure-all’
Certainly not a ‘cure-all’ for the problem but I make a point of trying to make eye contact with drivers at junctions – it’s really incredible how much of a difference it makes in getting them to notice you!
Eye Contact & always riding,
Eye Contact & always riding, when solo, with Flashing lights are a practical option. Neither are cure all.
Slightly more outlandish options would An Obama style motorcade or a Team Badged Skoda with 2 motor bikes outriders. With Partridge Harmon on a Tannoy berating your pedalling style. With Big Maggy chipping in with “ Yeaah Its not the best” on loop.
I had an interesting chat
I had an interesting chat with the MET police yesterday, they are up here all the time on royal protection and one of their drivers put right out and almost got my in the mini bus.
For a change I was fully light up, had my flat on, was wearing light coloured clothing.
So flagged him over for a chat. It seems and I did see his point of view. He was looking, I know that, when he looked to see anything coming down the road, a car had just pasted and blocked his view of me, even with the flag at around 5.5ft from the ground. Fair enough, I am not the most visible that low down, I have quick reactions, which saved me going into the side of the van. If it had been a kid at a similar height to my recumbent, they would have been squashed, I made that point, it was taken on board and we went on our way. Really nice guys the MET 😀
terrible headline, even worse
terrible headline, even worse comments. Bad science at its best.
I would like to see the same
I would like to see the same test done for cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians so that there is a broad view ( no pun intended) of how much or how little we all observe. As a long time cyclist in London I am always surprised how many cyclists are unaware of how traffic and pedestrians are moving around them. As someone noted above, you need to ride so that you can be seen but equally you need to ride with anticipation and focus. Putting yourself in a dangerous position because you haven’t learnt to read the movement of vehicles can make you as culpable as the driver. It’s all shared space and everyone needs to look out for each other.
So it would seem that if we
So it would seem that if we cover our hi viz in cotton wool it will stop us being a danger to all those car drivers.
Vicky Bristow, spokesperson for the car insurance company said
“For the first time we know exactly where people focus their eyes when driving and the results are frightening.
“Blaming motorists seems like an easy option, but this issue can only be really addressed if both motorists and cyclists accept responsibility.
Well vicky all I can say is; it’s not only an easy option but in this case with all the evidence from your study it is the ONLY option.
Obvious conclusions from this
Obvious conclusions from this are that cyclists should all be wrapped in cotton wool.
This will both protect them in an accident and make them look like more visible clouds.
Cyclists are not invisible,
Cyclists are not invisible, drivers are not looking.