New research published by the The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society suggests that drivers often fail to “see” motorbikers – and by extension cyclists – even when they look right at them.
Planetsave reports lead author Kristen Pammer, a professor of psychology and associate dean of science at Australian National University, as saying: “When we are driving, there is a huge amount of sensory information that our brain must deal with.
“We can’t attend to everything, because this would consume enormous cognitive resources and take too much time. So our brain has to decide what information is most important. The frequency of LBFTS [looked but failed to see] crashes suggests to us a connection with how the brain filters out information.”
Invisible cyclists: Eye-tracking experiment finds drivers don’t see more than 1 in 5 riders
Researchers asked 56 adults to look at photos showing routine driving situations from a driver’s perspective. Participants were asked to decide if the situations represented safe or unsafe driving conditions.
In the final photograph, researchers inserted an unexpected vehicle into the scene — either a taxi or a motorbike. Half didn’t notice, and of those who did, two thirds identified the taxi while less than a third identified the motorbike.
The uniformity illusion: peripheral vision study may help explain why drivers fail to see cyclists
“Motorcycles appear to be very low on the priority list for the brain when it is filtering information,” said Pammer. One can only wonder where cyclists might rank in such a hierarchy.
Failure to notice an unexpected object located in plain sight is termed ‘inattentional blindness’.
The best-known study demonstrating the phenomenon centred on this video.
In most groups, 50 per cent of subjects do not report seeing the gorilla.
Pammer and her coauthors believe their study highlights a need to encourage drivers to be more motorcycle-aware when learning to drive.
“By putting motorcyclists higher on the brain ‘radar’ of the driver, hopefully drivers will be more likely to see them. In the meantime, we need to be more vigilant, more active, and more conscious when driving.”
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
54 thoughts on “New research finds many drivers really don’t “see” cyclists or motorbikers (+ video)”
My friend was nearly killed
My friend was nearly killed (coma, parents told he would probably die) when a lady didn’t see him as she put him all over her bonnet. The person travelling behind was also blind as they didn’t see a cyclist they were approaching either. Frightening stuff. No prosecution as no witnesses and my mate can’t remember a thing about it.
Not surprised when so many
Not surprised when so many cyclists wear clothing the same colour as asphalt.
Valbrona wrote:
This is about attention blindness. Lack of attention and the brain be overloaded with information at the same time. I t is not a debate on colour!
You seem to have lacked the attention to the detail in the article before posting
Valbrona wrote:
You are aware that the sky, buildings, trees, verges etc. are not made of asphalt and are in fact made of substances which usually contrast quite strongly with dark colours?
You’re not?
What a surprise.
Valbrona wrote:
If the problem is that my clothing is the blending in with the “asphalt” then I fear that it is already too late as I’ll have hit the deck! As long as I do not blend in with the red bricks, yellow stone and brown/green trees that are in the background while I am upright I think I’ll be OK as long as anyone is looking.
Valbrona wrote:
Makes little odds on what people wear. The vast majority of motorists once behind the wheel switch to autopilot. Nice try on attempting a bunny trail though.
Valbrona wrote:
Which is exactly why they banned black or grey cars, they are literally invisible.
Anyway, as a white male I contrast beautifully with tarmac. Those awful dark skinned foreigners you dislike so much (especially female ones) will be wiped out. Perfect!
The problem in Britain isn’t
The problem in Britain isn’t that “inattentional blindness” exists.
The problem is that the attitude and actions of a lot of road users, the media, the justice system, and the police continually assert that it is OK, and that injuring or killing cyclists is [to quote another Road.cc reader] acceptable collateral against the right to drive wherever or however they like.
Valbrona,I assume you are
Valbrona,I assume you are referring to the fact that lots of cyclists wear black.If you look properly at most tarmac you will see it is very pale grey and about as similar to jet black as it is to hi-viz colours.
Valbrona,I assume you are
[quote=blodnik1]
Valbrona,I assume you are referring to the fact that lots of cyclists wear black.If you look properly at most tarmac you will see it is very pale grey and about as similar to jet black as it is to hi-viz colours.
Wrong , wrong, wrong. Tarmac is almost black when it is wet. Even when it is grey a black jacket will blend in and be harder to see than Hi-Viz. Are you saying black is the new Hi-Viz and people who work on Motorways like traffic cops and construction workers should now wear black ?
Oh dear.
fizrar6 wrote:
The environment on a motorway is different as there aren’t the buildings to contrast against so hi vis is a great option. Cyclists aren’t allowed on motorways though….
ClubSmed wrote:
Wrong , wrong, wrong. Tarmac is almost black when it is wet. Even when it is grey a black jacket will blend in and be harder to see than Hi-Viz. Are you saying black is the new Hi-Viz and people who work on Motorways like traffic cops and construction workers should now wear black ?
Oh dear.
— fizrar6 The environment on a motorway is different as there aren’t the buildings to contrast against so hi vis is a great option. Cyclists aren’t allowed on motorways though….— blodnik1
And yet we see warning signs to be aware of construction workers while driving through roadworks. Even then, the flouresent clothing and reflective decals do not guarantee these workers safety.
giff77 wrote:
They’re safer wearing Hi-Viz than they would be with black or gray. Do you think they just wear bright colours for fun?
To get back to the original topic, if the gorilla had been wearing a Hi-viz jacket more people would have seen him.
fizrar6 wrote:
I’ll refer you to my other post. It doesn’t make a jot what vulnerable road users wear. Motorists simply do not pay attention to what’s happening around them. Once they are behind that wheel they focus only on the vehicle directly in front, what needs to be done that day and compelled to check their hand held device when it pings. next time you’re a passenger in a car take note what is happening around you and then ask the driver what they noticed, you might be surprised at what they miss.
When I drive I not only look at the vehicle in front but several vehicles ahead. I’m also looking out for people stepping out off the pavement and possible vehicles at side streets as well as cyclists and equestrians. Driving is a skill that involves concentration at ALL times. That is why you need to be licensed. You are operating a large piece of powerful machinery in public.
It makes little difference what percautions people take. They will never be safe until motorists irradicate inattention and carelessness out of their driving routine.
fizrar6]
but tarmac is still not the background I need to be contrasted against unless
a) I am already prone in the road
b) someone lands a helicopter on me
This is an interesting
This is an interesting perspective from fighter pilot experience, on how the brain processes visual information, explaining why cyclists and motorcycles aren’t seen. The advice on moving your head to see past door pillars is particularly pertinent in modern vehicles with wide pillars.
http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/
Thanks for posting this, you
Thanks for posting this, you beat me to it. It was also published in the IAM magazine some years ago and it really does explain why we don’t see things when “scanning” with our eyes, the brain literally blanks out what you see when you sweep your eyes rapidly. The principles should be in the Highway Code and sent out with every driving licence as it if more people understood that they need to “look” differently it would prevent a lot of SMIDSY’s.
Full original article is also worth a read:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/elegi6k9amk8spw/1211%20Road%20Survival%20Guide%20Final.pdf?dl=1
Mick
New Research? This was news
New Research? This was news when I was in my 30s and I’m 70+ now. Heavily raked screen pillars don’t help and can easily hide a bike in many circumstances. The original theory was that the brain gets used to registering anything that might hurt you and disregards non threats and generally a cyclist comes off worse in collision with a car.
Look once, look twice, look bike. I try to do this and the second look has surprised me on occasions and yes my eyesight was checked a month ago.
Valbrona seems to have
Valbrona seems to have successfully deflected the conversation from one about why motorists don’t pay full attention, to one about what colour clothing cyclists sometimes wear.
Not sure whether to applaud or cry.
Saw a cyclist today with
Saw a cyclist today with brilliant blue lights on their rims. Impossible to miss and not to my taste, but the most effective way I have seen of making a bike visible.
Give it a name and you
Give it a name and you justify it as a reasonable excuse IMHO.
I see the village idiots
I see the village idiots spouting crap agin. Lulz….
That video is a little unfair if being used to compare to driving. A driver should not be focusing all their attention on on single thing, like counting passes, but processing a huge amount of information, moreso when there is little light and little contrast. This should mean that driving is a full time activity, calling on all your attention.
I don’t believe it’s the way the brain functions, it’s a question on how we choose to use our brain. And there’s a lot going on around us to distract us. People don’t concentrate on driving, people who don’t concentrate
have accidentscause collisions. Colour doesn’t come into it in the vast majority of cases, if you think it does, hand in your licence now.Only today I was thinking about the number of advertising hoardings and signwritten vans and how much of a distraction this could be over a quick glance to get the time off the mobile, only one of these activities will likely end up with a fine.
I don’t go with this, sorry.
I don’t go with this, sorry. It’s voluntary ignorance or stupidity; I have every license almost one can have, and it’s diligence, caring and taking things seriously, something an absolute majority of drivers can’t be bothered to possess. It’s a personality thing, and most people have little care for anyone except themselves. Too much experience to accept this nonsense of an research.
Would be good if they did
Would be good if they did some follow up research to see if colours or lights etc had any effect.
Rich_cb wrote:
And also to see whether serious negative concequences for failing to see had any effect (they could subject the testees to an immediately electric shock, say, if they fail to notice the cyclist).
And whether separating cyclists and motorists entirely did.
I wonder which of the three would have the greater effect?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
And also to see whether serious negative concequences for failing to see had any effect (they could subject the testees to an immediately electric shock, say, if they fail to notice the cyclist).
And whether separating cyclists and motorists entirely did.
I wonder which of the three would have the greater effect?— Rich_cb
Be careful. You’ll be banned from the roads “for your own safety, because …. science”
Rich_cb wrote:
Colours can have an effect, if you google “Advancing v Receding Colours” you will see what I mean!
This has been known about for
This has been known about for a long time, since WWII in fact.
Development of tactics go fighter pilots in WWII identified that pilots would not see objects (targets) even when looking at them. The brain simply ignores some things depending on how it stitches images together.
It’s not trying to create an excuse, it’s simply part of human factors. Something which pilots are taught to understand and they are taught how to do effective visual clearing sweeps (and also told to move around inside the cockpit to see past airframe/canopy structures).
Drivers simply aren’t taught these practises and become complacent. When checking the road, the brain is expecting to see a clear road or a car. If it doesn’t see a car (or sees something that is conflicting with expectations) it will essentially ignore it.
The problem is, if a WWII pilot missed a target, he ended up dead. If a driver misses a potential traffic conflicting, often a more vulnerable user end up dead.
It seems, once again, better teaching of drivers would lead to fewer collisions.
Quote:
“We can’t attend to everything, because this would consume enormous cognitive resources and take too much time. So our brain has to decide what information is most important.”
Well now, isn’t that why learning to drive is a massively rigorous training regime taking years and with regular updates and retesting, to make sure drivers are fully competent to operate heavy machinery in close proximity to pedestrians and vulnerable road users. Oh, wait…
Every comment here, and the
Every comment here, and the original research has missed the most important point: self preservation is the most powerful force on earth, and drivers conform to this and ignore things which are not a threat. If all cyclists carried an AK-47, suddenly all drivers would see them.
I well remember the apocryphal story of the American motorcyclist who was regularly cut up on their 50m commute, so he painted the bike fluo pink, wore pink leathers and kept the lights on all the time: result? No change in cutting up rate. Then he painted the bike like a police bike, wore leathers that looked like police uniform and had a large ariel sticking out of the panniers; result? Problem solved.
Drivers aren’t scared enough. Perhaps a few cyclists could drag the odd driver out and beat them within an inch of their life “pour encourager les autres”. Accidentally of course, they were just dazzled by the sun.
burtthebike wrote:
at a railway station in France recently I was stopped and my saddlebag searched for machine guns and tear-gas grenades. I had to apologise because I hadn’t thought to bring any, but your suggestion could very well prove productive in the road safety sphere.
lazy, distracted, going too
lazy, distracted, going too fast, impatient and don’t give a fuck about anyone else people, who on top of that know the liklihood of being caught and/or punished is remote, is what it boils down to.
Pretty much everything else is a feeble excuse.
Judging from the near miss
Judging from the near miss video series would the best idea be to have a large design of an outstretched middle finger on the back of any bike clothing as this seems to be instantly visible to any driver who hadn’t previously displayed any recognition of a cyclist as they drove past.
Too many people see driving
Too many people see driving as a background task to be done while checking their phone, chatting on hands-free or watching something on their iPad.
The gorilla video is only a fair comparison if you’d said, “count the passes while watching out for a gorilla.” Drivers should be able to operate a car while watching out for hazards.
Unfortunately, too many drive their cars with no margin, either by paying too little attention in the first place or by driving so recklessly that they leave themselves no way out of a situation when it develops.
the gov/justice system is
the gov/justice system is only interested in margins of errors if it favourts motorists, ‘moments inattentuiion’ etc. A couple of years ago a child fell off a shared use path, the motorist that hit her didn’t ease off the gas pedal, nor did anyone else. Everyone said it was the mothers fault for not looking after the child properly or it was an ‘accident’ and that the driver couldn’t do anything to avoid the child.
This is BS, they were a couple of feet away from a child on a bike who happened to be on a path and people still think doing 40/50/60mph is acceptable. The incident was totally avoidable IF drivers were bothered to assess the risk they were presenting to others if they make a small error which without them being there no harm would come about.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Was that the case in Weston-super-Mare?
I think the driver said that they hadn’t moved out because the child wasn’t on the road so why would they?
(The child was wobbling along on a narrow shared use path which is *right next to* a 60mph speed limit road with no barriers etc and the driver didn’t think they needed to take anything not on the road into consideration…)
brooksby wrote:
Small child a few feet away AND seen wobbling and not one person including the killer did absolutely nothing, and police accepted this as behaviour that was acceptble/not dangerous!
And yet 9 months later Charlie Alliston charged/convicted for manslaughter/WAF )respectively) supposedly not allowing the deceased ‘wobble’ room or room for an error in judgement despite him slowing signifcantly and swerving to avoid (at crica 10mph) and yet drivers doing 60mph a couple of feet away from a small child they could see they would present a massive danger to if they made even a small error get the ‘nothing you could do’ consoling words and let off?
I certainly would at the very least be moving to the centre line and easing off the gas when seeing that scenario especially given the ridiculously high speed limit.
The double standards/hypocrisy are incredible, it’s this blindness to the dangers motorists and their vehicles present and that no error margin is expected to be given by them that kills and maims so many, yet is when the situation is a person on a bike it’s totally different, why is that?
I guess the corolloy of the
I guess the corolloy of the title is that if drivers did see cyclists then they subsequently decided to run them over on purpose…. in reality I think that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that most drivers are incapable of concentrating fully for some long or even short journeys: there are physical distractions and the mind wanders….as does mine when I’m on long bike rides. Like many riders I’ve taken to wearing bright overshoes – as they rotate – and bright, flashing day lights in the hope of catching their attention. This sometimes irritates some, but at least I know they have seen me. And if they do cut me up then they’ve have done it on purpose.
I guess the corolloy of the
I guess the corollary of the title is that if drivers did see cyclists then they subsequently decided to run them over on purpose…. in reality I think that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that most drivers are incapable of concentrating fully for some long or even short journeys: there are physical distractions and the mind wanders….as does mine when I’m on long bike rides. Like many riders I’ve taken to wearing bright overshoes – as they rotate – and bright, flashing day lights in the hope of catching their attention. This sometimes irritates some, but at least I know they have seen me. And if they do cut me up then they’ve have done it on purpose.
Chris Hayes wrote:
My ten year old daughter was terrified when her front reflector got broken and insisted that I get her a new one (even though I told her it wasn’t a legal requirement so she wouldn’t get in trouble for it). When getting one in my LBS they said that the best reflectors on most bicycles are the orange ones on pedals – they highlight non motorised movements as well as general location.
brooksby wrote:
Yes, I’d read somewhere that having reflective patterns on tights, or lights on your legs makes you much more likely to be noticed by drivers because of the irregular movement or pattern of light that registers with the brain.
Much more so than flouro jackets
Burtthebike – I’ll give you a
Burtthebike – I’ll give you a like for ‘pour encourager les autres’
zero_trooper wrote:
Thanks. Didn’t realise you got bonus points for foreign phrases, but I’ll try to slip a few in just for fun. Should we have some kind of points competition and a green jersey?
Sometime ago in the comments
Sometime ago in the comments section of a Road.cc clothing review, someone suggested that a hi-viz jacket with a large speedcamera logo on the back would be effective.
I really think that this would get driver’s attention.
I wonder if riding a bike
I wonder if riding a bike with flashing blue lights while wearing a police uniform will help get drivers to notice you. It might also help reduce traffic offences … bonus.
A cunning trick used by some
A cunning trick used by some motorcyclists – yellow jacket, white lid, black trousers – it looks close enough to a police motorcyclist to make drivers notice them a quarter second earlier. Not sure it’d work for cyclists as well, as every rider and their dog seems to be wearing yellow hi-viz these days (including me), and there’s not so many police cyclists to form that pattern-recognition.
Strange how they can still
Strange how they can still msnage to see “horrifically, terrifyingly” bright rear lights. That was the description one driver gave of my Exposure Tracer when she stopped to moan at me. Afraid I wasn’t terribly sympathetic – something alomg the lines of “well at least you saw me” (some words omitted). I begin to fear this is the only solution – make sure every one of them feels the need to honk, then at least if they hit me it’s because they are psychopaths, rather than just inattentive fuckwits.
oldstrath wrote:
Thank you. Now I know what I am buying as my next rear light. I already have the front sorted out with a beam-spreading, non-German-pootle-bike-compliant MagicShine.
Hi viz LOL!http://www
Hi viz LOL!
http://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/masked-man-hi-vis-clothing-1016556
I can only recollect not
I can only recollect not “seeing” a cyclist on 3 occasions
1) While walking towards a car reversing out of a car park, I stopped and waited. Cyclist coming from other direction raced along car park, and swerved aroubd back of car without slowing down. Driver had to brake sharply. Maybe cyclist could see roof of car from his angle, certainly the back of it moving out – but driver’s view blocked by the car she was parked next to.
2) Dusk on a dull day, Newhall st. Birmingham – car emerges from side turning, driver peering around parked cars. Black clad cyclist on black bike, with very tiny lamp twinkling on handlebars, almost collides with car (again, emergency stop). Even after I’d spotted the bike I still had difficulty seeing it!(I was walking a the time)
3) Me driving this time, approaching traffic island near home – cyclist in bright clothing comes down road from my right – taking a “kerb-hugging” line around the island. Amazed I hadn’t seem him, but my usual driving style meant I didn’t hit the poor guy as he went past. It would have been my fault.
Good to see so many people
Good to see so many people who are justifiably fed up with the victim-blaming crap that gets chucked at cyclists (and also pedestrians, by the way).
The bottom line is that mtorists CAN “see” cyclists and other road users if they want to. Too mnay just can’t be arsed.
It is also extremely important that we understand the negative role the “road safety” industry has played in shifting the burden of responsibility away from drivers by pushing for hi-viz etc.
See
http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/11/03/hi-viz-for-cyclists-and-pedestrians-the-evidence-and-context/
http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/11/01/hi-viz-for-pedestrians-and-cyclists-and-the-case-of-the-motorists-who-cant-see-where-theyre-going/
http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/10/31/hi-viz-for-cyclists-and-pedestrians-sensible-precaution-or-victim-blaming/
http://rdrf.org.uk/2011/06/09/of-slutwalks-and-hi-viz-the-politics-of-victim-blaming/
http://rdrf.org.uk/2012/03/01/sorry-mate/
on this subject
ChairRDRF wrote:
It may or not be negative, but I’d rather wear flurescent colours & hi-viz reflective cycle clothing (and a helmet) than stealth black when I’m on my bike.
I want to be seen by those drivers who are looking out for cyclists; and I don’t want to give those who are not looking an excuse for not seeing me.
Kadenz wrote:
Then you should probably admit defeat and just drive a car: I bet they’d *definitely* see you then… 😀
In my experience, cyclists
In my experience, cyclists are not on some drivers’ radar screen.
They are looking for motor vehicles that are a danger to them, which cyclists arn’t – and that’s why they are not noticed. They look straight through you.
But its still driving without due care and attention.