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

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.

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.

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.

OldMixte wrote:

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.

which may account for 1% of the problem, the other 99% is because people just dont bother to look properly. In that video there is no way on earth that car would have been able to stop in time had there been the worlds biggest cruise ship executing a turn at that point. They simply discounted all likelihood of there being anyone coming around the roundabout from that direction and chose not to look properly, not to slow down and not to approach that road layout with caution until they were sure it was actually safe to proceed.

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.

As I suggested, the best way seems to be look twice. If a cyclist is obscured by a screen pillar or another vehicle the time separation would probably reveal it. Perhaps people should fail the driving test if they don't look twice.

The second of these two paragraphs shows that you need to learn about Constant Bearing Decreasing Range as explained here: http://singletrackworld.com/2018/01/collision-course-why-this-type-of-ro... It might save you from killing someone. Looking twice is essential, of course, but doesn't eliminate this issue.

Regarding the first of those paragraphs - I'd be really surprised if that's actually true. What car is it? Please try sitting in your car, noting what is just visible either side of the pillar, then trying l:
(1) turning you head side to side while keeping your eyes pointing in the same place and (2) leaning forward about 3 inches and/or roght and left a couple of inches
and check the effect on the hidden area. You should notice a small change from (1) which explains why turning your head is better for observations than swiveling your eyes. You should be able to pretty much observe the complete blind spot with (2). If not, please complain to your vehicle manufacturer and copy in any relevant safety bodies you can think of!

DaveE128 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.

As I suggested, the best way seems to be look twice. If a cyclist is obscured by a screen pillar or another vehicle the time separation would probably reveal it. Perhaps people should fail the driving test if they don't look twice.

The second of these two paragraphs shows that you need to learn about Constant Bearing Decreasing Range as explained here: http://singletrackworld.com/2018/01/collision-course-why-this-type-of-ro... It might save you from killing someone. Looking twice is essential, of course, but doesn't eliminate this issue. Regarding the first of those paragraphs - I'd be really surprised if that's actually true. What car is it? Please try sitting in your car, noting what is just visible either side of the pillar, then trying l: (1) turning you head side to side while keeping your eyes pointing in the same place and (2) leaning forward about 3 inches and/or roght and left a couple of inches and check the effect on the hidden area. You should notice a small change from (1) which explains why turning your head is better for observations than swiveling your eyes. You should be able to pretty much observe the complete blind spot with (2). If not, please complain to your vehicle manufacturer and copy in any relevant safety bodies you can think of!

Fair enough interms of driving skills, but I'm wondering how significant is constant bearing decreasing range on roundabouts when at least one agent is on a curved trajectory. Bez's article was about a crossroads where the arms are straight (his "this type of road"), and the effect is readily achieved. I only ask because most of the times I've been cut up on roundabouts in this manner, I've been able to see the driver's (blank) eyes.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.