No cycling sign's lack of grammar sends it viral; 10,000 FREE GCN+ passes for Tour de France Femmes; Ashley Neal goes cycling (+ chats on road.cc); But cyclists; 10 years since Wiggo won yellow; Return of the cycle lane; Stage 19 + more on the live blog

Morgoth985 wrote:

"...but grey ones are nutters!".

Regrettably necessary disclaimer:  I didn't make this one up.

The problem is similar to fish in a tank - how do they reach the pedals?

Gives me an opportunity to re-use this.

It does bug me about the language used with RTCs.

"May not have seen" seems to be used as a mitigation, but it's not - it implies at best that the driver was carelessly not paying attention to the road. Alternatively, the driver did see them and deliberately drove into them which seems unlikely although he did accelerate to ~23mph.

I hope the collision reconstruction expert went into more detail than just guessing about why the driving was so sub-standard - he should at the very least state that driving into people crossing a road would most definitely fail a driving test and is woefully below the standard of just about every driver.

I get it - on the other hand this sounds like someone who might have been at or beyond the limit for driving safetly because of age.  Of course this does beg the question... (yes and I know young people are generally more of a risk than old people).

The driver is 47.  Where do you draw the line for driving safely because of age? 

My bad, I misread that story!  But yeah, 47 is older than me so probably time for him to retire...

It is interesting that sometimes we acknowledge - as the collision expert here - that actually humans are easily overtaxed by having more than one thing to focus on / do at once.  And that such situations occur regularly in driving.  To me this doesn't say "so 'accidents happen' " but that we shouldn't treat driving as casually as we do and also we should be working much harder with design and regulation to prevent collisions especially where we mix modes.  Because they happen predictably.

I think the odd thing is how this expert is just writing off the fact that by his own argument, this bloke turned right into a junction and accelerated to 23 mph without looking where he was going.  And that's a terrible thing but nothing to be done about it...  I don't know about you, but I wouldn't turn into a junction before actually checking it was all clear to do so.

There was a link in the article to the police expert view (an earlier article) - my guess is the so called expert in this one is someone called by the defence to sow doubt in the minds of the jury.

Oh you old cynic, you!

[Stephen Burgess, an expert in collision reconstruction] told the jury Lefevre had just negotiated a busy road junction from Cleeve Hill Extension into Cleeve Hill. He told the court Lefevre's attention would largely be to his left and rear.

Why would your attention be to the left and rear AFTER you've cleared a junction? Just seeing how much you made it by, so you can cut it closer next time?

andystow wrote:

[Stephen Burgess, an expert in collision reconstruction] 

Stephen Burgess, an expert in collision reconstruction gettting careless drivers off the hook.

FTFY & road.cc

Best to save discussion till after the trial concludes although I doubt you will get extradited !

The answer is easy, because it is what we do, and I do include myself.

At a junction, if you pull out into heavy traffic, especially if you feel it is a risk, you check left and right. Turning left, you are wondering if another car is going to surprise you so you tend to be thinking about what's to the right as you've seen your gap. So if circumstances change, your brain has extrapolated that the road is clear and you don't check, as you start pulling out. It's the cause of lots of accidents.

Similarly turning right, a gap appears in the traffic travelling to your left, but you've convinced yourself the road to the right is clear, but you remain concerned another car might appear from your left, so you are more interested in keeping checking that someone isn't bearing down on you. Your brain has noted that there was no traffic previously, so you accelerate. Again, if circumstances change, you are driving to the brain's imaginary image of what is ahead rather than what you have seen.

That last point is important. We spend our lives in a world where the brain makes up 99% of what we see. Our eyes focus on a tiny proportion of the world and all our peripheral vision is low quality. It is sensitive to movement but not interpretation. When you are driving, everything is moving, and you are moving your eyes, so there as not much to trigger your attention. So in driving, and cycling, if you don't consciously and carefully scan your surroundings, your brain doesn't gather enough information. However, rather than presenting you with black spots where it doesn't have enough information, your brain presents a plausible image or simply does not admit nothing it there.

People with macular degeneration can have massive holes in their vision, yet they do not perceive there are areas that they cannot see. When you have an eye test, they check for this.

Long and short, get your attention distracted from where you are going, you don't know where you are going, but you don't realise it.

As a cyclist, it is a classic reason for why the claim of "I didn't see you" or "You came out of nowhere" is likely to be true. The brain is a con merchant. It creates an illusion of the world and is like a schoolboy who hasn't done their homework when mum asks how it is going.

But, that doesn't explain why you'd be checking left and rear after turning right into an empty road with no traffic (which is presumably why they thought it would be safe to cross the road).

Ah, that part I'd put down to being a crap driver. 

IanMSpencer wrote:

So in driving, and cycling, if you don't consciously and carefully scan your surroundings, . . . . . 

. . . . then you are a dangerous driver/cyclist and you may kill/die.

"Use them" - is that a 'MUST' or a 'should'?

brooksby wrote:

"Use them" - is that a 'MUST' or a 'should'?

Depends - is it a number one or a number two...?