Worrying findings from Direct Line

[AlaninWales]

Not altogether unexpected, but worrying to see the extent to which people are not trained in the inadequacy of human sight http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/4374.html

[beardy]

Participants wore special glasses that pinpoint the exact focus of the eye

I dont have to focus (my eyesight) on a hazard in order to know it is there and to respond to it.
Nor do I expect drivers to be looking at me as they drive past me, they dont judge the distance between us by looking at me as they pass. Nor do you judge your distance from the kerb by focusing on it as you drive.

If I am waiting behind a cyclist to overtake, I am not looking at their bum (normally) but at the road and cars beyond them.

[blackbike]

Vicky Bristow, spokesperson for Direct Line, said: "For the first time we know exactly where people focus their eyes when driving and the results are frightening.

In real life things are a lot worse. Presumably none of the motorists who had equipment in their cars for this survey used hand held mobile phones as they knew they were being monitored.

My local police force has proudly told us it caught 285 phone using criminal motorists during a recent week long 'blitz'.

I could probably spot that many in an afternoon if I went out to look for them.

[axel_knutt]

It makes me wonder why nobody has done this before, but I'm a bit uncomfortable that they hired some sort of PR/Marketing outfit to do it, rather than a Uni. There's no raw data published so that the statistical significance can be assessed, and it's not published in a peer reviewed journal. Bizarrely Direct Line are citing Bunnyfoot as their source, and Bunnyfoot are citing Direct Line as their source.

Beardy's point is interesting, but I think that if the brain registers a hazard in the peripheral vision it will focus the macula on it momentarily in order to assess it before redirecting the gaze accordingly. It wouldn't surprise me if it were possible to measure alertness by how much the eye darts to and fro, rather than staring like a zombie.

http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/misc/fck ... yclist.pdf
http://www.bunnyfoot.com/services/

I think there's also plenty of scope for research into just how much information the brain is capable of processing at once, and for how long at a time, and whether or not were already exceeding those limits.

[blackbike]

The survey shows how important it is not to be in a motorists peripheral vision, but towards the centre of it.

It's always best to dominate a road or a lane than cower in the gutter. Better to be tooted by an irate motorist who has noticed you than killed by one who hasn't.

[Guy951]

The survey shows how important it is not to be in a motorists peripheral vision, but towards the centre of it.

It's always best to dominate a road or a lane than cower in the gutter. Better to be tooted by an irate motorist who has noticed you than killed by one who hasn't.

This. In spades.

[MartinC]

The gist of the article seems to be "drivers don't look where they are going so cyclists and motorcyclists should take extra precautions to protect our underwriting to keep premiums low and profits up".

Pretty sound evidence for google cars and eliminating the weakest link.

[Psamathe]

Not wanting to lessen any blame on motorists nor remove any responsibility from drivers, but I do wonder to what extent human perception mechanisms might be having impacts on the results here. It sounds like the report is just a report on the observed effects without any investigation into or explanation of the underlying causes.

I remember a series of experiments where subjects were told to jog around a University campus along a given route. And unknown to the subjects along that route, to one side were two people having a fight. After their jogging circuit, the subject was asked various questions and a significant number of them had completely not seen the fight; their perception mechanisms had simply filtered out what was going on.

Data like involvement of mobile phones/satnavs/etc.is useful in that it can help indicate a cause of inattentiveness, but I think there is a case for decent research into why drivers fail to perceive particular groups of vulnerable road users. But rather than trying to identify the underlying cause we end-up being told to wear hi-vis and magic hats (and I often wear both) - despite there (apparently) being no real supporting evidence to their effectiveness. Maybe to really address the issue we need to know the causes.

Ian

[blackbike]

Not wanting to lessen any blame on motorists nor remove any responsibility from drivers, but I do wonder to what extent human perception mechanisms might be having impacts on the results here. It sounds like the report is just a report on the observed effects without any investigation into or explanation of the underlying causes.

I remember a series of experiments where subjects were told to jog around a University campus along a given route. And unknown to the subjects along that route, to one side were two people having a fight. After their jogging circuit, the subject was asked various questions and a significant number of them had completely not seen the fight; their perception mechanisms had simply filtered out what was going on.

Data like involvement of mobile phones/satnavs/etc.is useful in that it can help indicate a cause of inattentiveness, but I think there is a case for decent research into why drivers fail to perceive particular groups of vulnerable road users. But rather than trying to identify the underlying cause we end-up being told to wear hi-vis and magic hats (and I often wear both) - despite there (apparently) being no real supporting evidence to their effectiveness. Maybe to really address the issue we need to know the causes.

Ian

Your jogging story is not really relevant. Joggers are just people going about an activity which is very safe. No particular vigilance is expected or required.

Drivers do have a duty to be extremely observant and attentive as they are in charge of a heavy vehicle with the energy to kill in a collision.

They know full well that even a moment's inattentiveness can cause death and injury.

The best way to reduce the carnage on our roads caused by drivers being careless, inattentive or unobservant is severe criminal punishments and lifelong driving bans.

[AlaninWales]

Drivers have a duty to maintain alertness and see what is in front of their vehicle. However they are never taught how to do this effectively (given the restrictions on human eyesight and the way we interpret the visual world).
It is worrying that the finding that so much is not seen prompts not research into how to correct this but calls for (proven ineffective in the real world) action by other road users.

[stewartpratt]

The survey shows how important it is not to be in a motorists peripheral vision, but towards the centre of it.

It's always best to dominate a road or a lane than cower in the gutter. Better to be tooted by an irate motorist who has noticed you than killed by one who hasn't.

Whilst I don't necessarily/entirely disagree with this (because there are quite different reasons for making a similar argument), you're making huge assumptions about the results of the tests. You can't infer that there is a substantive difference, in terms of the driver's observation, between the two.

It could be, for instance, that all of the unobserved people were approaching from side roads, or approaching in the other lane, etc. It is perfectly possible that there was no difference between gutter riding and mid-lane riding.

Direct Line have refused to publicise details the research, so until someone with a greater sense of responsibility repeats it, you'll never know. (They've also pulled their press release, without giving a good reason.)

[stewartpratt]

It is worrying that the finding that so much is not seen prompts not research into how to correct this but calls for (proven ineffective in the real world) action by other road users.

https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/201 ... sy-option/

[stewartpratt]

The best way to reduce the carnage on our roads caused by drivers being careless, inattentive or unobservant is severe criminal punishments and lifelong driving bans.

Evidence?

I would suggest that the problem is not that people have consciously considered the legal consequences of errors of inattention and decided to be dangerously inattentive, but that certain cognitive shortcomings—which by their nature are impossible to be aware of oneself without being informed of them—are natural and need to be overcome as far as possible. Given this, it would be more effective to:
- habituate safe practices (ie those designed to address saccadic masking etc) during training
- ensure these are retained, via regular retesting
- adapt the holistic transport system to reduce the perceived need for people to drive a car, allowing more stringent criteria for obtaining a licence

Increased punishments (and increased likelihood of punishment) have the potential, though not a guarantee, to work where there is a conscious decision made—using a phone or drinking, for example—but it's extremely hard to see how they can possibly work in cases where people believe they're paying sufficient attention but, for reasons that are transparent to their own consciousness, actually aren't.

[Psamathe]

Not wanting to lessen any blame on motorists nor remove any responsibility from drivers, but I do wonder to what extent human perception mechanisms might be having impacts on the results here....

I remember a series of experiments where subjects were told to jog around a University campus along a given route. And unknown to the subjects along that route, to one side were two people having a fight. After their jogging circuit, the subject was asked various questions and a significant number of them had completely not seen the fight; their perception mechanisms had simply filtered out what was going on.
...

Your jogging story is not really relevant. Joggers are just people going about an activity which is very safe. No particular vigilance is expected or required.

Drivers do have a duty to be extremely observant and attentive as they are in charge of a heavy vehicle with the energy to kill in a collision.

They know full well that even a moment's inattentiveness can cause death and injury.

The best way to reduce the carnage on our roads caused by drivers being careless, inattentive or unobservant is severe criminal punishments and lifelong driving bans.

I mentioned the jogging experiment only as an illustration about how human perception can be surprising and how things can be filtered out. It was not meant as an explanation about drivers - just the illustration about strange unexpected aspects to how we perceive things.

I think you have taken my post as attempting to explain drivers behaviour - something I'd hoped to avoid but maybe I was not clear enough. Thing is, I would expect most drivers to want to see cyclists and to give them plenty of space. Despite (my inference on their wishes this does not happen. Human perception is strange and hence my suggestion about proper research to understand why drivers who want to see cyclists aren't. We filter out loads of stuff without realising it and we add things (or rather interpret things) to fill-in the gaps. Understanding that in relation to driving and vulnerable road users may help improve things.

Ian

[Psamathe]

Direct Line have refused to publicise details the research, so until someone with a greater sense of responsibility repeats it, you'll never know. (They've also pulled their press release, without giving a good reason.)

Which raises questions about the work. It's a shame as even if there were failings in what was undertaken we can still learn from the efforts and improve subsequent studies.

Ian