Looking & not seeing - interesting perception article

[thirdcrank]

... It depends on circumstances, and I don't know your particular case, but I wouldn't normally stop for that although I may be wary of the driver's actions and give a wide a berth as possible. All that motion on the cycle is due to my efforts which are far greater than someone twiddling their toes in a car. The courtesy should be from the car driver not the cyclist. Stopping and starting a car is effortless. However I am courteous to drivers (I think), at locations where it's suitable for me (and them). ...(my emphasis)

It does depend on circumstances, but I think the bit I've underlined is important and something we should bear in mind in all interactions. Courtesy can shade into safety, sometimes pretty quickly. The cycling manslaughter charge is still current and one of the points I made in that long thread was that the rider may have been over-influenced by the "due to my efforts" line of thinking, reinforced by stopping a fixed-wheel bike needing even more rider effort.

Anyway, this turn of the thread isn't about looking and not seeing, but seeing and ignoring.

[axel_knutt]

...but secondly and more pertinently why didn't he stop as I was reversing?

As others have suggested, having right of way was probably the motivation behind their actions.

Right of way is not the right to cause an accident. In the scenario described there are two options:

1) Pull out, ensuring that you do so slowly enough to give oncoming traffic time to recognise that you can't see, and stop accordingly.
2) Wait indefinitely, when waiting won't improve the lack of visibility that is causing the problem.

[mjr]

In the scenario described there are two options:

1) Pull out, ensuring that you do so slowly enough to give oncoming traffic time to recognise that you can't see, and stop accordingly.
2) Wait indefinitely, when waiting won't improve the lack of visibility that is causing the problem.

3) Get someone else to watch you out, as instructed by the Highway Code.

I also note that in the scenario described, waiting would improve the lack of visibility because the other vehicle would move eventually, but patience is not something that motorists are expected to have any more. It's the motorist's right to get in their car and immediately go and hang the rest of the world.

[mjr]

I hesitate to reply to this because a post with such invective rarely leads to a good outcome. But here goes. If you really do not recognise the original scenario described - where authorities deliberately create parking spaces which are easily driven into but not reversed into, usually on busy high streets then I assure you they exist, several towns locally here have such an arrangement. Motorists do stop - mainly because they've been in exactly the same position themselves - needing to creep out cautiously whilst having little or no vision.

I know such attractive nuisance parking spaces exist and I described what happens to me when I have the unpleasant experience of cycling past them. Cycling campaigns routinely oppose them because they are dangerous. I disagree completely about why motorists stop when they see another motorist starting to reverse out blind - it's not some warm fuzzy feeling of empathy or generosity of spirit, but cold fear of expensive damage to their vehicle.

A bicycle is as much part of the traffic as a car or a pedestrian is, there is no reason why a cyclist should not have some generosity of spirit - this might include seeing a car reversing with limited visibility and allowing the driver to conclude the manoeuvre.

So why do you feel that motorists should not have some generosity of spirit, obey the highway code about not reversing into busy roads and giving way to vulnerable road users?

As a cyclist I frequently slow down for pedestrians, dog walkers and horses.

Yes, you slow for those more vulnerable or wild. Why shouldn't you when a motorist slow or wait for cyclists?

Sometimes I slow or stop for large agricultural machinery or heavy goods vehicles which are carrying out some difficult manoeuvre, I did so at the weekend for a lorry carrying out 180 degree turn mainly across two lanes. Should I have doffed my cap then?

Well, it sounds like you did as good as. Depending on the situation, I'd probably stop but might video it and then report them, especially if there's something like a roundabout ahead where they could make a 180-degree turn more safely and less disruptively.

[thirdcrank]

... Right of way is not the right to cause an accident. In the scenario described there are two options:

1) Pull out, ensuring that you do so slowly enough to give oncoming traffic time to recognise that you can't see, and stop accordingly.
2) Wait indefinitely, when waiting won't improve the lack of visibility that is causing the problem.

That succinctly says in three lines something I'd have covered in half a page.

I'll use the space I've been saved to add that "right of way" was the expression used by defence counsel in the current cycling manslaughter case.

It's strange that nose-in herringbone parking is provided as on-street parking because the need to reverse out blind must be quite common. Assuming that such provision is to maximise parking outside shops, it also means that shoppers returning to their cars have to load up near the traffic, rather than from the relative safety of the footway. All to make driving in a bit easier than reversing in. I don't know if there are any guidelines but parking places angled the other way would be a lot safer overall.

[axel_knutt]

In the scenario described there are two options:

1) Pull out, ensuring that you do so slowly enough to give oncoming traffic time to recognise that you can't see, and stop accordingly.
2) Wait indefinitely, when waiting won't improve the lack of visibility that is causing the problem.

3) Get someone else to watch you out, as instructed by the Highway Code.

I also note that in the scenario described, waiting would improve the lack of visibility because the other vehicle would move eventually, but patience is not something that motorists are expected to have any more. It's the motorist's right to get in their car and immediately go and hang the rest of the world.

When a car is parked on a road with double white lines the law allows you to cross the white lines because it's absurd to wait for hours in the expectation that a parked car will be moved. In a scenario where the view is obstructed by buildings you would be in for an even longer wait. There aren't always people about to ask, nor is it wise to rely on someone else's judgement about when it's safe to pull out. He doesn't know how quickly you react to his nod, and you don't know how much time he has allowed you to do so, nor how good his perception of speed is.

When I was a kid I had a Saturday job with a van driver who used to stop at give way lines looking only to the right, and then expect me to tell him when it was clear to the left. If I said go he would pull out without looking himself, and if I didn't say go he would start getting irritable & impatient..........

[mjr]

In the scenario described there are two options:

1) Pull out, ensuring that you do so slowly enough to give oncoming traffic time to recognise that you can't see, and stop accordingly.
2) Wait indefinitely, when waiting won't improve the lack of visibility that is causing the problem.

3) Get someone else to watch you out, as instructed by the Highway Code.

I also note that in the scenario described, waiting would improve the lack of visibility because the other vehicle would move eventually, but patience is not something that motorists are expected to have any more. It's the motorist's right to get in their car and immediately go and hang the rest of the world.

When a car is parked on a road with double white lines the law allows you to cross the white lines because it's absurd to wait for hours in the expectation that a parked car will be moved. In a scenario where the view is obstructed by buildings you would be in for an even longer wait.

Different scenarios and the building view one is more easily avoided because buildings tend not to appear in the time one is parked. It's up to us when driving to park our vehicles safely, which includes judging that a road will be too busy at our return to park nose-in if we've no-one to watch us out, not for everyone else to get out of our way when we return to a forseeable dangerous situation.

There aren't always people about to ask, nor is it wise to rely on someone else's judgement about when it's safe to pull out. He doesn't know how quickly you react to his nod, and you don't know how much time he has allowed you to do so, nor how good his perception of speed is.

It's not great, but it is far better than just reversing out blind.

When I was a kid I had a Saturday job with a van driver who used to stop at give way lines looking only to the right, and then expect me to tell him when it was clear to the left. If I said go he would pull out without looking himself, and if I didn't say go he would start getting irritable & impatient..........

Bad driver. Deserves to be irritable, or ideally disqualified. I know it's not easy to denounce dangerous workers as the new kid, though, so my younger self would just have tried to avoid riding with him.

[thirdcrank]

In this scenario, if we accept that the reversing driver should be banned for life or worse, that's no justification for anybody on the main drag with priority, right-of-way or whatever anybody wants to call it not attending to their own responsibilities as a road user.

[Ben@Forest]

Sometimes I slow or stop for large agricultural machinery or heavy goods vehicles which are carrying out some difficult manoeuvre, I did so at the weekend for a lorry carrying out 180 degree turn mainly across two lanes. Should I have doffed my cap then?

Well, it sounds like you did as good as. Depending on the situation, I'd probably stop but might video it and then report them, especially if there's something like a roundabout ahead where they could make a 180-degree turn more safely and less disruptively.

He had just passed a turn onto a major road which was unexpectedly closed. Once past the turn it was no access to vehicles over 7.5 tonnes (so technically he was already in breach of the Highway Code). He had found the first farmers track of any size and was using it and the two lanes of the road to execute a turn. One bike and probably six cars were waiting for him and nobody was fazed by it. It was a good job he turned when he did - about another 800 yds on is the reason for the restriction. It seems to me he was making the best of a bad situation, and it was not dangerous.

I worry about this cult of reporting everything - when did we become a nation of snoops?

[mjr]

Well, it sounds like you did as good as. Depending on the situation, I'd probably stop but might video it and then report them, especially if there's something like a roundabout ahead where they could make a 180-degree turn more safely and less disruptively.

He had just passed a turn onto a major road which was unexpectedly closed. Once past the turn it was no access to vehicles over 7.5 tonnes (so technically he was already in breach of the Highway Code). He had found the first farmers track of any size and was using it and the two lanes of the road to execute a turn. One bike and probably six cars were waiting for him and nobody was fazed by it. It was a good job he turned when he did - about another 800 yds on is the reason for the restriction. It seems to me he was making the best of a bad situation, and it was not dangerous.

Sounds like it, hence "depending on the situation".

I worry about this cult of reporting everything - when did we become a nation of snoops?

First World War? 1700s/1800s founding of the modern police? 600s Christianisation? Roman rule?

I worry about this tendency to use words like "snoops" to describe honest citizens blowing the whistle on dangerous acts - when did people stop caring if their neighbours are killed? Does this exception only apply to motorists, or would you not report someone walking around with a 4-foot sword in an aggressive manner?

[axel_knutt]

Different scenarios and the building view one is more easily avoided because buildings tend not to appear in the time one is parked. It's up to us when driving to park our vehicles safely, which includes judging that a road will be too busy at our return to park nose-in if we've no-one to watch us out, not for everyone else to get out of our way when we return to a forseeable dangerous situation.

I wasn't referring particularly to parking. There are plenty of occasions when you might have to pull out of a side road or drive when your view to the right is obscured by a building or parked vans.

[Cyril Haearn]

... Right of way is not the right to cause an accident. In the scenario described there are two options:

1) Pull out, ensuring that you do so slowly enough to give oncoming traffic time to recognise that you can't see, and stop accordingly.
2) Wait indefinitely, when waiting won't improve the lack of visibility that is causing the problem.

That succinctly says in three lines something I'd have covered in half a page.

I'll use the space I've been saved to add that "right of way" was the expression used by defence counsel in the current cycling manslaughter case.

It's strange that nose-in herringbone parking is provided as on-street parking because the need to reverse out blind must be quite common. Assuming that such provision is to maximise parking outside shops, it also means that shoppers returning to their cars have to load up near the traffic, rather than from the relative safety of the footway. All to make driving in a bit easier than reversing in. I don't know if there are any guidelines but parking places angled the other way would be a lot safer overall.

Angled the other way? Then the motons would be reversing towards people on the pavement! No!

[Ben@Forest]

It's strange that nose-in herringbone parking is provided as on-street parking because the need to reverse out blind must be quite common. Assuming that such provision is to maximise parking outside shops, it also means that shoppers returning to their cars have to load up near the traffic, rather than from the relative safety of the footway. All to make driving in a bit easier than reversing in. I don't know if there are any guidelines but parking places angled the other way would be a lot safer overall.

Angled the other way? Then the motons would be reversing towards people on the pavement! No!

I think that the reason for driving in rather than reversing in is time saved. People will drive in accurately 999 times out of a 1000. Reversing in may take some people three or four manoeuvres to get it right. And, as I've already said it's often a problem easily solved because at busy times there's almost always someone looking for a free space and -if not - people do stop to let you out. Maybe that's just the north ...

[mjr]

I wasn't referring particularly to parking. There are plenty of occasions when you might have to pull out of a side road or drive when your view to the right is obscured by a building or parked vans.

Then either there's enough visibility (sometimes the road design will be tweaked to create the visibility with build-outs or similar) or the parked van is obstructing the highway and should be removed/punished. Anyway, it's covered by other parts of the highway code and you'll be 2m or so behind the end of your vehicle, which is usually less than if you're reversing out blind, so it's a much less severe problem.

[...] I don't know if there are any guidelines but parking places angled the other way would be a lot safer overall.

Angled the other way? Then the motons would be reversing towards people on the pavement! No!

I'd prefer it, but it's desirable to put posts in the edge of the carriageway to give the motons something to lock their reversing sensors onto.

I think that the reason for driving in rather than reversing in is time saved. People will drive in accurately 999 times out of a 1000. Reversing in may take some people three or four manoeuvres to get it right.

Sorry but then their driving falls below the required standard for the licensing test and they shouldn't be on the road, much less entitled to a parking space. We've basically too many motorists on the road in places and I've no problem suggesting that we should remove the ones who should fail the current driving test first, rather than make road layouts more dangerous to enable substandard motorists. That's why I support the police still using their cutback resources to run spot-checks and I think we should be a lot harsher in dealing with incompetent parking and obstruction - points for poor parking.

[axel_knutt]

Then either there's enough visibility (sometimes the road design will be tweaked to create the visibility with build-outs or similar) or the parked van is obstructing the highway and should be removed/punished. Anyway, it's covered by other parts of the highway code and you'll be 2m or so behind the end of your vehicle, which is usually less than if you're reversing out blind, so it's a much less severe problem.

This is a lot of what's going wrong on the roads: people have the right of way, so they'll find any excuse for not using a bit of courtesy and common sense and giving way. My cousin is like that. On a narrow bridge where the signs give priority to one direction she would accelerate at oncoming cars if they didn't give way to her when they were supposed to. My driving instructor took the logic to the opposite extreme:
"When does a pedestrian have right of way?"
"On a crossing"
"No, always, because you wouldn't run one over would you?"
Right of way isn't the right to cause an accident, but the expectation of a duty of care isn't the same as having right of way either.

Shared space schemes operate by taking away the slavish observance of rules and making people use their own initiative.