Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

New research finds many drivers really don't "see" cyclists or motorbikers (+ video)

Phenomenon is labelled “inattentional blindness”

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."

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

54 comments

Avatar
Kadenz | 6 years ago
4 likes

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.

Avatar
ChairRDRF | 6 years ago
4 likes

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-ev...

http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/11/01/hi-viz-for-pedestrians-and-cyclists-and-th...

http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/10/31/hi-viz-for-cyclists-and-pedestrians-sensib...

http://rdrf.org.uk/2011/06/09/of-slutwalks-and-hi-viz-the-politics-of-vi...

http://rdrf.org.uk/2012/03/01/sorry-mate/

on this subject

Avatar
Kadenz replied to ChairRDRF | 6 years ago
1 like

ChairRDRF wrote:

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-ev...

http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/11/01/hi-viz-for-pedestrians-and-cyclists-and-th...

http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/10/31/hi-viz-for-cyclists-and-pedestrians-sensib...

http://rdrf.org.uk/2011/06/09/of-slutwalks-and-hi-viz-the-politics-of-vi...

http://rdrf.org.uk/2012/03/01/sorry-mate/

on this subject

 

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.

 

 

Avatar
brooksby replied to Kadenz | 6 years ago
1 like

Kadenz wrote:

ChairRDRF wrote:

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-ev...

http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/11/01/hi-viz-for-pedestrians-and-cyclists-and-th...

http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/10/31/hi-viz-for-cyclists-and-pedestrians-sensib...

http://rdrf.org.uk/2011/06/09/of-slutwalks-and-hi-viz-the-politics-of-vi...

http://rdrf.org.uk/2012/03/01/sorry-mate/

on this subject

 

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.

Then you should probably admit defeat and just drive a car: I bet they'd *definitely* see you then...   4

Avatar
RMurphy195 | 6 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
atgni | 6 years ago
0 likes
Avatar
oldstrath | 6 years ago
4 likes

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.

Avatar
Ush replied to oldstrath | 6 years ago
1 like

oldstrath wrote:

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. 

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.

Avatar
Argos74 | 6 years ago
3 likes

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.

Avatar
nbrus | 6 years ago
2 likes

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.

Avatar
zero_trooper | 6 years ago
1 like

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.

Avatar
zero_trooper | 6 years ago
1 like

Burtthebike - I'll give you a like for 'pour encourager les autres'  laugh

Avatar
burtthebike replied to zero_trooper | 6 years ago
0 likes

zero_trooper wrote:

Burtthebike - I'll give you a like for 'pour encourager les autres'  laugh

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?

Avatar
Chris Hayes | 6 years ago
1 like

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.   

Avatar
brooksby replied to Chris Hayes | 6 years ago
0 likes

Chris Hayes wrote:

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. 

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.

Avatar
maviczap replied to brooksby | 6 years ago
0 likes

brooksby wrote:

Chris Hayes wrote:

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. 

. 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.

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

Avatar
Chris Hayes | 6 years ago
0 likes

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.   

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
3 likes

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.

 

Avatar
brooksby replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
2 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

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.

 

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...)

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to brooksby | 6 years ago
4 likes

brooksby wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

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.

 

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...)

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?

Avatar
srchar | 6 years ago
10 likes

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.

Avatar
muhasib | 6 years ago
9 likes

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.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
7 likes

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. 

 

                                                                   

Avatar
burtthebike | 6 years ago
10 likes

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.

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to burtthebike | 6 years ago
4 likes

burtthebike wrote:

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.

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.

Avatar
brooksby | 6 years ago
6 likes

Quote:

"When we are driving, there's 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."

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...

Avatar
Canyon48 | 6 years ago
6 likes

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.

Avatar
Rich_cb | 6 years ago
0 likes

Would be good if they did some follow up research to see if colours or lights etc had any effect.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to Rich_cb | 6 years ago
2 likes

Rich_cb wrote:

Would be good if they did some follow up research to see if colours or lights etc had any effect.

 

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?

Avatar
Ush replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 6 years ago
1 like

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Would be good if they did some follow up research to see if colours or lights etc had any effect.

 

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?

Be careful.  You'll be banned from the roads "for your own safety, because .... science"

Pages

Latest Comments