MOTO-NZ finally come up with something for all our money

[James Deuce]

How does this new report cover that aspect?



This suggests it's longer, more like 0.4s

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/conf...am_labbett.pdf

The new report doesn't cover the psych aspect, and we can swap studies all night. 0.4s is still to short to make an informed, conscious decision to pull out of an intersection. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make though.

[SuperMac]

People who scan traffic and actively spot motorcycles are much more likely to be motorcyclists or related to a motorcyclist. The psych component of spotting motorcycles and push bikes is hugely under rated in every conspicuity study I've ever read.

People who have no vested interest in not killing cyclists or motorcyclists simply don't look for them in and around traffic.

The new report doesn't cover the psych aspect,

Not this?

Another development in the field has been an appreciation of the role of aspects of conspicuity other than visibility. For example, Brooks and Guppy (1996) found that car drivers who had relatives who rode a motorcycle were less likely than average to be involved in a collision with a motorcyclist; one suggestion for this effect is that for these drivers, motorcyclists are more ‘cognitively conspicuous’ (i.e. expected). Recent data from Crundall, Crundall, Clarke and Sharar (2012) are also relevant here; car drivers who also have experience as motorcyclists look in different places for motorcyclists at junctions when compared with other experienced car drivers and with novices. Again the suggested mechanism for this is that their experience as motorcyclists gives them an appreciation of where to look, and this ‘cognitive conspicuity’ aids detection.

That seems to be exactly what you're saying

[Conquiztador]

Not this?

Another development in the field has been an appreciation of the role of aspects of conspicuity other than visibility. For example, Brooks and Guppy (1996) found that car drivers who had relatives who rode a motorcycle were less likely than average to be involved in a collision with a motorcyclist; one suggestion for this effect is that for these drivers, motorcyclists are more ‘cognitively conspicuous’ (i.e. expected). Recent data from Crundall, Crundall, Clarke and Sharar (2012) are also relevant here; car drivers who also have experience as motorcyclists look in different places for motorcyclists at junctions when compared with other experienced car drivers and with novices. Again the suggested mechanism for this is that their experience as motorcyclists gives them an appreciation of where to look, and this ‘cognitive conspicuity’ aids detection.

That seems to be exactly what you're saying

That's it then! We can now stop all this blaha and implement the following as the solution:
"Before a person can be considered for an Automobile Learners License he/she must hold a full motorbike license"

[MrKiwi]

And how do you tell the difference between a driver who didn't even bother to look, and one that didn't see because the rider was not conspicuous enough? Because I would imagine most drivers would exaggerate how much they actually looked.

By all means chalk them up as the driver failed to observe, and then say (if this is backed up by the studies) that with better conspicuity on the riders part, drivers are less likely to fail to observe.

To be fair, that is the inference. Less likely is a good way to put it.

[MrKiwi]

People who scan traffic and actively spot motorcycles are much more likely to be motorcyclists or related to a motorcyclist. The psych component of spotting motorcycles and push bikes is hugely under rated in every conspicuity study I've ever read.

People who have no vested interest in not killing cyclists or motorcyclists simply don't look for them in and around traffic. It's not malicious, but it is negligent, however in their defense that stems from a system that places no emphasis in understanding how some forms of transportation can be camouflaged by their own size. Oddly enough, the two forms of transport most affected by motion camouflage are motorcycles and trains, both because they simply don't appear to be moving relative to the background until very close to viewer. Given that the average driver scans in any direction for only a 10th of a second, conspicuity is not the major issue. The major issue is training people HOW to look and WHAT to look for. Your subconscious deals very well with the expected. It interprets cars and trucks and their relative position to the observer very well without exercising much in the way of conscious thought. In that 10th of a second, your brain does not see in colour, your memory fills in the blanks and adds details after you've decided to look elsewhere. Again conspicuity has very little to do with the actual perceived reality of the viewer. The length of time spent observing simply isn't long enough to do anything other than react in your usual rote fashion, with memory providing expected motion and reaction patterns.

Changing that 10th of a second to 1 second via training will drop the intersection accident rate far more than a fluorescent gimp suit ever will.

James - very well put, your description certainly mirrors my experience as I tour or commute. I've ridden about 30,000kms on my motorbike in the last two years and since I've fitted powerful led's on my crash bars (last Christmas) I've noticed people are now less likely to pull out in front of me, but it most certainly has not stopped the practice. I suspect nothing will stop the practice of those car drivers who don't give a flying **** about motorcyclists (or other road users for that matter).

The literature review was aimed at principally conspicuity and not at the psych component. The Council is interested in the psych component because this one of the areas we constantly hear about from riders and as riders we know about. There is another programme of work around SMIDSY (or in government speak LBFTS - looked but failed to see) where the Council is keen to get a better view of how to address the issues you raise. The challenge in deciding what to work on and when is that none of the issues are totally separate from one another but we can't tackle all the issues at once.

[swbarnett]

SMIDSY (or in government speak LBFTS - looked but failed to see)

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! LBFTS and SMIDSY are not the same thing.

The term "LBFTS" misses an important part of the SMIDSY, those that don't look in the first place. These are the ones that pull out in front of fire engines. Over the past year or two I have personally witnessed a number of emergency vehicles travelling, legitimately, against a red light. Almost without fail they had to avoid some blind cager that had no idea they were there.

[Ocean1]

I suspect nothing will stop the practice of those car drivers who don't give a flying **** about motorcyclists (or other road users for that matter).

If you want to change accident stat's then change the factors that you have some control over, it's pointless to blame humans for behaving like humans.

The Council is interested in the psych component because this one of the areas we constantly hear about from riders and as riders we know about. There is another programme of work around SMIDSY (or in government speak LBFTS - looked but failed to see) where the Council is keen to get a better view of how to address the issues you raise.

You don't need evolutionary psychologists to tell you why people aren't good at driving, you just have to know how they fail.

This was kicking around here a while ago, fairly succinct description of the problem: http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-p...each-cyclists/

As to how you fix it? Outside of the measures you're already aware of you don't. Unless you adopt RAF pilot training regimes, complete with the 95% fail rate. Sucks to be responsible for a problem with no politically acceptable solution, eh?

[bogan]

To be fair, that is the inference. Less likely is a good way to put it.

"The inference" is not good enough, the only reason I can think of not to state it directly is to mislead people.

Although the report is aimed at motorcyclists, the main factor in conspicuity is still driver failed to observe, and the stats must be recorded as the later to ensure bias is not introduced. It might seem an insignificant change that doesn't matter, but it does change the way the report is read and interpreted.

[MrKiwi]

As to how you fix it? Outside of the measures you're already aware of you don't. Unless you adopt RAF pilot training regimes, complete with the 95% fail rate. Sucks to be responsible for a problem with no politically acceptable solution, eh?

some things are like this yes! But I'm prepared to give it a go for a while.

[Zedder]

some things are like this yes! But I'm prepared to give it a go for a while.

Well, you appear to be making some progress. Thanks.

[MrKiwi]

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! LBFTS and SMIDSY are not the same thing.

The term "LBFTS" misses an important part of the SMIDSY, those that don't look in the first place. These are the ones that pull out in front of fire engines. Over the past year or two I have personally witnessed a number of emergency vehicles travelling, legitimately, against a red light. Almost without fail they had to avoid some blind cager that had no idea they were there.

Fair point, although looked but failed to see sort of says they looked first...

[cheshirecat]

I'll trade SIDSY for vehicles keeping to their side of the road.

[Berries]

For those who can't be arsed reading the report this little gem is contained in the acknowledgments at the end.

Special thanks are due to Cris Burgess for reviewing an earlier draft of this report. During the period of time when reviewing the draft, Cris was riding his motorcycle to work and was struck from behind by a bus. Thankfully, Cris sustained only minor injuries in the collision. The irony of the fact that at the time of the collision he was wearing a bright orange high-visibility jacket, and riding a motorcycle with daytime running lights, is not lost on the authors.

[GrayWolf]

Put another way, a significant causal factor in a small number of crashes...

This I think is the 'nub' of the for and against argument... IF conspicuity is a factor in only a small number of incidents, albeit a significant one. By percentages it is only a 'minor' factor in overall crashes.. BUT the minority figures are being manipulated into seemingly major proportions by rhetoric and exaggeration by groups like ACC.
Once again I will refer back to the 1980's and the Leg protector's attempted by Peter Bottomly (transport minister) using flawed and only partially accurate data... it was an ALMOST law, and I mean ALMOST....
without a concerted effort by all rider's and groups, in the end (even if in 10 years time) Hi Vis WILL become required.

[James Deuce]

Depends whether or not they decide to learn anything from France.