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

[Zedder]

Have you considered that, although the rider and bike were not seen, the bigger problem might just be that the rider was not educated in ways to keep themselves alive under such circumstances?

That's a good point. A guy I knew used to ride around with a very casual "If it happens it happens and I'll deal with it" attitude which I could never understand. Not surprisingly, he had a few incidents.

[Berries]

personally you might not have had an accident because of a clack of conspicuity but it is a factor in a surprising number of accidents. Yes I have personally reviewed the CAS database to satisfy myself that the numbers are robust enough to make that statement.

I am surprised that you can use CAS to link being knocked off your bike to a lack of conspicuity, apart from the obvious fact that most people don't intend to pull out on you. Would it not be the exact same issue in a car vs car crash?

While CAS can record if a motorcyclist was wearing dark clothing it has only been used 22 times in the 4,000+ injury crashes involving a bike and another vehicle over the last five years. Considering black is the new black I don’t know why they bother. Out of the same 4,000+ crashes only 29 are recorded as the bike having inadequate or no headlights. With 26 of these being at night you could say they were the riders fault. CAS may be all we have, but the level of reporting and investigation generally finishes with “I looked but never saw them” rather than going that one step further and asking why, which is the six million dollar question. Or thirty dollar question depending on your viewpoint.

[MrKiwi]

I am surprised that you can use CAS to link being knocked off your bike to a lack of conspicuity, apart from the obvious fact that most people don't intend to pull out on you. Would it not be the exact same issue in a car vs car crash?

While CAS can record if a motorcyclist was wearing dark clothing it has only been used 22 times in the 4,000+ injury crashes involving a bike and another vehicle over the last five years. Considering black is the new black I don’t know why they bother. Out of the same 4,000+ crashes only 29 are recorded as the bike having inadequate or no headlights. With 26 of these being at night you could say they were the riders fault. CAS may be all we have, but the level of reporting and investigation generally finishes with “I looked but never saw them” rather than going that one step further and asking why, which is the six million dollar question. Or thirty dollar question depending on your viewpoint.

The evidence suggests lack of conspicuity is a significant factor in a small number of cases but it is one of a number of factors in many crashes involving multiple vehicles, especially intersection incidents. It's not a factor in loss of control.

[MrKiwi]

Have you considered that, although the rider and bike were not seen, the bigger problem might just be that the rider was not educated in ways to keep themselves alive under such circumstances?

Yes. And it's a good point you raise, one worth repeating to ourselves.

[MrKiwi]

Thanks for the comments, I'm finding the feedback useful.

[bogan]

The evidence suggests lack of conspicuity is a significant factor in a small number of cases but it is one of a number of factors in many crashes involving multiple vehicles, especially intersection incidents. It's not a factor in loss of control.

How do you get a significant factor in a small number of cases? Isn't the factor's significance measured by how well it correlates to the data? It is my understanding that CAS cannot effectively record if conspicuity was a contributing factor, only that said factor was present (and often even that will not be recorded).

[Katman]

personally you might not have had an accident because of a lack of conspicuity but it is a factor in a surprising number of accidents.

So is riders riding with their brain switched off.

[Hitcher]

So is riders riding with their brain switched off.

True. And drivers driving with theirs off too. Never assume about who may have seen what. I've learned that lesson the hard way.

[duckonin]

All sorts can b bad news at intersections/side roads/stop lights.. Regardless of what we wear, along with the headlight blaring out in front of us, a percentage of drivers will after even seeing you, will try and beat you . They play this game every day with whatever is on the road not just motorbikes . Drive defensively.

[MrKiwi]

How do you get a significant factor in a small number of cases? Isn't the factor's significance measured by how well it correlates to the data? It is my understanding that CAS cannot effectively record if conspicuity was a contributing factor, only that said factor was present (and often even that will not be recorded).

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

[MrKiwi]

So is riders riding with their brain switched off.

Sadly very true

[bogan]

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

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.

[James Deuce]

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.

[bogan]

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.

Very well put, I wonder if any of that was mentioned in the report.

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.

Yeh but whose pockets—be they high vis pockets or otherwise—is that going to line?

[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.

How does this new report cover that aspect?

Given that the average driver scans in any direction for only a 10th of a second

This suggests it's longer, more like 0.4s

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