This follows on BSOAB earlier post. http://beseenonabike.blogspot.com/2011/07/road-safety-gb-reader-comments-to.html
12 Road Safety GB readers have commented on this story (at 22/7/11)
A recent news story in which a Road Safety GB motorcycling expert warned against hi-vis jackets becoming compulsory for motorcyclists in the UK attracted a record number of comments from readers.
Dave Glanville, West Yorkshire’s specialist PTW RSO, made his comments in response to a move by the French government to make hi-vis jackets compulsory for motorcyclists. He cautioned against this in the UK, preferring a ‘common sense approach’. He argued that hi-vis clothing will not improve conspicuity on bright days, but stressed that wearing it is always advised in poor light.
Road Safety UK Reader Comments (edited by BSOAB)
newer comments are above older comments
The study carried out in New Zealand and referred to above by Bob Craven was reported in the BMJ in 2004 and seriously flawed.
The study tried to draw a link between conspicuity aids and injury risk. Whilst the conclusion the author drew was that riders wearing hi-vis and using DRLs were less at risk of accidents resulting in injury, the results actually showed that those having the accidents and suffering injury were unlicenced, disqualified, riding under the influence of alcohol, inexperienced, or riding an unfamiliar machine. All of these are known to be high risk factors.
There were also unresolved contradictions. Whilst the author claimed that white helmets were effective in reducing accident risk, it was also found that a white fairing (far bigger surface area!) was NOT effective.
The Langham study was far more relevant to understanding why motorcycles are 'invisible' as it addresses why the shape of a motorcycle/rider isn't picked up by car drivers when it should be in clear view. It should be obvious that there's only a small zone in which the rider is actually at risk of being hit by an emerging car - very close and the rider can pass the junction before the car can emerge into its path, and further back the rider can stop.
In urban accidents where the majority of SMIDSYs take place, the distance where the rider cannot avoid the collision is a matter of ten metres or less!
It should be pretty obvious that at this kind of distance the bike and rider are almost certainly in plain view if the rider has adopted a basic "see and be seen" strategy and put himself where he is in line of sight.
So why isn't a rider 10m from the driver seen? There's some research (it was reported in MCN around 10 years ago - I can't find the link right now) to the effect that we don't actually look for vehicles when looking to emerge into a stream of traffic - we learn by experience to look for gaps we can pull out into!
In other words, drivers and riders both fail to implement a proper 'scanning' regime at junctions and because of the nature of their inadequate search pattern, they tend to look BEHIND vehicles that are close up, whilst relying on a combination of the eye's sensitivity to movement to detect a hazard and on the 'shape detection' system that Langham recognises to identify the hazard.
As a motorcycle on a collision course barely moves against the background, the 'motion detection' system fails and the lack of recognition of bikes by car drivers means out of sight, out of mind and if the rider is equally unaware of the issues, the result is often a "looked but did not see" accident, in which hi-vis and DRLs are equally ineffective -
If hi-vis and DRLs worked, there should be a redistribution of accidents away from junctions since riders first started using DRLs in the mid to late 70s and hi-vis in the 80s. The fall in junction accidents should have become more pronounced since permanently wired headlights were introduced in the last few years. As far as I can see, there's no such evidence shown by accident statistics.
Kevin Williams / www.survivalskills.co.uk
Kevin Williams, Kent
Quite right Roy, hi viz is not the be all and end all. Conspicuity is only part of the problem and it's obvious that a bus, lorry or car will be more easily seen and recognised than say a scooter in a town situation and therefore will be avoided, whereas the scooter may be overlooked. Some argue that it is seen as a bicycle and not considered to be going fast or a danger. There is also the argument that drivers do not expect to see a bike as there are so few of them and therefore they are not expected and so the image do not register in the optical cortex. So much for smidgy.
I agree that as more and more twv appear on the roads either more will be injured or the rest of the motoring public will become more aware and therefore will be more accomodating.
On a personal note I will repeat that whilst riding, some 30% of drivers at junctions, I am approaching, look to the left first before looking in my direction and sometimes they are already moving out into my path or they dont bother looking my way at all. Frequently when I see a driver looking away from me, I sound my horn as an audible warning but the bike horn is a weak one and sometimes is not heard and it has no effect. I am forced to travel even slower which I dont mind as its safer to do so. But it is disconcerting.
I agree that as more and more twv appear on the roads either more will be injured or the rest of the motoring public will become more aware and therefore will be more accomodating.
On a personal note I will repeat that whilst riding, some 30% of drivers at junctions, I am approaching, look to the left first before looking in my direction and sometimes they are already moving out into my path or they dont bother looking my way at all. Frequently when I see a driver looking away from me, I sound my horn as an audible warning but the bike horn is a weak one and sometimes is not heard and it has no effect. I am forced to travel even slower which I dont mind as its safer to do so. But it is disconcerting.
Research into this topic was carried out in the late 1990s by Dr Martin Langham of Sussex University. Martin demonstrated that motorists are psychologically programmed to look for what he called geometric icons. A car is a horizontal rectangular icon and seen frequently; a motorcycle is a vertical rectangular icon and seen very infrequently, hence drivers appear to be speaking the truth when they say they did not see the motorcycle. This is conveniently linked to interesting historical data. In 1923 the number of vehicles on the road exceeded 1 million for the first time. 40% were motorcycles. In 2011 there are 34 million cars on the road. Motorcycles are only 1-2% of all vehicles hence drivers do not "think bike". Dr Langham's theory proposed that it is not it is not simply a question of conspicuity and supported this with evidence of stationary police vehicles being written off after being struck by other cars whose drivers claimed not to have seen the police car. A survey carried out with the co-operation of Sussex Police showed that, of the 40 police motorcyclists based at their Brighton Traffic Unit, 39 had been hit by cars at junctions, again with drivers claiming they never saw the rider. Need I ask, how hi-viz is a police motorcyclist?
It seems to me that the answer lies in education, both for the driver and rider. I am not sure how this can be progressed effectively because drivers tend to be inaccessible but I never cease to advise fellow motorcyclists to assume drivers have not seen you and allow the maximum margin for error. At junctions, slow down, move away from the danger and expect the driver to cross your path so be prepared to brake. Very defensive, yes, but, after 48 years of motorcycling, I am still here.
Roy Buchanan, Epsom
It seems to me that the answer lies in education, both for the driver and rider. I am not sure how this can be progressed effectively because drivers tend to be inaccessible but I never cease to advise fellow motorcyclists to assume drivers have not seen you and allow the maximum margin for error. At junctions, slow down, move away from the danger and expect the driver to cross your path so be prepared to brake. Very defensive, yes, but, after 48 years of motorcycling, I am still here.
Roy Buchanan, Epsom
I think the study Bob refers to concluded that wearing reflective/fluorescent clothing reduced the risk of a crash injury by 37%, a white helmet by 24%, and riding with headlights on by 27%. Obviously you would need to check the methodology before basing any action on it. Lots of motorcycle safety research is summarised on www.esum.org.
Mark Jessop, East Yorkshire
Mark Jessop, East Yorkshire
I use to driver a lorry which is 13'6" high & 8' wide & bright yellow cars would pull out in front of that making brake hard. It's the car drivers that are the problem lack of concentration maybe less toys & no phones at all hands free or not may help? You could make day running lights compulsory.
Steven Bradbury, (was Devon now Finland)
Steven Bradbury, (was Devon now Finland)
Do you mean research by the same industries that stand to make a profit from 'Hi-vis' sales, Honor?
Bob, do you know if the NZ survey took into account such factors as the experience/riding style/journey type of those who tend to wear HV or not? Otherwise it's a bit like telling us that all accidents can be attributed to rider conspicuity, without considering all the other facts.
Anecdotal evidence from many sources - including my own experience - suggests that wearing fluorescents in good visibility results in a much higher level of driver rights of way violations.
Phil McFadden, Pembrokeshire
Bob, do you know if the NZ survey took into account such factors as the experience/riding style/journey type of those who tend to wear HV or not? Otherwise it's a bit like telling us that all accidents can be attributed to rider conspicuity, without considering all the other facts.
Anecdotal evidence from many sources - including my own experience - suggests that wearing fluorescents in good visibility results in a much higher level of driver rights of way violations.
Phil McFadden, Pembrokeshire
Conspicuity is not a new thing. They were talking about the same as us in the 1970s and probably before that.
So its an age old problem that has been with us for at least 40 yrs. Shame someone hasn't sorted it by now.
As regards the question of a survey..... only one to my knowledge has been done and that was in 2009/10 in New Zealand of all places [obviously got the same problems with motorcyclists there]. Anyway, I don't think it hit the relevant authorities here as it was undertaken through their NHS [or similar] and appeared, wait for it, in our medical journal the BMJ in April 2010.
It did come out in favour of high vis and also white helmets. I believe that this is the only record of a survey done on conspicuity.
Bob Craven, Lancs
So its an age old problem that has been with us for at least 40 yrs. Shame someone hasn't sorted it by now.
As regards the question of a survey..... only one to my knowledge has been done and that was in 2009/10 in New Zealand of all places [obviously got the same problems with motorcyclists there]. Anyway, I don't think it hit the relevant authorities here as it was undertaken through their NHS [or similar] and appeared, wait for it, in our medical journal the BMJ in April 2010.
It did come out in favour of high vis and also white helmets. I believe that this is the only record of a survey done on conspicuity.
Bob Craven, Lancs
There is an obvious need for a research study to demonstrate whether hi-viz for bikers, cyclists and equestrians is effective and, if so, what style or pattern and which items work best. One for the industries to take up please?
Honor Byford, North Yorkshire
Honor Byford, North Yorkshire
0 comments:
Post a Comment