My theory on why I keep getting pulled out on by cars

SimonAH

This is serious.

Right, firstly look at this;



Now, I swear that that the above is true.

I read somewhere that about 80% of what we see is based on the mind ‘filling in the gaps’ as the sheer volume of visual information received is just too large for the brain to process. Basically the brain picks up a few expected clues and then joins the dots around the periphery and concentrates on the bits that matter (threats, opportunities etc).

In this example the mind is expecting to see the pattern of black and white squares and the shadow, so if you play with things out of the natural phase then it can be thrown off. The amazing thing is that (my mind at least) refuses to see them as the same colour. Even if I block off most of the rest of the screen with my hands and only look at the two squares – with a little of the rest of the image still visible my brain remains fooled. Unless you pull out colour sections on paint, or check the colour in another way, you really can’t see them as the same shade.

Copy and paste it into paint and see for yourself if you don’t believe me.

Have to say it’s one of the best optical illusions I’ve seen in years!

BUT this is where my theory comes into play.

I have had drivers pull out to almost T-bone me on the bicycle many times despite clearly making eye contact with me on the bicycle. My only explanation is that when pulling out into the path of a car a motorist judges the speed of the oncoming vehicle, but when pulling out on a bicycle the brain simply puts it into the category of ‘slow moving’ or essentially stationary (with respect to a car) and doesn’t bother to assess that I’m tonking along at 25mph. This may be less true in the city where motorists and bicycles interact daily (and presumably the brain is re-trained through repetition) but out here in the sticks, where a driver might share the road once a month with a bicycle, they just don't seem to look at them as vehicles.

Think about it. Do you consider the positions of trees when you're riding / driving? Or are they just green things in the periphery of your vision as you concentrate on the real threats on the road?

Discuss (if you wish) :-)

jonginge

Also read this yesterday. Illuminating:
http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilo ... -cyclists/

rjsterry

If you turn the image 90˚ anti clockwise, it's easier to see them as the same colour. I don't know if you are at all artistically-inclined, but if you've ever tried to draw anything from life, and accurately portray the tonal variations, you'll know that you have to spend a lot more time looking than drawing.

As for the SMIDSY theory, I think that's part of it, but there's also the looming phenomenon. As something approaches at a constant speed, it appears to increase in size in proportion to the square of the speed, leading to the appearance that the cyclist accelerates dramatically as they get closer - Like the Think! advert with the m/bike hitting the side of the car.

Oh, and eye-contact means f*** all.

veronese68

Looming. It's the technique dragonflies use to catch their prey. An object with a small frontal area travelling straight towards you doesn't register. So, if you weave a little as you do so you become a LOT more visible. You haven't actually made eye contact, the driver is looking straight through you.
Regarding a slow moving vehicle perception. Try driving a 150bhp Triumph Vitesse. Other drivers think quaint little old car and pull out on you.
The other option is of course that they know you. ;-)

rick_chasey

So what's the solution?

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

So what's the solution?

I don't think there is a solution to the looming problem, short of strapping a cut-out of the front of a car to your bars.

veronese68

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So what's the solution?

I don't think there is a solution to the looming problem, short of strapping a cut-out of the front of a car to your bars.

A cut out of a fast car. And a bit of weaving may help.

pangolin

Veronese68 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So what's the solution?

I don't think there is a solution to the looming problem, short of strapping a cut-out of the front of a car to your bars.

A cut out of a fast car. And a bit of weaving may help.

To create a bit of motion I bob my head up and down as I pedal. It works really well.

Not like those weirdos who keep their heads really still.

Kieran_Burns

Rick Chasey wrote:

So what's the solution?

Don't play chess with Simon.

Oh, and for those (like me) whose brain is melting:

rjsterry

JonGinge wrote:

Also read this yesterday. Illuminating:
http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilo ... -cyclists/

Aha! That's only taken 35 years. I have nystagmus - my eyes move involuntarily from side to side - but I have never been able to see it in the mirror, despite it being fairly obvious to others, so I have no idea what it looks like. The bit about Saccadic Masking explains why.

daddy0

Solution - use more of the road. When I approach side road junctions /petrol stations /driveways /anywhere where a car is waiting to pull out, I tend to always pull out into the middle of the lane I'm in (after checking my 6 of course). I guess this makes the waiting driver notice me as I've never had a problem with people pulling out on me. I do it in order to stay away from the front of the car, just in case they edge out or their foot slips off the brake. A lot of the time I'm in the middle of the lane anyway, if you want to be treated like regular traffic then it helps to act like it I guess?

DonDaddyD

You lot are having a giggle.

The A is on a black square and the B is on a white sqaure. It's there plain to see. People who are claiming anything else are just pretending as attempt to appear more intelligent than they are.

A case of emperor's new clothes.

vermin

That's black magic and I want no part in it.

But the article posted by JG is insightful, and explains why I don't run into much trouble wearing the bright pink of Lampre.

SimonAH

DonDaddyD wrote:

You lot are having a giggle.

The A is on a black square and the B is on a white sqaure. It's there plain to see. People who are claiming anything else are just pretending as attempt to appear more intelligent than they are.

A case of emperor's new clothes.

(not sure if trolling)

I also sent this to the guys in the office - one won't even believe it when you cut and drag a section out with paint - reckons it's to do with the way colours show on a monitor :roll:

notsoblue

Daddy0 wrote:

Solution - use more of the road. When I approach side road junctions /petrol stations /driveways /anywhere where a car is waiting to pull out, I tend to always pull out into the middle of the lane I'm in (after checking my 6 of course). I guess this makes the waiting driver notice me as I've never had a problem with people pulling out on me. I do it in order to stay away from the front of the car, just in case they edge out or their foot slips off the brake. A lot of the time I'm in the middle of the lane anyway, if you want to be treated like regular traffic then it helps to act like it I guess?

I'm the same actually. Though this only really works well in London in my experience. Riding in the countryside or around faster traffic changes things significantly.

UndercoverElephant

notsoblue wrote:

Daddy0 wrote:

Solution - use more of the road. When I approach side road junctions /petrol stations /driveways /anywhere where a car is waiting to pull out, I tend to always pull out into the middle of the lane I'm in (after checking my 6 of course). I guess this makes the waiting driver notice me as I've never had a problem with people pulling out on me. I do it in order to stay away from the front of the car, just in case they edge out or their foot slips off the brake. A lot of the time I'm in the middle of the lane anyway, if you want to be treated like regular traffic then it helps to act like it I guess?

I'm the same actually. Though this only really works well in London in my experience. Riding in the countryside or around faster traffic changes things significantly.

Seems to work OK in Edinburgh too

Also has the benefit that there's definitely nobody boxing you in, so if the car does start to pull out, you have a good chance to go round it.

Origamist

Daddy0 wrote:

Solution - use more of the road. When I approach side road junctions /petrol stations /driveways /anywhere where a car is waiting to pull out, I tend to always pull out into the middle of the lane I'm in (after checking my 6 of course). I guess this makes the waiting driver notice me as I've never had a problem with people pulling out on me. I do it in order to stay away from the front of the car, just in case they edge out or their foot slips off the brake. A lot of the time I'm in the middle of the lane anyway, if you want to be treated like regular traffic then it helps to act like it I guess?

Taking a more central lane position on the approach to junctions can certainly help (lateral movement is good), but it does not solve the intractable problem of cars pulling out into your path.

Case in point, from yesterday's commute:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_yMNb2_GsU

rubertoe

DonDaddyD wrote:

You lot are having a giggle.

The A is on a black square and the B is on a white sqaure. It's there plain to see. People who are claiming anything else are just pretending as attempt to appear more intelligent than they are.

A case of emperor's new clothes.

I am with DDD on this (i apear to keep agreeing with him), I never get these things, is it cos I am from norf London?

jejv

rubertoe wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

You lot are having a giggle.

The A is on a black square and the B is on a white sqaure. It's there plain to see. People who are claiming anything else are just pretending as attempt to appear more intelligent than they are.

A case of emperor's new clothes.

I am with DDD on this (i apear to keep agreeing with him), I never get these things, is it cos I am from norf London?

Nope, squares A and B ARE the same colour. Use colour picker in Photoshop/gimp/paintshop/...

See also:


http://www.wikiradiography.com/page/Mac ... +Illusions

Not sure that this is that relevant to road safety, though.

daddy0

Origamist wrote:

Case in point, from yesterday's commute:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_yMNb2_GsU

Good foresight! I just subscribed to your channel :-)

rubertoe

Your all witches and shall be treated as such.

merkin

There is also motion induced blindness. As mentioned, if you are travelling towards someone you appear relatively still but the driver should (you would hope!) know you are heading towards them and not pull out. However if they simply cannot seem you, despite you being in clear view, they may well pull out.
This optical illusion scares me, not least as it makes me think that maybe I might one day be the one saying SMIDSY.
http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_mib/

davmaggs

Don't make eye contact, seriously. All you are doing is telling them to go ahead and pull out.

negativelycra

IMO the problem is assumption. People see a bike, assume 10 mph, so doing 20+ takes people by suprise and you have a potential for trouble.
I have the same problem driving the caterham - enter a big roundabout at perfectly within the car's normal ability speeds. You'll be doing approx double the speed of dorris in her micra. Busses, lorries, cars etc etc just look at the gap in distance, and cut you up left, right and centre.

The solution? Same for both cyclists and drivers. To avoid trouble, you have to drive / ride better to compensate for muppets around you. You could continue to fly along at 25mph, they would be in the wrong, but it'd be you bleeding. No different IMO than my analogy above - i could sail into the side of the car pulling out in front, 100% his fault. It'd be me with broken ankles and a bent 7.

I know it's annoying, esp. because we're all chasing average speeds on rides - but to be fair it's a public road, so you have to ride with your compensate-for-numpties head on at all times, even if it does cost a few MPH on strava.

Initialised

Watch this video for some insight into why SMIDSYs happen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

First.Aspect

JonGinge wrote:

Also read this yesterday. Illuminating:
http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilo ... -cyclists/

Brilliant article - thanks Jon.

I feel that it is flawed in that it fails to address why cyclists don't drive into other cyclists when they drive (actually, it kinda does at the end). The answer, in my view, is that we look for cyclists when we are driving. I wonder if we see them because the motion of our eyes automatically adjusts for the size of the object we are looking for.

Thus, this comes straight back to the problem we all know about - the reason we aren't seen is because drivers aren't looking for us.

I am a timid driver these days. Partly I because I've got three plates and 30 odd screws in my ankle resulting from someone pressing the "go" pedal whilst looking in another direction. Partly its because I'm a cyclist. Partly its because I have cats and love all other animals (not literally). All of this means I get into a car and I am looking for cats, squirrels, rabbits, deer, children (grudgingly), cyclists, etc.

Hence, I don't drive into things I'm looking for. This is simple consequential thinking.

The ONLY solution is for there to be a consequence. Presently, the law says, "whoops". This should not be the case. There should be a much higher duty of care imposed upon you the second you start using a piece of heavy machinery. If that happens to be a car, the duty of care seems to be the same as if you are walking along a street.

When I lived in North America I didn't experience very much aggression when cycling (I wouldn't have taken up the sport if I was here I don't think!). I believe that people tare more patient and cautious there because (a) police have guns (b) hicks have guns (c) your insurance broker asks, "do you want to be covered by $1million liability, $3million, or $5million?". If you have an accident, you are liable for the balance. There are consequences to SMIDSY. You could lose your house and life savings.

There need to be more consequences to SMIDSY here. It is crazy that maiming someone accidentally with a car ususally carries the same penalty as illegally parking.

As much resentment as it would cause, the only way to cause immediate consequential thinking is to introduce a presumption of liability if a car hits anything smaller than it - a motorbike, a cyclist, a pedestrian, a mobility scooter. Not only is this statistically in the interests of justice, it would make more motorists afraid of the consequences of hitting things and so they would look for them.

(And lets just scrap protected no claims bonuses if you are convicted of careless driving, shall we?)

flimflam_machine

Ok, a couple of long posts. First some stuff on the illusion that SimonAH posted (assuming that DDD’s not just trolling) and second some more thoughts on SMIDSY. Apologies for geekery and, to any real vision scientists, apologies for any misplaced terminology.

The illusion that SimonAH posted is an example of Brightness Constancy. Essentially it is your brain disregarding the nature of the light falling (the illuminant) on the object in order to give you an accurate measure of the surface colour (the reflectance) of the object itself. The objective nature of the light that falls on your eye is a combination of the two so, for example, bright light shining on a dark surface returns a similar amount of light to your eye as a dim light on a lighter-coloured surface. There is a fairly powerful argument that these “illusions” are not a sign of the visual system failing, but actually it doing its job properly since the surface colour of the object is much more important than the nature of the light falling on it (see this lot for better explanations). This is perhaps easier to understand for the equivalent colour phenomenon (unsurprisingly “Colour constancy”): it’s important to be able to spot ripe red fruit against green leaves whether they’re in full yellowish-white midday sun or pinkish-tinged evening light.

What SimonA posted is a 2D depiction of a 3D scene. In the 2D version there is no distinction between the surface colour and the light falling, they are just mashed together to give the monitor-outputted value (e.g., R: 150, G: 150, B: 150) at any given pixel. The monitor brightness at A and B are physically the same, but your brain still interprets it as a 3D scene. Your brain, in effect, takes account of the shadow (which implies less light falling on the shadowed area) to return an accurate picture of what the surface colour of the squares would be in the 3D scene. This explains why turning it through 90-degrees may help, since it reduces the plausibility of it as a naturally illuminated, real 3D setup.

Edit to add: rjsterry makes a really good point. When you paint or draw, what you essentially want to do is to put on paper the objective amount/colour of light that is falling on your eye. What makes this really difficult (for untrained people) is that your brain insists on discounting the illuminant and giving you the "answer" of what the surface colour of the object is. If you paint the colour you perceive, the lighting looks all wrong. It's also really difficult to paint shapes accurately e.g., if you place a circular object flat on the floor and look at it from some distance away it will cast an elliptical outline on your eye, but you will tend to draw it as more circular than this outline, because your brain can account for the angle and tells you (correctly) that the object is circular.

bails87

The above is why I'm woeful at drawing. I draw what I know is there, so it ends up looking completely different.

As for First Aspect's point about non-cyclists not looking, I reckon that's right. We tend to know that a quick glance isn't enough, you have to actually look properly] in each direction. We do that on the bike because if we fail to see a ped, cyclist or car we'll end up being hurt,we probably do it in the car because we care about other cyclists. If a driver glances and fails to see anything smaller than a car then he'll be completely unharmed in the ensuing collision, if he's got no real empathy with cyclists and doesn't even realise that a quick spin of the head isn't actually enough then there'll be problems.

flimflam_machine

Part 2! Although brightness illusions are fun I don’t think they relate strongly to SMIDSY. Nor am I convinced that saccadic suppression (as mentioned in the article by JonGinge) is the answer. If it were then, as First Aspect points out, cyclists would crash into each other more. Also it’s hard to see why it wouldn’t have caused us problems in survival, we wouldn’t have lasted long if saccading past the oncoming sabre-toothed tiger meant that you completely missed it!

I think that SimonAH is closer to the mark when he says that drivers tend to mentally pigeonhole cyclists as slow-moving, essentially background objects, which is exacerbated by, as First Aspect said, their simply not looking out for us!

However! I think there is a fundamental problem, which is that the visual image of a cyclist approaching as reasonable distance doesn’t change a great deal until they get fairly close. Our peripheral vision is actually very sensitive to change, but if you think about the picture of a cyclist approaching you more or less head-on (as they would be at a junction) they are quite small and remain quite small, and in roughly the same relationship to the background, until they’re really close. [sidetrack] This is the looming that rjsterry mentioned, although I think he meant that “As something approaches at a constant speed, it appears to increase in size in proportion to one over the square of the distance. [/sidetrack]

This issue of a little-changing image is particularly problematic ts night when all you might see of a cyclist is a single constant light. The londoncyclist article that JonGinge pointed to is spot on in recommending a flashing light since the highly distinctive change in brightness draws attention. Some relevant work has been done on this area by John Wann. People tend to erroneously estimate that motorbikes will arrive later than cars, I assume that this extends to bikes. One really useful result is that specific headlight configurations can improve people’s accuracy in judging approach rate. Two headlights are better than one, but a triangular arrangement with both vertical and horizontal separation is better. My best guess is that it’s because this pattern perceptually expands both vertically and horizontally as the bike approaches. So the optimal arrangement would be a light on each end of your bars and one on your helmet, possibly with an additional central flasher to attract attention.

tl/dr: one light good; two lights better; three lights best.

daviesee

Negativelycra wrote:

IMO the problem is assumption. People see a bike, assume 10 mph, so doing 20+ takes people by suprise and you have a potential for trouble.
I have the same problem driving the caterham - enter a big roundabout at perfectly within the car's normal ability speeds. You'll be doing approx double the speed of dorris in her micra. Busses, lorries, cars etc etc just look at the gap in distance, and cut you up left, right and centre.

The solution? Same for both cyclists and drivers. To avoid trouble, you have to drive / ride better to compensate for muppets around you. You could continue to fly along at 25mph, they would be in the wrong, but it'd be you bleeding. No different IMO than my analogy above - i could sail into the side of the car pulling out in front, 100% his fault. It'd be me with broken ankles and a bent 7.

I know it's annoying, esp. because we're all chasing average speeds on rides - but to be fair it's a public road, so you have to ride with your compensate-for-numpties head on at all times, even if it does cost a few MPH on strava.

^^^^ THIS ^^^^

Whether we like it or not, agree with it or not, this is the situation.
It is better to be safe than right but injured.
PS:- Bright flashing lights help.

First.Aspect

flimflam_machine wrote:

Part 2! Although brightness illusions are fun I don’t think they relate strongly to SMIDSY. Nor am I convinced that saccadic suppression (as mentioned in the article by JonGinge) is the answer. If it were then, as First Aspect points out, cyclists would crash into each other more. Also it’s hard to see why it wouldn’t have caused us problems in survival, we wouldn’t have lasted long if saccading past the oncoming sabre-toothed tiger meant that you completely missed it!

You haven't understood. The article doesn't say that we are only able to scan in big chunks and therefore always miss things. Our eyes are perfectly capable of seeing an obect the size of a cyclist, or a tiger, or indeed a bird or a fly. The article points out that by looking quickly, which motorists are wont to do because they are in a hurry, you miss huge chuncks of visual information without knowning it.

As cyclists, by looking for particular types of object out of a sense of self preservation, we are more likely to see it.

Hence, the problem is of awareness.