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

nation

I remember reading once (can't remember the source) that the tendency of the brain to fill in information in the peripheral vision with what it expects to be there could be responsible for a lot of accusations of cyclists "jumping off pavements".

The idea was that the brain sees something pedestrian sized and shaped in the peripheral vision, makes the assumption that it is a pedestrian, and places it at a distance that puts it on the pavement. Then, suddenly, that assumption is proved to be incorrect when it turns out to be a cyclist on the road in secondary.

The cyclist hasn't done anything but maintain a straight, steady, course, but the driver will nevertheless swear blind (and genuinely believe) that they were on the pavement and jumped off the kerb into their path.

This is mostly the reason I hold a fairly assertive secondary position most of the time, on the basis that the more "in front" of traffic approaching from behind I can be, the better.

First.Aspect

There's also the "he must have been on the pavement or I would have seen him" argument.

At the CTC have been pointing out, arguments placing responsibility on the cyclist are much more successful if the cyclist in question is either a child or dead.

pastryboy

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.

This is definitely it with an added dash of "I don't want to get stuck behind them"

de_sisti

nation wrote:

This is mostly the reason I hold a fairly assertive secondary position most of the time, on the basis that the more "in front" of traffic approaching from behind I can be, the better.

For that very reason, when cycling by myself (as I do most of the time) I use a Dinotte 400L rear light.

slowsider

Rick Chasey wrote:

So what's the solution?

as well as some of the answers already given, see also this sequence of articles:

http://the-ride-info.blogspot.ie/2008/0 ... ction.html
http://the-ride-info.blogspot.ie/2008/0 ... ision.html
http://the-ride-info.blogspot.ie/2008/0 ... ction.html
http://the-ride-info.blogspot.ie/2008/0 ... ellet.html
http://the-ride-info.blogspot.ie/2008/0 ... helps.html

flimflam_machine

First Aspect wrote:

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.

Apologies if I misunderstood your point. I do understand the principles explained in the londoncyclist piece so I didn't think that they were saying that we're "only able to scan in big chunks and therefore always miss things", as always it's a bit more complicated than that! I was just a bit confused by the emphasis on saccadic suppression. I guess it's useful information on the nature of the visual system (declining acuity with distance from the fovea, rapidly moving focus of overt attention to compensate, saccadic suppression to prevent hideous, overloading, smeared images), but it didn't seem to add much in the way of explanatory power in the specific case of cyclists. The main message appears to be that cyclists are at risk because they are small and slow moving, which seems pretty obvious.

I think the articles that slowsider pointed to are interesting with reference to the problems that cyclists have. They mesh quite well with what I wrote in my second post i.e., that a cyclist approaching doesn't appear to visually change that much as they approach and so their rate of approach gets misjudged. The Z-line seems like sound advice to me! For cyclists, pulling out from sceondary to primary position as you approach the junction helps make you more noticeable not only by putting you in the middle of the road, but also by moving you across the driver's field of vision.

SimonAH

Just a quick note. I keep getting pulled out on - but because I expect it to happen and drift to primary before reaching where it could happen, and keep my hands hovering over the brakes I have yet to prang because of it.

Hell yes you have to ride defensively!

phy2sll2

SimonAH wrote:

Just a quick note. I keep getting pulled out on - but because I expect it to happen and drift to primary before reaching where it could happen, and keep my hands hovering over the brakes I have yet to prang because of it.

Hell yes you have to ride defensively!

I like the idea, but I think you need to include a quick shoulder check before moving out to the far side of the lane. There's often some bellend trying to overtake at a junction.

Applespider

I think the expectation of speed is a key point here. It would be interesting to know if those who are speedier than average feel that they are pulled out on more...

I7 Extreme

colour 1 is the 'white' one and colour two is the 'black' (just to save others going on paint)