The Invisible Bike.

[Chris Hunt]

Keep an eye on the red hatch on the SECOND roundabout entrance.
The rider of the BMW did nothing wrong but did not get off so easy.

 

[Rajagra]

Completely the driver's fault, but I suspect that from the moment they had line of sight the bike was entirely in the blind spot caused by the A frame pillar. One day I should measure the angle obscured by the one in my van, but I know it's scarily big.

So maybe the bike was literally invisible. To paraphrase the lorry stickers, "if you can't see my face then I can't see you." And I don't see that drivers face in the video.

Rider took the roundabout much like I used to. But A pillars have gotten bigger since then. Nowadays I would probably leave a bigger gap in front of me so I'd have more time to be seen.

Sent from my tap-to-talk using Tapatalk

 

[old4570]

Perhaps bikes need flashing lights and sirens ....
Because too many are bike blind !

 

[DT MI]

...A pillars have gotten bigger since then....

Interesting scenario that is for sure. I don't know about vehicle standards outside the US but here the 'A' pillar size increase is due to federal safety regulations regarding roll over integrity and air bags. Unfortunately making the vehicles safer in the event of an accident makes them more dangerous to drive.

I can't wait to see what happens when all vehicles are required to have automatic braking systems. Drivers will then take the attitude they don't have to pay attention at all because the car will keep me safe.

 

[SawMaster]

Drivers will then take the attitude they don't have to pay attention at all because the car will keep me safe.

That's already occurring with people not understanding how easy it us to be harmed or killed in a crash. They've got seat-belts and airbags galore protecting them so why should they worry? Flashing lights and sirens on bikes won't help either once drivers get used to always seeing them, plus they can't be hurt badly by a bike so why should they care? The core of the problem is driver's attitudes and the lack of them being held responsible strongly enough to make them change their errant ways

I've always been very bike-aware but even I had a 'hidden by the A-pillar' experience. My road curved right gently and ended at a 'tee' junction. I began looking for oncoming traffic in the curve long before I stopped and I was going slow as well. The bike approaching from my left just happened to be going at a speed which kept him hidden by my A-pillar throughout, right up to where I stopped. I looked right then left again, then I began to move forward having seen nothing. Just as I got into his lane the bike became visible, and luckily he was toward the center of his road so there was space for him to easily get by I think it shook me up more than him for I realized that I was driving more slowly than I usually do, and had I been driving normally it would have been nasty as he couldn't have possibly avoided me then Since that incident I always look twice (and more when I can) left and right before I move into what could be somebody else's path. My head swivels back and forth like crazy, but it has paid off many times over by allowing me to see and avoid traffic which wasn't evident at first or second glance

It's an attitude thing- I am responsible for all of my vehicle's operations and that requires my utmost diligence at all times. I cannot put forth too much effort in trying to drive safely because it is impossible to be too safe Unfortunately this attitude is not held by most drivers and they will not adopt it until they're forced to

Phil

 

[DT MI]

That's already occurring with people not understanding how easy it us to be harmed or killed in a crash. They've got seat-belts and airbags galore protecting them so why should they worry? ...

Oh, I see the same thing just about every day. The point I was making it that it's only going to get worse as more and more 'safety' features are added to cars.

A worrisome point for me is when autonomous vehicles become more 'mainstream'. Who is going to be liable when (not if) something happens and people are injured/killed? Current laws place responsibility on the operator, but effectively there is none. I can hear the legal arguments now: "The vehicle is fail-safe so therefore the victim must have done something to cause their own injury."

At a minimum laws are going to have to be changed so the autonomous vehicle owner is responsible to the victim and will have to seek redress from the manufacturer for vehicle system failures/inadequacies.

 

[Rajagra]

Driver's view (camera literally held where my nose is):
See the black car?


No, not that black car, the one you can only see by moving your head to the side:

Spoiler

If a car that close can be hidden, what chance does a bike have when there's only a split second when it can be spotted?

I tried explaining this to someone in a YouTube video comment. All I got was abuse as if I was condoning careless driving. Some people don't want to learn how to avoid accidents, they just want to stay angry, blame others, and keep taking the same risks.

 

[DT MI]

That's already occurring with people not understanding how easy it us to be harmed or killed in a crash. They've got seat-belts and airbags galore protecting them so why should they worry? Flashing lights and sirens on bikes won't help either once drivers get used to always seeing them,...

...it's only going to get worse as more and more 'safety' features are added to cars....

On this same subject there's an interesting book that anyone who drives should read. Goes a long way into explaining how this stuff evolves, how people react and adapt, and some really interesting ways that have been implemented to offset the effect. Someone on this board recommended it a while back and it's well worth the few dollars it costs.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/0307277194

 

[Rajagra]

On this same subject there's an interesting book that anyone who drives should read. Goes a long way into explaining how this stuff evolves, how people react and adapt, and some really interesting ways that have been implemented to offset the effect. Someone on this board recommended it a while back and it's well worth the few dollars it costs.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/0307277194

I downloaded the kindle preview and will probably read that, but I doubt I'll be handing any money to someone who advocates late merging. At least I think he does. He says he started doing it, asks questions that might justify it, but then spectacularly fails to give answers. He just drifts into more generic questions.

Spoiler

FWIW my view is that the sole determinant of throughput at a merge is the bottleneck itself. What leads up to that cannot improve things, only make them worse. Merging late can and does make things worse, by causing accidents, anger, and people being stuck and unable to proceed.

And most importantly, merging late is merely queue jumping. First come, first served. There is no justification for someone starting further back gaining advantage over someone ahead.

If the author's justification is simply that you can benefit from being selfish, he should come out and say it. But most people know that already. Some choose not to give in to the temptation. And yes, it is virtuous, despite the author's dismissal of the idea.

Sent from my tap-to-talk using Tapatalk

 

[DT MI]

I downloaded the kindle preview and will probably read that, but I doubt I'll be handing any money to someone who advocates late merging. At least I think he does. He says he started doing it, asks questions that might justify it, but then spectacularly fails to give answers. He just drifts into more generic questions.

Spoiler

FWIW my view is that the sole determinant of throughput at a merge is the bottleneck itself. What leads up to that cannot improve things, only make them worse. Merging late can and does make things worse, by causing accidents, anger, and people being stuck and unable to proceed.

And most importantly, merging late is merely queue jumping. First come, first served. There is no justification for someone starting further back gaining advantage over someone ahead.

If the author's justification is simply that you can benefit from being selfish, he should come out and say it. But most people know that already. Some choose not to give in to the temptation. And yes, it is virtuous, despite the author's dismissal of the idea.

Sent from my tap-to-talk using Tapatalk

There's a number of his opinions I don't agree with myself. The book includes numerous case studies (not done by the author) relating to various traffic issues that are truly interesting and with results that are often counter to conventional wisdom.

 

[SawMaster]

The problem with books like this one is that the writer is trying to fit everybody into clearly defined categories and real people don't always work that way There are even some of us who understand this and go out of our way being the oddball just to prove that point. I'm proud to be like that

I'm actually a very predictable person if you get to know me well, but doing that will take you at least 5 years time and may drive you insane in the process I know it's done that with me

Phil

 

[DT MI]

Don't be misled by the word "WE" in the title. It's not referring to the individual 'we' but rather the collective 'we', which includes the contrarian rugged individuals of us who go out of our way to not 'fit in the mold', but even doing that are still an integral part of the collective 'we' included in the studies.

I started the book with a healthy degree of skepticism when I got it but still found it interesting and accurate in what I've seen and experienced. I ended up with a better understanding of why a lot of things are the way they are, and in many cases may be wrong in spite of the experts insisting they are right.

 

[old4570]

Hmmmm !
To many suffer from ADD ( Attention Deficit Disorder )
They simply can't pay attention to their driving or to whats happening around them ..
Lets not forget some are just uncaring low life who only think off themselves ( but never mind ) or a combination of many mental health issues .
Perhaps some are just incapable of dealing with the complexity of operating a lethal weapon !
( And motor vehicles are lethal weapons - proven beyond any reasonable doubt by some homicidal idiots - perhaps weapons of mass destruction - depending on what you consider mass )
Wont be long ( a few more terrorist car incidents ) before cams become mandatory .. ( Perhaps WIFI'ed or mobile networked to a central monitoring station ) So that the Gooberment can spy on everyone in their car .
They already have the capability to use Mobile and home phones to spy on you , so whats stopping them from spying on you in your car .. ( it's certainly more lethal than a house )

 

[SawMaster]

Just to stir things up a bit, doc you think we'd have as many problem drivers if the persons issuing licenses were being held responsible for the people they pass who didn't have a perfect score? Or if Traffic Engineers were held more directly responsible for the messes they create?

We've currently got irresponsible people running things which is why it's all so bad. It seems that the correct solution is rather obvious

Phil

 

[old4570]

Hehehehehehehe ....
Responsible for others actions ? How will U ever put the Gene back in the bottle if let lose !
But certainly the bar needs to be raised .. ( Up skill'ing )
Good drivers hardly ever get tickets or lose points off their license or have accidents ...
It's really not that hard to pick out those that need some TLC ....

When I was young , my neighbor was German ..
His mother drove like a lunatic , and literally had an accident every 6 months for I don't know how many years .

( Picking out the bad drivers is not hard - The gooberment simply refuses to do so )

 

[SawMaster]

Not responsible for actions of others, but responsible for ones own actions- such as an Examiner giving a license to someone who only passed 70% of the test successfully (which they do here un my state). It's reasonable to presume that someone with a 100% score can drive safely, so giving that group licenses is OK. Even if they later screw up it wasn't foreseeable. But what of the 70%er who, for instance, fails on highway merges then later on crashes during a merge; can a reasonable person expect them to do better when they already proved that they can't? Without the Examiner having allowed them to drive there would have been no crash so the Examiner didn't exercise the judgement a reasonable person would in issuing that driver a license. So why not let them pay a penalty of some kind for their own mistake?

And of Traffic engineers, why not penalize them directly for poor designs? If a Civil engineer designs an unsafe building meant for public use they're held personally responsible for that, so why should it be any different here? It's only the immunity of State employees which is different between these two scenarios.

If I am going to be held personally responsible for my actions then it is only right and proper for everyone else to be held personally responsible for theirs too without exception. If exception is made for someone else then I want exception made for me too. It is the lack of people being held adequately responsible for their actions which causes the problem we have, so that is what needs to be changed to solve our problems

If people look carefully for bikes as they are supposed to be doing, almost all of the car-bike crashes like this one could be avoided. If nobody makes car drivers do this then it won't be done. If somebody has proven themselves inadequate in doing this, then whoever allowed them to drive anyway must bear part of the blame for that.

Phil

 

[DT MI]

...It's only the immunity of State employees which is different between these two scenarios.............It is the lack of people being held adequately responsible for their actions which causes the problem we have,..........

And there you have just defined why most governments are so screwed up.

 

[old4570]

I dont dis agree .. People should be held responsible for their actions ...
Unfortunately the system is the system .. Examiners have to follow the rules , rules set by the Gooberment ..
If 70% is the pass mark (?) then what can they do ?
If they fudge the numbers , then they are being (?) in their actions ..

But yes , up skilling is taking part in many industries - To make people better - smarter - safer and exactly the same should be done to car drivers ...

I actually emailed the transport minister for my home state voicing my concerns about the falling standard of driving .. I was basically fobbed off ! ( disregarded ) ...
Politicians have no interest in doing the right thing !
Politicians are more or less the Enemy as much as criminals are the enemy of the law abiding ..
I would really like to see a use bye date on politicians .. Perhaps a 8 year maximum term - then push off ! ( Get a real job )