New research: why car drivers often fail to spot motorcyclists

[Horse]

Or, officially:

Understanding and explaining the differences between the mental-models of motorcyclists and car drivers for detecting hazards: From theory to training

https://www.roadsafetytrust.org.uk/news ... orcyclists

Video tutorial shown to cut driver blind spots toward motorcyclists

Drivers


Riders


“Drivers aren’t ignoring motorcyclists, they often just don’t expect them to be there,” said Professor David Crundall, lead researcher and Professor of Psychology at NTU’s School of Social Sciences.

New research which explores why car drivers often fail to spot motorcyclists on the road has revealed how a simple video intervention could help save lives – with 92% of drivers reporting a greater understanding of hazards.

Despite making up less than 1% of UK road traffic, motorcyclists account for nearly 20% of road fatalities.

The Motorcycles in the Mind’s Eye study by psychologists at Nottingham Trent University, funded by the Road Safety Trust, explores the theory that many of these incidents are not due to carelessness, but to a lack of experience and flawed ‘mental models’ whereby car drivers and motorcyclists think differently about road situations.


Full report here:

https://www.roadsafetytrust.org.uk/smal ... niversity2

[Horse]

A minor niggle, in the videos: " ... repeated twice"

No, it was there twice, it was repeated. Unless they mean it was repeated in each video, so there twice, repeated

[ChrisW]

I do hate repetitive tautology.

[Horse]

I do hate repetitive tautology.

Indeed! You can say that again

[Cousin Jack]

They look for a car/van/truck, see no car/van/truck, so obviously it is ok.

[The Spin Doctor]

As far as I can see (!) nothing that isn't already in www.scienceofbeingseen.org - the original element is the video intervention.

But it all starts with a supposition that motorcycles actually ARE harder to see than other vehicles... there's evidence from a Dutch study that when adjusted for numbers, Dutch drivers collide with the same numbers of cars as they do motorcycles.

It also starts with a statement that motorcyclists are 1% of road users, but make up 20% of RTC fatalities, but this is entirely misleading in the context of the paper. It simply reflects the vulnerability of motorcyclists, NOT the crash rate. It is entirely misleading in the context of an intervention to prevents SMIDSY collisions, simply because those fatalities are from ALL types of motorcycle crash, not just collisions at junctions.

[Horse]

To be fair:

- if the intent was to develop interventions for both drivers and riders, that's what they have done
- with the 'dog' they demonstrate 'in clear view', but not 'seen'
- yes, they cover lots of SOBS stuff - because both are based on research
- the starting statement is (whether misleading or not) fairly typical for this sort of stuff.

[The Spin Doctor]

To be fair:

- if the intent was to develop interventions for both drivers and riders, that's what they have done
- with the 'dog' they demonstrate 'in clear view', but not 'seen'
- yes, they cover lots of SOBS stuff - because both are based on research
- the starting statement is (whether misleading or not) fairly typical for this sort of stuff.

And I was entirely fair because that video is exactly what I acknowledged in my first sentence...

BUT... if there's no real 'drivers find it harder to spot motorcycles' effect, then it's all a bit pointless.

And using injury rate to justify the work rather than crash rate is a bit disingenuous.

Those are my points. If the videos enhanced awareness, good. But the next question is: "what's the long term effect?" To the best of my knowledge, it's fleeting... mostly because car drivers will be back out there on the roads encountering 99 cars before they see another motorcycle. The impact of Think Bike campaigns has never been shown to have any long-term effect. They've been running 50 years now, and the SMIDSY is still the UK's favourite motorcycle / car collision!