View Single Post
Old 02-04-2014, 06:40 AM   #15
flatland964
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago suburbs
Oddometer: 170
I don't see the text of this article as biased. It seems exactly factual and telling us something we all know. We are in fact in a greater danger of getting into an accident exactly because driver's "don't see us", exactly because they are not used to looking for, or judging the speed of, motorcycles. I thought it was interesting that, in the experiment, it worked similarly for buses.

And I think the solution hinted at in the last paragraph of the article is exactly right: driver's need to be taught to understand that their vision is not objective and can deceive them. It annoys me when I see people pull up to an intersection on a rolling stop, with maybe a half second look, and then pull out. It's in those situations they don't give themselves enough time to see the unexpected. I always look twice in every direction, and move my head to change my position. It was hammered into me at a young age and has stuck.

Marrk53 asks whether it is driver ignorance that causes the problem. I think that is what the article says. Driver's are ignorant of how their eyes work. It is a good thing that there are articles like this to explain it to those interested in reading them.

OK, on re-read, I'll grant you, the heading's reference to "traffic hazard" seems biased. It could have said that the "element of surprise" puts motorcycle at a greater risk of being in an accident. And it could have strengthened its last paragraph's hint that car drivers ought to learn how to scan properly.
__________________
___________
2009 BMW F650GS
2007 Yamaha FJR1300A
2001 BMW R1150GS
flatland964 is offline   Reply With Quote