Police caution for simple accident

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
As a m/cyclist myself, it's always reassuring to see a guy knocked off his bike by a car, referred to as "a simple accident"!

I liked your post, but it sometimes is just that.
 
There has been a few scientific studies relating to this, I read a really good one a few years ago but cannot find it now.
They found that in a lot of these collisions, the driver did see the m/cycle but their brain did not process the information as they were not expecting to see anything, so pulled out anyway.
The US explanation above is pretty poor, but the principle involved is still the same.
 
There has been a few scientific studies relating to this, I read a really good one a few years ago but cannot find it now.
They found that in a lot of these collisions, the driver did see the m/cycle but their brain did not process the information as they were not expecting to see anything, so pulled out anyway.
The US explanation above is pretty poor, but the principle involved is still the same.

My phone wouldn't let me type...

How is this study possible?

Did they send out drivers to not see bikers?

Or asked them after accidents?

If the later, so they the driver that hit a motorcyclists admitted seeing them but then said their brain didn't compute the Information?

Genuine question.
 
My phone wouldn't let me type...

How is this study possible?

Did they send out drivers to not see bikers?

Or asked them after accidents?

If the later, so they the driver that hit a motorcyclists admitted seeing them but then said their brain didn't compute the Information?

Genuine question.
I only remember it was carried out by people with more knowledge than us and related to how the human brain processed information. But the findings were that many people do actually see the m/cycle, yet still proceed to pull out anyway. I've seen drivers perform dangerous manouvres in front of me even though I could see the whites of their eyes and they were looking straight at me. I don't doubt for a minute that the studies were not accurate.
 
The US explanation above is pretty poor, but the principle involved is still the same.

I agree. The US article was badly written but the concept that the drivers brain didn't process the information that the eye received has to be valid and the vertical vs horizontal seems a rational explanation of why that occurs. I've also read another article that supports this idea which I'll have to try and find. The substance of it is that this concept is recognised and allowed for in training fighter pilots. They are somehow trained to both look and see.

Found it quite easily and it provides a very convincing augment as to why narrow vertical objects are not seen.

A Fighter Pilot’s Guide to surviving on the roads | Portsmouth CTC
 
Last edited:
I read about the science behind this some years ago. I seem to recall that when you turn your head your brain effectively stitches together a series of static images and narrow items can get lost and the brain simply does not register it’s presence.
 
I agree, I've been in situations that I've nearly pooped my pants then after looked at the car driver, and they look more shocked/scared than me.

I do not for one minute think these people doing these studies have been in that situation of total panic on the road, thinking "this is it folks" from either bike or car perspective.

No matter what scientific mumbo jumbo they come up with, we see big things, sometimes we don't see the small things.

We don't mistake motorbikes for signs, trees or anything.

Sometimes we don't see trucks or cars.

Its called being human.
 
So basically you don't see smaller things.

Get away!
 
There has been a few scientific studies relating to this, I read a really good one a few years ago but cannot find it now.
They found that in a lot of these collisions, the driver did see the m/cycle but their brain did not process the information as they were not expecting to see anything, so pulled out anyway.
The US explanation above is pretty poor, but the principle involved is still the same.
Some years ago, I remember seeing an app, I think, on a M/C Forum where, in a series of little flashing lights, one or more of them 'stayed off' although in fact, it was still flashing. If I remember correctly, the purpose of the app was to demonstrate that something could be in your full field of view and you not see it. Maybe some of the bikers on here can remember that?

ERnie
 
Whilst I don't doubt that most drivers won't do this on purpose, a tiny proportion do. I've been on the receiving end twice on a bicycle.

Once, undertaking a row of almost stationary traffic on a wide single lane road. About 4ft between the curb and the cars. As I approached one kind soul, he launched his car within 6inch on the kerb and knocked me off. Then the traffic picked up a bit and drove off. I was totally fine. Nothing coming the other way, so no evasive action required. The fact they drove off after blatantly hitting something says enough for me.


Second, out in the middle of nowhere in the Derbyshire dark peak cycling to work. A modern tractor with enormous spiky machinery in tow came thrashing up behind me and proceeded to squeeze me off the road and I fell off into the large, soft flat-ish verge. It was a long decent, and I was very surprised a tractor had caught me, but you could tell the engine was screaming so he was really going for it. Farmer lept out also screaming and looking like as soon as I stood up he was going to floor me. Red faced and boiling over with rage and hatred. Apparently for "poncing around whilst some of us are going to work" amongst an outpouring of other pleasantries. I said i was on my way to work, and thought the better part of valour was to fein heart problems and collapse on to my back. He got in his tractor and drove off. 2 mins later I caught back up with him driving like a crazed nutter and stayed behind him for about 4 miles whilst he repeatedly avoid multiple oncoming collisions by slamming on the brakes, piling into the verge and evasive actions by the oncoming traffic on the fairly narrow lane.

So, not most drivers by any stretch, but some!
 
In the absence of a motorcycle headlight it could be possible to argue some of the abvove mentions points.
 
Inattentional Blindness (IB):


A scientific study:

And a practical demonstration:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Happened to me nearly sixty years ago, car turned right into a side road in front of me, ended up with a broken wrist and headache, the car had a large dent in it's roof from my helmet, and a broken front passenger window from my wrist. People have lapses of attention.
 
I read about the science behind this some years ago. I seem to recall that when you turn your head your brain effectively stitches together a series of static images and narrow items can get lost and the brain simply does not register it’s presence.
I know this to be fact.

Recently I was walking along the footpath on the offside of the road and watching cars on the nearside heading away from me towards a speed camera. I couldn't believe that what I 'saw' was the car would appear and disappear as I tracked it with my eyes.

My brain was stitching together a series of images to play a 'video' of what I was looking at and some of those images were lost.

As a motorcyclist I am very aware of this and always think that the driver has NOT seen me. The same applies when driving a car.
 
What a load of boll0cks.

Its just general lack of attention, nothing deliberate or scientific.

Some people just try and make excuses to keep their jobs, the above quoted is a fine example.

Bikes are small so sometimes you don't see them, that is an unfortunate part of riding bikes.

I ride bikes.
It may be a bit of sphericals, but not entirely. Inattentional blindness (also known as perceptual blindness) is all too real. It‘s far more than a general lack of attention, it’s a lack of detailed attention brought about by distractions. A quick glance to the side, when turning at a junction for instance, can cause the brain to ’fill in’ the image where a moving object is in the field of view, particularly when it’s a smaller object such as a bike that’s moving towards you. It’s not just the size of the object, it’s the length of time we spend looking to see if there’s one there.

 
So all of these points basically say
" you don't see it"
Or am I wrong?

You can stretch the science out, but thats whats being said.

Its part of being human.
 
I'm not sure about the UK but in the US, the police will issue a citation to whoever they decide is at fault. This way, it makes it very hard for the insurance company to reject the claim. Your word against their word is one thing. Your word against the word of a police officer is another.
 
I know this to be fact.

Recently I was walking along the footpath on the offside of the road and watching cars on the nearside heading away from me towards a speed camera. I couldn't believe that what I 'saw' was the car would appear and disappear as I tracked it with my eyes.

My brain was stitching together a series of images to play a 'video' of what I was looking at and some of those images were lost.

As a motorcyclist I am very aware of this and always think that the driver has NOT seen me. The same applies when driving a car.
As a motorcyclist I agree, you must ride defensively and expect that all motorists are a danger. I do find most motorists respect us but there are some nutters out there with a clear hate for us.

In this case it sounds as though the woman was at fault but the moped could, perhaps,’ have avoided it. Sometimes the cars turn without warning.
 
I didn't actually intend for this thread to descend into who was at fault, as I said in the original post, it could have been 50/50, the bike could have been driving too fast and came from the back of another car or changed direction, or my mum didn't notice it and made an error. It was a food delivery service bike in London, I can count many times when I've seen those bikes make dangerous manoeuvres or put themselves in dangerous positions because they are rushing like lunatics trying to deliver their food quickly. Nobody on here, myself included can speculate as to who was at fault. Nobody was hurt or needed any ambulance assistance, and the police told my mother they were going to do the same thing to the bike driver i.e caution to question. Bikes do come out of nowhere and unexpectedly , I've been turning right at a junction with the indicator on, and had these food delivery bikes overtake and fly past my right hand side. They can be pesky little things in London traffic. But I don't want to discuss who was at fault or the semantics behind it because it doesn't matter in reference to my question.

As I understand it, it was a verbal caution as standard practice and not an official written caution which means it shouldn't go on any record I think. They gave my mother an incident number, when the police had finished they told her not to speak to the bike driver, "don't admit liability, say nothing" and go home. The insurance are dealing with it initially as 50/50.

Thanks for your help.
 
Bikes do come out of nowhere and unexpectedly , I've been turning right at a junction with the indicator on, and had these food delivery bikes overtake and fly past my right hand side.
Did the moped/bike approach from in front of your Mother’s car, or from the rear?

Your mother’s case is much stronger if she was waiting to turn right and the moped/bike attempted to overtake and pass her on her right hand side.

If the moped/bike was approaching at high speed from behind, then that could easily account for your Mother describing that he came out of nowhere.

I wish your Mother and the moped/bike rider well.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom