Important information regarding Motorcycle Awareness, Driver Distractions, Mitigating Inattentional Blindness and Banning Cellphone Conversations While Driving is available online here:

http://pub42.bravenet.com/forum/3562429698/ 

Bruce-N-Ray's Biker Forum

http://www.motorcyclists-against-dumb-drivers.com/

Motorcyclists Against Dumb Drivers

http://www.ldrlongdistancerider.com/bikers_rights.php

Bruce On Bikers' Rights

I certainly agree that distracted drivers are a problem for motorcyclists; I dodge them every day. But I think the problem sometimes gets overstated. Moreover, there doesn't seem to be an effective solution that will be implemented anytime soon.

NHTSA recently published the results of an experiment in which 100 motorists in the DC area spent 18 months driving cars with an extraordinary array of instrumentation. Data recorded whenever the car was in use included:

• vehicle dynamics—speed, acceleration, braking, turning
• proximity to other vehicles—via doppler radar mounted front, rear, and side
• driver activity—via multiple in-car video cameras

Because drivers were monitored at all times, it was possible for the researchers to learn not just how often distractions were involved in crashes and near misses (assessed by evasive action and proximity to other vehicles), but also to estimate the degree to which distractions cause crashes. For example, if eating a burger is observed just as often in non-crash situations as it is in crashes, it's probably not a cause. But if it's observed more often prior to a crash, then it probably is a cause.

Bottom line, they estimated that cell phone use contributes to 7% of crashes and various other distractions to another 15%. Maybe the scariest conclusion is that drowsiness contributes to 24% of crashes.

The solution that's often suggested—banning cell phone use in cars—isn't going to happen any time soon. We just enacted a hands-free law here in CA that will go into effect in '08 or something. But I really wonder how effective it will be. From posters in various forums, it seems that the similar NY law is widely ignored. And considering how effective the cops here are at enforcing the 65mph freeway speed limit here (free-flowing traffic moves at up to 80mph), I don't have a lot of hope that they'll make a big dent in phone use.

As a pragmatic sort, I think the here-and-now solution is for motorcyclists to learn how to recognize and avoid distracted drivers—whether the distraction is a cell phone, an Egg McMuffin, the sports page, or that all-important eye-liner. I recently wrote a riding-tip article on distracted drivers for a net forum, and in the course of my research I talked to police officers and read their training literature on impaired drivers. As one officer told me, "impaired is impaired," so the cues that help them identify drunks also work for distracted drivers. Here's a list of driving behaviors that riders should watch for. As a bonus, they also help identify drunks, an even greater danger to motorcyclists.

• Obvious distractions. Using the phone (especially dialing), reading, eating, or applying makeup.
• Lane position. Weaving within the lane, crossing lane lines or the road centerline, sloppy turns—cutting a corner at the apex or running wide at the exit.
• Speed and braking. Unsteady speed, driving 10mph or more under the limit, abrupt braking, stopping far beyond or short of the limit line at an intersection, riding the brake pedal and showing brake lights but not slowing.
• Vigilance. Lights off at night, failure to cancel turn indicators, cutting off another vehicle when turning or changing lanes, remaining stopped when the light turns green.
• Judgment. Following too closely, excessive speed for conditions, poorly judged turn speed followed by a mid-turn correction, risky lane changes or turns.

While we're on the topic of distractions, it's also worth noting that distracted motorcyclists can can cause their own problems. The most outrageous example I've run across is a rider who was talking on his phone while riding on an overpass, lost control, and fell to his death. But there are other distractions documented to cause crashes as well, including: waving to another rider, adjusting his wind-threatened baseball cap, talking with a fellow rider, and kicking another vehicle.

I think the "here-and-now solution" is for bikers to refuse to accept the hogwash that NHTSA and the M$F are using this skewed forum and front men like "Data Dan the Front Man" to sling all over the web:

The issue to be addressed is CRASH PREVENTION, not CRASH SURVIVAL.

The primary guilty parties are CAGERS, not BIKERS.

The solution lies in MOTORCYCLE AWARENESS, not MOTORCYCLE SAFETY.

And the challenge here is not to ban hand-held cellphone usage while driving, Front Man.  California blew it.  The challenge is to BAN CELLPHONE CONVERSATIONS WHILE DRIVING.  Read this study, Front Man:

http://www.ldrlongdistancerider.com/CellphoneUsersAsDangerousAsDrunks.pdf 

And if you want to refute it, Front Man, do so in a forum whose focus is taking the motorcycle awareness message to the public, not selling motorcycle safety by the hour and by the pound to naive riders:

http://www.ldrlongdistancerider.com/forum.html

BAN THE PHONES, OR FREE THE DRUNKS. 

I am outta here.

I am curious Bruce--why do you call this forum 'Skewed'?

Having recently been through an accident that was my own fault, I now realize the importance of understanding the reasons why accidents occur.  Actually, I think we ought to take that word out of our vocabulary--because if every accident is preventable--then it was no a ccident at all--just human failures at one level or another, as in my case.

I think that any forum that strives to get the word out to responsible folks like myself is a worthy outlet.

Just my .02 cents though.

Hawkdriver,

I work in vehicle safety, and while our primary focus is automobiles (since that is the vast majority of the vehicles on the road, and hence the vast majority of the crashes on the road), we do get reconstruction cases involving motorcycles, trucks, etc fairly frequently.  As part of our work, we have come to all but eliminate the term "accident."  However, it cannot be entirely eliminated, because, in 99.95% of cases, the involved parties were not intending to crash, they made a mistake, or something failed that lead to the crash.   We just call them crashes, because that's what they are. 

Most of my cases involve some kind of human judgement or perception error.  One particular accident we had, was an SUV with a travel trailer pulled out making a left turn across a divided highway.  From the drivers perspective, the roadway was clear.  However, there were bushes, lightpoles and other roadway furniture along the side of the road obstructing his view of a motorcycle coming down the road 2 blocks away at 35mph.

Yes, the driver of the SUV should have looked harder, but in all reasonable terms, he wouldn't have seen the motorcycle anyways until he was already out in the road, as our simulation showed.  However, the motorcyclist, should have seen the SUV pulling out from the side-street and reacted instead of driving straight into the side of the trailer.  If the rider had changed one lane to the right, the rider would have cleared safely behind the trailer.

In nearly every crash, you cannot say that there was one single cause.  Like in the one I exampled above, there are usually many.  The leading causes in the above crash are: 1) roadway vision obstructions to motorists leaving side roads, 2) inattention by the motorcyclist, 3) fatigue of the motorcyclist.  Every person on the road, whether he or she is in a cage, on a motorcycle, or on a unicycle or rolling in a giant hamster ball is capable of inattention.

It is your duty, as a safe operator, whether you are in a cage or on your bike, to pay full time and attention to the task at hand, safely operating your motor-vehicle, and arriving at your destination in one piece.


 

BruceArnold:

The issue to be addressed is CRASH PREVENTION, not CRASH SURVIVAL.

The primary guilty parties are CAGERS, not BIKERS.

The solution lies in MOTORCYCLE AWARENESS, not MOTORCYCLE SAFETY.

I partially agree with what you're saying Bruce, however there are certain crashes that are simply not preventable by current technological standpoints, or the current driver's/rider's education programs.

I'm not going to disagree with you that in more instances than not, especially in fatal motorcycle crashes, cage drivers are the party at fault.  However, you have to look at yourself as well.  Look at crash case files.  Given the average education level of most riders out there (little to none, about 10% of the bikers I've met have taken the MSF BRC or ERC), you have to wonder, are these bikers capable of avoiding a potential crash if one appears in front of them.

Yes, Motorcycle awareness is a very important topic, however, Motorcycle Safety is prevalent.  I feel that it is stupid that someone with a car drivers license can go and take a test at the DMV and get a motorcycle endorsement.  Do these people REALLY know how to ride a motorcycle?  Are they proficient enough to avoid a crash?  Can they perform an emergency quick stop without endo-ing the motorcycle or biffing it?  Do they have the responsibility to practice ATGATT (All The Gear - All The Time)?  I think that BOTH need to be increased.  It is far to easy to get any sort of operators licence in the U.S. today.  More stringent education requirements for cars and motorcycles need to be enacted, IMMEDIATELY.  Some states have graduated licensing programs, these work.  I think every state needs to adopt them.

I am still what insurance companies, police officers, and most people would call a "young driver."  Before I got my full fledged drivers license, I had over 300 hours of professional, high-performance driving training, as well as over 15,000 miles of real world, monitored driving.  I have had my Motorcycle learners permit for a little over a year.  I've taken the MSF BRC course, twice, and passed with a 95% or higher, both times.  I have read Proficient Motorcycling cover-to-cover numerous times.  I am a firm believer in the mantra that you can never have too much training.  I do not currently own a motorcycle.  I bought one about a year ago, before I got my M-Permit, and started riding it around my neighborhood.  After about 2-3 days of that I became over-confident in my abilities to control the bike.  I fell into the most common of pits that beginner motorcyclists fall into, and I was a victim of target fixation.  But worse than the huge dent to my ego and confidence, I had broken my own philosophy on driver training.  I was disappointed with myself.  I sold the motorcycle and vowed to not buy one until I had completed, what I consider, a suitable level of professional training.  After a long summer of training, practicing and reading, I am finally ready to purchase this winter.

Ok, I guess I'm kind of rambling here...what I'm really trying to say is that there needs to be more EDUCATION, for both motorcyclists and cagers.  I personally think there needs to be a mandated training course, similar to driver's ed, before one can get his or her motorcycle endorsement, and, similar to buying a car, one needs to have the M-endorsement before he/she can buy a motorcycle. 
 

The previous posting states: 

"Given the average education level of most riders out there (little to none, about 10% of the bikers I've met have taken the MSF BRC or ERC), you have to wonder, are these bikers capable of avoiding a potential crash if one appears in front of them."

Soooooo ... could we be a little more obvious about what this farce--I mean forum--was founded to hawk?

Real bikers do not judge each other based on whether they have "... taken the MSF BRC or ERC". 

And no real bikers will be fooled by this facade. 

Okay, I'm gonna jump in here.  May get flamed for it, but how can one take "motorcycle Awareness" to the people?   I see in one of your posts you recommned giving drivers personal education by the road side, or something like that.   that seems awfully close to road rage.   I'm not liking that idea for me personally.   I have no way of making other drivers be AWARE of me on my bike.   Heck they don;t see me in my YELLOW Nissan Pickup, much less on a motorcycle.   So if I can't make them AWARE of me, shouldn't I learn and practice some defensive skills on my own?  

This site does appear to be here for the MSF and NHTSA and others to learn from.   Should the MSF add a module on roadside assault tactics for when a new rider gets cut off in traffic?  That'll teach em by gawd!

Or have I missed the point and tone of your posts thus far?   I've tried to read it thru a couple of times to make sure.  

What system of teaching folks to ride would you recommend, since teh MSF is not your choice?

Just wondering

Rando

I think the real issue here is being confused.  Here's why:

1.  In my accident, I was at fault because I was complacent, and simply allowed a situation to develope that shouldn't have.  It was no accident--it was a crash that was my fault.

2.  I am a helicopter pilot in the Army, and we live, eat sleep and breath risk management.  We have to accept certain risks by the very nature of the job we do (Getting shot at while carrying a load of 11 infantrymen at 50 feet above the ground traveling at 100 mph at 3 o'clock in the morning wearing night vision goggles with limited visibility).

Given that--what is not being taught by MSF that I know of is RISK MANAGEMENT.  Identify the risks as you see them (Possibility of a motorcycle crash due to wet roads), mitigate that risk by a control measure (PPE), implement the control you are using to mitigate that risk (WEAR the PPE), and perform the action at a [hopefully] lower risk level.  As riders, we cannot eliminate the cagers that are complete IDIOTS talking on thier cell phone while smoking a cigarette and checking make up in their rear-view instead of paying attention to what the hell they are doing.  We CAN however be taught to recognize that as a risk and manage it to the best of our ability by vigilance and non-complacency.

 THAT is what I believe is missing here.

Risk Management is covered, although not stressed as much as you might like?  The MSF BRC has part of the class that covers risk management by "applying a strategy".  The Strategy is SEE, Search, Identify, Execute.  Like yours, MSF has Search for things that increas risk, Evaluate how things interact, and Execute a plan.   Simple but effective, I think.   Now, it is up to each rider to implement the plan.  No one cannot enforce or regulate how anyone uses this information. 

 I don;t think it's missing, really, just not to the degree to which you are trained. 

And some folks are going to naysay the MSF for any number of reasons.  But, if that is all that exists in a given area to train someone to ride a motorcycle, should we be thankful it's there?  Is it the best? I can't answer that as I have no experience with anything other than MSF BRC and RSS.  And each of those are different and good in their own ways.  And bad too. 

Rando

You ask "How can one take 'Motorcycle Awareness' to the people?"

You ask "Should the MSF add a module on roadside assault tactics for when a new rider gets cut off in traffic?"

You say "I see in one of your posts you [recommend] giving drivers personal education by the road side, or something like that.   that seems awfully close to road rage."

The details of one of my recent "educational encounters" inspired by a care-less cager should convey my reply:

http://pub42.bravenet.com/forum/3562429698/fetch/733885/3

Road rage?  Naw... I'd say it was more of a public service to all who share the road.

This article was posted on another forum...  http://www.rocketmadness.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13579

Works for me.

An article in the March issue of the UK magazine Bike added a bit to the understanding of why cars pull out in front of motorcycles. Research on how certain insects attact prey was applied to the SMIDSY crash (sorry mate, I didn't see you).

When attacking, a dragonfly stays directly in the line of sight between its potential dinner and a fixed point in the distance. If dinner moves, the dragonfly alters its path just enough to stay on that line of sight. It doesn't swoop out to "lead" its victim. This tactic has the effect of keeping the dragonfly at the same point in the prey's visual field. Because the prey sees no change in the big picture, it is unaware of the impending attack. This is called motion camouflage.

Motion is difficult to perceive when it is directly along the line of sight. Because the object is stationary relative to the background, an observer doesn't see a change in the overall image and thus isn't cued to the presence of a moving object. Though the object increases in apparent size as it nears, the change goes unnoticed at first--moving from 1000ft distant to 900ft may not affect the image enough trigger a response. A motorcycle is particularly susceptible to motion camouflage because its cross-section area as seen by an observer is much less than that of a larger vehicle.

But as the object gets closer, apparent size increases more rapidly. At constant speed, an approaching object takes the same time to move from 200ft to 100ft as it did from 1000ft to 900ft, but the apparent size increase is greater. Eventually the object seems to grow suddenly in size, and the motion camouflage is broken. This is called the looming effect. According to the Bike article, when an observer is startled by the looming effect, he may freeze in his tracks. If the observer is an oncoming left-turner, he may stop in the middle of the intersection, making a bad situation even worse.

Duncan MacKillop, the riding instructor who related motion camouflage to motorcycling, suggests that diverging from the direct line of sight will break the motion camouflage and get the observer's attention. For example, a driver stopped at a cross-street on your right will be looking left at a slight angle to the path of the road. If you stay to the left of your lane, you will diverge from his line of sight, making yourself more noticeable. But if you're veering right (say, moving from the left to the right lane) you'll be moving along the crossing driver's line of sight, helping to hide your motion against the background.

MacKillop recommends: "I observed a smooth, gentle, single, zig-zag motion, at any point along the line, created a rapid edge movement against the background and destroyed the motion camouflage. Drivers' eyes snapped towards me and they froze the movement I swept left to right and back again."

Thanks DataDan for a superior article!

I will post your link to MCNF as I pass this message along to anyone who will read it.

A superior rider uses superior judgment to avoid problems that would demand his superior skill.

+1

Bruce,

I'm glad that method works for you.   I am not one to be conforntational though.  Guess that makes me a wimp or whatever. 

 Rando