Helmet Cam study - drivers are usually responsible

[WestcoastPete]

Here is an article about a study someone has done analyzing helmet cam footage from a cohort of 13 cyclists.

http://theconversation.edu.au/helmet-cam-captures-bike-accidents-and-could-make-cycling-safer-3540

This is the most interesting part to me:

In 87% of the events captured, the driver was responsible for the action that preceded the event. In 74% of those events, the driver cut the cyclist off, turning in front of the cyclist without either:

providing enough space
indicating effectively
a head check.

The footage showed that, rather than being focused on the cyclist they had just cut off, drivers were instead focused on other vehicles on the road.

If you take cyclists out of the equation, the behaviour of the recorded drivers was safe. Large-enough gaps were selected when entering and exiting parallel parking bays, lane changes were done safely, turns were done safely, and car doors were opened without endangering other road users.

Unfortunately, none of these behaviours were safe for cyclists.

[Oxford]

Looks like the MUARC study results to me. Preaching to the converted, we know all this, how do we get the behavior changed though?

[WestcoastPete]

I hadn't seen any data on it before, although I'd though this was the case. Even though the study wasn't very big, I'm still surprised at the 87% figure.

[damhooligan]

Here is an article about a study someone has done analyzing helmet cam footage from a cohort of 13 cyclists.

This is the most interesting part to me:

In 87% of the events captured, the driver was responsible for the action that preceded the event. In 74% of those events, the driver cut the cyclist off, turning in front of the cyclist without either:

providing enough space
indicating effectively
a head check.

The footage showed that, rather than being focused on the cyclist they had just cut off, drivers were instead focused on other vehicles on the road.

If you take cyclists out of the equation, the behaviour of the recorded drivers was safe. Large-enough gaps were selected when entering and exiting parallel parking bays, lane changes were done safely, turns were done safely, and car doors were opened without endangering other road users.

Unfortunately, none of these behaviours were safe for cyclists.

Do you have a link ??

And do I misread this, or does it say, that when you ignore the fact they are not safe and responsible drivers (ie cutting cyclists off)
they are resonsible drivers ??

why do you want to take cyclist out of the equation?, to what porpouse??
i dont get it..

[WestcoastPete]

Whoops! Post edited with link added.

I guess they're saying that these drivers are just not considering cyclists, but they should be. The study recommends education of drivers in relation to interacting with cyclists because they're generally not behaving differently with cyclists now.

[find_bruce]

I suspect a study of motorcycle helmet cams would show similar results

In the dim dark recesses of what used to be my memory, I seem to recall a study that Ambulances with lights & sirens were more likely to be involved in SMIDY type accidents than fire trucks also with lights & sirens.

The theory goes something along the lines of how we perceive & prioritise danger - truck = big & scary = avoid, cyclists = meh.

Perhaps the solution is the Frill Neck Lizard Bike

[sogood]

Ummm... Major bias in a study like this. If the riders with helmet cam were responsible for 13% of the errors, then I wonder what would be the percentage if there were no recording?

[Oxford]

Ummm... Major bias in a study like this. If the riders with helmet cam were responsible for 13% of the errors, then I wonder what would be the percentage if there were no recording?

Agree, if you know you are being recorded, you're usually on your best behavior. But doesn't bely the fact that we do experience what this study has unveiled, but to what extent?

[sogood]

Agree, if you know you are being recorded, you're usually on your best behavior. But doesn't bely the fact that we do experience what this study has unveiled, but to what extent?

Agreed. The problem is that most of those who complain here are also "good" cyclists. Lots of rogue cyclist don't hang around this site. So again, the question is to what extent.

My take on this is that there are idiots in the society and they can be motorists or cyclists. Being a motorist or cyclist alone won't significantly change those fundamental personality traits.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

My take on this is that there are idiots in the society and they can be motorists or cyclists. Being a motorist or cyclist alone won't significantly change those fundamental personality traits.

Agree, however the consequences of one's idiotic actions can be considerably different when in a car vs on a bike (like the different amount of carnage one can do with a single shot gun vs an automatic weapon with multiple rounds).

But yes, such a study is terribly biased. Some element of blinding is required.

1. you need footage from cyclists that don't know they are recording
2. you need same type of footage from vehicles

[sogood]

Agree, however the consequences of one's idiotic actions can be considerably different when in a car vs on a bike (like the different amount of carnage one can do with a single shot gun vs an automatic weapon with multiple rounds).

Agree, the outcome can be very different depending on whether one is on a 10kg bike or 2000kg SUV. But that's not a question of "responsibility".

Double blind won't be easy to implement. But the idea of mandatory in-vehicle camera is an interesting one, a bit similar to the recorder device they have in long-haul trucks. I am sure it'll leads to improved driver/rider behaviour but can also imagine the amount of community resistance.

[Oxford]

I actually tried an in car recorder a few years back. I was shocked at my own driving/behaviour and that's even after I had self modified knowing I was being recorded. I now drive differently (read better behaved) based on that experience. Knowing that someone else could be recording does make you behave differently.

[Aushiker]

Agree, if you know you are being recorded, you're usually on your best behavior. But doesn't bely the fact that we do experience what this study has unveiled, but to what extent?

The analysis from what was stated at a safety forum does not support this at all ... that is the riders quickly dropped into their normal behaviour patterns as you would expect (including pervering I believe ) and as I suspect most cyclists with helmet cams know. I know that sometimes I look back at my recordings and go whoops ... It would be helpful if MUARC would hurry up and get the research published so there could be informed commentary

Furhermore, from the link in the OP

We’ve since analysed each of those events, frame-by-frame.

In 87% of the events captured, the driver was responsible for the action that preceded the event. In 74% of those events, the driver cut the cyclist off, turning in front of the cyclist without either:

providing enough space
indicating effectively
a head check.

The footage showed that, rather than being focused on the cyclist they had just cut off, drivers were instead focused on other vehicles on the road.

(my emphasis)

Note carefully what is being stated .... the cyclist doing the recording does NOT control or change the behaviour of the motorist. Extprolation of this finding is not something the researchers can be held responsible for


Andrew

[GraemeL]

I actually tried an in car recorder a few years back. I was shocked at my own driving/behaviour and that's even after I had self modified knowing I was being recorded. I now drive differently (read better behaved) based on that experience. Knowing that someone else could be recording does make you behave differently.

I use my GoPro in the car, I have it mounted under the rear vision mirror. It has made me look at how I drive because the footage may be used in the event of an accident and also because others may also be using a camera in their cars.
Also in the event I am wrongly accused of speeding (I don't trust speed cameras) or running stop signs etc, at least I have something to prove otherwise.

If I had a dollar for every infringment I caught on camera I would be a happy man. Think of the revenue they could raise if people could send in footage once a week. If cameras became common place drivers attitudes would change, because they would never know when their stupidity would be caught on camera.

Graeme

[sogood]

Also in the event I am wrongly accused of speeding (I don't trust speed cameras) or running stop signs etc, at least I have something to prove otherwise.

How will a GoPro camera be able to differentiate 60km/h vs 70km/h? Just curious as to how you can prove your innocence without something like a GPS or includes your speedo in the frame.

[Oxford]

Also in the event I am wrongly accused of speeding (I don't trust speed cameras) or running stop signs etc, at least I have something to prove otherwise.

How will a GoPro camera be able to differentiate 60km/h vs 70km/h? Just curious as to how you can prove your innocence without something like a GPS or includes your speedo in the frame.

you can use the footage to time the passing of specific objects and the distance between them like the old style amphometers.

distance/time=speed

[Mrfenejeans]

The selection of cyclists is a bit narrow being that of only commuter cyclists, people who cycle in traffic everyday.

I bet the results would be a lot different if you put cameras on all sorts of cyclists from roadies , recreational cyclists, BMX riders and god forbid the L.A. style brake-less fixie bike riders . More often than not when i see cyclists doing stupid things it is typically not the Road cyclist nor the commuter cyclist.

[sogood]

you can use the footage to time the passing of specific objects and the distance between them like the old style amphometers.
distance/time=speed

Considered that, but the error would be significant I suspect. Differentiating 100 and 60km/h it'd be ok, but for 60 vs 65 or 70km/h? I am not sure. I was wondering if there was a GPS coupling or something similar.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

you can use the footage to time the passing of specific objects and the distance between them like the old style amphometers.
distance/time=speed

Considered that, but the error would be significant I suspect. Differentiating 100 and 60km/h it'd be ok, but for 60 vs 65 or 70km/h? I am not sure. I was wondering if there was a GPS coupling or something similar.

some cameras are gps enabled. but gps speed is not always reliable in any case. on average, sure but not for second by second data.

[sogood]

some cameras are gps enabled. but gps speed is not always reliable in any case. on average, sure but not for second by second data.

Agreed. But it would be a better reference if one needs to contest these cases.

[zero]

Also in the event I am wrongly accused of speeding (I don't trust speed cameras) or running stop signs etc, at least I have something to prove otherwise.

How will a GoPro camera be able to differentiate 60km/h vs 70km/h? Just curious as to how you can prove your innocence without something like a GPS or includes your speedo in the frame.

It won't, but realistically I wouldn't care much about a 10 over. I would care deeply about a 70 over, and handheld lasers have been known to make royal screwups of motorcycle speed measurements, and police/prosecutors have been known to fight it in court even when its plainly clear they stuffed up. Its also easy to place a cam to see ahead and speedo on a motorcycle.

[zero]

Also in the event I am wrongly accused of speeding (I don't trust speed cameras) or running stop signs etc, at least I have something to prove otherwise.

How will a GoPro camera be able to differentiate 60km/h vs 70km/h? Just curious as to how you can prove your innocence without something like a GPS or includes your speedo in the frame.

you can use the footage to time the passing of specific objects and the distance between them like the old style amphometers.

distance/time=speed

This is good for a gross average, its not going to disprove 10 over at a specific point of measurement or short distance. The basic problem is unless the object being used is a road marking and a wheel is in shot, then its difficult not to introduce some error in judging that the vehicle is a known distance away from an object.

[Oxford]

Agreed that for smaller speed differentials its not going to be much use, but for larger, it can go some way to pointing out obvious errors. Anyone remember the supersonic Datsun 120Y in Victoria some years ago?