You can't see me.

[Kimosabe]

Where do you look while driving? I'm just a tad concerned that the data could be used to support the use of driverless cars, by makers of driverless cars. Or perhaps it's to encourage non motorised road users to look like important information, than to blend into the background?

http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/4374.html

[Kimosabe]

That sounds interesting Dave. Apologies if I came across as being cynical, i'm all for improvement, as long as that is what it is.

I've been racking my brain cell for the name of the author(s) of a test which traces eye movements. I think it's something to do with facial recognition ie how we recognise faces, rather than the developed software for a computer to do so. The first and last time I heard about it was around 20 years ago, while trying really hard to be interested in Applied Psychology at Sussex Uni. and so it's long gone.

Any ideas? Don't think it's the 'Posner Match Test', it's the other one. You know the one... possibly 'Gaze Contingency Paradigm'?

"Indeed, due to an imperfect coupling between overt and covert attentions (Posner, 1980), it is not possible to exactly know which visual information the viewer is processing based on the fixation locations. By controlling precisely the information projected in different parts of the visual field, the gaze-contingent techniques permit to disentangle what is fixated and what is processed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaze-contingency_paradigm

I can't help but think that better education to support road users of all types, is a much more comprehensive approach to making roads safer but I doubt it'll be too long before radar-linked eye tracking software is part of the HUD on cars and motorbikes. Something like Google glass might be a start?

[Ancient]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the methodology, the simple fact is that the number one excuse when drivers hit something is "I didn't see it"; especially when the 'something' is another road user. Frighteningly often this is accepted as inevitable. People simply are not taught that every eye contains blind spots, that saccades exist (and what they are) or that the brain uses the same neurons to imagine a scene on that radio program as are used to process the view in front of us. Nor are they taught techniques to minimise the effects of this (move the head not the eyes, look (at least) twice, don't multi-task).
I'm sure no-one here thinks cyclists appear from nowhere https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8pX52v_yNA&index=68&list=LLxh0QwWxK6TvHL4CF7hf0Tg but it is IME a common attitude that drivers cannot be expected to see vulnerable road users.

[TheInsanity1234]

Y'know.

I have a feeling it may be that most driving instructors don't actually teach you where to look...

I've had a fair few instructors due to lots of under 17 driver training, and only one or two of them actually made a point to explain to me how to use our eyes efficiently, rather than just staring at a fixed point some distance in front of the edge of the bonnet.

[Kimosabe]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the methodology, the simple fact is that the number one excuse when drivers hit something is "I didn't see it"; especially when the 'something' is another road user. Frighteningly often this is accepted as inevitable. People simply are not taught that every eye contains blind spots, that saccades exist (and what they are) or that the brain uses the same neurons to imagine a scene on that radio program as are used to process the view in front of us. Nor are they taught techniques to minimise the effects of this (move the head not the eyes, look (at least) twice, don't multi-task).

Yes I agree that driver education (as I said in another thread, I think graduated licenses and regular retests would work wonders for this) could do with a revamp but i'd still say that the number one cause for drivers making mistakes, is because most people aren't driving, they're using a means to an end to get where they're going, while hopefully avoiding anything which might put a scratch on their unwashed paintwork. The information is out there if they want to know. Driving is often just a matter of self preservation and personal space overriding sensible driving and likely as not, they'll drive at you rather than wait for you to pass, even though there's nothing behind you because you're just another thing to get past. That's just a lack of common courtesy and observation in my book but then I still hold doors open for people and help old folk to cross roads. What we need is for more of that empathy to be encouraged and less of the self-important 'can't stop, must dash' tick-toc guff. That goes for all road users. What about giving cyclists layby refuges to pull into when loads of traffic is waiting for the driver at the front to remember to how to pass safely? How many would use them unless it was written that where they exist, they must be used? Less of this assertion of 'rights'. As the saying goes "just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean you were right to do it." I semi-digress..

Explaining the science behind microsaccades would probably lose most people as much as slip angles, BGOL, HTB, 'skid control' etc.... or if it's treated as a purely academic necessity, they'd probably repeat it well enough to pass an exam, as many do O levels, A levels and AD tests and then revert to their normal operating attitudes until another test is looming or they're in court explaining their actions. Behaviours are not easily changed, not unless huge enough reasons are unequivocally provided and yet more rules do not make for better outcomes, unless you're HM treasury or a quangoesque 'safer roads partnership'. How many of us have passed IAM, RoADAR tests and then let our practice wane? I know I most certainly have but that's not to say that i'm a careless driver, just that i've blended much of what I learned into a form which suits my normal behaviour. I drive as I am. So it's not strictly by the book and I don't think it should be either but it's always reasonable when possible. Would I fail and AD test? No. Would I get into tedious arguments with followers of 'the one true way'? Yes. For example, I don't always overtake when I can, I don't always drive at the speed limit when it's safe to do so and I don't always offside to retain a view unless I fancy it. I don't do this not because I cannot but because I sometimes choose not to. Try programming software to do that. I'm not saying it's impossible but is it necessary to treat people with such derision?

So while driver assistance technology (parking assist) may be of some use to those drivers who treat the whole event as an expensive means to an end and while I fully accept that I am far from perfect while doing anything at all, aside from being myself, I'd prefer a less automated radar-operated approach to driving and a more ability-focussed imperative. The tech is there for backup, the operator should be able to use it to it's greatest advantage. Removal of choice doesn't make for great thinkers.

I hope that came out right. I often write as I think.

[Ancient]

One 'trick' I've used to illustrate one of the problems to acquaintances who can't work it out, is to draw a stick figure in (washable) marker on their window, then tell them to look at something distant. See how the figure disappears? That's the kid about to step in front of you/the cyclist directly ahead of you/the mother pushing a pram "In clear view".

https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/the-easy-option/

[Kimosabe]

Thanks for the link. I'm reading through the blog in bits. Very interesting commentary.