Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the low visibility of motorcycles is the result of their low cognitive conspicuity and/or their low sensory conspicuity for car drivers.
Background: In several cases of collision between a car and a motorcycle, the car driver failed to detect the motorcyclist in time to avoid the collision.
Method: To test the low cognitive conspicuity hypothesis, 42 car drivers (32.02 years old) including 21 motorcyclist motorists and 21 non–motorcyclist motorists carried out a motorcycle detection task in a car-driving simulator. To test the low sensory conspicuity hypothesis, the authors studied the effect of the color contrast between motorcycles and the road surface on the ability of car drivers to detect motorcycles when they appear from different parts of the road.
Results: A high level of color contrast enhanced the visibility of motorcycles when they appeared in front of the participants. Moreover, when motorcyclists appeared from behind the participants, the motorcyclist motorists detected oncoming motorcycles at a greater distance than did the non–motorcyclist motorists. Motorcyclist motorists carry out more saccades and rapidly capture information (on their rearview mirrors and on the road in front of them).
Conclusion: The results related to the sensory conspicuity and cognitive conspicuity of motorcycles for car drivers are discussed from the viewpoint of visual attention theories.
Application: The practical implications of these results and future lines of research related to training methods for car drivers are considered.
Association of European Motorcycle Manufacturers. (2005). Motorcycle Accidents In-Depth Study. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
2.
BrownI. D. (2002). A review of the “look but failed to see” accident causation factor (Behavioural Research in Road Safety No. 11). London, UK: Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
3.
ColeB. L.HughesP. K. (1988). Drivers don’t search: they just notice. In BroganD. (Ed.), Visual search (pp. 407–417). Durham, UK: University of Durham.
4.
ComelliM.MorandiA.MagazzuD.BottazziM.MarinoniA. (2008). Brightly coloured motorcycles and brightly coloured motorcycle helmets reduce the odds of a specific category of road accidents: A case-control study. Biomedical Statistics and Clinical Epidemiology, 2, 71–78.
EngelF. (1974). Visual conspicuity and selective background interference in eccentric vision. Vision Research, 14, 459–471.
7.
HancockP. A.WulfG.ThomD.FassnachtP. (1990). Driver workload during differing driving maneuvers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 22, 281–290.
8.
HoleG.TyrrellL. (1995). The influence of perceptual “set” on the detection of motorcyclists using daytime headlights. Ergonomics, 38, 1326–1341.
9.
HoleG.TyrrellL.LanghamM. (1996). Some factors affecting motorcyclists’ conspicuity. Ergonomics, 39, 946–965.
10.
HorswillM. S.HelmanS. (2003). A behavioral comparison between motorcyclists and a matched group of non-motorcycling car drivers: Factors influencing accident risk. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, 589–597.
11.
HorswillM. S.HelmanS.ArdilesP.WannJ. P. (2005). Motorcycle accident risk could be inflated by a time to arrival illusion. Optometry and Vision Science, 82, 740–746.
12.
HurtH. H.OuelletJ. V.ThomD. R. (1981). Motorcycle accident cause factors and identification of countermeasures (DOT HS-5-01160). Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Traffic Safety Center.
IttiL.KochC.NieburE. (1998). A model of saliency-based visual attention for rapid scene analysis. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 20, 1254–1259.
15.
LanghamM.HoleG.EdwardsJ.O’NeilC. (2002). An analysis of “looked but failed to see” accidents involving parked police vehicles. Ergonomics, 45, 167–185.
16.
LeitnerT.BrandstätterC.HöglingerS.BosN.BerendsE.YannisG.EvgenikosP.ChazirisA.BroughtonJ.LawtonB.WalterM. L. (2008). European annual statistical report 2008. European Road Safety Observatory.
17.
MagazzuD.ComelliM.MarinoniA. (2006). Are car drivers holding a motorcycle licence less responsible for motorcycle—Car crash occurrence? A non-parametric approach. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38, 365–370.
18.
NagayamaY.MoritaT.MiuraT.WatanabemJ.MurakamiN. (1980). Motorcyclists’ visual scanning pattern in comparison with automobile drivers’. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
19.
OlsonP. L. (1989). Motorcycle conspicuity revisited. Human Factors, 31, 141–146.
20.
RogéJ.FerrettiJ.DevreuxG. (2010). Sensory conspicuity of powered two-wheelers during filtering manoeuvres, according the age of the car driver. Le Travail Humain, 73, 7–30.
21.
RogéJ.PébayleT.KiehnL.MuzetA. (2002). Alteration of the useful visual field as a function of state of vigilance in simulated car driving. Transportation Research, Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 189–200.
22.
RumarK. (1990). The basic driver error: Late detection. Ergonomics, 33, 1281–1290.
23.
TheeuwesJ. (1991a). Cross-dimensional perceptual selectivity. Perception and Psychophysics, 50, 184–193.
24.
TheeuwesJ. (1991b). Visual selection: Exogenous and endogenous control. In GaleA.G.BrownI. D.HaslegraveC.M.MoorheadI.TaylorS.P. (Eds.), Vision in vehicle III (pp. 53–62). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland.
TheeuwesJ. (2010). Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection. Acta Psychologica, 135(2), 77–99.
27.
TofieldM. I.WannJ. P. (2001, May). Do motorcyclists make better car drivers?Paper presented at the Psychological Post-Graduate Affairs Group Conference, Glasgow, UK.
28.
TreismanA.GeladeG. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.
29.
TreismanA.GormicanS. (1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological, 95, 15–48.
30.
UnderwoodG.ChapmanP. (1998). Eye movements and hazard perception ability. In GraysonG. (Ed.), Behavioural research in road safety (Vol. 8, pp. 59–66). Crowthorne, UK: Transport Research Laboratory.
31.
Van der StigchelS.BelopolskyA. V.PetersJ. C.WijnenJ. G.MeeterM.TheeuwesJ. (2009). The limits of top-down control of visual attention. Acta Psychologica, 132, 201–212.
32.
WattsG. R. (1980). The evaluation of conspicuity aids for cyclists and motorcyclists. In OsborneD. J.LevisJ. A. (Eds.), Human factors in transport research (pp. 203–211). London, UK: Academic Press.
33.
WellsS.MullinB.NortonR.LangleyJ.ConnorJ.Lay-YeeR.JacksonR. (2004). Motorcycle rider conspicuity and crash related injury: case-control study. British Medical Journal, 328, 857–860.
34.
WulfG.HancockP.RahimicM. (1989). Motorcycle conspicuity: An evaluation and synthesis of influential factors. Journal of Safety Research, 20, 153–176.
35.
ZarJ. H. (1984). Biostatistical analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
