Seeing Things

I was waiting for an appointment the other day when I struck up a conversation with another woman in the lobby. She noticed my bike helmet and the conversation quickly turned to a discussion of cars versus cyclists.

It was just on of those casual conversations you have with a stranger in passing. After voicing the usual complaint about cyclists never stopping for red lights she added that she just “was not looking for cyclists.”

I started thinking about the word “looking.” Do drivers only see what they are looking for? And are they only looking for other cars? Which would mean, to a driver, a city intersection looks like this:

Seeing Things: Driver's POV

But when I bike through an intersection I am not looking for anything. I am seeing everything. If I were to travel through same intersection at the same moment I might see something like this:

Seeing Things: Cyclist's POV

But I probably see every street like this because I have to compensate for what the drivers are not looking for.

Next Post
Previous Post

You may also like

52 comments

  • Pingback: Biking duds | Pedal Clips March 9, 2012  
  • Lisa Keen March 11, 2012  

    I agree that you can look at the same intersection and see a lot of other things when you’re not really looking for something. It’s sad that busy drivers can’t really appreciate the beauty around them but I think it’s for their own safety and others’ safety, too.

  • Mabel March 16, 2012  

    Hey I just started to read your blog… you do a fastantic job, btw! Anyway, just wanted to let you know that I just read a post where you talked about wearing helmets and such and I wanted to share this… my cousin, who was five at the time, was riding her bike (with parents watching) on her not busy street… someone came flying through going too fast for her to move and he hit her, and the helmet was completely smashed, but she was ok. Well, she was in the hospital for a while, but if not for her helmet, she would have died.

  • Phylos March 21, 2012  

    Drivers would become remarkably more attentive if our laws about crashes were simpler: he (or she) with the heavier vehicle is assumed to be at fault. Period. Ultimately child pedestrians could never be at fault in this scheme, and it’s quite likely that automobile drivers would tend to be extraordinarily cautious since a vast multitude of events outside of their control could land them in jail. Neither are bad outcomes.

  • jzara May 1, 2012  

    This is a great Tv ad (I think from England) that touches on this very thing. “It’s easy to miss what you are not looking for.”

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.