Blind spot
- Thread starter Zebb
- Start date
Wearable Tech as a Life Saver?
Although more people are getting around by bike, cyclists remain the most vulnerable group of road users. Could a range of wearable technologies keep them safer?
BBC News - Could hi-tech accessories make cycling safer?
In the UK, the number of people killed in cycling accidents is on the rise.
Most serious incidents involve another vehicle and commonly occur when the cyclist is travelling straight ahead and another vehicle turns into it, research suggests.
That's why Emily Brooke, founder of Blaze, says she designed a light that projects an image of a green bike onto the ground about 5 metres (16ft) ahead of the cyclist.
Although more people are getting around by bike, cyclists remain the most vulnerable group of road users. Could a range of wearable technologies keep them safer?
BBC News - Could hi-tech accessories make cycling safer?
In the UK, the number of people killed in cycling accidents is on the rise.
Most serious incidents involve another vehicle and commonly occur when the cyclist is travelling straight ahead and another vehicle turns into it, research suggests.
That's why Emily Brooke, founder of Blaze, says she designed a light that projects an image of a green bike onto the ground about 5 metres (16ft) ahead of the cyclist.
This sort of idea has been tried but isn't bright enough in daylight and even in brightly lit city night situations the images often don't show up.
Also it's misleading to say only that UK cycling accidents have been rising. They've risen in recent years as the popularity of cycling has risen. That has meant that in low cycling areas the rate of accidents has remained the same, while in high cycling areas like London, the rate of accidents has fallen.
For example, cyclist deaths in London where cycling has doubled over the last decade:
The highest number of London cyclist deaths in a year was in 1989 with 33 deaths.
The lowest number of London cyclist deaths in a year was in 2004 with 8 deaths.
The cyclist deaths in London have stayed at around 12 per year average over those years, while the cycling has doubled, the net rate of deaths therefore halving.
The overall number of London KSI accidents has risen, but by far less than the increase in cyclists and cycling trips, so again a net reduction.
The figures show that increases in cycling actually make things safer, something that's been reported everywhere in the world where cycling increases. This is presumed to result from drivers being more aware of cyclists when their numbers are larger.
.
Also it's misleading to say only that UK cycling accidents have been rising. They've risen in recent years as the popularity of cycling has risen. That has meant that in low cycling areas the rate of accidents has remained the same, while in high cycling areas like London, the rate of accidents has fallen.
For example, cyclist deaths in London where cycling has doubled over the last decade:
The highest number of London cyclist deaths in a year was in 1989 with 33 deaths.
The lowest number of London cyclist deaths in a year was in 2004 with 8 deaths.
The cyclist deaths in London have stayed at around 12 per year average over those years, while the cycling has doubled, the net rate of deaths therefore halving.
The overall number of London KSI accidents has risen, but by far less than the increase in cyclists and cycling trips, so again a net reduction.
The figures show that increases in cycling actually make things safer, something that's been reported everywhere in the world where cycling increases. This is presumed to result from drivers being more aware of cyclists when their numbers are larger.
.
Last edited:
Lasers - Pros, everyone likes a toy, but prob not the answer coz..
Cons - you have to have regular lights anyway, black tarmac doesn't make a v.good projection screen and gov prob not keen on everyone shining lasers in the street!
A pair of separated, flashing, dipped Cree's would throw a better beam, but not in daylight, back to drawing board
Cons - you have to have regular lights anyway, black tarmac doesn't make a v.good projection screen and gov prob not keen on everyone shining lasers in the street!
A pair of separated, flashing, dipped Cree's would throw a better beam, but not in daylight, back to drawing board
flecc;20051 The figures show that increases in cycling actually make things safer said:Yep, relax people, the answer to safe cycling is to always take.. ooh a shedload of friends with you, in middle of lane and everything will be ticketyboo
Given the ready availability and affordability of the optical-digital technology we have today, there is absolutely no excuse for any vehicle on our roads to have a blind spot. It's all down to indifferent politicians and an industry that's a law unto itself (as evidenced by the huge proportion of lorries found to be defective at spot checks), all mixed up with a propensity towards victim blaming, as demonstrated by some of the ill-informed and distasteful posts above.
One for the Truckies on the forum
"Islington Council has announced that all lorry drivers working for the council or on building sites in the borough will have to take a cycling course to help make them aware of the needs of vulnerable road users, including cyclists" from 'road.cc'.
"Islington Council has announced that all lorry drivers working for the council or on building sites in the borough will have to take a cycling course to help make them aware of the needs of vulnerable road users, including cyclists" from 'road.cc'.
Good to hear. Only those who live or have lived in both camps really know the true situation.One for the Truckies on the forum
"Islington Council has announced that all lorry drivers working for the council or on building sites in the borough will have to take a cycling course to help make them aware of the needs of vulnerable road users, including cyclists" from 'road.cc'.
A pity we can't get cyclists trying some truck driving in London's congested streets with numerous cyclists around to see what huge problems some of the cyclists cause and the impossibility of total safety in such a shared road system.
Instead of such sweeping generalised accusations Andy, please indicate just one of the posts in this thread that is ill-informed and distasteful, justifying why that is the case.
The Metropolitan Police’s Chief Commissioner has warned that trucks and large vehicles in the capital are ‘killing machines.
In an interview with LBC Radio’s Nick Ferrari, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said that "one wobble" could see riders end up under the wheels of a lorry or bus, in the wake of a week that saw five cyclists killed on London’s roads.
"It's a tragedy that we've had so many deaths in the last few days. I think overall it looks as though there are fewer cycle deaths per cycle journey, but that's no comfort to the poor families who've lost someone."
"We've all got to think about the way that we drive and the way that we cycle. It is difficult for the drivers. They're big vehicles, they can't always see out properly but they've got to take a little bit more care. When you've got such a big vehicle, then obviously they can be killing machines."
Met Police boss: Trucks in the capital are
In an interview with LBC Radio’s Nick Ferrari, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said that "one wobble" could see riders end up under the wheels of a lorry or bus, in the wake of a week that saw five cyclists killed on London’s roads.
"It's a tragedy that we've had so many deaths in the last few days. I think overall it looks as though there are fewer cycle deaths per cycle journey, but that's no comfort to the poor families who've lost someone."
"We've all got to think about the way that we drive and the way that we cycle. It is difficult for the drivers. They're big vehicles, they can't always see out properly but they've got to take a little bit more care. When you've got such a big vehicle, then obviously they can be killing machines."
Met Police boss: Trucks in the capital are
Last edited:
"Last week, following the death of polar scientist Katharine Giles when she was struck by a tipper lorry in Victoria, Mayor of London Boris Johnson said he wanted to ban lorries from the city unless equipped with safety features including additional mirrors and skirts that prevent cyclists from being dragged underneath.
Besides making physical safety features on lorries compulsory – the Safer Lorries, Safer Cycling campaign from the LCC (London Cycling Campaign) urges councils to adhere to minimum standards on the vehicles they and their contractors use.
It has also released a design of a Safer Urban Lorry"
New satnav system warns lorry drivers in London that they are approaching cyclist 'hotspots' | road.cc
Besides making physical safety features on lorries compulsory – the Safer Lorries, Safer Cycling campaign from the LCC (London Cycling Campaign) urges councils to adhere to minimum standards on the vehicles they and their contractors use.
It has also released a design of a Safer Urban Lorry"
New satnav system warns lorry drivers in London that they are approaching cyclist 'hotspots' | road.cc
The comment about companies paying more attention to health and safety (i.e. on-site) risk than road risk is very telling; most construction sites wouldn't allow a truck to reverse without a banksman, yet on the road that would be accepted. I know it's not the issue here, but the point is there are situations where a truck cannot be safely operated by the driver alone.
I've said elsewhere, possibly on this forum, that I think there's a case for all trucks in defined areas to carry a trained lookout - just as a barge on a river does. Maybe not all hours of the day, but certainly at peak times in city centres. That lookout could be picked up on entry to the zone, just like a pilot as a ship approaches a harbour. His/her job would be to physically look down the side of the truck and both check that it's clear and hurl warnings/abuse at anyone stupid enough to get in the way.
If technology can make the lookout unnecessary then fair enough - but it would need to be permanently fitted to the trucks, most of which go nowhere near busy city centres. If a truck driver could avoid London he would! Drivers dread being involved in this kind of situation and I'm sure most would welcome some help.
No amount of fancy lights will fix the issue.
I've said elsewhere, possibly on this forum, that I think there's a case for all trucks in defined areas to carry a trained lookout - just as a barge on a river does. Maybe not all hours of the day, but certainly at peak times in city centres. That lookout could be picked up on entry to the zone, just like a pilot as a ship approaches a harbour. His/her job would be to physically look down the side of the truck and both check that it's clear and hurl warnings/abuse at anyone stupid enough to get in the way.
If technology can make the lookout unnecessary then fair enough - but it would need to be permanently fitted to the trucks, most of which go nowhere near busy city centres. If a truck driver could avoid London he would! Drivers dread being involved in this kind of situation and I'm sure most would welcome some help.
No amount of fancy lights will fix the issue.
It'd seem there's an opportunity here, for some young streetwise entrepreneurs to set up a nice little business.
Could be run much like a courier business, with "banksmen" available for pickup on street corners, contacted by mobile phone.
Could be run much like a courier business, with "banksmen" available for pickup on street corners, contacted by mobile phone.
Great post Chris, you have hit a lot of nails on the head. I amended it to remove *inappropriate * content and hopefully improve it.
1. H&S requires a lookout on site, public road users deserve same protection. Possible legal challenge of Mayor has been mooted, on grounds of bike lanes being negligently inadequate, this issue is another angle.
2. Technology - A Mandatory, Heads Up Display, based on smartphone type 'Virtual Vision' where linked cameras around truck could give driver 360deg view 'x-ray vision '. Tested regularly. Infrared & UV as well as regular leds in marker lights will help cams pick out cyclists & pedestrians better (see Bus lights).
3. Routing - SatNav requires driver to take the *safest * route, avoiding 'hot-spots', 'b-road/back street shortcuts ', minimum of left turns and not through city at all, if possible.
4. Carrot - Drivers could earn 'City Points' for avoiding city even when it's cheapest route. SatNav verified, but how its funded, operated I can't figure, any suggestions?
5. Less Truck runs necessary if 44tonners? used instead of 37ton rigids, sites mandatorily upgraded to take them. And artics damage road less, yes? Mayor to arrange use of Freight Trains & Tunnels to take bulk material and spoil loads off roads and over to 1000ton River Barges.
6. Driver Welfare - truckers must be protected from unscrupulous bosses forcing them to take too many loads = too many hours. Whistle-blowers help line, confidential and able to get them counselling without prejudicing their career.
Phew, I'm all posted out!
. Cheers, MikeClearly, there are a lot of things that can be done, and the idea of 'Banksmen' seems very good. At least, give them a trial. They could even have loud speakers on the left hand side of the lorry to warn cyclists.
But in many cases, we have to accept that it is the cyclists at fault for getting into a dangerous position in the first place.
I wonder how many of these dangerous cyclists have driving licences? they seem blithely unaware of the dangers that most drivers would spot a mile off.
But in many cases, we have to accept that it is the cyclists at fault for getting into a dangerous position in the first place.
I wonder how many of these dangerous cyclists have driving licences? they seem blithely unaware of the dangers that most drivers would spot a mile off.
Like you Mike I agree with the post from Chris, and some of your points are valid and possible. But to implement those that are practical takes a long time and you haven't said a single word about anyone, including the cyclists themselves, doing anything about their often appallingly dangerous behaviour.
Even if everything you've mentioned were implemented, there would be little reduction in the London cyclist deaths since some would still dive from invisibility into danger in less than a second. No matter what you do to trucks a driver cannot be looking into mirrors and 360 degree viewscreens all the time, he actually has to spend some time driving the truck and looking elsewhere.
On board passenger lookouts are a good idea, but even they would not prevent all the deaths since the sighting of a cyclist, the warning to the driver and the driver reaction would easily add up to the mere second or less the worst idiot cyclists take to get themselves into trouble.
This issue needs a sense of perspective, cyclist deaths even in London are extraordinarily low, less than one in 10 million cycle journeys. There are limits to how much can be spent to reduce deaths, and as harsh as it may seem, governments have to make sensibly balanced decisions. The cost of all your proposals which might just save 4 to 6 lives annually are astronomic and therefore make no sense. That is why they haven't happened and why they never will.
Even if everything you've mentioned were implemented, there would be little reduction in the London cyclist deaths since some would still dive from invisibility into danger in less than a second. No matter what you do to trucks a driver cannot be looking into mirrors and 360 degree viewscreens all the time, he actually has to spend some time driving the truck and looking elsewhere.
On board passenger lookouts are a good idea, but even they would not prevent all the deaths since the sighting of a cyclist, the warning to the driver and the driver reaction would easily add up to the mere second or less the worst idiot cyclists take to get themselves into trouble.
This issue needs a sense of perspective, cyclist deaths even in London are extraordinarily low, less than one in 10 million cycle journeys. There are limits to how much can be spent to reduce deaths, and as harsh as it may seem, governments have to make sensibly balanced decisions. The cost of all your proposals which might just save 4 to 6 lives annually are astronomic and therefore make no sense. That is why they haven't happened and why they never will.
What no-one mentions is the need to keep speed up on a cycle. Unlike a motor vehicle, where a momentary slowing down is quickly rectified with a twitch of the foot, a bike takes a lot of effort to accelerate.
Looking at some of the YouTube's of London cycling, I am left wondering just why cyclists speed into danger instead of taking a more cautious approach, and I feel that they are all in such a rush compared with Dutch cyclists, that any slowing down is a no no.
Perhaps we need to encourage slower cycling.
After all, why do London commuter cyclists feel the need to dress as though they were in the Tour de France?
Even here in Swansea, my son complains that his fellow workers who cycle into work, steal a quarter of an hour after arrival while they shower and change, then at going home time, they start 10 minutes early so that they can get changed.
It is this foolish sporting need that leads to high speeds, cutting corners, taking up dangerous positions etc.
Compare this to Holland, where people cycle at 10 mph in their ordinary clothes, and take far more care at hazards.
Looking at some of the YouTube's of London cycling, I am left wondering just why cyclists speed into danger instead of taking a more cautious approach, and I feel that they are all in such a rush compared with Dutch cyclists, that any slowing down is a no no.
Perhaps we need to encourage slower cycling.
After all, why do London commuter cyclists feel the need to dress as though they were in the Tour de France?
Even here in Swansea, my son complains that his fellow workers who cycle into work, steal a quarter of an hour after arrival while they shower and change, then at going home time, they start 10 minutes early so that they can get changed.
It is this foolish sporting need that leads to high speeds, cutting corners, taking up dangerous positions etc.
Compare this to Holland, where people cycle at 10 mph in their ordinary clothes, and take far more care at hazards.
It's the shops. For years now bike shops have been faced with the same questions and given the same answers that profit them the most. Is very rare you will go into a bike shop and be told "don't buy this, it's rubbish" or "this cheaper one is just as good". When you ask in london bike shops they always aim you at the roadie expensive stuff as it brings in the most profit.
bike noob: "hi, I'm new to cycling but I really want the best stuff, will be cycling on roads to work and back, what do I want/need?"
sales person: "well you will want one of these road bikes or a hybrid, some of these jerseys, these cycling shoes, high vis, this light set is on special offer, this D lock we are selling for £15, one of those hats over there whatever matches your clothes, that will be £££"
bike noob: "will this keep me safe on the road?"
sales person: "yes, we sell lots of high vis jackets and most people buy these lights they really make you visible on the road"
bike noob: "awesome, I'm going to get to work so fast now"
sales person: "awesome, I made my months commision tucking this guy right up"
I forget which shop it was but one of them got slammed before for running a huge ad campaign for high vis and lights on the back of a death.
If that is a problem to any cyclist, then I'd say get an e-bike.
Its worth noting that the crowded roads of cities are not race tracks. If you wish to keep up a fast pace without slowing then get out on an open road.
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
