Volvo teams up with POC for collision avoiding helmet that 'talks' to cars

I tend to agree that there is not much foundation for fears about automated vehicles in the real world. Any thoughts on how these vehicles might change our lives is purely speculation and, as you point out, the technology is a long way from being ready to release in a production vehicle. I think that my concerns are somewhat valid but they are undermined by the fact that it will be so long before any self-drive technology actually reaches our roads.

By the time we have self-driving cars we might be in a situation where cycling on the road is a thing of the past anyway.

Just to clarify, when I say car sharing I mean like Zip Car, not neighbours pooling their car/s. Sort of an on-demand fractional ownership or rental from a pool of vehicles. I.e. a taxi without the driver.

I agree with the issue of drivers becoming impatient, though likely the same pool of psychos who already endanger vulnerable road users because it's their road tax privilege...!

In any case, will be interesting to see what comes of it.

Good points, and I should be clear in saying that I'm not fundementally opposed to driverless cars and I concede the inevitibility of them becoming commonplace. The technology is both interesting and useful. I do hope that the reality is that they improve the world we live in rather than the opposite.

I do disagree with a coulple of your points. Firstly, on car sharing. I don't think that self-driving cars will encourage people to car-share in the current sense of the term. People don't lean away from car sharing because it's difficult but because they wish to be independant. They don't want to have to consider a car-share buddy in their plans for the day. I can envisage the posibility of a household sharing a single car instead of having multiple vehicles e.g. Mr. Bloggs takes the car to work and sends it home for Mrs. Bloggs to take to the shops who sends it back to pick up Mr. Bloggs from work at the end of the day. This could mean fewer cars in total but might actually increase the number on the roads at any given time as they drive around with nobody in them.

I agree that whilst non-automated vehicles are common it's unlikely that speed limits would increase but in the longer term I think that it would be inevitable as the level of self-driving vehicles got close to 100%, especially out of town.

I would make the assumption that self-driving vehicles would be programmed to operate safely around vunerable road users. This might be a good thing as you suggest but it could also cause conflicts, particuarally whilst there is a mix of self-driving and non-automated vehicles. If a motorists percieve a delay due to being 'stuck' behind a self-driving vehicle that is waiting patiently for a safe opportunity to pass a bike I would expect their frustration to be directed at the cyclist (and cyclists in general). Some drivers would follow the good example of the driverless car but others would be more inclined to punishment passes etc.

Thanks Matt, that does make sense.

I'm not sure it would work out that way, but I may be a bit idealistic here, or at least more positive about it knowing how bad people are at driving metal boxes at speed.

Yes, the car would be an even more appealing choice: But at least we'd not deal with drivers who'd rather be eating food or browsing the internet... because currently they end up doing both!

Not sure we'd need larger roads, in part because what you say about following distance etc. Also, car sharing is going to be much more appealing (automated pickup for example) and parking can be done in a more compact way as well.

I don't think speed limits would increase, there's no benefit in urban areas and a smooth traffic flow is actually faster anyway. There'd be non-automated cars for a long time, so a smooth predictable flow would have to be prioritised.

As far as following distance and bikes etc, it would be utterly trivial to program the vehicles to give more space to vulnerable users. That would also be consistent, so I'd think it'd be better, not worse. There's also mimicry; I'm sure you've noticed that when one driver gives you plenty of room, the next couple or so do as well before the rest revert to closer distances. Human drivers would behave the same following a self-driven car.

The general attitude to active travel: Maybe, maybe not. If cycling feels safer (I think it definitely would be objectively) then a lot of people really enjoy cycling, not just us 'nutters' who do it now. Nice weather days I'd say would be busier, while proper cold or rain may see even fewer than now (again, easy car-sharing with possible multi-pickup for several people sharing part/whole journeys).

One thing's for sure, this will happen. Urban areas first, then lorries, then everywhere.

I suspect if we ever get the 'self driving cars' that some (mistakenly in my view) think would be a good idea, helmets like this will quickly become compulsory.

How long before a cyclist victim is regarded as partly to blame for own injuries/death because the batteries in his or her helmet were flat? Or s/he wasn't wearing one?

Cyclists should not have to have technology like this to make them safe. And as with so many so-called safety measures, it will have the opposite effect to the one intended as drivers come to rely on it rather than remaining alert. It would make the roads more dangerous for the majority of everyday cyclists who don't possess this junk.

Perhaps I'm thinking too small but I honestly can't work out how this would work in the real world.

I've been in two collisions with cars in the last couple of years, both due to drivers failing to give way on roundabouts. Would this technology give drivers a signal every time they approached a roundabout that had a cyclist on it or would the design assume that the driver would look properly and give way as required? Would the cyclist be notified of every car joining the roundabout or only those going too fast to stop in time?

Perhaps the notifications would only pop up if speeds and tradjectories indicated that a crash was inevitable, in which case it's difficult to see how anybody could take any avoiding action.

It seems to me that it would be very challenging to design a system that didn't either
a) notify users contantly that there are other vehicles close to them, resulting in the notifications being ignored
or
b) only notify users when its already too late to avoid a collision

Ok, so you've forked out £300 for your car awareness hat, it beeps, then what? Dive off of the bike? Veer to the left sharply whilst mentally praying to god you don't get tun over?

Also note that since this isn't tech seperate from the helmet you have to pay for it every time you get a new helmet.

I'd like to hear an explanation from POC, Ericsson and Volvo explaining why the cyclists needs to be notified that there is a Volvo car in the vicinity, cyclists expect there to be cars on the road, how does this hat change anything for the cyclist?

Of course helmets will have to then be made mandatory for cyclists or the poor hard done by Volvo motorist won't stand a chance of avoiding them.

How is anyone taking this seriously? Check the calendar, it must be April Fool's Day. A "please don't kill me hat"?

It's now a major lorry manufacturer's assumption that anyone on a bike has to wear an active motor-vehicle-repelling beacon? And if you don't wear one and the driver is not alerted to your existence, then it is assumed that running you over is just an inevitable consequence of not wearing their helmet?

It seems to me that this is similar to a major food company poisoning everyone in the country, and then selling frozen ready-meals that contain the antidote.

Driver: He had a POC Helmet, he should have got out of the way.

So, the article states:

Quote:

A smartphone app enables the precise location of cyclists and vehicles to be logged on Volvo's cloud database. When a collision is deemed imminent, a head-up display warns the driver, while a warning light on the helmet also alerts the cyclist.

Given that a lot of accidents happens in rural areas, and cell coverage can be intermittent or non-existent in these areas, especially for data, this system would appear to be flawed.

Whilst the idea in principle is sound, it needs to work independently to be at all useful in the real world.

"When a collision is deemed imminent, a head-up display warns the driver, while a warning light on the helmet also alerts the cyclist"

If you take the literal meaning - about to happen...and not, 'may be about to happen' - Does this not imply that it is unavoidable? Therefore, it will happen - regardless...?

Also isn't that what the two vehicle operators brains are for...to think, act/react to prevent it happening...?

It's not a crystal ball... 'it' can't possibly foresee every action/reaction from the parties directly and indirectly involved
To me, the technology 'may' be a factor in changing people's attitude toward each other...making them more carefree/careless as opposed to more careful...?

Putting the onus on some electronics to safeguard 'my' life in this type of situation and not the vehicle operator can't be a good thing...
'I expected my gizmo to prevent the accident...it didn't so how can I be liable....?' Sue the manufacturer....
Better to prevent certain types of behaviour through human learning/practice/experience than to put all your eggs in one basket and hope a miracle cure is around the next bend...much less a techno freaking super computer hell bent on human destruction... AI/HAL...indeed!!!

I don't think there is much point alerting a cyclist that a motorist is about to impact from behind or to informing a motorist of what he can plainly see with his own eyes but has chosen to ignore. Segregated infrastructure, automatic sensors and driverless cars are a much better answer.

" When a collision is deemed imminent, a head-up display warns the driver, while a warning light on the helmet also alerts the cyclist."
Great... you get to see a light letting you know that someone is going to hit you.
Wonder how that would feel?

Well, we have proximity sensors on cars to prevent them crashing into other cars or walls when reversing (not wanting to damage those expensive cars).

Why not not have similar sensors or radar that inform drivers that there are other road users around them?

Or better still, why not just deal with drivers that hit cyclist more seriously. No technology needed (apart from a brain upgrade for some judges).

Jesus f*cking Christ, this is like something from Black Mirror.

I've an idea. why don't we put people in charge of the vehicles then they can look out for people on bikes and avoid them instead of relying on the car and bike both having sensors and communicating.

'Sorry Mate I Didn't Hear You' doesn't have the same ring as 'Sorry Mate I Didn't See You'

to be honest if this is used correctly it could be a step in the right direction, but the major step won't happen until cars no longer rely on the driver for instructions.

better if they just allowed safer lorries, then we wouldn't be so dependent on gizmos.

Just had a thought. You could have an app that you link to your social media accounts and when the collision detector sees you are about to be hit, it could play a quick montage of highlights from Facebook up on the HUD. You could literally have your life flash before your eyes before you die.

It could even have rider facing camera and take a selfie of your final moments and tweet it to the driver. #smidsy

Kickstarter here I come.

Isn't this just legitimising drivers not doing the low-tech stuff properly, like, you know, looking through the windscreen and in their mirrors, instead of checking their phone and satnav?

I was just thinking that things have gone a bit quiet from Smart Hat. Have POC picked up the rights?