A cure for SMIDSY? Spoke technology provides riders and drivers with real-time road safety warnings

ktache wrote:

I can see something helping when driverless cars really become a thing, maybe covering our cycling headwear in aluminium foil, perhaps..?

Heavy!  Surely some kind of Kapton film would be needed for the pros?

hawkinspeter wrote:

I notice that one of the hazards that this device detects is when drivers are leaving parking spaces. I'm pretty sure that cars are already fitted with a notification device for that scenario - indicators (apologies to BMW owners). It's a shame that use of indicators isn't given a higher priority in the Highway Code - it should be a "must" to indicate when planning to pull out from a space. It really cracks my cranks when drivers don't indicate when pulling out - is it because they haven't seen anyone and so have been taught to not indicate?

An American colleague who spent a few years in the UK took the driving test there. He said his instructor told him off for indicating a turn when there was nobody around. My friend argued that indicating is a good habit, but his instructor told him he should be thinking about it every time, and if it serves no purpose, don't do it.

We had similar discussions when Rendall posted about the Police Car pulling out from a parking spot on the other side of the road without indicating. 

I think the camps were: 
Always Indicate because you might not see something approaching, however you could fall into the trap of stopping looking because you have now indicated your intent. 
Against
Only Indicate when needed because it means you intentionally look around to see if the indication is needed, however the problem there is not looking all around.

Unfortunately it seems that the reality for a lot of drivers is the bad parts from both instructions, which seems to definitely affect German branded cars the most. 

andystow wrote:

An American colleague who spent a few years in the UK took the driving test there. He said his instructor told him off for indicating a turn when there was nobody around. My friend argued that indicating is a good habit, but his instructor told him he should be thinking about it every time, and if it serves no purpose, don't do it.

I've stated here before that I think that's a fundamentally wrong way to think about driving safely. I appreciate that drivers are expected to think about what they're doing, but my thinking is that indicators are to signal your intention and serve an important safety function in the instance that the driver hasn't seen someone/something.

It's entirely the wrong mode of failure - indicating when there truly is no-one else around causes exactly zero problems, whereas failing to indicate can exacerbate a driving mistake.

It'd be a fun exercise to rate driving instructors and examiners based on how many incidents their students cause.

Having been through the IAM training, is say in principle signalling only when necessary works, but only works with a motivated driver who is engaged with the driving process.

As another example, braking before corners is a well known good thing, but it is extremely hard to counter years of bad driving. I watch other cars and I would say at least 95% of cars are braking in a corner - which also suggests that many are changing geared around corners or while braking too - habits that leads to poorer car control. And the number of people who are aware of the vanishing point technique for assessing appropriate speed for a corner must be vanishingly small, everyone else is just hoping to get it right.

So, to reiterate the point, declaring signalling only when necessary as a general guide isn't helpful if people are not trying to drive properly in the first place - and I think that one of the problems cyclists have with motorists is we are seem as an interruption to someone's carefree journey rather than a normal obstacle to be treated with the same care as any other road hazard.

I think not indicating should be a more serious offence on our roads. How much effort does it take to flick a switch on your vehicle or stick your arm out. Not indicating can cause accidents at worse and delay and frustration at best.

Not to mention all the lawyers saying the cycist didn't have V2X so its his fault my client didn't know he was there!

Seems to me to be the same the other way round as well. Motorists can buy this to help against bad cyclists. Works just as well one way or the other.

Rockhopper229 wrote:

Seems to me to be the same the other way round as well. Motorists can buy this to help against bad cyclists. Works just as well one way or the other.

Except that motorists are not in any significant danger from bad cyclists so they are less likely to think that it is necessary. I'm not really sure how this would work to help drivers with bad cyclists as it seems that most of the features revolve around not seeing a danger - how does that help a careful attentive driver?

Cyclists going down the wrong side of vehicles when turning, coming out of side roads without looking, cycling off pavements on to the road without warning, cycling through red lights. etc. etc. All bad cycling that car drivers could do with warning about. OK the cyclist will be the worst off but they are all cyclist fault if there's an accident. Believe it or not most motorists do not want to be involved in a collision with a cyclist.

Rockhopper229 wrote:

Believe it or not most motorists do not want to be involved in a collision with a cyclist.

I believe it - but how much attention do we pay when we're in our cars?

Anyway, you nailed the rest.  If I consult my figures...

Shouldn't there be a segment there somewhere for virtue signalling climate extremists?

That's all of 'em - or at least I know one when I see one.

Mungecrundle wrote:

"The technology could warn you that a car is approaching the same crossroads at right angles and is going to arrive at the same time, even though you can’t see that car. The system can warn a driver that a cyclist is going to emerge from a junction or from between parked cars even though they’re not visible." Or you could, and this goes for all road users, approach junctions and everyday hazards such as parked vehicles at an appropriate speed and with an awareness of possible developing situations based on proper observation.

It doesn't even need that level of advanced skills, merely drivers (and cyclists) to obey the existing rules of priority. as to this "The system can warn a driver that a cyclist is going to emerge from .. between parked cars" I can imagine the number of drivers likely to to action in this case to be tiny, and align incredibly well with the group of drivers already considering the risks from parked cars and driving accordingly.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Hmmm.  How many times on the average bike ride does your signal drop past 5g to No-g?

My phone doesn't do 5G, only 4G.

Looks like it'll need to cost £400-500 so just what Joe Bliggs going to fit to his Apollo Phaze for nipping into town or down to JLR to work on the tracks.

At least less well off people can buy a bit of hi-viz, this is putting safety out of reach of the average cycle user while, as you suggest, transferring more responsibility onto the vulnerable road users.

Weren't autonomous vehicles supposed to be able to spot bikes by themselves?

IanMSpencer wrote:

[...]transferring more responsibility onto the vulnerable road users. Weren't autonomous vehicles supposed to be able to spot bikes by themselves?

Paraphrasing the rock star body guard in Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "I'm paid to protect his body - and not yours".  Vehicle safety features are almost exclusively for the occupants.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Looks interesting, such is the way of the world that one can't help but wonder if it'll become the helmets/hi-vis of 2030: "Police are still investigating the fatality but they did reveal that the cyclist was not carrying a V2X transmitter..."

Exactly - I don't think this is a good idea at all. It's much better for cyclists to trust their own senses and experience. I don't really get the advantage of some device giving you 3 second warning of a car door being opened ahead of you, when surely you can easily see it and avoid it - it's the car doors being opened with no warning at all that are dangerous.