Electronic Warning, Cyclist/Pedestrian Ahead ! trials.

[colin54]

I wonder if this will get beyond the experimental stage.

Interactive signs, warning motorists of the presence of cyclists and pedestrians on the road ahead where visibility is

restricted.

http://www.thecomet.net/motoring/centra ... -1-5431915

[Grandad]

From the article

According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, 1,011 cyclists are killed or seriously injured for every billion miles travelled – compared to 26 car drivers.

I'd like to see how these figures were reached. A better comparison would be by hours spent on the roads.

[Wanlock Dod]

...A better comparison would be by hours spent on the roads.

A very good point, but we do love to overlook that though because it makes the faster modes of travel look less dangerous.
A reasonable correction could be made based on average speeds for both modes of travel. If bikes typically travel at an average speed of 10 to 15 mph, and cars at 45 to 60 mph that would mean that during an equivalent time spent at risk cyclists would travel between 3 and 6 times less far than motorists. That would give somewhere between about 169 and 337 cyclists per 26 motorists (7 to 13 cyclists per motorist).

[PH]

From the article

According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, 1,011 cyclists are killed or seriously injured for every billion miles travelled – compared to 26 car drivers.

I'd like to see how these figures were reached.

I don't know either, the DoT figures are published each year, this is the 2016 report, page 7 has a comparison which looks quite different to the RS figures
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 016-01.pdf

A better comparison would be by hours spent on the roads.

We've had this discussion before, without reaching a consensus. I think it depends on how you use your bike, if it's for transport I think distance is the correct measure, it's the constant - my workplace doesn't get any closer because I choose a slower mode of transport. If it's for leisure, then it's more complicated, I might choose to go for a three hour ride and maybe there are those who choose to go for a three hour drive...
However you look at it, the figures are way to high, and I can't see this proposal making any difference.

[[XAP]Bob]

From the article

According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, 1,011 cyclists are killed or seriously injured for every billion miles travelled – compared to 26 car drivers.

I'd like to see how these figures were reached. A better comparison would be by hours spent on the roads.

Depends if you cycle for pleasure (i.e. to spend time pedalling) or for transport (i.e. to get from A-B).

Since I guess the majority of miles are actually used for transport... per mile is far more useful.

[PRL]

I wonder if this will get beyond the experimental stage.

Interactive signs, warning motorists of the presence of cyclists and pedestrians on the road ahead where visibility is

restricted.

http://www.thecomet.net/motoring/centra ... -1-5431915

Looks like a solution looking for a problem. Simpler would be to either reduce the speed/traffic density of routes used by walkers and cyclists or provide a safe alternative.

[Barks]

In my view comparisons of car and cycle KSIs in Distance or hours travelled are completely invalid. The only reason car drivers survive without being a KSI statistic in the numbers they do is due to the improved safety features in cars. I suspect that there are pretty horrendous numbers of vehicle incidents that do not get reported because no one is seriously hurt - how many cars are written off for example but the drivers were lucky enough to walk free. If the true data was commonly known the perceived risks of driving might be in better understood and perhaps lead to more care being taken on the roads - cyclists would certainly benefit from that. So how do we find out how many cars are involved in incidents resulting them going to the scrap yard or undergoing major repairs (anything more than paint scrapes for example)?

[Wanlock Dod]

...Since I guess the majority of miles are actually used for transport... per mile is far more useful.

Unless distance is a factor in mode selection, in which case it starts to become much more complicated because car journeys will always be relatively long ones, and walking journeys will always be relatively short ones.
Is the distance more important of the journey itself? Is the journey of somebody who chooses to drive to the supermarket 10 miles away fifty times more important than somebody who is just nipping to the corner shop 400 yards away on foot? They are both just journeys and both equally important, but in the absence of an incident the contribution of the car journey to the overall average will be 50 times greater.

[thirdcrank]

Instead of another debate on the relative safety or otherwise of different modes (based on casualty counting which will inevitably show vulnerable road users as being the problem) how about discussing the proposal in the link?

eg

“It’s harder to implement (cycle safety initiatives) on rural roads, where there are usually higher speed limits, and a lack of space or street lighting to attach signs to.

“Also, rural cyclists are often less frequent and more spread out than within the hustle and bustle of a town. So in rural areas, technology-based solutions are more appropriate.”

(My emphasis.)

If ever there was absurd logic, that must be it.

How about: High speed limits on narrow rural roads present a special danger to cyclists and may discourage cycling. Technology-based solutions are unnecessarily expensive, require maintenance and risk vandalism etc.

[NUKe]

This is just so wrong on so many levels.
Firstly it means Cyclists and pedestrians would need an active device. Secondly it would stop motorists actually looking if you expect every cyclist and pedestrian to be identified by the car the drivers mind is allowed to wander. The squashed cyclist and pedestrians can be held to account for not carrying their marker or not charging the batteries.

There is some parallel to the the recent case of the Automatic car that killed the lady pushing her bike, firstly the car read the situation wrong, secondly the Operator was looking down at something. A perfect storm.

[thirdcrank]

This is just so wrong on so many levels.
Firstly it means Cyclists and pedestrians would need an active device. Secondly it would stop motorists actually looking if you expect every cyclist and pedestrian to be identified by the car the drivers mind is allowed to wander. The squashed cyclist and pedestrians can be held to account for not carrying their marker or not charging the batteries.

There is some parallel to the the recent case of the Automatic car that killed the lady pushing her bike, firstly the car read the situation wrong, secondly the Operator was looking down at something. A perfect storm.

I think you have misunderstood what's proposed. I don't think a cyclist has to carry any sort of device. My reading is that they are testing both radar and thermal detectors to detect the presence of cyclists and then to trigger a warning sign to approaching drivers. It's still "so wrong." Indeed, it displays addled thinking.
============================================================
A bit dated but here's the relevant bit of some old publicity for the Country Code

Proceed with caution and attend,
Cows may be coming round that bend,
Or carts piled high with bulky loads:
Go carefully on country roads.

[NUKe]

You are right TC, I was replying to the wrong thread there was one started last week on A BBC article where I think it was Volvo are developing a system where the Car communicates with the bike. I cant find the one I was referring to from Last week. I had assumed I was replying to that,

Still I agree with your points about the Old country code and people just slowing down to the distance you can see. problem is modern cars grip the road and can go rounds bends a lot faster than they should.

[thirdcrank]

Brought to you by the wonders of streetview.

Back Lane, Leeds 12 which was made subject to a 50mph limit some time around 1970 when there were several bad crashes and the recently introduced national speed limit was 70mph The big change since then, apart from the general increase in motor traffic, has been the opening of J27 of the M62, which makes this one of the main access roads from West Leeds. In addition to loads of SLOW signs, this electronic jobby was installed to flash an exhortation to slow down. It's now conked out and I doubt it will be repaired. Also, although this is nominally agricultural land, it's now the location of several riding schools and the road is often used by very young riders.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.77482 ... 312!8i6656

Let's accept that the problem is people driving too fast for the conditions and put a stop to that.

[bovlomov]

The article gives national KSI figures, but there are no stats for Bedfordshire itself.

As the article says, there are a lot of rural roads in the county, so how will this technology be distributed? Will it be placed at locations of previous accidents? They give the examples of bends, dips and junctions, but surely the money won't cover more than a tiny proportion of those. It seems to me that the risk is pretty well everywhere, and warning drivers only in those selected 'high risk' situations is more likely to lead to complacency everywhere else.

No one in Bedfordshire has commented on the article yet.

[Postboxer]

I would rather have a system that detected people driving too fast for the conditions, maybe a policeman, or a speed camera. Or even a sign flashing up warning drivers that something 'may' be around the blind bend they are driving too fast towards, rather than a system that would appear to almost give a green light to drivers speeding around blind bends, it's ridiculous.