Future Vehicle to Bicycle, etc Comm System?

[James]

Interesting concept. It’s a bit like TCAS for airplanes.


—————
…In total, there are 19 companies working together spanning the automotive, bicycle, and technology sectors, chief of which include the likes of Bosch, Shimano, Trek, and Audi….

Cars and bikes would be fitted with modules that can communicate remotely with each other. As such, a cyclist approaching an intersection will be alerted via a notification either on their smartphone or their bike’s display, that a vehicle is approaching from the other direction. Likewise, the car driver will also be alerted about the presence of the cyclist, long before they’re in each other’s field of view
——————-

Vehicle-To-Vehicle Comms Eyed As Life-Saving Tech For E-Bike Riders

V2X or Vehicle-to-Vehicle communications is eyed as a potentially life-saving technology for vulnerable road users such as e-bike riders.

insideevs.com

Part of the BiPartisan Infrastructure Bill

————-
….the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, along with the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office and the Federal Highway Administration, will “expand vehicle-to-pedestrian research efforts focused on incorporating bicyclists and other vulnerable road users into the safe deployment of connected vehicle systems.”
————————

Audi, Bosch, Trek And Others Create V2X Proximity Beacons Group For Rich Cyclists

The new lobby group is the Coalition for Cyclist Safety and also includes membership from the League of American Bicyclists and People for Bikes.

www.forbes.com

 

[scott43]

That would be a giant leap for safety and autonomous systems..

 

[James]

I suppose that kids would get something to clip on. Then they’d never look crossing the street.

 

[Bill Talbot]

My biggest nightmare right there...
And that's speaking as a cyclist, motorcyclist and car operator.

 

[Paul Lutes]

Oh fine, just ignore the pedestrian.

 

[James]

My biggest nightmare right there...
And that's speaking as a cyclist, motorcyclist and car operator.

What about it?

Oh fine, just ignore the pedestrian.

If the unit could fit on a bike, probably no reason it can’t be carried.

 

[jt10000]

I find this extremely disturbing and see it as part of effort by the automotive industry and others to shift responsibility for safety to less vulnerable users and away from drivers/cars. Just as cyclists are blamed for being hit because they were not wearing a helmet, it will be easy to see reports like "he did not have a smartphone safety system on."

There is a long history of this, starting with the car industry inventing the idea of "jaywalking."

There are well-known methods to make streets/roads safer but we don't use them in much of the US. Designing roads to drivers must be slower and more attentive. Daylighting intersections. And more. Street/road design is the start. They work in some countries and even in a few places in the US like Hoboken. As a bonus, these protect pedestrian as well. We know how to do it.

If we are going to look to technology, how about speed governors in cars? That's basic. Overall there is no reason cars should be able to go 100mph, and GPS-enabled governors could slow them down even more in places with other road users. Maybe even protect buildings:



We should not have to carry a phone to be safe from drivers. Drivers need to slow down, and we should be be using street design, law and technology to make that happen.

 

[cantunamunch]

What about it?

It's basically a radio-electronic version of a bike bell. It is completely meaningless on even moderately trafficked vehicular traffic routes.

You KNOW there are 3-4-5 cars behind you; there have been approximately that number all day.

What you don't know is whether the 3rd car back is going to be an entitled prick and try to push you off the road. What you don't know is whether the guy in front of you is going to pull a stunt where they turn across traffic directly in front of you.

Secondly, it's just useless on massively traveled MUP routes - you are going to turn it off because you don't want to be getting alerts from the 15 pedestrians walking 4-people wide, the 4 cyclists in the opposite lane, or the 5 behind you. Which is a shame because you might have really needed it at the place the rural road intersects the MUP.

The only way it can possibly provide any benefit over what we already have is by informing automated systems - driver assistance systems and ebike throttling software frex.

Of the actual hair-raising incidents I've had in 2023- the kid racing the Mustang past me and through the van would have absolutely turned his transponder alerts off; the woman simply not looking wouldn't have known what it was telling her.

Maybe, maybe, maybe transponders would have prevented the Amazon delivery van incident, but I only say that because it was at slow speed on a Saturday morning and a commercial vehicle.

And that last is what I think speaks to @Bill Talbot's objection. All these things might make sense if we apply commercial vehicle driver expectations to our personal vehicles.

If the unit could fit on a bike, probably no reason it can’t be carried.

*shrug* We already have rear bike light radars. Technical integration of this type of protocol into a bicycle head unit or a fitness watch - or a mobile phone - is the least of my concerns.


Sidenote: 'connected vehicle systems'? How about connected roads that don't grapevine so that bike users are forced onto major thoroughfares because it's the only connection there is? How about connected bike lanes and sidepaths that aren't interrupted every 400 yards by a 90 degree turn into a traffic crossing, or by vanishing altogether? No, of course not. Shame on me for asking.

 

[James]

the kid racing the Mustang past me and through the van would have absolutely turned his transponder alerts off; the woman simply not looking wouldn't have known what it was telling her.

True, but there would be a record on both ends. You’d know what car committed the deed and some of the telemetry. I think. If it relies on cell service, many places it wouldn’t work.

 

[cantunamunch]

True, but there would be a record on both ends. You’d know what car committed the deed and some of the telemetry. I think.

Can't fix the aggro pricks; can't fix the clueless potatoes.

Might be able to help the well-intentioned, alert and responsible users, who need least fixing in the first place.

(And almost certain to be plumbed right into commercial vehicles, as soon as there's anything other than text essays and renders).

If it relies on cell service, many places it wouldn’t work.

That's certainly true.

 

[Uncle-A]

I find this extremely disturbing and see it as part of effort by the automotive industry and others to shift responsibility for safety to less vulnerable users and away from drivers/cars. Just as cyclists are blamed for being hit because they were not wearing a helmet, it will be easy to see reports like "he did not have a smartphone safety system on."

There is a long history of this, starting with the car industry inventing the idea of "jaywalking."

There are well-known methods to make streets/roads safer but we don't use them in much of the US. Designing roads to drivers must be slower and more attentive. Daylighting intersections. And more. Street/road design is the start. They work in some countries and even in a few places in the US like Hoboken. As a bonus, these protect pedestrian as well. We know how to do it.

If we are going to look to technology, how about speed governors in cars? That's basic. Overall there is no reason cars should be able to go 100mph, and GPS-enabled governors could slow them down even more in places with other road users. Maybe even protect buildings:



We should not have to carry a phone to be safe from drivers. Drivers need to slow down, and we should be be using street design, law and technology to make that happen.

As someone that drives in Hoboken frequently I am surprised they have so few pedestrian fatalities. The people just step out in front of you without looking up from their phones. I think that the number is related to the fact that the streets are so bad you can't drive fast. The potholes, the poor street repair and construction have been taking their toll on the roads and if you drive fast you get your bones shaken up terribly. Hoboken has setup the streets so that most are one way streets, every other block they alternate direction. One thing they could do is improve the street lighting, many of the corners are very dark and the visibility could be a lot better. People could also realize that if you are going to be walking at night dressing in all black may not be your safest option.

 

[jt10000]

As someone that drives in Hoboken frequently I am surprised they have so few pedestrian fatalities. The people just step out in front of you without looking up from their phones. I think that the number is related to the fact that the streets are so bad you can't drive fast. The potholes, the poor street repair and construction have been taking their toll on the roads and if you drive fast you get your bones shaken up terribly. Hoboken has setup the streets so that most are one way streets, every other block they alternate direction.

Preventing fast driving is a feature not a bug. Cobble stones, soft roads, potholes, narrow streets, sharp turns, road furniture etc are good things for safety. Well, ideally not potholes since they can help people trip and bikes crash. But slowing cars down is key to safety.

Can't fix the aggro pricks; can't fix the clueless potatoes.

Maybe not, but it's certainly possible to make it much harder to drive fast/agressively via good road design. This is well known. It's not complicated. Well, it's politically complicated because drivers want driving to be as easy as possible, but the safety "technology" is well known and easy. And if you want high-tech, it's speed limiters.

 

[cantunamunch]

Maybe not, but it's certainly possible to make it much harder to drive fast/agressively via good road design. This is well known. It's not complicated.

Speaking as someone who lives in one traffic design laboratory that pleases no one and works in another, it's certainly harder to drive but it isn't safer to ride.

Neckdowns suck for riders. That F150 driver who was behind your left shoulder is now about to hit you with his offside mirror - and he's certainly not looking past and behind you to see the other cyclist who's behind the neck on the intersecting road. If he swings wide to miss you, he can't make a right turn without hitting the other guy.

 

[tch]

To @cantunamunch's point: I KNEW there was a car/truck behind me. What I didn't know was that he was dangerous. I was riding well onto a very-well developed shoulder. And he STILL hit me!
Not sure what a "warning" system would do that we don't have now.

And I agree with @jt10000's point: this only serves to direct responsibility onto the bicyclists/pedestrians. What we need is more responsibility onto drivers. FWIW, the guy who hit me and sent me to the hospital for three days got a 30-day suspension of his license. Period. And that was his 7th moving violation in 8 years!

 

[James]

Can't fix the aggro pricks; can't fix the clueless potatoes.

What we need is more responsibility onto drivers.

Presumably it would help with that even if after the fact.

If there was a record of how the vehicle moved, there would at least be a way to go after people. Cars now and in the near future have an incredible array of sensors and cameras. If you know the car, you could get the data. Perhaps.
I suspect this is Bill’s issue, privacy. But he’ll have to answer. Essentially, there’s a record of where you are and what you’re doing at all times.

 

[jt10000]

Presumably it would help with that even if after the fact.

There are plenty of examples of drivers killing and injuring people and they get excused or get slaps on the wrist even when there is video evidence (link goes to article about lack of punishment - I've seen the video and it's too horrible to link to).

Making the roads physically safer is key. And changing the politics/policy to put more accountability on drivers. Tech without a change in how we determine accountability will not help. It will hurt. Even here, people mentioned kids could carry their electronics to avoid getting hit. That's the kind of backwards movement this tech represents. Why didn't the little girl have her phone beacon on?

If we want to use data to go after bad drivers, disconnect it from crashes or at least use it in addition to crashes. Someone speeds downtown or in a school zone? Ticket. Speed too often or or way too fast? Pull the license. But there's huge resistance to this, which is real accountability.

Heck, this can be done with speed cameras outside cars - don't even have to update the cars. Speed cameras exist and work, at least where I live.

 

[Uncle-A]

Preventing fast driving is a feature not a bug. Cobble stones, soft roads, potholes, narrow streets, sharp turns, road furniture etc are good things for safety. Well, ideally not potholes since they can help people trip and bikes crash. But slowing cars down is key to safety.


Maybe not, but it's certainly possible to make it much harder to drive fast/agressively via good road design. This is well known. It's not complicated. Well, it's politically complicated because drivers want driving to be as easy as possible, but the safety "technology" is well known and easy. And if you want high-tech, it's speed limiters.

Leaving roads in disrepair is not a strategy to reduce accidents. I think that they can cause more accidents than they stop. I think you ignored the first part of my post about people stepping out with out looking up from there phones. That is the most unsafe part of driving in Hoboken.

 

[Bill Talbot]

Presumably it would help with that even if after the fact.

If there was a record of how the vehicle moved, there would at least be a way to go after people. Cars now and in the near future have an incredible array of sensors and cameras. If you know the car, you could get the data. Perhaps.
I suspect this is Bill’s issue, privacy. But he’ll have to answer. Essentially, there’s a record of where you are and what you’re doing at all times.

Stop asking to be saved. Without individual responsibility the problem will never go away.
Thinking the 'government' is capable of solving any problem with more laws and new technology is absurd. The buck starts with each of us.
No nanny state crap in our vehicles, no privacy invasions. (of course most of you gave that up long ago with your smart phones)

 

[scott43]

Yeah seatbelts suck..

 

[James]

I see little changing on the road. I suppose self driving cars will help the general distraction level. Currently it’s Russian Roulette being on the side of the road, even in a car.