Cycling safety equipment questionnaire – University major project

[AdamMotlock]

Hi fellow cyclists it's me again,

I know I have been posting a lot of questionnaire for my major project and it is possibly annoying a lot of you, well you guys have been really useful in helping me and thanks for that, I have managed to narrow down to a few major problems to do with cycling safety. I know there are products out there to help with this, but they are pretty basic and I want to try and improve on them, something along the lines of ‘intelligent safety device’. Please take a few minutes to fill this out for me as I would really appreciate it and it really will help me in my major project at University.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GDTP8FM#

As usual I will keep looking into here and responding to all posts on here! Please use this thread as an area to discuss further points with me

Thanks,

Adam.

[De Sisti]

Hi fellow cyclists it's me again,

 I know there are products out there to help with this, but they are pretty basic and I want to try and improve on them, something along the lines of ‘intelligent safety device’.

But aren't these 'intelligent safety devices' going to cost more money for the hard-up motorist
who would see them as a "tax on driving"?

[Kim]

I quite like the idea of a device that helps drivers estimate overtaking time/distance.  Not that I think that's the biggest safety issue, but it's something that appeals to me as a potential use for clever technology.  Drivers tend to regard cyclists as almost-stationary parts of the road environment, and often misjudge the time before a cyclist will reach a given point in the road.  It's the sort of thing a computer could do much better, if it knew what was going on.  Of course the obvious problems are doing it more cheaply and reliably than the systems being used for semi or fully autonomous vehicles, and presenting the data in an intuitive and useful (but not distracting) manner to a human driver.

The devil's advocate in me says you could side-step the problem by reducing the driver's speed so the relative motion between the cyclist and static environment becomes proportionally greater and easier to estimate.  The technology to do that is well established

Anyway, whatever you do, please don't invent bicycle indicators again.  It's something of a running joke...

[PaulF]

The first question doesn't play nicely with an iPad. It automatically ranked the responses in the order on the page. I'll try again later

[Tewdric]

I get the impression you have the idea already and keep firing out  new "market research" questionnaires until you get a set of results that give you the answer you want, which is no way to conduct research. 

If you could come up with something that modifies drivers' attitudes and improves patience and tolerance for vulnerable road users you'd be onto a winner. 

If it's something that nags motorists when they are in close proximity to a bike then good luck getting drivers to buy it, and giving drivers an excuse to be lazier with their mirrors than they already are may not be a good thing.

If it's a proximity sensing flashing lasery thing or something that marks out your space on the road surface it will have been done before and won't work. 

Some original thought around blind spots to the near side of LGVs might prove fruitful, although there's a lot of work being done already.  Have you spoken to anyone at the Transport Research Laborotary?

[Charlotte]

At the risk of winning the 'biggest misanthrope on a bike' prize, I'm not going to do your survey because I don't *want* any new 'cycling safety equipment'.  For some reason, misguided university supervisors (probably the ones who don't actually ride bikes) seem to think that this area is suited to 'real world' product development assignments.

Riding my bike is an inherently safe thing to do and the only thing that makes it less safe are either the poor judgement calls that I make (for instance should I ever attempt to ride off road) or people in cars who do not drive them properly.  New safety equipment competitions just reinforce the negative stereotype that cycling is dangerous and only modern technology can save us from ourselves.  Which annoys me intensely.

In particular, I do not want:

• A folding helmet
• A helmet with built-in lights
• A helmet with built-in mirrors
• A helmet with a HUD, accelerometer, GPS or anything else bolted onto it
• An inflating airbag that goes round my neck, head or any other part of my anatomy
• Illuminated trousers
• Illuminated jackets
• Illuminated shoes
• Lights that project clever things onto the road
• Anything that requires installing an app on my mobile gadget of choice

...and as Kim has already said - if you so much as whisper the words 'bicycle indicators' then we may have to hunt you down in order to point and laugh at you.

On the other hand, if you could see your way clear to making me some kind of magnetic limpet mine that ignites a small charge of Thermite ten seconds after it's been affixed to a metal object (say, just about enough to burn all the way through a decent sized engine block) then that would be rather spiffy.  First class honours if you can bring them to market in a three-pack for under £20, yeah?

[Ham]

I'd completed the survey before reading Charlotte's post, I'm of the same basic view: nothing you buy makes you safe, you make you safe. All the fluorescent hi-viz cameras in the world don't stop a determined SMIDSY, but thankfully it is a very small minority of drivers who exhibit that type of behaviour. And there would be quite a big market for that there thermite.

[Wascally Weasel]

I massively disagree with Charlotte on this - I think a HUD would be an awesome idea but only if it is linked to voice activated 'cycle safety' Predator drones.

"White Man Van on Priory Lane shouting at cyclists to get off the road and doing punishment overtakes.  Let it rain."  KABOOM!

That's the safety improvement I could have done with this morning.

[Wascally Weasel]

At the risk of winning the 'biggest misanthrope on a bike' prize

There's lots of competition!   

[Vince]

I massively disagree with Charlotte on this - I think a HUD would be an awesome idea but only if it is linked to voice activated 'cycle safety' Predator drones.

"White Man Van on Priory lane shouting at cyclists to get off the road and doing punishment overtakes.  Let it rain."  KABOOM!

That's the safety improvement I could have done with this morning.

Must not read the internet in workshops
Must not read the internet in workshops
Must not read the internet in workshops
X 100

My snort of laughter attracted too much attention. 

[matthew]

As Charlotte says, cycling is inherently safe when the principle risks of poor driver observation and consideration and poor road surfaces are removed. Therefore asking cyclists to pay a weight and power penalty to mitigate a risk generated by the presence of motor vehicles is harsh.

As the risk is due to the presence of the motor vehicles which creates the hazard it is inherent on the vehicle to mitigate this. Recent developments in cars and lorries have all been about protecting the occupent of the metal cage during a crash and assumes that they are colliding with another metal cage. This means that for most drivers the consequences of a collision are very minor and this needs to be rebalanced, e.g. take Charlottes thermite charge and place it to activate with the airbag. Once a driver realises that even a minor collision will hurt they may actually concentrate sufficiently and take proper care.

[clarion]

I thought the only intelligent safety device we need is a cyclist.  Of course, that safety is impinged upon by the less intelligent, in various forms of transport.

[Ham]

I thought the only intelligent safety device we need is a cyclist.  Of course, that safety is impinged upon by the less intelligent, in various forms of transport.

Intelligent

Cyclist

Nope. I've been trying to get them to move together but it just won't happen

[AdamMotlock]

Sorry guys, I haven't been on in last couple days to reply individually, been pretty busy. I have now read what you all have to say and thanks for doing the questionnaire apart from the people who said they didn't want to, thanks to you for still offering valuable information. You know it's a hard mix when statistics tell you that 3,000 cyclists a year are in serious injury accidents in urban settings and still half of cyclists feel that there is no need for an effort to try and make a better products to reduce this number, 'oww, it's just another thing to put on the bike','it's the motorists fault'(which as a cyclists I have to admit I have been in the wrong a couple times) Yea....no one will ever know how much the device help 'you' but it might reduce the amount of KSI if designed well. - Rant over, it's probably doing uni work 72 hours a week that's making me rant, nothing personnal

Yea the layout SurveyMonkey provide for that type of question with the ranking is a bit annoying.

thanks again,

Adam.

[hellymedic]

I think the problem is that many of us don't think any product will alter the behaviour of the parties responsible for the majority of injury collisions with cyclists.

It's mostly not the cyclists who are inattentive or inconsiderate and worse.

Cyclists are human-powered and already encumbered by too much clutter; we just don't want more.
Sorry!

[TheLurker]

On the other hand, if you could see your way clear to making me some kind of magnetic limpet mine that ignites a small charge of Thermite ten seconds after it's been affixed to a metal object (say, just about enough to burn all the way through a decent sized engine block) then that would be rather spiffy.  First class honours if you can bring them to market in a three-pack for under £20, yeah?

Ohhh but I would buy this.  I'd settle for a sticky-bomb variant if magnets made it difficult to hit that price point.

[Biggsy]

I think the problem is that many of us don't think any product will alter the behaviour of the parties responsible for the majority of injury collisions with cyclists.

Or it will alter motorists behaviour in the wrong direction.  They will take less care when they think cyclists are better protected, yet cyclists will really always be inherently vulnerable when it comes to collisions.

While I'm sure your intentions are excellent, Adam, you could possibly INCREASE the number of serious injuries, as well making cycling seem more dangerous, thus putting more beginners off cycling altogether.  Poor people who can't afford accessories will be especially worse off.  Cycling for the majority is basically a minimalistic cheap activity - not compatible with adding more and more stuff to bikes.  This is only something I came to realise after a couple of decades of cycling.  I was more of a gadget freak in my youth - making my own brake lights and things.  There will be a niche market for the youth of today (plus a few eccentric middle-aged people) for new gadgets, but that won't be enough to make a difference to safety overall, even if it works in the right direction.

There is a need for an effort to try and make better products to reduce the number of injuries, like technology the police can use to better police the law without needing more man power that they can't afford.  I'd also like a covert electric shock gadget to use on MPs.  (I'm serious about one of these suggestions).

But ignore me if you're sure I'm wrong.  I'm all for inventors and inventions in general.  It's just that cycle accessories is a particularly difficult field.

[cycleman]

the biggest improvement in cycling safety would to remove seat belts from and fit a nice sharp spike in the centre in the centre of the steering wheel .the Darwin effect would soon improve everyone's safety.