"the cyclist is warned through a helmet-mounted alert light"

Keep_Her_Lit

OK, hands up everyone who'd like a flashing light on their helmet to warn them of an imminent clobbering by a Volvo driver.

Volvo airs cloud-based cyclist protection system

http://www.automotive-eetimes.com/en/volvo-airs-cloud-based-cyclist-protection-system.html?cmp_id=7&news_id=222904015

While this technological marvel will doubtless be welcomed with open arms by the vast majority of responsible cyclists, it remains to be seen whether it can be successfully adapted to accommodate those recalcitrant hippies who refuse to wear helmets.

seamus

All of these approaches share the same problem: While they improve the safety for persons carrying such a transponder or smartphone will improve, traffic participants who are not equipped with the system are effectively becoming less visible - the system simply directs the driver's attention to the better equipped objects. The advantage of Volvo's new approach is that is a two-way system, passing its alerts also to the cyclist - former systems did not do this.

Making it "two-way" isn't actually an advantage, you're doubling the disadvantages. So now rather than the driver being less alert, both the driver and the cyclist are less alert than they should be.

I also dispute the necessity of this from the cyclist's POV. Unlike a pedestrian, a cyclist is less able to make a quick sideways shufty. If there's a collision coming imminently from the front, i.e. a car pulling across you, we all know that you have very few options.

A smarter system would invoke some level of scan-ahead and take control of the vehicle rather than issue warnings. So if the driver is stopped and indicating right, the system will detect that another vehicle (or cyclist/motorcyclist) is approaching and either won't respond to the accelerator being pushed or will jam on the brakes if it detects an imminent collision.

Lumen

Interesting.

The signal effectively says "VOLVO DRIVER COMING, CLEAR THE ROAD".

...which perfectly reflects how the two-wheeled community has viewed Volvo drivers since the beginning of time.

CatFromHue

Yeah I wonder how much time/warning you get before the impact and if you have any time to do anything about it.

If you take it that at even low speeds cars will cover a big distance at a junction in a second.
20km/hr = 5.55m/sec
10km/hr = 2.78m/sec
5km/hr = 1.38m/sec

So if the cyclist is also moving in the junction I do wonder about reaction times.

tomasrojo

This is pointless. Helmets with inbuilt warning systems have already been perfected in that cycling Shangri-La, Australia.

QueensGael

"traffic participants who are not equipped with the system are effectively becoming less visible - the system simply directs the driver's attention to the better equipped objects"

Ugh, to the whole thing

Chips Lovell

What if you don't have a helmet?

Beasty

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

What if you don't have a helmet?

Get a Volvo if you wish to participate .....

Chips Lovell

I know I've a big head, but...

tomasrojo

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

What if you don't have a helmet?

Or a smartphone.

Limestone1

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

What if you don't have a helmet?

What !! No helmet ??? Maybe they should be made compulsory.....

rubadub

These type of things worry me a bit, if they get more popular. Problem is people can begin to expect them and so presume its there.

One is automatic headlights, I have seen people in different cars forgetting to put them on since their regular car automatically detects its dark and puts them on.

RainyDay

rubadub wrote: »

One is automatic headlights, I have seen people in different cars forgetting to put them on since their regular car automatically detects its dark and puts them on.

I pulled up beside a Garda squad car in traffic in Ranalagh one dark evening last week to tell them to switch on their lights.

eeeee

Nope to helmet idea. It's essentially a Volvo warning system.

I hate the idea that technology is removing the responsibility from the driver for seeing and watching out for cyclists, and that cycling is an inherently dangerous activity that need a special warning system. Ugh.

RainyDay how'd that go for you?!!

seamus

gadetra wrote: »

I hate the idea that technology is removing the responsibility form the driver

I love it. I love the idea that one day the most interaction a driver will have with their vehicle is telling it where they want to go and then connecting to its WiFi.

Safety systems that try to enhance the driver's senses are missing the point. They should be aiming to completely override them and take control of the vehicle when the driver's human senses and intellect are inadequate to make the right call. There was a lot of fanfare about Toyota's automatic braking system a couple of years ago, but it doesn't seem to have taken off.

RainyDay

gadetra wrote: »

RainyDay how'd that go for you?!!

Grand, the driver was fairly mortified and apologetic - said something about how it is usually automatic.

galwaycyclist

RainyDay wrote: »

I pulled up beside a Garda squad car in traffic in Ranalagh one dark evening last week to tell them to switch on their lights.

This provokes a question. The streetlighting is so good that it seems the police are driving around wih their lights off and not realising it.

Why then is it a stock response of the police (and others) to argue that hi-viz is the answer for pedestrian, or cyclist, safety?

Clearly, at night, the urban light levels go well beyond what the police, or others, need to see cyclists or anyone else.