Cycle Safety Survey

johnster1991

Hi everyone! Firstly, apologies for signing up just to post this but I'll be sticking around

Basically, I'm in my final year of uni and aiming to design a product that will help make cyclists more visible to motorists, therefore increasing safety for both parties.

I've made a survey (linked below) for market research and would be very grateful if you could fill it out.

It will take less than 5 minutes and would help a lot, cheers in advance!

John

https://strathbusiness.qualtrics.com/SE ... 1Vzy8dBDAF

arran77

Done.

Stick it over in the commuting section too

johnster1991

Thanks a lot for that, much appreciated

GiantMike

Done. Not sure why there's a single random question about helmets in there though.

arran77

GiantMike wrote:

Done. Not sure why there's a single random question about helmets in there though.

You do where a helmet though don't you Mike

GiantMike

arran77 wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

Done. Not sure why there's a single random question about helmets in there though.

You do where a helmet though don't you Mike

That's it! Stop right there!

Runtothehills

Just filled it in, If you're interested this article (not written by me) is a good summary of what I think is the problem with most drivers and cyclists, the level of acceptable behaviour is too low.

http://cambridgecyclist.blogspot.co.uk/ ... aster.html

EDIT re. helmets I'd rather not have this discussion but I feel it's a valid question as it could indicate how safe cyclists feel. Also if you're designing something to make cyclists more visible no point in designing it to be helmet mounted (not unreasonable) if 90% of cyclists don't wear them.

arran77

GiantMike wrote:

arran77 wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

Done. Not sure why there's a single random question about helmets in there though.

You do where a helmet though don't you Mike

That's it! Stop right there!

Do you :P

johnster1991

Thanks everyone, much appreciated!

GiantMike wrote:

Done. Not sure why there's a single random question about helmets in there though.

Yeah it was a bit of an afterthought I guess, thanks for your input!

Runtothehills wrote:

Just filled it in, If you're interested this article (not written by me) is a good summary of what I think is the problem with most drivers and cyclists, the level of acceptable behaviour is too low.

http://cambridgecyclist.blogspot.co.uk/ ... aster.html

EDIT re. helmets I'd rather not have this discussion but I feel it's a valid question as it could indicate how safe cyclists feel. Also if you're designing something to make cyclists more visible no point in designing it to be helmet mounted (not unreasonable) if 90% of cyclists don't wear them.

That's excellent thank you very much for that. Yeah I'm not wanting to start a helmet argument, so the question may not have been appropriate and as you say, designing something helmet mounted may not be ideal.

Thanks again guys

jordan_217

Done.

ravenvrider

Done but intrigued what you think you can design that is not out there that works better......the problem for me is not the people who drive properly, current lights and reflective gear will get you seen by them, its the idiots not looking....phones, maps, lost, eating, etc etc that are the concern.....not sure what you can design for them.

johnster1991

That's exactly what I'm looking at, whether it's possible to design something that will directly alert the motorists attention to the cyclist, rather than something that the cyclist wears. I'm just in the early stages just now so I'm not sure where I'm going with it yet really but I'll keep everyone updated.

Thanks for filling it in.

jordan_217

johnster1991 wrote:

That's exactly what I'm looking at, whether it's possible to design something that will directly alert the motorists attention to the cyclist, rather than something that the cyclist wears. I'm just in the early stages just now so I'm not sure where I'm going with it yet really but I'll keep everyone updated.

Thanks for filling it in.

Are you aware of this system, which is currently being trialled?:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-yo ... e-24467387

GiantMike

From a safety perspective, I think if you could design a large metal box to surround each cyclist that would be great. It might be quite heavy, so you may need to fit an engine and a fuel tank, and maybe 4 wheels for stability. A screen would make it safer and more comfortable in the winter and a big seat would be really comfortable. Maybe fit 3-4 more seats to allow groups of 'cyclists' to 'cycle' together?

johnster1991

jordan_217 wrote:

johnster1991 wrote:

That's exactly what I'm looking at, whether it's possible to design something that will directly alert the motorists attention to the cyclist, rather than something that the cyclist wears. I'm just in the early stages just now so I'm not sure where I'm going with it yet really but I'll keep everyone updated.

Thanks for filling it in.

Are you aware of this system, which is currently being trialled?:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-yo ... e-24467387

I wasn't aware of it, but I'll add it in with my market research, looks interesting. Thanks.

Marco Panettone

johnster1991 wrote:

That's exactly what I'm looking at, whether it's possible to design something that will directly alert the motorists attention to the cyclist, rather than something that the cyclist wears. I'm just in the early stages just now so I'm not sure where I'm going with it yet really but I'll keep everyone updated.

Thanks for filling it in.

Like eyes, or something?

pilot_pete

A proximity warning could potentially be of benefit to the driver who 'just didn't see' the cyclist, which is an often used comment after an accident. It can be a number of reasons as to why they just didn't see the cyclist of course, from distraction, in-attentiveness, negligence or temporary blindness due to setting sun etc. A club member was ploughed into by a lorry driver who claimed it was setting sun in his eyes. Obviously this is negligence as if you can't see you should slow down and if necessary stop, which of course he didn't. Maybe a proximity alarm going off in his cab could have warned him, but it would have to be early enough for corrective action to be taken.

Could a system using existing parking sensors on cars be utilised? I guess they would need to be more specific as most simply 'see' anything within range.

I work in aviation and onboard commercial airliners we have a collision avoidance system called TCAS. This uses transponders on every aircraft which constantly search and interact with others within range emitting warnings and displaying them on our navigation display through to commanding full on avoidance manoeuvres when necessary with associated visual and audible alarms! Way to complex for bikes, but might be worth looking into for the technology, which could perhaps be fitted in a 'one way' system on vehicles to alert drivers.

PP

johnster1991

Pilot Pete wrote:

A proximity warning could potentially be of benefit to the driver who 'just didn't see' the cyclist, which is an often used comment after an accident. It can be a number of reasons as to why they just didn't see the cyclist of course, from distraction, in-attentiveness, negligence or temporary blindness due to setting sun etc. A club member was ploughed into by a lorry driver who claimed it was setting sun in his eyes. Obviously this is negligence as if you can't see you should slow down and if necessary stop, which of course he didn't. Maybe a proximity alarm going off in his cab could have warned him, but it would have to be early enough for corrective action to be taken.

Could a system using existing parking sensors on cars be utilised? I guess they would need to be more specific as most simply 'see' anything within range.

I work in aviation and onboard commercial airliners we have a collision avoidance system called TCAS. This uses transponders on every aircraft which constantly search and interact with others within range emitting warnings and displaying them on our navigation display through to commanding full on avoidance manoeuvres when necessary with associated visual and audible alarms! Way to complex for bikes, but might be worth looking into for the technology, which could perhaps be fitted in a 'one way' system on vehicles to alert drivers.

PP

Thanks for that, I'll use it as part of my market research when looking at potential technologies, that could be a good way to go.

I think that's exactly the problem though, there are occasions where a motorist simply cannot see a cyclist and that is the main cause of a collision

pilot_pete

johnster1991 wrote:

I think that's exactly the problem though, there are occasions where a motorist simply cannot see a cyclist and that is the main cause of a collision

I agree, but very few where they simply 'cannot' see. Most of the claims of cannot see will be more 'didn't see' due to not looking properly. It was the same with motorcycle accidents, granted bikes are harder to see due to their smaller size, but it mainly comes down to drivers simply glancing rather than looking and actively scanning for anything other than a car or bigger.

It is all behaviour led. Drivers get complacent because they drive in a certain way that gets them safely to destination 99.99999% of the time. This confirms sub consciously that their behaviour is therefore right and they continue to drive in that manner. Trouble is, it probably has a few fatal flaws in it, but they just haven't proved problematic yet...

We are all fallible, we all make mistakes all the time. As an airline pilot we constantly train to minimise these mistakes through disciplined learned (correct) behaviours, stringent operating procedures that we adhere to strictly and we have two of us monitoring each other for mistakes, willing to question, prompt or take control if something serious occurs. Until you can get all drivers to become open to criticism and willing to learn, adapt, and strive for perfection every time they get in their car you will always have the problem of varying degrees of competence/ safety on the roads.

Unfortunately, you can put all the safety systems in the world into vehicle technology but ultimately it comes down to the individual behind the wheel. Sure as eggs are eggs, any 'warning alarm' of a cyclist ahead will ultimately end up being ignored by a large proportion of individuals because it will just become an annoyance and they will miss the cyclists 99.9999% of the time thus confirming their belief.....

I suspect the best way to cut cycling related deaths/ accidents is to follow the path of the Dutch authorities and assume blame on the part of the motorist unless evidence to the contrary can be proved. Instead of suspending a sentence for a second cycling death by the same driver (which happened recently and was discussed at length on these boards) strong prison sentences should be awarded. I think it is only this that will convince motorists that they should take much more care around vulnerable road users.

PP

unixnerd

That's exactly what I'm looking at, whether it's possible to design something that will directly alert the motorists attention to the cyclist, rather than something that the cyclist wears.

Not too hard these days. I'm an electronics engineer and I work in underwater pipeline inspection. Recently we've been trialling Hough transforms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hough_transform to find the pipe from the video and it's giving good results. There are free utilities out there to do the work, have a google.

For a bike you have two basic cases. One is bikes at a junction, side on. If you're transform produces an image of a wheel with other images in the area where expect the cyclist's head to be then you have a cyclist warning. From in front or behind it's trickier but you can see what shapes the transform produces and build some learning in the algorithm, it's should be too big a problem.

So then you have a device that can sense when it's seeing a cyclist. It's could even be placed in a truck's blind spots. All you then need to do is convey this information to the driver in a useful fashion.

Let me know if you do anything with this or if you need some help :-)

johnster1991

Pilot Pete wrote:

johnster1991 wrote:

I think that's exactly the problem though, there are occasions where a motorist simply cannot see a cyclist and that is the main cause of a collision

I agree, but very few where they simply 'cannot' see. Most of the claims of cannot see will be more 'didn't see' due to not looking properly. It was the same with motorcycle accidents, granted bikes are harder to see due to their smaller size, but it mainly comes down to drivers simply glancing rather than looking and actively scanning for anything other than a car or bigger.

It is all behaviour led. Drivers get complacent because they drive in a certain way that gets them safely to destination 99.99999% of the time. This confirms sub consciously that their behaviour is therefore right and they continue to drive in that manner. Trouble is, it probably has a few fatal flaws in it, but they just haven't proved problematic yet...

We are all fallible, we all make mistakes all the time. As an airline pilot we constantly train to minimise these mistakes through disciplined learned (correct) behaviours, stringent operating procedures that we adhere to strictly and we have two of us monitoring each other for mistakes, willing to question, prompt or take control if something serious occurs. Until you can get all drivers to become open to criticism and willing to learn, adapt, and strive for perfection every time they get in their car you will always have the problem of varying degrees of competence/ safety on the roads.

Unfortunately, you can put all the safety systems in the world into vehicle technology but ultimately it comes down to the individual behind the wheel. Sure as eggs are eggs, any 'warning alarm' of a cyclist ahead will ultimately end up being ignored by a large proportion of individuals because it will just become an annoyance and they will miss the cyclists 99.9999% of the time thus confirming their belief.....

I suspect the best way to cut cycling related deaths/ accidents is to follow the path of the Dutch authorities and assume blame on the part of the motorist unless evidence to the contrary can be proved. Instead of suspending a sentence for a second cycling death by the same driver (which happened recently and was discussed at length on these boards) strong prison sentences should be awarded. I think it is only this that will convince motorists that they should take much more care around vulnerable road users.

PP

Yes, that's the thing I guess, changing the whole attitude of drivers towards cyclists is what's needed. It's maybe something that should be concentrated more when actually undertaking a driving test. When carrying out my own, I don't remember being instructed to carry out certain tasks or extra steps to ensure that cyclists are freely seen when stopping or pulling out from a junction. Perhaps if the idea that a cyclists may always be there is ingrained in someone's mind from day one of driving it would help in the future.

johnster1991

unixnerd wrote:

That's exactly what I'm looking at, whether it's possible to design something that will directly alert the motorists attention to the cyclist, rather than something that the cyclist wears.

Not too hard these days. I'm an electronics engineer and I work in underwater pipeline inspection. Recently we've been trialling Hough transforms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hough_transform to find the pipe from the video and it's giving good results. There are free utilities out there to do the work, have a google.

For a bike you have two basic cases. One is bikes at a junction, side on. If you're transform produces an image of a wheel with other images in the area where expect the cyclist's head to be then you have a cyclist warning. From in front or behind it's trickier but you can see what shapes the transform produces and build some learning in the algorithm, it's should be too big a problem.

So then you have a device that can sense when it's seeing a cyclist. It's could even be placed in a truck's blind spots. All you then need to do is convey this information to the driver in a useful fashion.

Let me know if you do anything with this or if you need some help :-)

Wow that's excellent advice, and something that would definitely help.

As far as conveying the information, I think there would be a simple solution to this and as you say, such a device placed in a truck's blind spot would help a lot.

Thanks again!

Wirral_paul

How about "designing" some shorts that are printed with a design of a hot chick's legs in a pair of micro shorts - guaranteed to make at least 50% of drivers slow down!!

pilot_pete

The problem with adding anything into the driving test is just that...it is a one off. You train for it, eventually pass it, which means you have reached the 'minimum standard'. Then what happens?

You drive away ecstatic, forget most if not all of the advice of the tester as you are so relieved and then spend the next few years developing your own bad habits. We all do it.

The better drivers learn from some experience, but usually after year and years. The complacent ones never learn and continue with bad habits and probably bump after bump. The bad ones (who got lucky on driving test number 14) will NEVER be anything better than hopeless and are just relieved that they eventually got through. They have no intention of improving at all because they have already reached their pinnacle and don't have the capacity to improve beyond hopeless. You see them all the time, looking just 6 feet in front of the bonnet, never anticipating anything, hesitant at junctions, badly positioned in the road, being remonstrated at constantly by other drivers etc. They usually get away with it as they don't take huge risks, but they probably bump the kerb every drive and ding various panels in slow speed manoeuvres frequently.

So where does this leave us? Education is key, but it needs to be ongoing education. There is no point teaching it once at the start of a 60 plus year career and then never re-inforcing it. I use my job as an example again; I have the equivalent of my driving test every 6 months and must reach the minimum standard to continue operating under the privileges of my licence. I have to demonstrate competence in several mandatory test items each time (the most critical safety related manoeuvres and procedures) and then over a rolling three year training program must cover every other aspect from an extensive list. And this is the key. Over the first half a dozen years or so you are building on that basic minimum level of competence. The testing is complemented with ongoing training where performance is analysed and feedback requested from you as to your own performance. Training input will be offered if you haven't been able to pick up on your mistakes or are not sure how to improve something that was not performed particularly well. We have now progressed to a system where the specific test/ training items can be tailored to rising safety trend data that is gathered from the operation, so for instance if one area of the company operation has highlighted an increasing trend in a particular safety related error a specific training detail can be added to the program for all pilots to address it.

This system then produces highly skilled operators who then spend the rest of their career keeping their skills up to this high level by the repeated testing/ training environment. This only really works with a professional who is motivated to learn and for this reason would not be universally suitable for car drivers.

However, some ongoing training/ testing would certainly benefit the majority and incorporation of identified risk factors could raise awareness and address these issues in the training program. The idea is to build yourself a 'toolbox' full of skill tools which you can use as appropriate to improve your driving. I don't know what the greatest identified risk factor currently is for the cause of fatal road accidents, but if cycling related deaths from motor vehicle strikes is high up the list then awareness/ observation/ anticipation and any other form of training could be addressed in some form of ongoing driver training.

It is highly unlikely to happen due to a number of factors.

1. Cost. What do we have, some 20 million + drivers on the road? How big would the whole administration system have to be to continually test/ train all drivers!

2. Unpopularity. The vast majority would baulk at the idea of having to be tested/ trained further as they see passing their driving test as now giving them the right to drive for life. It could be politically suicidal for a government to force any sort of compulsory testing/ training upon the nations drivers.

3. Lack of will, mainly due to points 1 & 2.

So where does that leave us? Well instead of being pro-active at trying to educate, we will continue to punish non-compliance, usually in the form of fines and occasionally driving bans. Fines are seen as great by our leaders because they bring in revenue and pay for a system that administers them, even more so if it can be done Big Brother style with a set of cameras and automated Fixed Penalty Notices.

Our problem lies in the fact that a few hundred quid fine and a suspended 18-24 month prison sentence for killing a cyclist doesn't seem to address the issue and confirms the belief that many hold which is that we have no right to be there, should expect to get knocked off and if we are, well it is our own fault for being in the way.

My conclusion? I still think the only possible option which might be considered is the Dutch model I mentioned in a previous post, that plus some serious sentencing to really put the fear of God into a driver if they harm a more vulnerable road user.

PP

Daz555

Done. Despite the daft helmet question.

Runtothehills

Pilot Pete wrote:

Our problem lies in the fact that a few hundred quid fine and a suspended 18-24 month prison sentence for killing a cyclist doesn't seem to address the issue and confirms the belief that many hold which is that we have no right to be there, should expect to get knocked off and if we are, well it is our own fault for being in the way.

My conclusion? I still think the only possible option which might be considered is the Dutch model I mentioned in a previous post, that plus some serious sentencing to really put the fear of God into a driver if they harm a more vulnerable road user.

PP

Agree with most of what you said but I don't believe the problem is the lack of punishment simply because most drivers believe they are good drivers and therefore would never knock a cyclist off throught their own fault: the punishment doesn't enter into it because most drivers believe they are more attentive/ more careful/ don't deliberately attack cyclists/ have better reaction times or whatever than those idiots that run into cyclists.

The key problem is that the acceptable level of drving is too low - so speeding, accelerating into an amber light, not indicating, a certian level of impatience are all viewed as normal. The main change to the law I'd like to see is that causing injury through careless or dangerous driving carries a similar level of punishment to causing death by dangerous or careless driving. The main difference between superficial grazes and death is chance so lets recognise that and start punishing the action not the result - saying the action is unacceptable even if you don't kill someone.

Other thing is there is a lack of politeness between cars and cyclists: on my commute each day I see this both ways. Firstly there's a road I come out of that if a car's there the other cars will let them in, always: I've never seen anyone let a bike in. Conversely at one set of traffic lights there is an ASL but most bikes want to turn right, most cars go straight on. There's normally one to two cars waiting there. I'll normally wait behind them so when the lights turn green they can move off and I'll have to wait for the oncoming traffic to clear before I turn right. Most bikes undertake and then hold the cars up because they are stationary in the middle of the junction unable to turn - why not be polite, get behind the queue of traffic and not hold them up?