Safety Sheild, A constructive approach to urban cycle safety
 

Across the pond, they're field testing an electronic safety shield, designed to spot and indicate the presence of cyclists and pedestrians around trucks, and alert the driver. This can be a real boost to safety in the traffic mix.

However we don't have to wait. There's also a very good instructional initiative and video called exchanging places, for both drivers and cyclists, about the hidden dangers of bicycles in the blind spot (pun intended)

Everyone who rides on roads should watch, and pass it along to friends, both cyclists and drivers.

This is a topic that cannot be over stated! As someone who has had the benefit of both points of view for a great many years, I believe it is very important for cyclists and drivers of large vehicles to have understanding of each other's issues and challenges in traffic.
As for electronic warning systems, I'm wary of putting too much faith in such technology. The company I drive for has sensors to warn of traffic slowing ahead, and will automatically apply the brakes if the driver does not respond in time. Some units also have a right side audible warning if, when the right signal is activated, an object is detected, but it's almost always a bus shelter or other structure that sets it off, so after a while, you kind of get desensitized to it.
Be safe out there!

Here's a direct link to the exchanging places video for those who want to circulate it without the commercial link.

I was skeptical until I watched and noticed that the system is specifically designed to suppress warnings about inanimate objects and warn ONLY of imminent collisions with moving bicyclists and pedestrians. Of course, technology should never be used as a substitute for driver attention.

It remains to be seen how effective the filters are and how another warning will integrate with all the other clutter drivers now have, but the fact that the company is focused exclusively on bicycles and pedestrians is a good sign.

BTW- I was driving my sister in-laws high end suv and it had a blind spot warning system that put a small icon on the mirrors. It was pretty cool, and worked OK, so I decided to test whether it would spot a bicycle. The answer is between not at all and not well. So here's a safety device that may be unsafe for us if drivers become conditioned to rely on it.

The recent crash at San Francisco airport should remind everyone on the real danger of over reliance on technology.

My concern exactly.

I've long been outspoken on the issue of technology dependency, something the FAA has finally woken up to.

As I said the Lexus blind spot monitor doesn't see bicycles well, so I'm very concerned that people will give a quick glance in the mirror and if they don't see the icon assume the blind spot is empty.

OTOH, this is being designed from the ground up as a bicycle/pedestrian spotter, and specifically to separate moving objects from stationary ones to reduce false alarms. It's a promising idea, but the devil is in the details. Assuming it works very well, there's also the risk of dependency, where drivers count on it and lower their level of attention.

I have no dog in the fight, and am more interested in the video, because I feel that the blind spot issue needs to be managed from both sides. That's why I'm trying to circulate the exchanging places video.

In most of the heavy-vehicle right-hook (left-hook in the UK) fatalities I've read the details of, the cyclist was overtaking a truck or bus that was slowed or stopped to turn. We don't need any new technology to completely avoid those crashes, we need cyclists who know it's suicidal to ride like that.

I'd also be leery of cyclists growing accustomed to trucks having technology that enables unsafe bicycle operation -- unless these new detectors are 100% effective, on 100% of trucks, and can't be overridden by impatient drivers, it will still be dangerous to ride the suicide slot next to turning trucks and buses.

Perhaps the industry could take a lesson from school bus accidents. After one child was run over because she walked too close to the front of the bus, so the driver couldn't see her, student crossing gates were introduced and quickly became a standard across the U.S. They automatically deploy and physically stop students from walking through the blind spot at the front of the bus. Something similar could be added to large trucks, tied to the blind-side turn signal, to swing out and block the worst of the blind spot, and to visually remind cyclists and pedestrians of the blind-zone hazard.

Of course, this would be problematic where cities install infrastructure that encourages cyclists to pass closely to the right of right-turning vehicles, like bike boxes with green lane extensions. As experience in Portland and elsewhere shows, those designs do increase crash risk, but they're also quite popular with advocates for bicycle mode share who believe the mode share increase is worth the extra fatalities.

+1000. I posted the links to both, but the video and the concept of changing places is the key. Nothing will ever replace smart riding or driving. Technology should be in addition, and as a safety net in the event of a lapse, which is bound to happen sometimes.

I actually don't want to see the safety shield deployed in enough trucks for cyclists to count on it. Over reliance on technology is as dangerous (maybe even more dangerous) than no technology at all --- something the FAA is finally coming to realize.

BTW- there is already plenty of warning for cyclists. Just about all long trucks have multiple turn signals along their length. While I avoid riding between the axles, when I find myself there, I keep a weather eye on the side lights or the tractor's tail lights for a signal.
Here too, I'm extra careful because, while long truck drivers are good about signalling turns, I have no assurance that the driver of this one truck is, or that he checks his mirror, so given the stakes, I assume he's a troglodyte and will turn on whim without looking or signaling.

I wonder, in the case of cyclists riding into blind spots, how often the driver has used turn indicators?

As a cyclist, I tend to be rather cautious around large vehicles slowing near any intersection... but that is experience talking.

Signaling intention can help in such cases.

Professional drivers (those who drive for a living, as opposed to people like plumbers that use trucks) are very good about signals. Signalling a turn is just short of a reflex for them as they plan maneuvers.

The problem for cyclists is that they slow and usually move left slightly before a right turn. This creates both an opportunity and temptation to filter up into the kill position.

I see similar cyclist nonsense with buses, which will move to the curb at stops. In one case I watched a cyclist pass a bus on the right, run into the curb at the pinch, and fall into passengers waiting to board. No injury, but it didn't help make friends for cyclists either.

IMO- right hooks by cars can happen to anybody, but truck right hooks are slow to develop and usually well telegraphed, so cyclists caught this way probably share some degree of fault.

I feel that many truck drivers ( and cyclists) would benefit in having these mirror turn signal lights mounted on their semi trucks, especially when operating in urban areas.

http://www.4statetrucks.com/exterior...-light_413.asp

And whose statements were these based on? In a fatal crash, the cyclist doesn't get to give his/her side. A recent case in San Francisco in which the cops took the killer driver's word so seriously a SFPD officer actually went to a memorial and trash talked about the cyclist. There was a feast of crow when that rudeness led the San Francisco Bike Coalition to successfully seek out video that showed no such thing had happened. The truck driver had overtaken the cyclist at the intersection in a classic right-hook maneuver.

I'm not arguing that many cyclists don't know the difference between the passing side and the sui-side. However, I doubt if the majority of right-hook deaths are the fault of the cyclists. Unless, of course, we're blaming the victim for not having the situational awareness to anticipate a right-hook.

On a related note, the Oregon vehicle code instructs cyclists to stay in the bike lane right through the intersection even when there are right turning vehicles to the left of the bike lane. It gives cyclists the right of way in such situations, which allows them to be dead right.

They might, but most long trucks already have multiple turn signals along the length, including front fender and rear of the tractor. All the lights in the world won't make a difference if cyclists either don't look, or don't heed.

At some point each of us has to take charge of his/her own safety and stop expecting others to do it for us.

Some time back I saw photos of a fatal ight hook accident involving a 40' truck/trailer. The cyclist hit just forward of the rear axle. Think about the speed of turning trucks and cyclists, and you have to wonder how it was possible, unless the cyclist was 100% oblivious to what was happening around and in front of him.

During a small group ride several years ago, I saw a number of cyclists just blindly move forward on the right of a large big rig poised to enter a freeway on ramp... This surprised the heck out of me as they were experienced cyclists... apparently just not thinking.

Sure would be nice if some form of cyclist training was offered in elementary-high schools just to get cyclists thinking about the big picture.

Right now the only cyclist training I am aware of is the tupper-ware party like LAB training... which oddly, experienced cyclists are often aware of, but novice cyclists have little clue of... even bike shops tend to not have any knowledge of such training.

Motorists receive further training by the signage on the road... but cyclists get no such help.

Pushing it all back on the cyclist, eh? I had a right hook done to me when a motorist turned their signal on while they were alongside me. Like motorists, cyclists tend to look straight ahead, and a light mounted on a mirror bracket tends to garner better attention than signals being mounted on the trailer underside or front fender.

If you'd read the poet or the earlier one, you'd have seen that I separated cars from trucks when it came o right hooks. Also I hold that it takes to to tango, so have no problem blaming both parties (along with dumb traffic codes) for many accidents.

In any case, I do push it back to the cyclist, because it boils down to the simple question of who to rely on for our own safety. Given that it MY safety at issue, I have no problem trusting myself over others.

IMO (strictly opinion) cyclists are done a disservice by a culture that emphasizes externals such as helmets and bike infrastructure in safety discussions, while neglecting to remind cyclists that they have to take charge of their safety because no one else can be relied on to do so.

Right of way and assignmnet of fault after an accident are for heirs and assigns, but do nothing to help the victim.

As a cyclist, I like to receive all the information I can get from a motorist or truck driver, so an extra set of lights that better indicate their vehicle turning intentions is what I call beneficial, and as for leaving it up to the cyclist's responsibility be completely in charge of their own personal safety is what I feel to be unwarranted on the cyclist's part.

So who should be in charge of the cyclist's safety? Some stranger, who -- if we follow the general tone here on BF -- doesn't give a dam, or is distracted, or unskilled, or simply hate cyclists anyway?

As for dded lights, yes more lights is always nice, but there are already plenty, and no amount of lighting will help if the cyclist isn't looking.

Maybe we need a loudspeaker which announces "Hey Stupid, don't you see my turn signal!!?"

Fortunately we have preschool information campaigns here, but even so, every so often they run tv and print campaigns telling us to be beware of right turning lorries and busses etc (they are aimed at both cyclists and drivers).

I have no intention of becoming a statistic in this regard, and I look in amazement when people run up alongside a lorry or bus who is already indicating he is making a right turn. I really can't think of much that is as stupid as that in traffic. I mean, would it hurt you to stop ten meters earlier to make sure you aren't run over?

I believe that TV and billboard spots about road safety anf focusing on those scenarios which cause serious accidents, are probably the best way to improve safety for everybody.

In order for me to commute by bicycle, I have to rely on other road users doing their part, and if I had to completely rely solely on myself to be in absolute charge of my personal safety, then I might as not well ride since I am not able to observe every thing that is going on all of the time, my videoing of my commutes has brought that fact to the forefront. As for cyclists being inattentive, placing a light in the direction that they are looking may make all the difference in avoiding an collision........which is far better than asinine comments emitting over loud speakers.:rolleyes:

Calling people stupid isn't going to make them stop doing what their doing, it hasn't worked for many motorists.

Of course other people need to do their jobs, and for the most part they do. But in the final analysis, you have to adjust to the reality that some may be ignorant, inattentive, rude, or simply not care, so you are your own first and last line of defense.

As for more lighting, I repeat that there's already plenty. The truck trailers I see here in NY typically have 4 turn indicators minimum - back or trailer, half way up the side, rear of tractor, and front side of tractor. I can't see that one more is going to make much difference, especially since it's probably above the rider's sight line.

I scuba dive on mixed gasses (not compressed air). The culture in diving is very different from that of cycling, with less reliance on others for safety. When it comes to mixed gasses the mix is checked 3 times, and written on the side of the tank. Nevertheless, I personally check the label to confirm, then check the mix with a gas analyzer. In all my years of diving, I've never found a mislabeled tank, but I don't intend to be surprised by one.

One thing that's rarely mentioned in safety debates is that accidents aren't distributed evenly. Some cyclists seem to have a disproportionate4 number of close calls. Is that just luck or maybe they're plagued by the bad driver in the mirror.

BTW- the reference to loudspeakers was intended as a sarcastic response to your suggestion that a 5th light would make a difference when 4 were disregarded.

I'm sorry, but first of all I didn't call any person stupid. Some behaviour is stupid. Did I unintentionally hit a nerve, and you are feeling targeted? If not, then I don't see the problem of calling something as stupid as pulling up in the blind spot of a lorry that is about to make a right turn for what it is: Stupid. If you are offended by that, I suggest you grow some skin.

Ok, I acknowledge the fact that you did not call anyone stupid, so let me rephrase my statement then, calling other cyclists' behavior as stupid will generally not change it, and my reiterating of motorists as an example.

As in growing some skin, it's pretty ****ing thick already, with my just getting back from doing errands on a 10 mile urban street ride, since my last post to you.

You seem to have a problem with me using the word "stupid". Ridicule has a proven track record of shaping opinion. And this is not a two way street where each opposing sides have equal arguments: Putting yourself in harms way when it can easily be avoided entirely is stupid and such behaviour deserves all the ridicule it can get.

LOL, you claiming to have thick skin, while being offended by the word "stupid" as it pertains to certain behaviour. And your argument: Doing a 10 mile urban street ride. I can't tell if you're pulling my leg or if you think that is actually an argument.

There's no reason to get into personalities.

Basically there are two philosophies (among others) about cycling safety.

Many see advocacy as about changing the landscape (literally and figuratively) and changing the behavior of others to make the world safer for bicyclists. Others, including myself, are more focused on giving cyclists the tools and knowledge to improve their safety in the world as it exists.

Neither is more right or better, just two sides of a coin.

I can see that you will not make it as an instructor in many of today's educational systems here in the US with that train of thought, as well in trying to get your point across to another cyclist. You'll generally get further using more amounts of honey and less of vinegar.

I think a combination is better in a lot of places (most big cities for instance).

But, with that said, education and general knowledge of how to behave in traffic will work anywhere at any time.

Haha! So you did feel personally singled out because I called that sort of behaviour stupid. And instead of making a real argument, you try to make the point that I should avoid offending someone, which seems more important than getting the message through.


I didn't know you were my pupil and I your teacher. I hadn't realised that, nor had I realised that saying obvious things like "driving at night with sunglasses on is stupid" could offend people to the extent that they would not take it to heart, and they therefore would be more prone to behave like that.

I guess that since you are offended you will remember that it is indeed dangerous to filter up next to a truck which is about to make a right turn.

But, hey, it's counterproductive calling outright dangerous behaviour stupid, when said danger can easily be avoided if you know how to.

I also find it hilarious that you think you are in a position to give me advice pertaining to education and instruction.