• 01-20-2015
    Harold
    Jaguar Land Rover Developing a system to reduce car/bike incidents
    Jaguar To Prevent Car-Bike Accidents By Tracking Us Like A Terminator

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/bm6-AAbDv0k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    Nice effort. I like the way the system will track bikes and peds and provide visual, audible, and tactile feedback to drivers.
  • 01-21-2015
    BrianMc
    ^ Yes, something we'd expect from Volvo. Nice indeed.
  • 01-21-2015
    mtbxplorer
    I love the bike bell as the warning of approaching bicycle.
  • 01-21-2015
    rogbie
    I don't think this sort of technology is the answer. If anything, it implies drivers need to pay less attention to the road and surroundings because their cars will do it for them.

    It's up-sale technology for a problem that technology cannot solve: distracted drivers. Operating any vehicle requires the full capacity of the operator. Cyclists know this; ever stare at something too long on your commute then find yourself in an predicament-pothole, parked car, road edge, etc.? The same is true for larger vehicles, but the force factors are increased.

    If motorists need a whizbang doodad to warn them of things that a license compels them to do (awareness of all road users and pedestrians), then something is wrong with the licensing system, more likely, the education of motorists.
  • 01-21-2015
    Harold
    so a system that strives to get distracted drivers' attention back on the road outside of their vehicles is a bad thing?

    I agree that motorist education needs to improve, and the licensing system as it exists today is more about extracting money from people than about truly educating them and training them to be safe operators - but I don't think it's bad that the car uses various stimuli to wake drivers from their coma and get them to pay attention.
  • 01-21-2015
    BrianMc
    ^ I agree. Harold AKA Nate. While drivers should not screw this up, they do. Cyclists are maimed and killed. That does no one any good except maybe emergency room budgets and undertakers. It just doesn't matter why drivers screw up, IF a proper warning of imminent stupidity on their part, dumb slaps them into the proper path.

    I am trying to imagine the mini van driver with two under the age of three on board being able to wrench enough mental power away from distractions to respond appropriately, but that is a whole different battle.
  • 01-21-2015
    rogbie
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    so a system that strives to get distracted drivers' attention back on the road outside of their vehicles is a bad thing?

    Not bad, just unnecessary. As it doesn't fix or address the problem of distracted drivers. If anything it allows drivers to not focus on the road and objects around them.

    Though, it's not as bad as the new laser lights from BMW that spotlight on coming pedestrian and cycle traffic. Blinding them with high powered lights.

    It's technology for lazy drivers. Again, something technology is unable to fix.
  • 01-22-2015
    ghettocruiser
    Drivers have already failed, miserably.

    Distracted driving laws and enforcement have already failed, miserably.

    It`s quite possible, even probable, that bells and beepers will also fail miserably. The SUV that backed into my car a few years back had a backup camera and working proximity beepers.

    But at this point, I`m willing to try anything.
  • 01-22-2015
    formula4speed
    The tracking technology could be useful for self driving cars that take the drivers out of the equation altogether. I for one welcome our new computer overlords.
  • 01-22-2015
    bigflamingtaco
    Like a hiker on a trail, these warnings will cause otherwise oblivious drivers to subconsciously steer towards us...

    I like the door warning,though. They need to take it step further and disable the handle until the rider has passed.
  • 01-22-2015
    jrm
    THeres a huge push to create Wi-Fi networks that allow cars, cyclists, pedestrians and infrastructure to communicate using cell phone apps, a dedicated wi-fi net and a slew of vehicle sensors and road bed detection.

    If it sounds interesting: Connected Vehicle Pooled Fund Study ? Research | Center for Transportation Studies
  • 01-22-2015
    rogbie
    This technology is marketed as making drivers less distracted, yet it allows them to ignore the fundamentals of driving. Giving drivers more time to interact with distractions in the car because they don't have to look for other road users, the car will do it for them.

    More connectivity for drivers means more distracted drivers: wi-fi, gps, phones, radios/music devices, etc.

    There's a few easy way to make driving safer:

    1) Lower the speed limit: 20mph on residential and urban streets; 35mph on arterials; 55mph for highways and interstates
    2) Education and stricter licensing standards
    3) No cell phone use for any vehicle operator while in motion
    4) Proper enforcement of laws and the undoing of the justice system's bias for motorist in collisions involving more vulnerable road users.
    5) Make physics a requirement to pass high school.
  • 01-22-2015
    yzedf
    Jags are for older people. Older people can't see as well and have slower reaction times. If they know what the bells etc mean it could be helpful. Hopefully it will be demonstrated properly at time of sale.
  • 01-22-2015
    Harold
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    This technology is marketed as making drivers less distracted, yet it allows them to ignore the fundamentals of driving. Giving drivers more time to interact with distractions in the car because they don't have to look for other road users, the car will do it for them.

    I fail to see how this system allows that. It works in three different ways to pull people away from distractions. It would be nice if the audible signals were accompanied by automatically muting or decreasing the volume of the stereo system, but nothing is mentioned about that.

    I do agree that the door handle should disable until the cyclist has passed, but I think the vibration warning is a good first step. Maybe an electric shock would be a nice next step, though. :-)

    I do think we're moving towards mass introduction of self-driving cars. We know the technology is there. The concept is proven. We're going to see further implementation of the various systems involved with such a car until the cost comes down enough to be feasible. I mean, even my sub-$20,000 7.5 year old economy car has all of the controls mechanically separated from the engine. Add the necessary sensors and a more robust computer to control everything, and the car could drive itself.
  • 01-22-2015
    Bimmer74
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    There's a few easy way to make driving safer:

    1) Lower the speed limit: 20mph on residential and urban streets; 35mph on arterials; 55mph for highways and interstates.

    Wrong, wrong wrong.

    If you want people to do something else while they're supposed to be driving, then retard them with bogus low speed limits so that driving is boring.

    If you want people to pay attention when they're driving, then let them drive as fast as safely possible.

    I spend a lot of time in Germany. They're generally much better drivers, and it isn't because the Germans drive more slowly.
  • 01-23-2015
    formula4speed
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bimmer74 View Post
    Wrong, wrong wrong.

    If you want people to do something else while they're supposed to be driving, then retard them with bogus low speed limits so that driving is boring.

    If you want people to pay attention when they're driving, then let them drive as fast as safely possible.

    I spend a lot of time in Germany. They're generally much better drivers, and it isn't because the Germans drive more slowly.

    Correlation isn't causation. Germans might be safer drivers, but I doubt it's because they can (legally) drive faster. I could just as well argue they are better drivers because they have delicious beer and pretzels.

    I'm not sure lowering speed limits would help either though, largely because our society doesn't seem to care much for obeying the speed limits. Last time I drove to my girlfriends house I was doing 50 in a 50 zone on a 2 lane road. This wasn't fast enough for the guy who flew up behind me, passed me on the shoulder and flipped me off while mouthing some choice words. Apparently driving fast didn't make him a safer driver.
  • 01-23-2015
    rogbie
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bimmer74 View Post
    Wrong, wrong wrong.

    If you want people to do something else while they're supposed to be driving, then retard them with bogus low speed limits so that driving is boring.

    If you want people to pay attention when they're driving, then let them drive as fast as safely possible.

    I spend a lot of time in Germany. They're generally much better drivers, and it isn't because the Germans drive more slowly.

    Bogus low speed limits? When speeding is a major factor in incidents causing injury and fatalities?

    I'd say Germany's drivers are safer because their licensing system is much more stringent than the US's and the vehicle code is more strictly enforced. Also, Germany's infrastructure is maintained much better than in the US.

    Drivers should do nothing other than drive when they are operating a vehicle. Take away all the distractions from drivers. If they can't drive without all the whizbangs and doodads then they should not drive.

    Quote:

    I fail to see how this system allows that. It works in three different ways to pull people away from distractions. It would be nice if the audible signals were accompanied by automatically muting or decreasing the volume of the stereo system, but nothing is mentioned about that.
    If driver's are fulfilling their obligation to their license they do not need 3 signals to tell them of their surroundings. If a driver can't use their eyes and ears to full capacity while driving they shouldn't drive.

    One commute by bicycle or walking/transit reveals the depth of concentration one needs while traveling. This doesn't go away in a car, it's magnified. Technology like this is illusionary. It looks good and makes high promises, but ultimately it lets drivers get away with not using their full capacity to drive. Why would a driver attempt to look for other road users if their car will do it for them?

    A note on the door scene in the video: the driver's action is illegal. He failed to check the mirrors in favor of checking his phone. Had that resulted in a dooring the driver is at fault. A great example of why this technology enables careless and lazy drivers.
  • 01-23-2015
    Bimmer74
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by formula4speed View Post
    Correlation isn't causation...

    I'm saying going faster is safer. I'm saying driving unreasonably slowly means that driving itself becomes painfully boring, which means that drivers (naturally, understandibly) focus on something.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Bogus low speed limits? When speeding is a major factor in incidents causing injury and fatalities?

    There would be no accidents if there were no movement, so I guess you're right that "speed" is always a "major" factor...

    Following your logic, should we set speed limits at 15mph, or even 12, so that cars are no faster than bicycles? How about 4mph, so they're no faster than pedestrians?

    It's BS that "speeding" (exceeding posted limits) is a major factor in accidents. Much much bigger is alcohol and distraction.
  • 01-24-2015
    jrm
    Thing is that this technology isnt free standing. For it be regulated it has to operate in a managed corridor. One that controls ingress and egress, speed , lane management, driver communication network and enforcement. A project ive been involved with called the I-80 Integrated Corridor Management project is such a corridor. Your exactly correct, humans are the anomaly or liability to the implementation of technology like this.
  • 01-24-2015
    rogbie
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bimmer74 View Post
    I'm saying going faster is safer. I'm saying driving unreasonably slowly means that driving itself becomes painfully boring, which means that drivers (naturally, understandibly) focus on something.



    There would be no accidents if there were no movement, so I guess you're right that "speed" is always a "major" factor...

    Following your logic, should we set speed limits at 15mph, or even 12, so that cars are no faster than bicycles? How about 4mph, so they're no faster than pedestrians?

    It's BS that "speeding" (exceeding posted limits) is a major factor in accidents. Much much bigger is alcohol and distraction.

    From the NHTSA: "In 2012, speeding was a contributing factor in 30 percent of all fatal crashes." At the same time, "alcohol-impared-driving fatalities accounted for 31 percent of the total motor traffic fatalities in the United States." Here's the worst part for us commuters: "In 2012, 88 percent of speeding-related fatalities occurred on roads that were not Interstate highways."

    Speeding is as dangerous as driving drunk.

    Speeding is more dangerous on surface streets than Interstates, freeways or expressways.

    Besides all that, speeding is inefficient. It saves very little time. The next red light or stop sign negates the time saved. Speeding increases fuel consumption and maintenance costs.

    There's no excuse for speeding, except a callous, reckless, careless, entitled state of mind.

    And thus the problem: technology cannot fix the problem that is bad behaviors.
  • 01-24-2015
    mtbxplorer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    There's no excuse for speeding, except a callous, reckless, careless, entitled state of mind.

    And thus the problem: technology cannot fix the problem that is bad behaviors.

    Well, maybe it could help, some trucking companies control the max speed of their fleet, and my GPS knows the speed limit on all the roads, so put 2 and 2 together to reduce speeding?
  • 01-24-2015
    Harold
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    And thus the problem: technology cannot fix the problem that is bad behaviors.

    And what is your solution that is so much better?

    Aside from increasing education and training, making testing more difficult, increasing enforcement and punishment, and oh, increasing public transportation, even in rural areas because now fewer people can drive, and increasing development density, installing more sidewalks for pedestrians, permitting mixed development which would make it easier for people to get around without cars, because again, fewer people would be able to drive.
  • 01-24-2015
    jrm
    The problem cant be eliminated b/c humans are the anomaly to any system since their behavior is irrational. It can be however be reduced by a multi faceted management strategy that includes but isnt reliant on reducing speeds like lane management and speed harmonization
  • 01-24-2015
    BrianMc
    I like this attempt to help people who care and don't want to mess up from messing up. Why should one slip up ruin two lives, if that can be stopped? However we must remember that we can't fix stupid.

    Whether the stupidity is their normal state, or from lack of sleep, drugs, alcohol, eating a Big Mac, loading a disc, or yelling at the kids in the backseat, only a fraction of these will 'clue in' in time.

    So maybe it saves a life in the first year of use. If that one life is yours you will likely not know, but you would be very very happy about this system, if you did know.
  • 01-24-2015
    Rustedthrough
    I would love to see this stuff on more mass- market cars. I wish it weren't needed, but as Brian points out even the conscientious driver has a bad moment now and then.

    As for warnings making things less safe, I don't always heed every warning on my ladder or my lift, when I don't, there is this little tingle in the back of my head saying "I told you so." The "SawStop" cartridges in my friends table saws have made them even more cautious with their fingers and their table saws, because the cartridge is expensive to replace and an immediate reminder that you "shouln't ought to done that." A less permanent reminder than a lost digit, but a good reminder.

    I agree that this technology will not, by itself, save all cyclists. And, that we need better enforcement of traffic laws and more stringent licensing requirements. However, it is admirable that Jag/ Land Rover is using technology to make drivers safer for the rest of us.

    A utopian/ fascist state where all drivers obey all traffic laws and check mirrors three times before opening doors is unlikely to be delivered by the new US congress. An effective system of mild reminders seems like a large step forward.
  • 01-25-2015
    fotooutdoors
    I prefer the reminder mentioned earlier in the thread; a good slap to the inattentive driver :)

    In all seriousness, I think the biggest change to safety would be in licensing requirements and stricter laws on distractions, not technology.
  • 01-25-2015
    byknuts
    makes it very VERY hard to argue that the accident was "an accident" if the vehicle itself is designed to remind you.
    opens the doors to charges related to "intentional action"...

    that's a good thing
  • 01-25-2015
    wschruba
    I have to admit, before reading byknuts' comment, I thought that-- at best-- this was a dippy product design.

    Having been a dooring victim, I can jump 100% on board with the above, though.