London company Cycle Alert has developed an eponymous technology aimed at reducing injuries and fatalities to cyclists.
Cycle Alert consists of three components, namely a sensor fitted to a bicycle, a sensor fitted to a heavy goods vehicle (HGV) or bus, and a dashboard receiver. In use, the three components communicate to notify a driver when a cyclist is in close proximity.
Company co-founder Peter Le Masurier told The Engineer that the active RFID system has a range of up to 100m, depending on street furniture and environment.
‘We have set the detection zone around a vehicle to 2.5m,’ he said via email. ‘A warning light on the cab unit illuminates to notify the driver there is a cyclist somewhere in range and then when a cyclist enters the zone the alert goes off on the cab unit and announces “cyclist” together with a light display to indicate where in relation to the vehicle the cyclist is present.’
He added that the cycle tag uses a small watch battery that is motion activated and will last around 18 months with standard commuting. The vehicle sensors are powered by a lithium battery, with the cab unit hard wired into the vehicle’s electronics.
‘There is an activation sequence where the vehicle may be swapping trailers or the driver wants to check all is working,’ Le Masurier said.
Side sensors are screwed onto the vehicle, with a bus installation taking around 30 minutes and HGVs taking approximately 45 minutes.
In terms of financial cost, Le Masurier said HGV packs start at £400. ‘The cycle unit will be offered for free for a while and subsidised through various schemes, but will eventually retail [for] circa £19.99.’
Additionally, the company has also developed Operative Alert, a sister product designed to be used on construction sites that have been set to a detection zone of 10m. Le Masurier added that zones can be changed for specific projects.
On April 24, 2014, Transport for London announced it is funding a project that will independently test blind spot safety technology that can be fitted to HGVs to help reduce the risk of collisions with HGVs, pedestrians and cyclists.
In a statement, TfL said it aims to reduce by 40 per cent the number of people killed or seriously injured on London’s roads by 2020.
The new safety initiative, building on TfL’s work into Construction Logistics and Cyclists’ Safety, will be carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory. The project will evaluate the effectiveness of the full range of blind spot safety technology in spotting pedestrians and cyclists and includes camera monitoring systems, optical and radar detection systems and other sensors fitted to HGVs.
Le Masurier said Cycle Alert has commissioned market research by Grant Thornton, which concluded technology advances such as Cycle Alert are likely to get good support from the industry.
He said: ‘My own experience so far persuades me that there is a huge willingness from operators to look at this type of technology. The likes of Eddie Stobart, Keltbray, Murphys, Transdev buses, Lend Lease to name a few are all early supporters.
‘Reaching critical mass is our mission. We have already established live trials in York with York City Council, Transdev Buses and the University of York. Since December this has grown as more fleet operators want to become involved and more cycling retailers want to stock the product. The University has distributed 500 tags to students and the local bus company has fitted to buses. One of York’s largest employers and a large fleet operator is now coming on board. ‘
Trials of Cycle Alert across London are planned from May 2014.
Really really bad idea. The onus on safety needs to be on the driver, not the cyclist.
What happens when someone who hasn’t got an RFID fitted is in a danger area and the driver is relying on the system?
The driver can just blame the victim.
Should pedestrians be fitted with RFIDs to avoid traffic? If not, why not?
Hilarous potential for mischeif with this idea.
Personally I think I’ll be getting as many of these RFIDs as I can find, and surreptiously glueing them to the side of HGVs.
As a cyclist, just stay away from HGV. There is nothing to be gained from overtaking or undertaking a hgv besides the curb. Either wait or take the pavement. At night, in rain, fog, dusk, dawn, smog, blizzard, always use enough light and still assume drivers don’t pay attention.
Cyclists should take far more responsibility for their own safety.
An HGV is very hard to miss seeing, unlike a cyclist who should stop trying to pass everything on the kerbside and should wait his/her turn
I would refuse to take any blame if I. unfortunately hit a cyclist with no proper lighting or reflective clothing cutting across my path illegally (stupidly?)
And I’ve seen plenty of them…
Easy to say ‘stay away from HGVs’ but they don’t stay away from you.
Waiting at lights and one comes up behind you ?
Seems like a one sided solution (potentially) it puts the onus to avoid any irresponsible cyclist on the driver who has to have more equipment and time to monitor it. Along with everything else.
Excellent idea. As a cyclist and driver, I cannot see a down side.
Cars could have similar fitted as standard which would bring the cost down.
As a cyclist, motorcyclist and car driver I keep clear of HGVs – only this morning for the umpteenth time a lorry charged onto the roundabout I was negotiating right in front of me causing me to brake hard – luckily I was half expecting it. Lorry drivers don’t seem to think that they have to give way to traffic on roundabouts.
@ ananymous number 1.
You have got it completely wrong. The onus is on both.
If a lunatic cyclist is overtaking on the left it is hardly surprising that they get hit by a lorry
This relies on 100% take-up and 100% functionality- which is not practicable. You only have to consider the number of HGVs with disconnected Tachographs to see how many drivers disregard the safety of all other road users so they would disregard this as well..
Every cyclist should read John Franklin’s book _Cyclecraft_. It explains the simple solution to turning HGVs: Stay away from the curb side of an HGV. Adopt Franklin’s “primary” riding position, which is at nor near lane center. You have a right to safe use of the road. Use that right. If you cower in the gutter, you endanger yourself.
Also please, rear-engined buses to be noisier from the front, for both cyclists’ and pedestrians’ benefit.
While on the subject, please extend the “no mobile phones” rule to cyclists. First seen, someone using one of these on a busy dual A-road. One hand on the handlebars.
Since, frequently other cyclists, including those bowling along one-handed amongst pedestrians, quite fast too.##
Clearly who ever thought of this has no idea of a fail safe systems. The only safe rule is for cyclist to stay clear of HGV’s and presume they have not been seen. Saying this as a cyclist first and a motorist second.
Myself I prefer to be alive and well rather than dead and right!
How about we use common sense rather than adding a layer of technology? Engineering solutions have their place, but surely this should be a last resort?
As a cyclist don’t go down the inside/outside (of anything) unless it’s actually safe to do so. Ie wide gaps in stationary traffic and space to get well infront afterwards.
As a driver give the (very squishy) cyclist space to manoeuvre. When over taking note that cyclists might be moving about as quickly as you and don’t appreciate being cut up or forced into curbs etc.
Easy, and doesn’t need any batteries.
My ‘this years i pod’ cannot be detected by a 2005 Apple computer. What chance a 1960 Hercules bicycle against a 2013 Scania with 20 speaker Bose stereo, parking radar, multitude of mirrors, sat nav, fixed speed camera alert, forward proximity detectors and now an additional flashing red light suggesting a number of cyclists are within 2.5 meters.
One works driver drove 925 miles not knowing what the flashing spanner symbol meant.
Clever idea, but as already noted such a device might well provide drivers & cyclists with a false sense of security, resulting in them paying less attention than they otherwise should to what is going on around them and increase risk by assuming they have both seen each other. Sadly too it would also provide the lawyers with yet another loop hole to argue in defence of a reckless driver that cyclists have a duty of care to use such a device when cycling on the road, rather like wearing a cycle helmet is fast becoming the expected “norm”. What is really needed is a magic device (brain implant?) that changes attitude of dangerous drivers towards vulnerable road users and changes attitude of irresponsible cyclists & pedestrians towards taking more responsibility for their own safety. It is worth remembering however that it is people that are irresponsible and dangerous, be they drivers, cyclists, or on foot. Probably dangerous drivers would make dangerous cyclists & vice versa so let’s avoid trying to separate the two as different species.
Another point though: as a cycle commuter with 40+ years of cycling experience, I observe that hardly ever does a driver fail to see a cyclist if the driver has bothered or even remembered to look (which sometimes happens too). So often, having seen a cyclist or pedestrian, so being fully aware they are there, drivers still fail to modify their driving behaviour accordingly; passing too close, too fast or turning across the path of a cyclist. So many road users fail to include adequate margin of safety to allow for the unexpected, failing to read the road condition in front of them. Sadly of course, the cyclist or pedestrian always comes off worst in the event of an impact, regardless of fault. I do my utmost to see and be seen at all times (brilliant lights, high vis., giving clear road signals to others, etc.), always try to help other road users make their journey in a safe but timely manner. Yet all too frequently am exposed to totally avoidable near miss situations. Like everyone else, I too make mistakes, but with a change of attitude and consideration of what might be round the next corner, most crashes, especially with cyclists, are totally avoidable.
It would help a great deal if cyclists actually read the Highway Code before jumping on a bike and expecting everyone to avoid them. There’s even a section devoted to them. And when there are inexperienced, unfit cyclists mingling with busy city traffic it’s bound to end in tears no matter what technology is employed.
I notice there is no mention of a warning device for cyclists attached to pedestrians. Go to any London park and watch the cyclist firing along the pathways whilst treating pedestrians with the contempt and disdain they object to from lorry drivers.
And whilst a ‘heads up’ for a lorry driver might be helpful, it’s likely to turn into a means of prosecuting him, despite the cyclist doing something stupid or unexpected.
Of corse the sensible option would be to have a proper network of segregated cycle lanes in cities. Unlikely to happen anytime soon though.
When you think about it, it’s a bit odd that the most vulnerable road users (cyclists) are the only road users who require no compulsory training, no license, no insurance and no compulsory PPE. That’s an argument for another day however.
As a cyclist myself i would not want a lorry driver to rely on a system that might only be compatible with less than 100% of bicycles. Surely designing mirrors to eliminate blind spots would be a better approach.
The roads will only become safer when there are no human drivers in the cabs of HGVs, foreign drivers driving on our roads MUST have qualifications proving they are sufficiently skilled to be able to actually drive on UK roads and we start to enforce the above.