"All cyclists will need to fit detection beacons, says cycle industry boss"
 

My reaction can be summarized as "B.S."

Long version, including the reactions of many others -- this is just another variation of the invented "jaywalking" laws that shifted the burden from driver responsibility and liability to regarding pedestrians and cyclists as disposable, expendable and collateral damage in the greater interest of ensuring motorists and motor vehicles aren't inconvenienced.

Agree with your take.

Do not want.

We're rapidly plowing towards a brave new future. Cross communication likely will help safer driving... for example if one car detects a deer near the road, all cars in the vicinity will be notified. And bicycles will likely be part of the equation.

However, we'll have to wait and see what Uber's response to the Elaine Herzberg accident will be. Yes, dark out, but it should have been the easiest crash avoidance. Single person walking across 3 deserted traffic lanes in the middle of the desert. If the cars can't avoid running over Elaine Herzberg, then they shouldn't be on the road.

Likely bicycle transponders will be just like using taillights. They will be a smart choice because they help a person be seen. But, not everyone will use them, so the system should be designed to detect and avoid cyclists and pedestrians with or without transponders.

Part of this will be teaching the computer system safe defensive driving techniques. One car stops, or swerves left, and move attention to that spot and evaluate why.

Networked computer systems should be able to monitor and communicate a cyclist's movement through traffic, and perhaps even share data to predict the cyclist's next movements based on observed cycling style.

Cars have to be able to detect human bodies. Period. On of off a bike, day or night, rain or shine. Period again.

Until they have to microchip every fox, squirrel, Badger and deer they ain't microchipping me.

I agree with Tyrion.

Until they figure out a way to sneak into my house and chip my bikes, without my knowledge, it isn't happening.
The phone can be left at home.

We already use lights and Hi-vis clothing to increase driver awareness. This beacon thing is just part of the evolution. Unlike lighting, which can blend amongst the many, many lights that a motorist encounters, the beacon will specifically identify you as a cyclist. As long as the algorithms used by the other cars can process this correctly, it's a good thing, right?

I do agree that they should not be necessary, and they would not in a world with perfect road users. That's a dream world that will never exist.

Substitute the word "beacon" for the word "helmet" and just read helmet debates.

Yeah because a beacon will cause drivers to be courteous, kind, and learn to love cyclists.:roflmao2: Just like the drivers who hate cyclists and usually remark, "They should be licensed and taxed", as if they would suddenly become patient, tolerant, and careful around cyclists if only they were "licensed to be on the road".

Ummmm ..... Actually, the beacon is to identify cyclists to AV cars. Communication is with the car, not the driver.

As a rule, it doesn't hurt to read the cited article to actually know what one is talking about Before starting to talk.

I quote:

It is the goal of the “connected car” industry to make cyclists use sensors or beacons so they can be detected more easily. (Such sensors could be passive transponders or, even easier, signals from a smartphone.) Currently, "erratic" cyclists are hard to detect by autonomous vehicles. And pedestrians, too, are often not spotted by a plethora of detection devices on even the most tricked-out "driverless cars". (emphasis added, to make the point clear to the reading-averse.)

Manuel's presentation begins at 2:52:51:


-mr. bill

I'm not adding any of that crap to my existing bikes; or my existing cars either. It's not my problem if their automated cars can't figure out how to drive. :innocent:


:p

Is this the industry acknowledging their AV technology is a failure without additional crutches.

Riders who don't like this idea had best start mobilizing now.

Manufacturers are likely to go along and insert a chip in bikes ... and any cyclist hit on the road without a chip or a connected smartphone will be hit hard (like people who don't wear seat belts---a ticket before the crash, in some cases, less insurance after.)

I use my phone to track my rides ... so I assume anyone who wanted could track me, and even listen to me wheezing ... but I wouldn't Voluntarily log in before a ride.

I don't have a phone or beacon. That's a bunch of extra weight that would slow me down... NOT SAFE in high speed traffic!

Maybe they'll require something like a Garmin foot pod on all pedestrian's shoes too.

Or maybe "they" won't?

Click Bait V2

"Cycle industry is not in favour of mandatory "bike beacons" says CONEBI exec"

Shocking? All the ignorant faux outrage, twice the clicks.

-mr. bill

"He was mowed down by an AV because his battery was dead..."

Uh, NO.

Make the car smarter... don't "chip" people. Sheesh.

The FBI already knows how and in fact does it to people's computers. They call it 'Sneak and Peek'.



.

This thread has a couple of odd touch-points in my life.

First I want to make something very clear: I DO NOT like the idea that people on bikes own the responsibility to avoid being killed by a drive-less car.

Here in the Twin Cities, people are using a similar device to track bike commutes for wellness credits. Funny thing, my car-free daughter hates damn near all tech, but she has Zap on her bike. I always laugh when we are riding together 'cause the counting stations beep when you bike by.

I have a Volvo XC90, like the one used for the Uber driver-less car involved in this deadly collision. The safety features in this car are straight out of scifi.... but no effing way I'd let that car drive itself, or anything close to it. Living in Minnesota winter, all those sensors are worthless with they get covered with snow/ice/roadslush. I've had the car's alerts help avoid situations many times, but these are driver-assisting alerts, not driver-less.

footnote - I'm sure Uber wasn't using a showroom version of the XC90, however, I sure the basic tech is the same as the showroom version.

edit/afterthought - what if this beacon was a phone app? still hate the idea but ...

Unless you never go out of doors, you are subject to satellite surveillance.

And if they want they can just follow you.

I think at the hear of it all people just don't want to accept that they simply aren't that important, and that is why no one is surveilling them. :D

Don't be too sure of that, Uber may have disconnected the OEM safety tech in order to test their own prototype tech which may be the reason the Uber version Volvo failed so miserably.

fify

Actually, I embrace that I am "not all that important" enough to be traced and followed... suits me just fine. But just in case, I keep some cash at hand and a cell phone with a removable battery... and a big hat. :innocent:

Interesting discussion! As a Libertarian I typically am against most sorts of government involvement, but my antagonism comes when the government actually sticks their nose in. As of this time, though, the discussion of beacons seems to be mostly amongst industry and advocacy groups. Perhaps governments will require beacons at some point. but more likely it will be the manufacturers who force the issue (i.e. convince us). This concept is pretty close to having radar reflectors on your boat. These are required for some, but not all waters and they significantly reduce your chances of getting run down by a larger vessel.

In any case, what is it that is so onerous to those here who are so opposed? Don't want to be recognised as a cyclist? Well then, throw all your lights away, strip your reflectors, and wear dark clothing at night.