retswerb

Bike brands start to adopt C-V2X to warn cyclists about cars | Ars Technica

If all this does is alert cyclists about cars around them, it's pretty worthless unless mandated for all cars. I do like the possibilities though if it's alerting drivers about bikes around them.

FBinNY 

Eventually, the sensor array on cars will be better tunes to recognize bicyclists, and either warn drivers or slow the car. We're not there yet, aand I've no idea how long eventually takes.

That said, I've no interest in warnings about about cars coming up behind me. In almost sixty years of road bicycling, I've never found a way to predict whether a car behind me is going to pass safely or not. I've stayed safe for those 200k+ miles by a combination of road smarts, situational awareness and dumb luck. I stay sane by worrying whats in my approximately 220 degree field of vision where I can focus on guessing the actions of those drivers I can see, and using a form of "suspension of disbelief" to trust drivers behind me to pass safely (no contact).

I'll be happier, when some of that pass safely is improved with technology, but I'm not waiting, especially because it'll take decades from when it exists until it rotates through the fleet.

base2 

Once again a costly and unnecessary technology forced into existence at (eventually) everybodys expense base on the faulty premise that cars must be driven like fighter jets by people of average skill who are under the impression they are operating in simplified consequence free environments.

The problem is not driver awareness. The problems are excessive vehicle speed is greater than the speed of the human brain and the mixing of modal types in road use. The solution is 2 pronged: A) Driver's need a reason to not drive so ridiculously reckless in the first place; To be slowed down to a speed equal to human brain processing ability. Readily perceived personal consequences are wonderfully effective in this regard. And B) Everyone else needs to be separated from drivers human fallibility.

I'll be sad if I have to pay for this ad hoc tech and it's continuing operating overhead (in all it's forms) by way of inflated vehicle price to counter poor road design my property taxes already should've paid to build right in the first place.

Iride01 

It warns the driver of the car about cyclists. It requires that the cyclist have the mechanism that allows the vehicle to detect them better.

In it's basic concept, it's not unlike TCAS used in commercial airliners and some private planes since the early 1990's. And the cyclist could also be warned of the vehicle too depending on how implemented. It should be obvious though that alerting the driver of the motor vehicle and possibly having active safety systems in the car to avoid the cyclist is a highly desirable thing.

However costs and lives are always weighed. And until the technology gets inexpensive enough in it's manufacture and required infrastructure and logistics, It'll be just a interesting thing that can be done.

I'm sure many will balk on some of this as violations of privacy.

Troul 

tech like that should be an option to the consumer for an additional cost, in turn, adjusting insurance rates in a desirable way. It should not be a requirement. The feature should not hinder the main functions of the vehicle, yet should be simple to service without specialized tooling & software.

*waits for others to object*

Iride01 

You must not own any cars made after the mid 60's or there'bout. <grin>

Troul 

in reality, no one owns a vehicle... you're just responsible & liable of it.

work4bike

I had to look this thing up on YouTube for a demonstration to understand what it is; there are no videos of these things mounted on bikes. However, I watched a video of a car that warned of cyclists using this technology.

Given the roads I ride on, this thing would only be an annoyance if mounted on my bike.




.

FBinNY 

So, as I understand(?) it, C-v2x allows 2 way communication between cars and other road users with the same tech.

As a cyclist, the plus side is that I can use it to warn cars I'm up ahead, and possibly if they have automated systems, greatly improve the odds of a safe pass.

However, it's not all good. First of all I need to use a device, yet have zero assurance that the car behind is equally equipped. Even with immediate inclusion OEM on new cars, it'll be a long time before reaching even 50:50 odds.

Secondly, my experience is that tech of this kind creates tech dependency. So, if/when large numbers of cyclists use the device, drivers may relax and not properly deal with a non-v2x bike ahead.

I sail, and liken it to carrying a radar reflector on the mast. All good but I really want the bridge of an approaching freighter to look up from the radar screen and scan the water, even when there's no blip.

jack pot

the kind of drivers that are most likely to run you over most likely aren't tecked up ... be safe bike sidewalks

retswerb

That's... one conclusion. Not the one I'm coming to though.