Whenever Dragons’ Den gets a pitch for a cycling product I wince. Partly, that’s just my general reaction to hearing that any bit of the non-specialist media is looking at cycling, but the dragons have a terrible record when it comes to cycling. That they gave a warm reception to a handlebar-mounted indicators a couple of nights ago is just their latest inexplicable reaction to a cycling idea.
Nick Jenkins offered £45,000 for 15% of CYCL, the company behind Winglights indicators, and was negotiated down to 12.5%. A good day for the two young entrepreneurs behind the product, then.
The dragons debated whether indicators on the ends of the handlebars could be seen easily enough to be useful, but acknowledged that Luca Amaduzzi and Agostino Stilli had done a great job of the design and polish.
The problem is, a product can be as beautifully designed and made as the Venus de Milo, but it won’t succeed unless there’s a demand for it.
The history of indicators for bikes suggests there really is no demand.
Back in 2009 we reviewed Bicygnals, which put indicators on both the front and rear of your bike. We weren’t impressed and since then the product has vanished without trace. We also looked at Winkku that year, which combined an indicator with a mirror. It’s also long gone.
Then there was Spooklight, which provided indicators and a brake like triggered by an accelerometer. Shaun Audane called it “little more than a gimmick for the ipod age”.
But indicators for cycling just keep popping up. In 2013 we reviewed Scute Design Lumin8a gloves. We were even quite kind about them. Scute Design folded in 2015.
At least there’s now a sure-fire way of finding out if anyone’s interested in your product before you commit to production. Last year a Canadian team took to Kickstarter to try and raise CA$8,000 for a SIX, a gesture-controlled indicator that also incorporated a brake light. They barely reached a third of their target.
The most recent attempt to get an indicator system off the ground prompted lively debate from our readers. London cabbie Gary Thatcher came up with the Signum wrist-mounted indicator. His Kickstarter campaign raised just £1,306 of the £20,000 goal.
The only indicators to get any traction are built into ‘innovative’ helmet designs. Even then, they often don’t make it past the sketch stage. For some reason the judges of design competitions like to give them awards anyway. One indicator helmet, Lumos, managed a successful Kickstarter and appears to be shipping. Call us cynical, but we give it a year.
And while you’re putting batteries and lights and electronics into a helmet, why not go hog wild and have it play music, read out your text messages and send out an emergency alert if you crash. If you can’t live without all that, you can get a Livall BH60 from Amazon for £104.
Livall Bling BH60 complete with Flaschenblinkenlights
As Al Storer pointed out in the comments of our story on Signum, there have been loads of indicator systems — we’ve barely scratched the surface with the ones we’ve mentioned here — but they all have one thing in common: you never see them in the wild.
Either people don’t buy indicators, or if they do they don’t use them for long. They’re the sort of thing a well-meaning relative buys you for Christmas, not realising that keeping them to hand and charged is a faff that’s hard to justify for the function.
The inventors of indicator systems almost always say they’re trying to make cyclists safer, but they’re solving the wrong problem. The assumption is that drivers hit cyclists because we can’t be seen. But the majority of crashes involving cyclists happen because the driver simply didn’t look, and adding small flashing orange lights is going to make, at best, a tiny, tiny difference.
As Deborah Meaden pointed out on the show, an indicator is just another flashing light, and it’s one drivers aren’t expecting to see on a bike. However, it’s not clear that the Highway Code makes hand signals mandatory even if you have indicators, as many people think. The code describes how indicators and hand signals must be used, but doesn’t say who should use them.
Meaden might have been sensible to pooh-pooh the Winglights, given the repeated failure of indicators over the years, but the dragons don’t have a great track record when it comes to rejecting cycling ideas.
At least three ideas pitched at the dragons have gone on to success despite being rejected.
Probably the biggest missed opportunity was Tom de Pelet’s Hornit, a 140 decibel bike horn. In an episode screened in 2015, but filmed ten months earlier, the dragons declined to back the Hornit. Between the pitch and the show going to air, Tom had sold half a million quid’s worth of Hornits, and reckoned he was on course for £1.2 million in sales that year.
Later in 2015 sisters Sky and Kia Ballantyne, aged 12 and 14 respectively, pitched Crikey Bikey, a harness that makes it easier to support a toddler who’s learning to ride a bike.
The dragons turned them down even though they’d had orders from Evans Cycles and Mountain Warehouse. Their appearance on Dragon’s Den prompted a flood of new orders and the gadget is now stocked by Halfords.
Sometimes the dragons just don’t get the joke. They turned down Fat Lad At The Back (FLAB) clothing in 2014 because they didn’t like the name. But if you’re a non-svelte cyclist you get used to not taking yourself too seriously, and FLAB’s clothing struck a chord with riders don’t fit in Italian Lycra.
Later in 2014 Evans Cycles took on FLAB clothing, along with then-new sister brand Fat Lass At the Back.
All of that said, Nick Jenkins may be backing a long shot with the CYCL WingLights, but Amaduzzi and Stilli are clearly promising talents.
Jenkins and all the dragons were impressed that the duo had already got the product out into the market and broken even. The standard of finish impressed even notorious cyclophobe Peter Jones who said: “The quality and the way you’ve put this together, I think is as good as I have ever seen in a product.”
I’m looking forward to seeing what they do next.
92 thoughts on “Dragons’ Den backs indicators: another dodgy decision from the dragons on a cycling product”
I think you’d need to look at
I think you’d need to look at the Lumos comment about “appears to be shipping” a bit more fairly.
From Lumos Team
Lumos Team member here. The Helmets are out of pre-order and are shipping normally. Express shipping to UK takes now around 5-7 days and to the US 3-5 days.
Bicycle indicators:
Bicycle indicators:
https://youtu.be/_NPcGLWzUl8?t=80
That’s all you need to know. Useless.
Nice summary: I think Deborah
Nice summary: I think Deborah Meaden said it all when she pointed out that indicators are yet another flashing light amongst many others on various parts of the cyclist and bicycle, and that motorists aren’t expecting to see them.
In context, I visited the then cycling person at RoSPA in the last 1980s, and he told me he would get inventors of cycle/cyclist indicators regularly and frequently. They were surprised and upset to hear that they were just the latest of a long line of such inventors, and that thr product wouldn’t actually be helpful.
There is no reason to suppose that in a cyclist-unfriendly culture like the UK’s that this will not continue with such inventions. As it has done for at least 30 years.
There is a subject bar now, had I not noticed before?
The other half got me a set of the Bicygnals, I think for a crimbo pressie, she wasn’t too pissed at me when I said I couldn’t use them. I had read some terrible reviews and they would have interfered with my NiteSun Trilights, which for me for a good decade were the best front lights in the world. Didn’t get a replacement pressie mind, but to be expected, at least I didn’t have to use the horrible lights. Did buy myself an angle activated yellow flasher for the wrist, which I used for a bit, but it was cheap and awful. If someone made a good stand alone one of these I might consider it. Use Ronhill slapbands, but I dont know how visable they might be over the Hope District+, and the NiteRider Solas 40 on the bag.
Good rundown on the awful range of bicycle indicators over the years.
Used the NightSun Horn for a
Used the NightSun Horn for a while too, but a bit screechy, similar but not as nice to look at as the Hornit, drivers just didn’t respond. Their police one might have worked better, they did a lot of police products, but wouldn’t sell it to normal members of the public, the warble might have attracted more attention. It’s the AirZound for me, but it will not fit on my getting to work bikes bars. Sounds like a car horn but because there is no car around it blocking the sound, much louder. And they don’t expect little old me to be making such a noise.
The Dragons also turned down the TangleTeaser, which for my dready hair is one of the greatest products ever made. Have 4.
I wouldn’t trust my life to a
I wouldn’t trust my life to a motorist whilst making a right turn on the basis of little flashing light. And it’s no use on drops anyway.
Sometimes I think motorists don’t even see my arm in high viz, so I use body language and every other tool I have:
Signal early. Take primary. Slow down gradually. Don’t go into the middle to let the car past on the inside unless it really is wide enough. Most roads aren’t. Stop if necessary. Then make the turn.
Even this doesn’t prevent harassment and for a while I’ve been taking another route to avoid this right hander.
Lumos Helmet
I love my Lumos Helmet. It’s true that you do still need to take primary position etc as drivers are not expecting to see signals on a helmet. As someone has already said here, not all drivers notice hand signals either. The helmet gives me one more level of security to my turns. It’s comfortable too which is a bonus.
The worst thing about cycle
The worst thing about cycle indicators is this one guy I see on my commute that thinks cause he has a flashing light on the rear panier that he can just turn where he wants, he will change lanes without looking and pulls out on other cyclists and cars all the time. Have heard he telling cyclists that they need to be more aware and they should of know he was turning cause he used his indicator
This bar end lights are just somthing else that will give people like him a reason to not be aware of other road users
My cycle gloves have small
My cycle gloves have small reflective logos. At night and if a car is behind they are extremely visible in headlights. During the day an arm signal is clear enough.
As a motorcyclist arm signals are second nature. In any situation an arm signal is by far a clearer and unambiguous statement of intent. For a cyclist they also make you effectively an arm length wider.
Mungecrundle wrote:
So do mine, but they only really work if you hand is at the right angle.
As a motorcyclist, I have no intention of taking my hands off the bars and reducing the control of my bike. Seriously, when was the last time you saw a motorcyclist using arm signals?
LastBoyScout wrote:
So do mine, but they only really work if you hand is at the right angle.
As a motorcyclist, I have no intention of taking my hands off the bars and reducing the control of my bike. Seriously, when was the last time you saw a motorcyclist using arm signals?— Mungecrundle
I’ll admit it is a bit old school as are some of the other habits that were beaten into me by my instructors. E.g when was the last time you saw any motorcyclist kick up the sidestand before getting on? This goes back to the days before moron interlocks stopped one riding off with the side stand down and crashing on the first left hander soon thereafter.
If you have choreographed being in the right place at the right speed in the right gear, then there is usually time for a cheeky arm signal to back up what your indicators are telling other road users. Especially useful for exiting multilane roundabouts or when turning right into a minor road from a major road in my experience.
Not to turn this into a motorcycling thread but there are a lot of transferable skills, especially to do with road positioning and a copy the Police Motorcyclists Roadcraft manual is actually not the most tedious bedtime reading. Round town at cycling speeds I still think of myself as a small (and horribly underpowered) motorcycle rather than a pedal cycle.
A summary of the riding system from Wikipedia.
Information received from the outside world by observation, and given by use of signals such as direction indicators, headlamp flashes, and horn; is a general theme running continuously throughout the application of the system by taking, using and giving information;
Position on the road optimised for safety, visibility and correct routing, followed by best progress;
Speed appropriate to the hazard being approached, attained via explicit braking or throttle control (engine braking), always being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear on your side of the road;
Gear appropriate for maximum vehicle control through the hazard, selected in one shift; and
Acceleration for clearing the hazard safely.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Motorcycle-Roadcraft-Police-Handbook-Motorcycling/dp/011341143X
I’ve seen someone in a Lumos
I’ve seen someone in a Lumos helmet – running with the lights on in the daytime – it certainly made me look twice. Great for visibility.
I’m not 100% sure about the indicators though – but the lights work well.
flashing lights are an
flashing lights are an irritation to other road users – if you dress like a clown then you’ll get treated like one
beezus fufoon wrote:
Perhaps, but if you’re irritating them they have seen you.
ktache wrote:
they’re irritating to me – whether I’m walking, riding, or driving – also, from a distance you have identified yourself as a cyclist – personally I use reasonably powerful constant lights and try to create the illusion I’m on a motorbike, as it is my intention to be able to pedal at that speed one day! 🙂
When it comes down to it the
When it comes down to it the only difference between all the opinions here is how far we are prepared to go with respect to the aspects of our personal safety that we can actually control.
Me, personally, it’s second nature to shoulder check and signal before changing course in moving traffic (advanced motorcyclist and ex instructor if we are going to get into a credentials pissing contest). I always wear gloves, always use lights after dusk, usually wear hi viz/ reflective, sometimes wear a helmet but I wouldn’t use these indicator contraptions when I think arm signals are more effective. I still have the occassional run in with other road users but such incidents are the exception and most importantly I have little interest in being a victim regardless of who is to blame.
Ultimately the highway code is the base line of acceptable roadcraft for all road users. If you disagree with the advice contained therein, then take your research to the relevant authorities and get it revised.
In 10% of all fatal
In 10% of all fatal collisions involving a cyclist the wearing of dark clothing at night was found to be a contributing factor.
In 44% of fatal collisions the driver not looking properly for the cyclist was a contributing factor.
Drivers are significantly more likely to hit a cyclist from behind after dark. Collisions after dark are far more likely to result in death or serious injury.
Seems to me that in all the 3 scenarios above reflective clothing would make a fatal collision less likely.
This is based on a pretty huge piece of research commissioned by the Department for Transport.
Link:
https://trl.co.uk/reports/PPR445
Rich_cb wrote:
So in 90% of all fatal collisions involving a cyclist the wearing of dark clothing at night was found NOT to be a contributing factor!
atgni wrote:
Most fatal collisions occur during the day. It’s 10% of the overall figure, it would be a much higher percentage of accidents occurring at night.
Rich_cb wrote:
1. Does the huge piece of research make your leap that reflectives would have helped for you, or do you have your own huge piece of research for that?
2. Exactly how do reflectives help in the 44% of cases where the driver isn’t looking (and in the additional driver error categories, which, combined, make up the majority of cyclist KSIs)?
I get your earlier point about it not being binary – I agree with all of that post, to be fair – but I’d like to see, collectively, proportionately greater effort on campaigning about shit driver behaviour than lecturing other cyclists on taking responsibility for drivers’ carelessness.
davel wrote:
Firstly, if dark clothing at night is a contributing factor then it stands to reason that reflective clothing would reduce that risk.
Secondly, the research specifically emphasises that in the cases where the driver failed to look properly they are not saying that the driver did not look at all, simply that they did not notice the cyclist. Again it stands to reason that in at least some of those collisions if the rider were more visible the collision would not have happened.
I’m not taking the blame away from drivers, they are, as you said, responsible for the vast majority of fatal collisions.
I’m simply saying that as cyclists there are things we can do to reduce our risk of becoming a statistic.
I base my use of reflective clothing on personal experience but this research does back that experience up.
Rich_cb wrote:
Firstly, if dark clothing at night is a contributing factor then it stands to reason that reflective clothing would reduce that risk.
Secondly, the research specifically emphasises that in the cases where the driver failed to look properly they are not saying that the driver did not look at all, simply that they did not notice the cyclist. Again it stands to reason that in at least some of those collisions if the rider were more visible the collision would not have happened.
I’m not taking the blame away from drivers, they are, as you said, responsible for the vast majority of fatal collisions.
I’m simply saying that as cyclists there are things we can do to reduce our risk of becoming a statistic.
I base my use of reflective clothing on personal experience but this research does back that experience up.— davel
I’m not entirely disagreeing, but I’m extremely suspicious of reasoning and ‘common sense’ (ie. personal bias) being applied in lieu of actually diagnosing this problem properly. These arguments are extremely subjective and personal experience is largely irrelevant.
It’s much like the ‘I had an off and broke my helmet, so imagine what would have happened to my skull’ argument that makes a leap that is unfounded and merely reinforces the teller’s bias. This bias omits the negatives or alternatives.
The fact is that we don’t know how effective reflectives and even lights on bikes are at preventing drivers hitting cyclists. We do know that lights and reflectives make a cyclist more visible in the dark. Going beyond that to ‘lights and reflectives stop drivers hitting cyclists’ is an unsupported leap. It isn’t the only unsupported leap to make from that position – it just happens to be the one you prefer to make. We know that more drivers hit cyclists during the day; couldn’t one postulate that drivers have started expecting cyclists to be Blackpool Illuminations on wheels so have stopped noticing them during the day when lights aren’t on or are less effective? Do we *know* that drivers aren’t becoming complacent and less safe because they expect cyclists and other ‘obstacles’ to be well-lit? Would it be safer if drivers expected streets full of ninja cyclists apparently emerging from nowhere?
I’m just cautioning on any line of ‘common sense’ leaps that don’t put the onus on drivers to actually make a bit more effort to stop squashing squashy stuff. Don’t dismiss the victim-blaming line: I don’t think it’s that simplistic an argument.
davel wrote:
I do think you’re being deliberately obtuse here.
The research shows dark clothes at night are a contributing factor in 10% of all fatal crashes.
If you can’t avoid riding at night then the only part of that contributing factor you can change is the dark clothing.
I don’t think it’s biased at all to assume that lighter clothing would be beneficial, if there were no difference between light and dark clothing then dark clothing wouldn’t be listed as a contributing factor.
Reflective clothing is as light as it gets at night.
In an ideal world car drivers would look carefully before any manoeuvre and if , as you suggested, all cyclists dressed head to toe in black and rode around unlit then maybe they would.
I think a lot of cyclists would have to die before your experiment starting showing results and as human sacrifice has never really interested me I’m afraid I’ll have to decline to take part.
I don’t think that s/he is
I don’t think that s/he is being obtruse. The research shows dark clothes* at night are a CONTRIBUTING factor in 10% of all fatal crashes. That does not mean that if you take away that contributing factor that it will reduce those number of fatal crashes, only that it will no longer be listed as a factor. To quote a statistical analogy, just because sales of icecream increase in the summer and so do shark attacks does not mean that sharks are attracted by icecream.
I do think that anyone who cycles at night without any reflective element is an idiot, but I also think that anyone who overdoes the reflective gear and lights also makes it harder to spot everyone else. So in my opinion there is a balance that needs to be made on how visible we make ourselves as well.
The culture and environment need to change significantly to make it safer for the cyclist but that is going to take a long time. In the interim we do need to take counter measure but I also think that we need to be careful of not over doing it either.
* I would also argue that how dark the colour of clothing is irrelevent at night. A black top with reflective elements is far more visible than an orange top without reflective elements when out on an unlit night in my opinion
ClubSmed wrote:
I would also like to see how many of the 10% where dark clothes at night are listed as a contributing factor also did not have working lights. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a significant proportion which would somewhat negate the extent that the contribution of dark clothes makes.
Rich_cb wrote:
Pointing out biases and showing that there could be alternatives isn’t the same as being obtuse.
You not understanding what ‘contributing factor’ is – are you being obtuse? How about you not realising that 10% is actually a pretty insignificant proportion?
Taking alternative examples as literals (eg the ninja experiment) – that is obtuse.
There are 2 issues here: 1 is that there’s loads of woo-woo around cycling safety, and not much evidence of anything. It’s a massive, complex subject.
The 2nd one is the emphasis on responsibility. Every time a cyclist joins a debate with another cyclist with something like “those of us who aren’t willing to die just to prove a point…” they’re actually missing that point, and conflating micro and macro.
So back to your stats. Fix the 10%. Get them all to wear lights and reflectives. How much safer will that make you, someone who already wears lights and reflectives? And when 2 cyclists a week are still dying after that, what magic item will you leap to then?
I’m not saying you don’t have a point: you do. You might have already not been hit at night because of lights and/or reflectives – you’ll never know, and that’s why you do it. I do the same. But what I am saying is that your point, by your own stats, is less than 10% of the big picture. Getting drivers to drive properly is at least 5 times more weighty.
I’m not a fan of this culture almost of appeasement where cyclists wrap themselves in cotton wool and rabbits’ feet and don’t understand 1. how insignificant they are in keeping them safe and 2. the damage they could be doing by discouraging other potential cyclists and encouraging drivers’ perception that cyclists need to take responsibility for the risks that the drivers themselves take. And this is where we disagree on changing driver behaviour – while cars get ever safer for thoae inside, this appeasement isn’t helping us, is it? Even your stats say a resounding ‘no’.
davel wrote:
It’s not 10% of cyclists It’s 10% of fatal collisions, dark clothes are a factor in the death of 12 cyclists a year, 1 a month.
I think that’s pretty significant.
I do a fair bit of work in risk modelling/reduction, one of the models used is the ‘swiss cheese model’.
You imagine multiple slices of Swiss cheese each representing a safeguard. All safeguards have flaws and the holes in the Swiss cheese represent these flaws.
A negative event can only occur when the holes in all the sheets line up, in other words when every safeguard fails.
Each additional safeguard you add is an extra layer and make a negative event less likely.
Reflective clothing represents an additional safeguard, it might have flaws but it is a quick and easy step to take.
That’s why it’s worth doing even if the gains are only small.
Comprehensive driver education would probably have a far greater impact but it would need to be agreed politically and would take years to begin having an effect.
I’ve never sought to blame cyclists for anything, I’m simply pointing out ways we can mitigate the effects of poor driving.
Rich_cb wrote:
I think that’s pretty significant.— Rich_cb
what’s happened here is that 10% of fatalities were wearing dark clothes and it was then assumed to be a contributory factor – there is no possible proof of causality here.
in order for it to be significant, you would have to know exactly what percentage were wearing dark clothes and were not involved in fatal collisions
if 100% of them were wearing clothes – would it then be safer to cycle naked?
beezus fufoon wrote:
Well no, not really, analysis of the fatal collisions involving cyclists identified dark clothing as a contributing factor in 10% them.
That doesn’t mean that 10% of riders killed were wearing dark clothing.
It means the clothing was found to be a contributing factor in 10% of fatal collisions.
Rich_cb wrote:
I think that’s pretty significant.— Rich_cb
what’s happened here is that 10% of fatalities were wearing dark clothes and it was then assumed to be a contributory factor – there is no possible proof of causality here.
in order for it to be significant, you would have to know exactly what percentage were wearing dark clothes and were not involved in fatal collisions
if 100% of them were wearing clothes – would it then be safer to cycle naked?
— beezus fufoon Well no, not really, analysis of the fatal collisions involving cyclists identified dark clothing as a contributing factor in 10% them.
That doesn’t mean that 10% of riders killed were wearing dark clothing.
It means the clothing was found to be a contributing factor in 10% of fatal collisions.— Rich_cb
you still haven’t explained how they could make such an assessment…
for example – if a cyclist has good lights, but dark clothing, and is then a fatality, it could be said to be a factor, but it isn’t really
on the other hand – if someone is riding in the dark, all in black, and with no lights, one could also say it is a factor, but it isn’t really
I literally have no idea what basis they are using for such a claim. If a driver fails to see a cyclist then they will try to rationalise that in some way, and even if it is caught on video from 15 different angles – it still sounds speculative at best.
beezus fufoon wrote:
You could always read the research. They explain quite clearly where they are getting their data.
It’s mainly based on the STATS19 data collected by the police, also hospital data, coroners reports and ‘on the site’ reports.
Rich_cb wrote:
Well in reality research based mainly on STATS19 needs to be handled with care. The government’s own guidance says;
“The factors are largely subjective, reflecting the opinion of the reporting police officer, and are not necessarily the result of extensive investigation. Some factors are less likely to be recorded since evidence may not be available after the event.
While this information is valuable in helping to identify ways of improving safety, care should be taken in its interpretation.”
So the data quoted is far from reliable.
So you cannot reasonably claim that dark clothing was a contributary factor in 10% of fatalities – whether a University study says so or not.
shay cycles wrote:
Well in reality research based mainly on STATS19 needs to be handles with care. The government’s own guidance says;
“The factors are largely subjective, reflecting the opinion of the reporting police officer, and are not necessarily the result of extensive investigation. Some factors are less likely to be recorded since evidence may not be available after the event.
While this information is valuable in helping to identify ways of improving safety, care should be taken in its interpretation.”
So the data quoted is far from reliable.
So you cannot reasonably claim that dark clothing was a contributary factor in 10% of fatalities – whether a University study says so or not.
— Rich_cb
equally, if it is just raw data, then it is clearly 10% of fatalities who are wearing dark clothing – if it’s a different percentage and discouted in some instances, then it’s a question of interpreting that data – in which case they will have certain criteria which can be validated and replicated…
I suspect they have just used a certain phrasing – “it is a contributory factor” – to make their common sense assumptions appear scientific…
I wonder whether dark coloured cars are involved in proportionately more collisions – or if they discovered that neon green cars were, would they then count colour as a contributory factor?
I also suspect that we might find that the amount of people who wear dark clothes is upwards of 30% and that they are under represented by the 10% figure – it is of course possible that those who wear hi-viz tabards are more safety conscious and more cautious riders, so the clothing is not actually causal, simply a reflection of other factors – there are so many possibilities and other factors to consider here.
beezus fufoon wrote:
Just read the research.
Stop pontificating about how you think they did it and just read it.
Rich_cb wrote:
nowhere does it say that it was “found to be a contributing factor” – the report clearly says “attributed” in the 10% figure (p.34) – elsewhere it mentions both dark clothing and no lights together (p.23) – and in the conclusion it points to this being a factor on rural roads (p.45) and recommends promotion of both the use of lights and clothing…
so, unlike the report itself, you’ve taken one variable out of context and turned it into a definitively causal factor
beezus fufoon wrote:
nowhere does it say that it was “found to be a contributing factor” – the report clearly says “attributed” in the 10% figure (p.34) – elsewhere it mentions both dark clothing and no lights together (p.23) – and in the conclusion it points to this being a factor on rural roads (p.45) and recommends promotion of both the use of lights and clothing…
so, unlike the report itself, you’ve taken one variable out of context and turned it into a definitively causal factor
— Rich_cb
Not at all.
Table 7 on page 23 clearly show dark clothes at night to be a contributing factor in 10% of fatal collisions.
It is a separate contributory factor to lights.
The word attributed is used to describe whether the contributory factor was on the part of the cyclist or motorist.
Rich_cb wrote:
You are the one citing it in support, why don’t you read it and explain it? It shouldn’t be that hard to give the gist of the argument, i.e. how they arrived at the conclusion and how they allowed for other possible explanations of the data.
I went to download it and decided I didn’t feel like giving them all my personal details to be able to see it…I’m assuming they then do let anyone download it rather than then insisting you have to have some professional justification for doing so?
Maybe I’ll give it a go at some point. But in the meantime, you are the one citing it in support so seems to me the onus is on you to explain what it says, given they don’t just put it up for anyone to read.
It might be convincing and sound, but in the absence of a clear outline of the paper, I don’t feel inclined to take the TRL’s conclusions on faith. It is, after all, now a private think-tank for-hire, owned by ‘members of the transport industry’.
Seems to me that set up might tend to produce reports saying what those paying for the reports want to hear. So the methodology is pretty important.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
more likely the sort who need a report to tell them that it’s a bad idea to ride an unlit bicycle around country lanes in the middle of the night
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I’ve provided you with a link to a free full text copy of the report.
I’m not going to read it to you word for word because you can’t figure out how to download it anonymously.
I’ve provided the evidence, the onus is on you to read it before drawing conclusions.
Rich_cb wrote:
But didn’t you comment/elaborate about how you thought they meant it?
ClubSmed wrote:
But didn’t you comment/elaborate about how you thought they meant it?
— Rich_cb
A bit different, they didn’t define ‘dark clothing’ in the report but they did clearly describe their method.
shay cycles wrote:
Well in reality research based mainly on STATS19 needs to be handled with care. The government’s own guidance says;
“The factors are largely subjective, reflecting the opinion of the reporting police officer, and are not necessarily the result of extensive investigation. Some factors are less likely to be recorded since evidence may not be available after the event.
While this information is valuable in helping to identify ways of improving safety, care should be taken in its interpretation.”
So the data quoted is far from reliable.
So you cannot reasonably claim that dark clothing was a contributary factor in 10% of fatalities – whether a University study says so or not.
— Rich_cb
Have you got any better data?
Links to any better research?
Rich_cb wrote:
Weak, subjective and incomplete research is worse than none at all if it’s used to justify weird and wonderful leaps in the dark.
davel wrote:
I really don’t think this can be described as weak or incomplete. It covers a huge numbers of fatal collisions and has examined most if not all of the available data.
Data of this type will always be subjective, there is no way to produce objective data about these sorts of collision.
Finally it’s not a leap in the dark to suggest that removing a reported contributing factor could reduce the incidence of fatal collisions.
It’s a logical response.
Rich_cb wrote:
I might be going round in circles here, but my point all along has been how logical that response is.
Am I right in that the problem here is the contributing factor – dark clothing?
If so, a lot hinges on the term ‘dark clothing’, how they’ve arrived at that definition and what the basis for including deaths under that label is. But then they don’t explain how they’ve done that? (This is where I think ClubSmeds was going)
So how do you fix a problem as defined by a bunch of other people if they haven’t told you what the label that they’ve given the problem actually means?
If we don’t know what it means, how do we remove ‘dark clothing’ here? (I think this is where Beezus was going. ) Do they mean just unlit clothing? Do they merely mean that the cyclist was in the dark? Are they just saying that it was dark or is the problem with the actual clothing? Types of garment? Clothing brands? Does hair colour make a difference? Do peds suffer the same casualty rates? You see what large effects a subtle difference in the label could have?
Next, are reflectives demonstrably the antidote, as opposed to ‘light clothing’ or just nakedness or a Ronald Macdonald outfit or a portable, head-mounted spotlight? How effective are they? Should cyclists be advised to avoid cycling in the dark if their clothes make drivers hit them? What might the unintended consequences be of applying the suggested fix? Is there a wider problem with drivers not driving to the conditions on unlit roads or elsewhere (I think this is where ktache was regarding shit driving and you were regarding factors beyond your control)?
(I’m not actually being obtuse here – I spent a long time working in performance improvement and the same mistakes regarding ‘fixing problems’ happen repeatedly, and one of the most common is a lack of understanding and agreement as to what the problem is in the first place. And complex problems are never fixed via ‘common sense’. I hear your Swiss Cheese model, but you need some confidence that the slices address the factors, and I lack confidence that they’ve been defined correctly here.
TL;DR:
1. Can we demonstrate what’ dark clothing’ means?
2. Can we be confident that those figures were categorised accurately?
3. Can we demonstrate that reflectives address the issue of ‘dark clothing’?
Isn’t this’ no’ on all counts?
davel wrote:
1. We can’t know definitely what they meant by dark clothing.
It would be reasonable to say that high-vis clothing would be very unlikely to be classified as dark.
In certain lights reflective clothing can appear as dark so there may be a few cases where reflective clothing has been recorded as dark.
Realistically though I would expect almost all people to be able to identity dark clothing correctly.
Overall I think it is perfectly reasonable therefore to assume that dark clothing means just that in the vast majority of cases they’ve recorded.
2. I have quite a lot of confidence in these figures, they seem to have been very methodically gathered and seem to tally with real world experience.
The fact that they report a high incidence of death at junctions tallies with what I read about on an all too regular basis.
The fact that they found that car drivers were inattentive and drove at excessive speeds mirrors exactly what I experience on an almost daily basis.
3. There is no definite proof of this, it therefore becomes a personal choice. In low light conditions reflective gear is the brightest stuff you can wear, if dark clothing is a problem then it seems sensible to wear the brightest clothing you can.
You’re never going to get scientific level proof in these sort of studies, I think this research is about as good as you can get given the data available.
Rich_cb wrote:
Well in reality research based mainly on STATS19 needs to be handled with care. The government’s own guidance says;
“The factors are largely subjective, reflecting the opinion of the reporting police officer, and are not necessarily the result of extensive investigation. Some factors are less likely to be recorded since evidence may not be available after the event.
While this information is valuable in helping to identify ways of improving safety, care should be taken in its interpretation.”
So the data quoted is far from reliable.
So you cannot reasonably claim that dark clothing was a contributary factor in 10% of fatalities – whether a University study says so or not.
— shay cycles Have you got any better data? Links to any better research?— Rich_cb
No I have no better data, there is unlikely to be any better data. But data based on subjective opinions is unreliable and therefore all of the conclusions drawn from it are unreliable. The statement that the report uses STATS19 data effectively invalidates it. This really is pretty basic scientific or statistical method.
In the absence of “better data” you effectively have no data and no usable data yet insist on defending your unsubstatiated position regarding this report.
shay cycles wrote:
If you accept this is the best data available but reject it then you have to accept that there is no reliable data proving drivers are at fault in the vast majority of fatal collisions.
That is what this data shows, everyone on this thread is desperate to discount the data, I doubt they’re so keen to stop blaming drivers for fatal collisions.
Your call.
Rich_cb wrote:
http://www.news.qut.edu.au/cgi-bin/WebObjects/News.woa/wa/goNewsPage?newsEventID=63515
This research from an Australian university basically says that reflective, not high-visibility, clothing is the answer to being seen in the hours of darkness. Fluorescent clothing needs UV rays to be reflective and so don’t work at night so I question how much of factor “dark clothes” are. I can accept that non reflective clothes are a factor, but not how dark they are.
ClubSmed wrote:
I don’t know exactly what they meant by ‘dark clothing’ but I’d imagine they meant dark colours and non reflective.
Rich_cb wrote:
Hi-Viz looks frankly retarded fugly, part reflective doesn’t; my coat is Black with Reflective patches on it, so not a eyesore off my bicycle, my back packs have reflective patches and back/strap piping, and my tires have reflective side-wall strips too. The latter must be very obvious to a car illuminating my bicycle from the side, far more than my front or back light side emissions, so people without these would be wise to get wrap-on spoke reflectors.
Rich_cb wrote:
Comprehensive driver education would probably have a far greater impact but it would need to be agreed politically and would take years to begin having an effect.— Rich_cb
100% agree with this sentiment.
But I’m not sure on this specific point.
1. Is it actually a proven safeguard?
2. Are there any negative consequences to this quick and easy step?
There’s got to be a balance… eg. it makes you 0.1% safer then it probably feels like a no-brainer. But if that action, when replicated through a lot of people following the same logic, reinforces behaviour in drivers that actually results in you being 0.2% less safe, then everybody needs to stop doing it. I suppose my point actually boils down to ‘we don’t know’, which I accept is a bit shit.
davel wrote:
If dark clothing is a contributing factor in fatal collisions then by replacing the dark clothing with light or reflective clothing you are removing a possible contributing factor.
For that reason I would say it was a safeguard.
As for whether cyclists wearing reflectives makes non-reflective wearing cyclists more vulnerable?
I don’t think you could ever prove that and even if you could it would involve asking people to put themselves at greater risk in the short term for a possible increase in safety in the long term.
I’m not sure many people would be willing to risk it to be honest.
Rich_cb wrote:
In 44% of fatal collisions the driver not looking properly for the cyclist was a contributing factor.
Drivers are significantly more likely to hit a cyclist from behind after dark.
Collisions after dark are far more likely to result in death or serious injury. Seems to me that in all the 3 scenarios above reflective clothing would make a fatal collision less likely.
This is based on a pretty huge piece of research commissioned by the Department for Transport. Link: https://trl.co.uk/reports/PPR445— Rich_cb
It’s a good reason to not cut the reflective strips off my cycle clothes, but it’s not covincing me to go out looking like Timmy Mallett’s demented cousin.
Rich-cb, those 44% were not
Rich-cb, those 44% were not looking, they are not seeing you if you are lit up like a christmas tree and dressed like a reflective clown.
It isn’t just cyclists they are hitting,
Audis seem to like being driven into houses-
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/12/26/audis-in-houses/
Vehicles get driven into inanimate objects, many covered in high viz and reflectives-
https://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2015/12/31/cyclists-need-more-situational-awareness-and-training/
And look, some idiot drove into a police car, which tend to be covered in lights both constant and flashing, and the entire thing is reflective and high viz-
https://twitter.com/beztweets/status/800787114724036609/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
One and a half thousand people will be pointlessly slaughtered this year and to most it will be an acceptable cost to be able to drive wherever and whenever they want.
ktache wrote:
The research specifically states that although they weren’t looking properly that doesn’t mean that they didn’t look at all, so maybe a glance rather than a proper look.
In that scenario being lit up like the Blackpool illuminations will probably help.
I’m not defending motorists, they are to blame for most fatal accidents, I’m just trying to protect myself from them!
Its obvious that reflectives
Its obvious that reflectives help. When i’m out cycling i can’t change the way people drive. I can’t make them pay attention.
I can only make myself more visible. If i was driving then i would notice a bike and rider set up like I am. Lights. Reflectives.
You can’t allow for drunk or texting or distracted drivers. You can only prepare for normal drivers which luckily is the vast proportion of drivers out there.
Did you go to the police car
Did you go to the police car link?
It is the size of an estate car and has the word “Police” emblazoned on it. Neither of which we can do.
ktache wrote:
I’m not saying that reflective clothing will prevent all collisions. It obviously won’t.
There will be some drivers who are so negligent they will hit you regardless of what you’re wearing and where/how you’re riding.
I believe that there are some situations in which reflective clothing will reduce my chances of being hit, I believe that research backs up my view.
ktache wrote:
I did say nothing helps against drunk or drivers not looking. But it’s also possible that the police car was hit on purpose?
Are you suggesting we would be safer with no lights?
Or just the ever ready puny lights of the 80s?
Should we not use reflectives because police cars get hit?
I have to agree with the
I have to agree with the posts that say that it is not a black and white issue. Many of us (arguably the most sensible) are in the grey area of wanting to both improve to enviromental factors in the longer term but also protect ourselves in the meantime.
In my experience/opinion:
People who wear hi-vis make it harder to see those who do not
We do need to be sensible and cater to the lowest common denominator
We should also be trying to raise the bar on that lowest common denominator
As an asside:
Just because a cyclist isn’t seen does not mean that they are not looked for. I look for cyclists when in my car and on my bike and find it hard to spot those without hi-vis at night when they are close to those that are wearing it. Also, although I have been blessed with good eyesight, I have dated people who have been borderline cases for being able to drive. Whilst I am sure that they would look out for cyclists, I am not convinced they would be able to spot one easily at night without them wearing hi-vis.
I was riding down the oxford
I was riding down the oxford road, Reading, last night and as I passed an unlit cyclist I was concerned for her as motorists may be less able to see her because of me. She was perfectly visable and it was only just getting dark. But I’m lit up like the proverbial blackpool/xmas…
A couple of years back I actually fitted a front and rear reflector to the getting to work bike. I have always liked pedal reflectors, the bolt in ones not the rattly push in ones (Ebay made this much easier), and spoke reflectors, had some spiral ones and now the straws. The bloke in Evans (click and collect, I wanted the nice small round ones, still got to try and look good..) said that I didn’t need them if I had lights. Hmmmm… But I wanted to be fully compliant. No police or insurance company problems if hit. No one would ever be able to see them over the Hope R4 and District+ of course, and I think my respro ankle jobs probably outshine the pedal reflectors. It’s not like we park in the middle of the road is it.
I relented and watched this part of the dragons. I hate dragons den. I must say that they are probably the best bicycle indicators I have ever seen. Lovely blokes too. Really well thought out and made for what they are. Couldn’t use them myself, but wouldn’t mind seeing what they come up with next.
I do worry that because of the ridiculous lights that my arm signals might not be seen. Even with Ronhill slap bands and glove/jacket reflectors. CycleGaz has suggested using the helmet light to illuminate the arm to help, but then it’s more difficult to see where you’re going.
ktache wrote:
Sorry, but those indicators look far too small and may not be seen from behind past the arms and clothing, I also wonder how long before they fracture off…
Most bar end accessories contain brittle plastic, which will distort, fracture or crack from a glancing blows, leaning pressure or a bicycle fall, I’ve broken enough of several brands of bar end mirrors!
My bar ends are currently occupied by tough (survived a bicycle skid crash) USA Mirrycle MTB bar end mirrors (via Amazon), so that I have some warning of what is behind me. Maybe Mirrcycle could be convinced to add an indicator LEDs to their mirrors, or an indicator could be hacked in via the mirror holder screw.
This idea that unlit / non
This idea that unlit / non reflectively coated cyclists are eclipsed by the presence of much shinier specimens. Does this extend to other traffic that has lights, indicators and reflectors etc? Maybe they only become really visible when there is no-one around to see them?
Mungecrundle wrote:
I can believe this. If all is dark then a dark cyclist will stand out.
If there are cyclists with lights and reflectives then they will stand out far more than their ninja pals. I think most of us will be drawn to what we can see over what we can’t ?
Mungecrundle wrote:
Well, yes. An unlit, grey or darker coloured vehicle amongst others with lights on could easily dissappear into the background.
Yeah mungcrudle, a bit like
Yeah mungcrudle, a bit like all of those invisible cyclists that somehow manage to be seen.
Two things, first off I still
Two things, first off I still think that the best indicating a cyclist can do on a road is positioning. That’s not to say hand signalling doesn’t have a place, but for instance, if as a cyclist you are going to be turning right on a sharp descent, a hand signal may well be very unsafe, as it would involve taking your hands off the breaks. If drivers were conditioned to pay attention to the positioning of a cyclist, over and above hand signals, roads would be safer.
Secondly indicators on a bike always seem like the kind of invention a car driver thinks would help cyclists, with little regard to what cyclists want. I’ve never met a cyclist wanting to use indicators.
failure. crap
failure. crap
The AirZound is the best
The AirZound is the best bicycle horn, especially the newer version with the Aluminium air can, so no more bottle leaks; it’s light, simple and cheap, so little to go wrong; I’ve seen much more expensive pinger bells, which is a massive piss-take!
I decided against the Hornit because the sound is nasty wrong, and apparently water can easily get inside and make it blast continuously or fail!
And lets not forget, the dead
And let’s not forget, the dead cyclist can never give their side of the story.
Rich_cb wrote:
nowhere does it say that it was “found to be a contributing factor” – the report clearly says “attributed” in the 10% figure (p.34) – elsewhere it mentions both dark clothing and no lights together (p.23) – and in the conclusion it points to this being a factor on rural roads (p.45) and recommends promotion of both the use of lights and clothing…
so, unlike the report itself, you’ve taken one variable out of context and turned it into a definitively causal factor
— beezus fufoon Not at all.
Table 7 on page 23 clearly show dark clothes at night to be a contributing factor in 10% of fatal collisions.
It is a separate contributory factor to lights.
The word attributed is used to describe whether the contributory factor was on the part of the cyclist or motorist.— Rich_cb
1. table 7-4 is on page 34
2. it is treated as separate on that table, but this is qualified in the text
3. it also clearly explains that “attributed” refers to the attending police officers’ judgments
This is the exact point we’ve all been making to you from the beginning
beezus fufoon wrote:
1. table 7-4 is on page 34
2. it is treated as separate on that table, but this is qualified in the text
3. it also clearly explains that “attributed” refers to the attending police officers’ judgments
This is the exact point we’ve all been making to you from the beginning
[/quote]
So reject this research and all of its findings. That means you can no longer blame drivers for fatal collisions. After all in the vast majority of cases the evidence is subjective.
Who else is going to attributed contributing factors?
It’s the best data set available, it backs up the arguments that cyclists have been making for years, if you reject it you have to reject all of it, it’s all just as subjective.
Rich_cb wrote:
The word attributed is used to describe whether the contributory factor was on the part of the cyclist or motorist.— Rich_cb
1. table 7-4 is on page 34
2. it is treated as separate on that table, but this is qualified in the text
3. it also clearly explains that “attributed” refers to the attending police officers’ judgments
This is the exact point we’ve all been making to you from the beginning
— beezus fufoon So reject this research and all of its findings. That means you can no longer blame drivers for fatal collisions. After all in the vast majority of cases the evidence is subjective.
Who else is going to attributed contributing factors?
It’s the best data set available, it backs up the arguments that cyclists have been making for years, if you reject it you have to reject all of it, it’s all just as subjective.
Firstly, I am neither accepting nor rejecting this data – simply correcting your phrasing when you portray this statistical data as scientific fact.
Secondly, I think it is also a bit simplistic to blame drivers for fatal collisions – they are not the ones manufacturing overpowered fuel-hungry vehicles or facilitating their use in inappropriate road conditions, nor are they responsible for the upkeep of the roads, provision of infrastructure, or the enforcement and setencing of offenders.
Thirdly, this data clearly reflects the perceptions and biases of the police and society in general, particularly in placing the onus on the individual in circumstances where it is very obvious that the wider conditions play a far bigger part than the actions of any single participant. The report itself makes that very clear.
And the investigating officer
And the investigating officer, who has driven there, who has probably not ridden a bicycle since they were a child, if that (excellent WMP excepted) and who has only heard the justification of the motorist….
ktache wrote:
Which is why the motorist was found to have been the contributing factor in the vast majority of fatal collisions?
The tribalism on here is pathetic.
Rich_cb wrote:
And yet, given that 2 of us die each week through the fault of people in more comfortable and safe, and very polluting, metal boxes, and the transport secretary doors a cyclist and then attempts to blame the cyclist, that tribalism is probably justifiable, indeed necessary.
davel wrote:
How is tribalism working out for us so far?
Research like this can be used to argue for safer junctions, improvement in HGV cabs, better segregated routes to schools and many, many other things that most cyclists care deeply about.
If we needlessly attack this sort of research we are doing the work of the car lobby for them.
Rich_cb wrote:
How is tribalism working out for us so far?
Research like this can be used to argue for safer junctions, improvement in HGV cabs, better segregated routes to schools and many, many other things that most cyclists care deeply about.
If we needlessly attack this sort of research we are doing the work of the car lobby for them.— davel
Show me one post that ‘needlessly attacks’ the research. I see repeated questioning of its methodology and the logic of the conclusions you’re drawing, but no needless attacks.
As for tribalism, what sort of person argues for safer junctions and many, many other things? Well, as someone who does that locally, and knows others who do the same, I know it’s the type of single-minded, thick-skinned person who is mightily pissed off with society’s car worship and acceptance of cyclists’ deaths and who posts on threads like this one.
The Netherlands didn’t get where they are with infrastructure by more people strapping on a reflective jacket, another light or a plastic lid. Stop de kindermoord! was just another tribal movement to begin with. How’s that worked out?
davel wrote:
Attacking the research for being subjective is pointless and needless.
There is no way of doing this type of research objectively.
It relies on value judgements.
We have to be fair and
We have to be fair and balanced now???
I saw someone wearing a Lumos
I saw someone wearing a Lumos helmet the other week in Cambridge. Followed him through several junctions. It wasn’t until the third junction that I actually clocked the indicators. Either he wasn’t using them, or they’re not actually that visible, especially if the red lights are flashing as well.
He was also using arm signals.
I too have worked most of my
I too have worked most of my life in process improvement which is why I too want change but am not willing to accept the “facts” without questioning them or the conclusions if made by leaps of faith.
So often I have encountered local improvements made be a department that has improved their money/time/quality position. On further investigation though the full end to end process has suffered greater though. Plugging a small hole at one point can cause a bigger hole to appear elsewhere unless causality is fully understood.
This is what has been suggested here. What if the excess use of reflective does make cyclists safer at night but because they are not as visible during the day they become less safe. Further more because, as the results of this study show, more cyclists ride during the day the fatalities increase as a result?
I’m not saying that visibility isn’t an issue, I question whether the fix to that issue will cause other larger issues or not.
ClubSmed wrote:
There is absolutely no way of knowing whether there will be knock on effects or not.
So we can either taken no action and avoid any unforseen circumstances or take action based on the best evidence we have available.
I think the latter is a more sensible approach.
Rich_cb wrote:
What??! I don’t follow this. Did you mean something else? Do you need a sit down or to improve your googling? Other research on different topics exists, as does impact analysis as a discipline. I don’t want to appear condescending but as it reads, that statement is just false.
There is other research addressing the stuff that ClubSmeds has suggested as one area to look at. Even if there wasn’t, it’s possible for it to be commissioned. There’s research that suggests that making cycling less convenient or appear more dangerous (use of safety equipment) has the effect of reducing numbers of people who cycle. That sort of thing.
But, in order to limit unintended consequences to begin with, the argument needs to be tied tightly to the research and the research itself needs to be tight, which is the cause for alarm here with the ‘dark clothing is a factor in 10% of fatalities therefore reflectives’ line of reasoning. Picking apart every word in that is second nature to the nerds who do this sort of thing for a living or, even weirder, a hobby.
davel wrote:
Exactly! The studies into”shared space” set ups have shown that is you make vulnerable uses more common and less predictable then they become safer as drivers are looking out for them better and therefore more aware.
I’m not saying that we need to go around at night dressed like ninjas, I’m also not sure that the Christmas tree stance is any more helpful though
Rich_cb wrote:
Of course there is with more research and better understanding.
To take your Swiss cheese analogy from earlier, you have one slice with holes in it and you think that by moving it slightly you can stop the lining up of a small hole with the next slice. What you’re not doing is looking at the whole thing to make sure that by adjusting to remove that how your not making a larger hole line up.
I already provided a link to a research paper that showed the color of clothing at night to not be a factor, only reflectives. You then stated to interoperate”dark clothing” in a way that there was no evidence to support. That is dangerous assumption and could lead to serious Swiss cheese misalignment. We need to fully understand the current situation, the causes and their effects to the whole to ensure we are not exposed to a hole!
it’s amazing how many drivers
it’s amazing how many drivers moan about the ninja cyclists they see riding about clearly they do see them
no one is suggesting that pedestrians are similarly attired and yet we (rightly) expect drivers not to hit them
however given the choice between clothing with relectives and without (same performance same price) then I would always chose to have as there is no downside.
Science has absolutely
Science has absolutely nothing to do with common sense.
ktache wrote:
Common sense doesnt exist, it is a cliche used by non thinking lazy people. If there was such a thing we would all have it in equal amounts (it would be common to us all) but we dont, so called common sense vaies from person to person based on experience, knowledge and education. Smug people like to think that they have just the right amount of common sense, more educated people have too much and those with less are uneducated.
Indicators for bikes are
Indicators for bikes are still with us. The best/least bad I’ve tried are:
https://uk.ridelumos.com/collections/firefly (link is external) (I haven’t bothered with their helmet)
and
https://unit1gear.com/pages/smart-light#3 (link is external)
The problem with indicators is that you can’t see if they’re working or not (and nobody has thought to make them beep), so you can never quite trust them.
The Eesens Shield seemed like a good idea – it was operated by a sensor you attached to your helmt instead of a remote on the bars. But it turned out to be a neasty, cheap-looking light with a sensor that didn’t work well – so you had no idea if it had successfully cancelled or if it had ever indicated in the first place.