- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Traffic Jam in Croydon Pic: Chris McKennaCroydon trials electronic cycle alert system for bin lorries - that only works if the cyclist is tagged
A number of bin lorries in Croydon have been fitted with electronic alerts that tell the driver a cyclist is present - but only if they have fitted a corresponding device to their bike or helmet.
The controversial scheme, Cycle Alert, is being trialled on four refuse lorries, but Croydon Cycle Campaign say HGV drivers will be lulled into a false sense of security, while it will be impossible to tag enough of the area’s cyclists.
Manufacturers of the £400 device are hoping to roll it out nationally after piloting, and cyclists in the area are being encouraged to pick up a free electronic tag from cycle shops in the borough, which will sound an alert in the lorry’s cab if they come within 2.5m.
An LED display shows the driver the position of the cyclist.
Danni Lapham of Cycle Alert told the Croydon Advertiser: "We believe the benefits for operators and for cyclists' safety will outweigh the costs."
The company has not yet decided whether or how much cyclists will have to pay for their equipment in the future.
Councillor Kathy Bee said: "The success of the scheme is dependent on the extent the technology is taken up and the way in which the scheme is promoted.
"It has also got to be really easy for people to get hold of the equipment."
But Kristian Gregory of the Cycling Campaign said: "We are seriously concerned about the effect Cycle Alert will have on road safety.
"We are concerned that tagging a high enough percentage of cyclists will not be viable, and that HGV drivers will be given a false sense of security by the device, when an untagged cyclist may be nearby."
Mr Gregory added: "We believe safety devices should only need fitting to the lorry itself.
"This will be safer for cyclists and also pedestrians who are also at high risk from lorries with blind spots.
"Safer lorry cab designs are also needed to eliminate blind spots.
The plans come soon after analysis that found that Croydon has topped the list of the most dangerous boroughs in London since 2010 when it comes to read deaths, along with Enfield recording 33 deaths in the time period.
In Croydon those killed ranged in age from 14 to 88, and 304 people were injured in the town centre, according to Department for Transport figures.
Last year we reported how the London Borough of Croydon sought £2.8 million for funding for cycling from Transport for London (TfL) between 2006/07 and 2008/09.
The borough received £1.8 million of that, but had spent only £1.4 million.
Earlier this month we reported how a former government transport minister, Lord Attlee, called on the government to research and set out minimum standards for HGV blind spot safety devices.
Emphasising that zero cyclist casualties should be the target, he also proposed a ‘tag-and-beacon system’ like Cycle Alert, which would warn drivers of nearby cyclists.
Attlee said that while TfL had made imaginative use of a traffic regulation order concerning mirrors and sideguards, this wasn’t enough. “Mirrors work only if drivers invariably use them and if cyclists do not enter the truck’s blind spot or danger areas in an inadvisable way.”
He therefore proposed a system where lorries are fitted with infrared emitters, while bikes are fitted with detectors that alert the lorry driver when a cyclist is nearby. “This is known as a tag-and-beacon system, and a very similar system has already been marketed which uses RFID (radio frequency identification).”
Attlee did however concede that there were difficulties in implementing such a system.
“These systems do have the difficulty that the cycles would have to be fitted with a tag, which could be a problem, but that has to be balanced against the technical advantages. It would be necessary to fit only certain types of high-risk HGVs, in particular construction vehicles. My understanding is that the concept would work, but the difficulty is in its implementation.”
Attlee also called for independent assessment of the wide range of HGV blind spot safety technology now available.
“Products said to be designed to save lives should be independently evaluated and compared. The operators of HGVs would then have all the facts they need to make informed choices and know that the safety equipment they are investing in offers value for money and is effective. I am sad to say that this is not the case.
“Unlike every other safety device in the workplace, those being sold to HGV operators do not have to meet stringent performance criteria or undergo rigorous testing. A robust and consistent process needs to be established independently to evaluate HGV safety products against the functional and performance criteria set.”
Latest Comments
- wtjs 3 sec ago
I got a reply to my complaint from Amazon and the listing has been removed...
- wtjs 2 min 28 sec ago
You haven't heard of tubeless patches then?...
- Pot00000000 2 min 12 sec ago
Sorry, I was responding like a normal person rather than a pedantic prick. ...
- wtjs 6 min 51 sec ago
Unfair! The link is Brighton, and I think the combination of sweet-and-sour stories is perfectly reasonable.
- OnYerBike 13 min 1 sec ago
Being easy to fit isn't the sole criterion for a good tyre. Easy to fit tyres also tend to be easy to remove tyres, which is fine if you're trying...
- mdavidford 22 min 15 sec ago
[OK - technically that's four, but one of them's hardly there...]
- Surreyrider 48 min 30 sec ago
Equally, you could say don't fixate on the frame material - both ti and carbon can be made comfortable or stiff.
- Rome73 2 hours 11 min ago
'I’m not anti-cyclist, I cycle myself, . . . . . . . . . ” blimey, if I had a quid for every time I'd heard that one - I'd be loaded.
- newbankgyratory 5 hours 38 min ago
A possible answer to the conundrum:...
- chrisonabike 11 hours 1 min ago
That's a bit forward! But yes; pop up any time you like. Except when the buses have been at the bridges.
Add new comment
35 comments
I cycle into Croydon every day. The A236 hosts cycle lanes that are riddled with serious defects (I reported all of them and my email receipt was acknowledged and the content subsequently ignored completely). Croydon’s roads are an eclectic mix of potholes, patchwork repairs and an amazing amount of broken glass. I am surprised that anyone in Croydon has even recognised that they have cyclists in their midst; the infrastructure contradicts such thoughts. And, please spare a thought for the poor soul who lost his life to a bus, not a bin lorry, last year. Finally, do not get me started on the tram tracks/traps. I know where they are, but when a motorist swerved left without notice, I was forced left, the difference was that he made it over the tram tracks. Welcome to Croydon!
Seeing as every cyclist in the country will have to queue up to get a Protection Tag, why don't they park an HGV next to the queue so we can all hop in the cab and get Protection Instruction while we wait?
Then we can kill two stupid, unscalable, unsustainable birds with one stupid, unscalable, unsustainable stone.
I mean, hell, let's walk through a Life Paint spraying machine while we're there.
Try telling all the drivers that they need to buy a thing for their car to stop bin wagons hitting them when passing and see how far you get.
It's ill thought out bollocks. Absolutely not sustainable safety.
Not everyone will be tagged.
If you have it on bike A then use bike b cos A has a puncture then you're knackered.
If you have it on keys/helmet and forget them, you're knackered
passers though will be knackered.
If the driver is distracted/pissed/tired & ignores the detector you''re knackered
"I know this is hyperbole, but it’s really hard not to make comparisons to the Mafia’s business model."
Can't believe the amount of negative comments in here. I spoke to these guys at last years grand depart in Leeds. They had an Eddie stobart tractor set up with the detectors and it seems like a good system (I'm not sure if they ever did it, but they told me Eddie Stobart were planning on installing them in their fleet).
The bit that goes on your bike is about the size of a key fob and I think they said the rrp was less than £20 but hoped to do deals with councils and universities to sell them on at a discounted price of around £5. They have already been trialing this in York according to the designer and have it fitted to some of the busses in the city.
I have one attached to my bike (they were giving them away for free at the Grand Depart), I can't tell you how well it works, as I work in Leeds and not York, and I rarely see any Eddie Stobarts trucks whilst I'm on the bike. But at least someone (a bunch of cyclists btw) is trying to seek a solution to a problem.
@dazwan
Collision avoidance systems already exist without the need for all cyclists, pedestrians and pets needing to wear a £20 tag all the time.
I never said it was the best or ideal system, I was just stating that there are a lot of skeptics on here who appear to have dismissed it out of hand purely on the basis that you have to part with some cash for the tag.
In an ideal world we shouldn't have to even talk about this technology as road users would give cyclists respect and cyclists would know better than to go up the inside of buses and HGVs. Unfortunately that isn't the world we live in.
Are you really surprised that people are not impressed?
That cyclists - and by extension anyone who walks, scoots or rides in close proximity to an HGV - has to buy a dongle to wear so they aren't crushed to death.
FFS. Whatever next...?!
It's not even that - it's "some HGVs", and the person on the outside has no idea which ones. The person in charge of the vehicle has no idea who is and isn't tagged either.
It's the sort of scheme that can only work if absolutely everyone is tagged, and absolutely every vehicle carries the technology. Even then, there's still no way to ensure that the driver or rider will not make a mistake - pretty much like now.
Autonomous cars won't need this system because they have enough other types of sensors to be able to see everything around the vehicle.
In the future either HGVs should have collision avoidance systems without the need for those pedestrians and cyclists to be messing around charging and wearing tags. If they don't have them then they should be barred from anything other than Motorways. Extend later to all motor vehicles.
Roll on these automated days! No roadsigns needed, no traffic lights, no lane marking, no intersections, no rights of way. Vehicles communicate with each other and just get on with going from A->B. Intersections will be fun to watch 100mph vehicles approach and "intersect" at right angles without hitting each other. Also, want to cross the busy road, just step out, vehicles will deviate to avoid you like parting of the river waters...hmm...maybe not available for a year or two now I think about it.
HGVs need collision avoidance today. And automation (some applications already do) - can then run 24hrs unattended. Good for the firm working the HGV "asset", less good for the drivers union as there won't be one. I digress.
Re the tag system, perhaps a better method would have been to use the almost total coverage of smartphones in "vulnerable users pockets". App on phone squawks out signal which the £400 "device" monitors for and alerts the driver?
Lol, you've been watching too many cartoons.
Systems that monitor for mobile tech (not just smart phones) is a good idea though, who doesn't carry a mobile when they cycle these days.
Until the first coroner report listing cause of death as "flat battery".
Maybe this would make phone manufacturers take notice of the market segment consisting of people who want more than 17 hours battery autonomy in their phones?
In the meantime, active electronic avoidance systems just train motorists to stop looking. Unless "buzzed" by their detector, they plough on regardless. And then they plough straight through anyone who isn't carrying beacon (or phone, or whatever). Then the cops say it was the victim's fault - after all, who would be so stupid as to expect not to die unless carrying all the aids that drivers tell them to?
Cartoons?? - no, just watching the progress the likes of Google, Ford, Volvo etc have been making, then joining up some dots and making some logical conclusions. The actual tech available is far advanced of what the legislators would be able to cope with already.
Yes, the phone based transponders would be an easy way forward. Couple it with a heart rate monitor and the vehicle could even tell how worried you are.
Come to think of it could double as a wheelsucker alert system!
Alternatively...A populus of gelatinous blobs with withered legs being constantly ferried around by robocars, filling the streets bumper-to-bumper, many of them empty while on their way to pick up a comatose drunk or young child.
And after a few too many pedestrians have selfishly stepped out into the street, irresponsibly holding up the critical flow of vehicles, laws are passed to ban peds from doing such a thing, though as the pavements have all been removed to make way for more robo-car capacity (after all, now now everyone 'drives') there aren't many of them left anyway.
Granted, it's _just_ possible I might be a glass-half-empty kind of guy!
Time will tell, I guess, but I really don't think the coming of automated cars means the end of political fights about this stuff.
Hmm. Don't mind carrying a tag. More than one tag would be tiresome. I periodically ride a bike into/towards Croydon - no sign of tags in the LBS I went into last weekend - that shop lies midway between chez moi and Croydon. No point in having tags if they're not really easy to acquire. It would for example be worth giving the bin men a bag of them to distribute to those who ask
All cyclists in Croydon who drive should also fit them to their cars, to make the truck drivers paranoid that the sensor sees a cyclist but they can't. Might make them look twice (or more).
And then after a few false alarms they'll just ignore the warning altogether
Nah, all cyclists in Croydon should see how many they can fit to the trucks. The drivers will have to stop and play "hunt the tag" so often that they'll be much less of a danger to all other road users, tagged or not.
Given that Croydon's bin lorries have stickers stating 'I can't see cyclists' their predisposition to victim blaming is all too evident.
The answer is simple - get a bunch of those tags and attach them all around the truck cabin so the alarms are always going off. Apparently that'll remind the driver to actually look in his mirrors, like he is supposed to be doing already
As others have said, it's nice that they're trying something, but I think someone along the way should've put their common sense hat on and realised this isn't the most practical solution.
Education is the key, and not just for drivers. So many accidents could be avoided if cyclists just didn't put themselves in silly situations. Just because you can cycle up the inside of a lorry doesn't mean you should.
If the principle works then the next move may be to agree a set of standards and protocols that cycle manufacturers adopt at the build/finish stage. No reason a tag doesn't become as basic as airbags in cars
So if a cyclist gets squashed and they don't have a tag (regardless of what the truck was doing or what the cyclist was doing, or whether the truck driver was actually looking etc etc etc) will the powers that be decide that it was their fault, as they ought to have had a tag and so clearly weren't taking their own safety seriously enough... I can see the intention, but its a slippery slope.
Tags will be built into helmets making helmet use mandatory and putting would be cyclists off by perpetuating the belief that it is dangerous.
Ideally this should be done with radar, lidar and sonar, not reliant on an opt in, and should cut the engine and apply the brakes rather than making a noise at the driver.
I know we're keen on hyperbole about mandatory helmet laws, but is there any reason these tags couldn't be installed under saddles or somewhere else on the bike itself?
Yes, I have six bikes each with it's own saddle and a few olds in spares box. Where as I only have two helmets. Don't fancy changing saddles and not sure about comfort of road on mtb and vice versa. Helmet wise, one for summer events and an older one for winter regardless of which bike I'm on.
Nice idea to get around wearing a helmet tho.
I can see the news of the future: cyclist dead, deserved it because "untagged".
So what happens when a tagged rider comes across a non alerted driver? I.e 99.9% of vehicles. Or are cyclist to have not buy one tag for bin lorries, one for buses and one for HGVs. So for a normal ride am I to have a set for Leeds, one set for Bradford, one set for Skipton?
That's nine stickers at £400 each?
Starts with f and ends in f.
Here's a cost effect and free idea! Train you drivers to take foot of gas, slow down and give space and time. If you are not sure, wait and make sure it is safe. And the same for cyclists.
Croydon's such a dump
Pages