The development of a bicycle-to-vehicle (B2V) communication standard, aimed at making roads safer for vulnerable road users including cyclists, pedestrians and scooter riders by alerting drivers and their vehicles to their presence, has reached what has been described as a “critical milestone,” with a number of firms including leading companies in the automotive and cycling industries set to launch a consortium to develop the technology.
Bike manufacturers Trek and Specialized as well as components makers Shimano and SRAM are among nine businesses partnering to develop the standard, alongside Ford, Bosch, Hammerhead, B2V technology developer Tome Software and SAE Industry Technologies, with updates on the initiative announced at last week’s CES consumer electronics show.
The ramping up of efforts to introduce B2V technology comes as usage of bikes rises around the world due to the coronavirus pandemic, with Ford and Tome having led a working group during the past year to look at potential applications, with several prototypes announced at CES.
Those include Trek incorporating B2V technology into its Flare R rear light, which can be used both at night and during the day, and Specialized integrating it within its ANGi smart helmet technology, which can also be paired with the Specialized Ride App.
Eric Bjorling, brand director at Trek Bicycle, said: “The pandemic has put more people on two wheels than we have ever seen before around the globe.
“As more citizens discover the mental and physical benefits of riding and look to bicycles as an alternate means of transportation, bike and auto manufacturers alike can collaborate to uncover innovative ways to make our roads safer.”
Specialized executive vice president Bob Margevicius said: “We believe that bikes have the power to pedal the planet forward – improving mental and physical health and serving as a powerful tool in combating the climate crisis.
“It’s simple, the world needs more people on bikes. To make that happen, we need to make sure that riding a bike is safer than it is today for all riders.
“We’re excited to co-operate with other cycling and automotive partners to develop technology for added rider safety.”
Over the years, we’ve reported on a number of systems under development that seek to make motorists, including lorry drivers, aware of the presence of cyclists, such as Bike Alert, developed in 2012 at a hack day organised by the Guardian and Honda.
One stumbling block that such systems have faced is that in the absence of an industry standard, they cannot achieve the scale that might truly make a difference to road safety, and discussions about creating a common B2V protocol began at CES in 2018.
Jake Sigal, founder and CEO of Tome Software, said: “We have completed a critical milestone in cross-industry collaboration while we continue the research and development process through 2021 testing and on-road data collection pilots.
“We now have solidified a clear path to standards, continuing our mission for safer roads for all road users.”
Chuck Gray, vice president of vehicle components and systems engineering at Ford Motor Company, called on more leading businesses within the automotive and cycling industries to join in the initiative.
“Cyclists and e-scooter riders are a growing part of mobility solutions sharing roads, which is why Ford is investing heavily in ways to improve awareness between road users and allow more confident mobility – whether you’re on two or four wheels,” he said.
“As we advance the technology, we also need other industry leaders to join in developing standardised wireless communications technologies that can help accelerate these types of innovations for more people, sooner.”
Some argue that with technology not being failsafe, such initiatives could increase the danger for cyclists since the driver may come to rely on it more than their own senses, but with such a concerted cross-industry effort now underway, it does seem a case of if, not when, it will become commonplace.
Within the US, the national cycling advocacy group People On Bikes said that it expects that Congress to “renew their efforts in this area in 2021,” and urged that, together with President-elect Joe Biden’s administration, lawmakers “should take every approach to reduce bicycle and pedestrian deaths and fatalities on US roadways, which includes investing in B2V technology that can help keep people riding on bikes alongside cars safer.”
41 thoughts on “‘Critical milestone’ reached in developing bicycle-to-vehicle communication standard to increase rider safety”
This solution relies on two
This solution relies on two propositions
1) the bicycle industry is capable of implementing a single standard
2) Drivers who hit cyclists are never aware of them
In the future we can add the excuse – the cyclists was not using the right driver awareness tech, to the sun was in my eyes.
I don’t understand why this
I don’t understand why this needs a standard. Modern cars already know what cyclists look like and this could easily be extended to look for a flashing light to pick them up even earlier.
Volvos are capable of making aggressive brake and steering inputs to avoid a collision. It’s trivial to extend this to either forcing the vehicle wider on a narrow overtake, or if there’s someone approaching then applying the brakes and preventing the manoeuvre.
Fursty Ferret wrote:
“Those include Trek incorporating B2V technology into its Flare R rear light,”
the cars are looking from some sort of B2V signal, if it’s not there it becomes less visible. The onus is being placed onto the cyclist, instead lf the driver.
And this is the rek/specialized/ford/bosch system, how many competing systems will also be released? Will we see fords able to spot Trek, VWs able to see Canyon, Fiats able to see Bianchis etc etc
The history of the bike industry is not full of cross compatability.
Fursty Ferret wrote:
Surely this is an opportunity to get one standard in place, and auto manufacturers do love standards so that driver assistance is a benefit they can sell. Once it has wide use it can be improved and could provide belt and braces for the inevitable driverless vehicles.
Much as I get the responsibility remains with the more dangerous vehicle, this can help with poor observation to make us safer. I don’t want to be right, I want to be well.
Stay Safe.
Much as I get the
Much as I get the responsibility remains with the more dangerous vehicle
You don’t get it, because the responsibility is on the driver, not an inanimate object.
Stay Safe
You are Steve Wright in the Afternoon, and I claim my £5.
lonpfrb wrote:
Surely this is an opportunity to get one standard in place,— Fursty Ferret
Yeah, why re-invent the wheel
Is that a rim or disc wheel? centre lock or 6 bolt? 650B or 700C, TSS/clincher/tubular?
Fursty Ferret wrote:
Do they?
Article dated 2017
It’s the last point that
It’s the last point that worries me. Drivers will just assume that if the tech hasn’t warned them there’s no hazard. I’m distinctly unconvinced about all the driver aids – I have auto braking, lane departure warning, auto wipers, auto headlights, auto steering if there’s anything in the way… I might as well glue a brick to the loud pedal and doze off.
Driving needs to be a bit more attentive than that.
Real world example: many
Real world example: many vintage cars don’t have reversing lights, and aren’t required to fit them if they weren’t already fitted. A great many drivers just look for a reverse light, not for whether the vehicle is – you know? – moving backwards…
As my old defensive driving
As my old defensive driving instructor* was fond of saying, an illuminated light just shows there’s a connection between the light and the switch – not between the light and the brain.
*We had to take a course each year as part of the company car policy
I like auto wipers – my
I like auto wipers – my current car doesn’t have them and I’m forever fiddling with the little knob to get them going at just the right speed. I learnt to drive in my mum’s car which did have auto wipers and they generally managed to be spot on.
Or, and here’s a super
Or, and here’s a super radical concept, drivers could just pay attention in the first place?
And be suitably punished when
And be suitably punished when they don’t.
As long as any industry
As long as any industry standard defaults to slowwing the car down then it’s a start. They must also make sure that cannot be over-ridden by accelerating harder. If a driver chooses to ignore a cyclist in the first place, they will just as soon ignore the
“bicycle-to-vehicle
“bicycle-to-vehicle communication”.
Isn’t that usually done with one finger or possibly two?
Isn’t that usually done with
Isn’t that usually done with one finger or possibly two
Two in this country. We do not perform stupid American gestures here!
wtjs wrote:
Isn’t the international sign of the wanker universally recognised? Problem solved.
What a load of tripe! Almost
What a load of tripe! Almost all the offences against me were committed by people who were fully aware I was there- they just didn’t care.
Right. So you’re only safe if
Right. So you’re only safe if you’ve paid some anonymous corporation some money. Hmmmmm. Not what I thought road safety was about really.
No, no, no, no, no and once
No, no, no, no, no and once again no. Putting the onus on the vulnerable is complete nonsense. It is not practical to or economic to fit these devices to every bike/rider/pedestrian and shifts the responsibility from the more dangerous vehicle.
Not sure how they will do
Not sure how they will do this as Bluetooth and Wi-Fi don’t have the range so it’ll need something much more powerful that phones or head units don’t currently have. If they do create something, it’ll gobble the battery at an alarming rate
It’ll work at around 50cm
It’ll work at around 50cm which is the space that the drivers that need this device will generally give a cyclist!
Any system that requires a
Any system that requires a human on both ends to purchase and install equipment, remember to turn it on and then actually take some notice of what it is telling them is utterly doomed to failure.
The start point with any tech intended to protect the vulnerable road user is to ensure that self driving cars or those with driver assist warning devices recognise cyclists, pedestrians, horseists etc in all circumstances and prevent the vehicle from colliding with them.
To that end I would not be adverse to fitting a small, passive lidar / radar reflector device to increase my visibility to such detectors.
Trouble is the tech companies
Trouble is the tech companies developing cyclist detection systems only see people on one side of the problem they’re trying to solve. Take this quote from Navtech:
“Cyclists have the potential to cause incidents when present on busy roads and bridges, or in tunnels. Vehicles may fail to recognise cyclist presence, or they may dangerously manoeuvre around them, leading to accidents and then secondary collisions.”
See, it’s a behavioural problem with cyclists just by being there but an engineering problem with motor vehicles. No mention of the driver’s responsibilities. So they’re trying to solve it as an engineering problem by motion tracking in ways a machine can understand, not address the human behaviours that are the real cause of the problem. And there’s no acknowledgement of poor road engineering that may cause a cyclist to do what a car driver perceives as erratic behaviour, and therefore what the tech will see as erratic behaviour.
Car manufacturers are promoting these kinds of technology as them being socially responsible, while simultaneously resisting efforts to implement higher crash standards to reduce pedestrian and cyclist fatalities which have increased in line with rising SUV sales. Colour me sceptical.
If they want an engineering
If they want an engineering solution then a black box, or instant points on license when speeding would certainly have a greater impact!
B2V = the new hi-viz. No
B2V = the new hi-viz. No thanks. Expect “cyclists snub safety measures” from the ABD, Fair Fule, etc.
David9694 wrote:
Yep, followed by “A driver was found not guilty of careless driving when he killed a cyclist by driving straight into her in broad daylight when it was her right of way. A court in London heard that the cyclist had failed to equip her bike with optional safety equipment that could have prevented the collision. The presiding judge, Sir Tarquin Fortescue-Bassington, said in dismissing the case, ‘It’s most unfortunate that this young lady should have failed to avail herself of basic safety measures that cost just a few hundred pounds and £50 a month subscription. I do hope the driver can recover from this trauma and rebuild his life, and he has the sympathy of the court.'”
This is exactly my concern
This is exactly my concern with it, it’ll be another reason why it’ll be the cyclist’s fault when they’re hit by a car. And we’ve all seen how many drivers will blindly follow their sat nav into a river or into situations that they’d never end up in by just looking what they’re doing properly, I worry that they’ll get so used to a little light or beep etc to tell them what’s around them that they won’t asses the situation on the road anymore. A bit like the blind spot sensors some cars have in the side mirrors, after a while drivers stop actually paying attention to what it’s telling them anyway.
Rendel Harris wrote:
A fine gent, played wiff waff with him just last week
Quote:
Is anyone going to tell them that bicycles are vehicles?
The car industry doesn’t want
The car industry doesn’t want to admit that, because once they do then they’re admitting a person riding a bicycle is equally entitled to road space as a person driving a car. Perpetuating the myths to justify their product is what it’s about. Ever seen a car advertisement that doesn’t show the picture perfect family cruising serenely along some empty road, instead of the reality of being stuck in a traffic jam with kids arguing, on the rare occasion it’s not just a driver alone in the car? The truth won’t sell cars.
Just had an NIP sent to an
Just had an NIP sent to an Addison Lee driver who drove straight over a stop line at a junction into the path of self and Mrs H approaching him at 20mph+ whilst looking straight at us, forcing us to slam on the anchors. If he’s not going to stop when he sees two adult cyclists approaching side by side in broad daylight, why would he stop when a device beeps?
These gizmos will doubtless have their place with autonomous vehicles, people driving cars are supposed to use their eyes.
When did it become compulsory
When did it become compulsory to include the phrasal verb ‘ramp up’ in every news article?
HarrogateSpa wrote:
I think that was last Tuesday. A memo did go round.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Tuesday was the deadline, but there’s been a ramp-up since last July
It came in at the same time
It came in at the same time as using the word “unprecedented”, no wonder you didn’t see it coming. Oh, and how any time something is being opposed it’s now “slammed”, not criticised… which reminds me I need to tell the wife to stop criticising the door ?
Trying to work out if my
Trying to work out if my initial response of ‘a stupid idea’ is right or whether I am being ‘anti tech’.
However, still going with option 1 !
“We’re excited to co-operate
“We’re excited to co-operate with other cycling and automotive partners to develop technology for added rider
safetyblame.”TFTFY. You’re f*cking welcome.
How long before they require pedestrians to carry P2V devices to fend off the unwanted attentions of murderous vehicles?
Dangerous waste of effort …
Dangerous waste of effort … when certain f*ckers can’t even use a windscreen, their own eyes, and their brain.
Doubly dangerous, because it will deflect responsibility for atrocious driving from the driver … on to the guy on the bike without an electronic doobry.
Yet more gizmos to place onto
Yet more gizmos to place onto the trusty steed. What running daylights that light you up like Blackpool illuminations, along with a garmin (in my case to run live track so my family can find me if I have an issue with my health, I survived a heart attack) running a safety camera and also wearing high viz clothes is not enough for brain dead numptys driving vehicles who think cyclists should not even be on a road. I personaly think that as cyclists we should all be pressing for change in legislation, such as presumed liability. So for example is a vehicle takes out a cyclist then the vehicle driver is presumed liable, unless the driver of the said vehicle can prove that the cyclist was actually at fault. I think this legislation would be more helpful to cyclists instead of more tech that makes us more visible.
I personaly think that as
I personaly think that as cyclists we should all be pressing for change in legislation, such as presumed liability.
Agreed