Trek collaborate with software company to research using AI for improved cycle safety

kie7077 wrote:

They're already putting collision avoidance systems into vehicles, it should become mandatory in new vehicles. And this would bring us a step closer in law to mandating that all vehicles have autonomous driving capability.

It's a long way from there to something workable.

There are two main buckets of obstacles, and they're both huge:

Technology. Testing individual collision avoidance systems is basic compared to taking the next step: if you allowed driverless vehicles that are just going for the gaps and trying to avoid collisions they wouldn't go anywhere. Vehicles need to talk to each other. On which platform? Company behaviour regarding standards often results in competing standards (think VHS/Betamax; Blu-ray/HDDVD) when even one or two big players see things and the market slightly differently. This would need agreement between the global car manufacturers for starters. Throw Google and probably Apple into that mix too, and any other Silicon Valley players that might have been keeping their cards close to their chest up to now (FB, Tesla?). All coming together to accept a unified platform, or at least a way of using it...? I can't see past the phrase 'Hell freezing over' at the moment - and if there are competing standards, I can see that getting messy.

Then there's road behaviour. Beyond the largely philosophical 'do you risk the driver/the cyclist/the kid on the pavement' judgement that 'we' seem to think we'll make better than a computer, lets assume the cars are all talking to each other. I can't see how car manufacturers will accept standard behaviours across the board. There are vastly differing driving laws and cultures throughout the world - even from one European country to another. What passing distance do Mercedes settle on giving cyclists in the UK? 1.5m? If BMW said they'd allow for 1m, does it sell more cars to impatient 'drivers'? That's just one conundrum and a minor consideration compared to a company like Tata that would be aiming to sell cars throughout Europe, but also presumably would want its cars to be fairly assertive in Mumbai traffic (assuming motorised rickshaws aren't going away). Could a more aggressive or assertive car become a manufacturer's USP? 

So this isn't just for car and AI manufacturers to sort out - this will need governments and bureaucrats to sweat it out too.

In theory, driverless cars are just round the corner. In practice... 

davel wrote:

kie7077 wrote:

They're already putting collision avoidance systems into vehicles, it should become mandatory in new vehicles. And this would bring us a step closer in law to mandating that all vehicles have autonomous driving capability.

It's a long way from there to something workable.

There are two main buckets of obstacles, and they're both huge:

Technology. Testing individual collision avoidance systems is basic compared to taking the next step: if you allowed driverless vehicles that are just going for the gaps and trying to avoid collisions they wouldn't go anywhere. Vehicles need to talk to each other. On which platform? Company behaviour regarding standards often results in competing standards (think VHS/Betamax; Blu-ray/HDDVD) when even one or two big players see things and the market slightly differently. This would need agreement between the global car manufacturers for starters. Throw Google and probably Apple into that mix too, and any other Silicon Valley players that might have been keeping their cards close to their chest up to now (FB, Tesla?). All coming together to accept a unified platform, or at least a way of using it...? I can't see past the phrase 'Hell freezing over' at the moment - and if there are competing standards, I can see that getting messy.

Then there's road behaviour. Beyond the largely philosophical 'do you risk the driver/the cyclist/the kid on the pavement' judgement that 'we' seem to think we'll make better than a computer, lets assume the cars are all talking to each other. I can't see how car manufacturers will accept standard behaviours across the board. There are vastly differing driving laws and cultures throughout the world - even from one European country to another. What passing distance do Mercedes settle on giving cyclists in the UK? 1.5m? If BMW said they'd allow for 1m, does it sell more cars to impatient 'drivers'? That's just one conundrum and a minor consideration compared to a company like Tata that would be aiming to sell cars throughout Europe, but also presumably would want its cars to be fairly assertive in Mumbai traffic (assuming motorised rickshaws aren't going away). Could a more aggressive or assertive car become a manufacturer's USP? 

So this isn't just for car and AI manufacturers to sort out - this will need governments and bureaucrats to sweat it out too.

In theory, driverless cars are just round the corner. In practice... 

Mostly agree. I'm not sure that we'll ever have fully capable self-driving cars. I don't think that vehicle to vehicle comm's is 100% necessary. Trees, bollards and pedestrians, will they need to have these comms too? Some European countries have well defined distance-passing laws, I think the rest of Europe needs to catch up.

Collision avoidance is a large chunk of what self-driving vehicles need, if they can get collision avoidance working extremely well then they're more than half way towards fully autonomous vehicles. It doesn't sound like it works great yet, the truck used in France's terrorist incident had a collision avoidance system, clearly there's a lot of room for improvement.

reliablemeatloaf wrote:

To those who think this is a good idea:

You want to abandon your personal responsibility to avoid incidents by relying on technology to do it for you.

 You want others to abandon THEIR personal responsibility to avoid incidents by relying on technology to do it for them.

You probably have the "technology" to avoid incidents right now, and so do most people, and they are some of the most highly developed "technologies" ever evolved. They are called "vision" and hearing".

Stop mollycoddling drivers. While cyclists are not without blame, we need drivers to WAKE THE FUCK UP!

 

I'm sure a beeping radar will make an excellent alarm for this very purpose

beezus fufoon wrote:

reliablemeatloaf wrote:

To those who think this is a good idea:

You want to abandon your personal responsibility to avoid incidents by relying on technology to do it for you.

 You want others to abandon THEIR personal responsibility to avoid incidents by relying on technology to do it for them.

You probably have the "technology" to avoid incidents right now, and so do most people, and they are some of the most highly developed "technologies" ever evolved. They are called "vision" and hearing".

Stop mollycoddling drivers. While cyclists are not without blame, we need drivers to WAKE THE FUCK UP!

 

I'm sure a beeping radar will make an excellent alarm for this very purpose

this is The Bicycle of Tomorrow!

wycombewheeler wrote:

Make cyclists with this technology safer at the expense of others as drivers come to rely o the gadget to prevent collisions. "Let's cyclists know when cars are there. In towns they are always there in rural areas you can here them. This is snake oil.

there won't be any drivers.

There is more and more work being done on smart infrastructure, so all the traffic will be talking to each other and to the road infrastructure. It will be helpful to have bicycles taking part in the conversation, e.g. through things like smart watches, GPS devices on the handlebars, and so on.

The organisations aren't doing it for altruistic reasons or for the good of their immortal souls, or to become your alien overlords, they want to get a slice of the market.

ConcordeCX wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

Make cyclists with this technology safer at the expense of others as drivers come to rely o the gadget to prevent collisions. "Let's cyclists know when cars are there. In towns they are always there in rural areas you can here them. This is snake oil.

there won't be any drivers.

There is more and more work being done on smart infrastructure, so all the traffic will be talking to each other and to the road infrastructure. It will be helpful to have bicycles taking part in the conversation, e.g. through things like smart watches, GPS devices on the handlebars, and so on.

The organisations aren't doing it for altruistic reasons or for the good of their immortal souls, or to become your alien overlords, they want to get a slice of the market.

 

Interesting take, but I think you're over estimating the pace of technology development. Since 1985 I've been waiting for my overboard, still not invented.

wycombewheeler wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

Make cyclists with this technology safer at the expense of others as drivers come to rely o the gadget to prevent collisions. "Let's cyclists know when cars are there. In towns they are always there in rural areas you can here them. This is snake oil.

there won't be any drivers.

There is more and more work being done on smart infrastructure, so all the traffic will be talking to each other and to the road infrastructure. It will be helpful to have bicycles taking part in the conversation, e.g. through things like smart watches, GPS devices on the handlebars, and so on.

The organisations aren't doing it for altruistic reasons or for the good of their immortal souls, or to become your alien overlords, they want to get a slice of the market.

 

Interesting take, but I think you're over estimating the pace of technology development. Since 1985 I've been waiting for my overboard, still not invented.

you're probably right. There's been absolutely no technological development since 1985. What on earth was I thinking?

ConcordeCX wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

Make cyclists with this technology safer at the expense of others as drivers come to rely o the gadget to prevent collisions. "Let's cyclists know when cars are there. In towns they are always there in rural areas you can here them. This is snake oil.

there won't be any drivers.

There is more and more work being done on smart infrastructure, so all the traffic will be talking to each other and to the road infrastructure. It will be helpful to have bicycles taking part in the conversation, e.g. through things like smart watches, GPS devices on the handlebars, and so on.

The organisations aren't doing it for altruistic reasons or for the good of their immortal souls, or to become your alien overlords, they want to get a slice of the market.

 

I agree, but I think this is probably the main obstacle.

I think the mother of all standards wars is brewing, with some major, major players doing Their Own Thing and unlikely to want to hop on to a competitor's technology. We have to get through that for driverless cars to be the present, and not just shiny prototypes trying to avoid less smart bin trucks in California or London.

ConcordeCX wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

Make cyclists with this technology safer at the expense of others as drivers come to rely o the gadget to prevent collisions. "Let's cyclists know when cars are there. In towns they are always there in rural areas you can here them. This is snake oil.

there won't be any drivers.

There is more and more work being done on smart infrastructure, so all the traffic will be talking to each other and to the road infrastructure. It will be helpful to have bicycles taking part in the conversation, e.g. through things like smart watches, GPS devices on the handlebars, and so on.

The organisations aren't doing it for altruistic reasons or for the good of their immortal souls, or to become your alien overlords, they want to get a slice of the market.

Exactly, thank you...

Grahamd wrote:

If it saves one life great, wish them all the best with this. Good PR for Trek.

idiot... now why don't you advocate for mandatory high viz and helmets and lights for pedestrians along with mandatory helmets for the occupants of motor vehicles... after all, if it saves one life it's worth it...

hmmm what's wrong with the good old Mk.1 eyeball? everybody driving has one or two... so why the fsck don't they use them hey?

Paul_C wrote:

Grahamd wrote:

If it saves one life great, wish them all the best with this. Good PR for Trek.

idiot... now why don't you advocate for mandatory high viz and helmets and lights for pedestrians along with mandatory helmets for the occupants of motor vehicles... after all, if it saves one life it's worth it... hmmm what's wrong with the good old Mk.1 eyeball? everybody driving has one or two... so why the fsck don't they use them hey?

Good lord sir, are you quite alright? What an outburst!

Paul_C wrote:

Grahamd wrote:

If it saves one life great, wish them all the best with this. Good PR for Trek.

idiot... now why don't you advocate for mandatory high viz and helmets and lights for pedestrians along with mandatory helmets for the occupants of motor vehicles... after all, if it saves one life it's worth it... hmmm what's wrong with the good old Mk.1 eyeball? everybody driving has one or two... so why the fsck don't they use them hey?

That I applaud companies looking at cyclists safety makes me an  idiot? The idiot is the one who considers  that there is adequate safety already and has no desire to improve this. 

There have been enough debates on this site about blind spots and how people look to recognise that this is an area that could benefit from technology. To save a life without pissing on your parade or telling people how to live their lives is fine by me.

Paul_C wrote:

hmmm what's wrong with the good old Mk.1 eyeball? everybody driving has one or two... so why the fsck don't they use them hey?

To be fair, I can't see anything negative about this research.

The MkI human eyeball is the primary instrument for avoiding a collision with another aircraft when gliding/flying under Visual Flight Rule conditions. Like it or not, the same eyeball is part of a larger system (the human) which suffers from a whole host a issues concerning performance.

Humans are also notoriously rubbish at situational awareness (particularly due to target fixiation). FLARM and TCAS being introduced on aircraft has undoubtably saved lives - where the human has been unable to identify a conflict.

I certainly would not be adverse to a situational awareness aid being implimented on vehicles (particularly vans and HGV's which have limited visibility).

The fact Trek are aiding this type of research can surely be no bad thing?

Edgeley wrote:

And as others have said, the statistically best way to reduce the number of cyclists killed is to reduce the number of cyclists.   So bringing it down to a simple and single number, even one as innocuous as the one you used, it wrong.

Depends on what statistics you are talking about.

Reducing the sample size (i.e. number of cyclists on the road) will reduce the absolute amount of cyclist KSI's. However, in terms of statistics, the relative amount of KSI's would remain constant as a % of the sample size.

So really, there is no improvement in safety by reducing cyclist numbers.

Grahamd wrote:

If it saves one life great, wish them all the best with this. Good PR for Trek.

God I hate this supersillious comment! Let's advocate for no-one walking the streets shall we? Ban people from shopping at Tesco? Remove all cars from the road?  If it saves one life... 

kevvjj wrote:

Grahamd wrote:

If it saves one life great, wish them all the best with this. Good PR for Trek.

God I hate this supersillious comment! Let's advocate for no-one walking the streets shall we? Ban people from shopping at Tesco? Remove all cars from the road?  If it saves one life... 

You're the arrogant one. I have not advocated any changes to the way people and vehicles move. These companies are using their own funds in an attempt to provide greater safety systems to protect cyclists, taking account of where there have been some identified risks.

When you fall off your high horse don't have the audacity to rely on any of the safety measures more forward thinking people have provided.

Grahamd wrote:

kevvjj wrote:

Grahamd wrote:

If it saves one life great, wish them all the best with this. Good PR for Trek.

God I hate this supersillious comment! Let's advocate for no-one walking the streets shall we? Ban people from shopping at Tesco? Remove all cars from the road?  If it saves one life... 

You're the arrogant one. I have not advocated any changes to the way people and vehicles move. These companies are using their own funds in an attempt to provide greater safety systems to protect cyclists, taking account of where there have been some identified risks.

When you fall off your high horse don't have the audacity to rely on any of the safety measures more forward thinking people have provided.

With respect GrahamD, and without the ad hominem stuff, I think you are wrong.  It is the responsibility of drivers to use all their senses to keep more vulnerable road users safe.  If people start relying on technology, and especially technology that the cyclist has to carry, then it is more likely that your one life saved will be outweighed by the many additional lives lost.

And as others have said, the statistically best way to reduce the number of cyclists killed is to reduce the number of cyclists.   So bringing it down to a simple and single number, even one as innocuous as the one you used, it wrong.

Edgeley wrote:

Grahamd wrote:

kevvjj wrote:

Grahamd wrote:

If it saves one life great, wish them all the best with this. Good PR for Trek.

God I hate this supersillious comment! Let's advocate for no-one walking the streets shall we? Ban people from shopping at Tesco? Remove all cars from the road?  If it saves one life... 

You're the arrogant one. I have not advocated any changes to the way people and vehicles move. These companies are using their own funds in an attempt to provide greater safety systems to protect cyclists, taking account of where there have been some identified risks.

When you fall off your high horse don't have the audacity to rely on any of the safety measures more forward thinking people have provided.

With respect GrahamD, and without the ad hominem stuff, I think you are wrong.  It is the responsibility of drivers to use all their senses to keep more vulnerable road users safe.  If people start relying on technology, and especially technology that the cyclist has to carry, then it is more likely that your one life saved will be outweighed by the many additional lives lost.

And as others have said, the statistically best way to reduce the number of cyclists killed is to reduce the number of cyclists.   So bringing it down to a simple and single number, even one as innocuous as the one you used, it wrong.

consider another example - the move from single propeller planes to jet fighters - back in the olden days you could fly your Fokker relatively easily using your human senses and using landmarks to navigate etc. but there comes a point where the ability of the plane far exceeds this capability to the point where modern jet fighters need computer assists just to stay airborne.

you might argue that it is undesirable for motor vehicles to reach such a level and so they should be limited and tailored specifically to the capabilities of a human relying soley on their sensory input - I would argue that ship has already sailed, and that we already have some degree of carnage on our roads specifically because the speed, acceleration, and manoueverability of those vehicles exceeds the capacity of the driver to maintain adequate control over them.

Edgeley wrote:

Grahamd wrote:

kevvjj wrote:

Grahamd wrote:

If it saves one life great, wish them all the best with this. Good PR for Trek.

God I hate this supersillious comment! Let's advocate for no-one walking the streets shall we? Ban people from shopping at Tesco? Remove all cars from the road?  If it saves one life... 

You're the arrogant one. I have not advocated any changes to the way people and vehicles move. These companies are using their own funds in an attempt to provide greater safety systems to protect cyclists, taking account of where there have been some identified risks.

When you fall off your high horse don't have the audacity to rely on any of the safety measures more forward thinking people have provided.

With respect GrahamD, and without the ad hominem stuff, I think you are wrong.  It is the responsibility of drivers to use all their senses to keep more vulnerable road users safe.  If people start relying on technology, and especially technology that the cyclist has to carry, then it is more likely that your one life saved will be outweighed by the many additional lives lost.

And as others have said, the statistically best way to reduce the number of cyclists killed is to reduce the number of cyclists.   So bringing it down to a simple and single number, even one as innocuous as the one you used, it wrong.

Indeed, in the current environment there is a responsibility for the pilot of a vehicle to keep other road users safe.

However, one of the horizon threats to road cycling is autonomous vehicles which are expected to communicate to each other using radar, lasers, that kind of thing. If you've got a cyclist on the road that the autonomous vehicles can't communicate with, presumably still dodging dogs and potholes and things, then there is a risk.

I think it's fair that a cycling business is investing in systems that may well keep us on the road in that kind of environment where technology will have taken over the piloting of other vehicles. Isn't that a better angle to protect cyclists and cycling than shaking our fists and saying technology is bad?

Edgeley]</p>

<p>[quote=Grahamd wrote:

And as others have said, the statistically best way to reduce the number of cyclists killed is to reduce the number of cyclists.   So bringing it down to a simple and single number, even one as innocuous as the one you used, it wrong.

I don't know where you get that idea from. Recent experience clearly shows a strong 'safety in numbers' effect, where the greater the number of cyclists the fewer the deaths.

Even if that were not the case, reducing the number of cyclists is not the only, or necessarily the best, way to reduce the number of cyclists killed. Riding a bicycle is not inherently dangerous compared to other activities. Any danger arises in the presence of motor vehicles, therefore you can also reduce the number of cyclist deaths by reducing the presence of motor vehicles.

I would possibly go a bit further and say that the danger arises in the presence of human-driven motor vehicles, and the solution is to eliminate the human drivers.

kevvjj wrote:

Grahamd wrote:

If it saves one life great, wish them all the best with this. Good PR for Trek.

God I hate this supersillious comment! Let's advocate for no-one walking the streets shall we? Ban people from shopping at Tesco? Remove all cars from the road?  If it saves one life... 

I'm sure you won't mind me pointing out that you misspelled 'supercilious'.

Anyway, I really don't see why there's so much hostility towards this and Grahamd's comment. What's wrong with hoping for fewer deaths among fellow cyclists? What's wrong with investment into technology that may help keep bicycles on the road as vehicles become increasingly autonomous?

I really don't know why people are so aggressive around here.

kevvjj wrote:

Grahamd wrote:

If it saves one life great, wish them all the best with this. Good PR for Trek.

God I hate this supersillious comment! Let's advocate for no-one walking the streets shall we? Ban people from shopping at Tesco? Remove all cars from the road?  If it saves one life... 

all pretty good ideas, not sure why other posters are so opposed and calling this aggressive