Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
hawkinspeter wrote:
It’s a shame that Cycliq seem happy to just push out incremental changes with their products and not be a bit more innovative. Their cameras do seem to be the best for cyclists but they’ve got faults too.
Yes, agreed. Innovation is expensive so to be applauded from a small company like Cycliq. Garmin, a huge company, has abandoned quite recent products as soon as a successor is released. So Edge 1000 is abandoned due to 1030. Not what you expect from the top end device..The more value add by software, the more we slide towards the smartphone 18 month innovation / obsolescence cycle. Sustainable it is not, though Right to Repair is slowly getting some traction..
hawkinspeter wrote:
How about front and rear cameras that sync their time (maybe just when using the controlling app). Also, an “incident” button on the front that can be pressed to record the time when an incident has just happened and prevents overwriting of the relevant video segment(s).
I previously shared these ideas with Cycliq since it seems odd not to have their products collaborate, especially when it is unsafe to reach for the rear camera lock button while riding. Sadly they didn’t seem interested.The Garmin Virb 360 already has two cameras working together but since it needs to be helmet mounted for a clear view is not safe in that position. Obviously helmets are not designed and tested for use with random levers attached. That would be like Anti-MIPS!
Ride safe..
Mungecrundle wrote:
Some ideas from a cycliq user:For a safety camera, I’m not too fussed about image stabilisation, high frame rates or other gimmicks unless they improve the primary function.
As a fellow Cycliq owner (6CE), I believe that image stabilisation is essential to the primary function.Secret_squirrel wrote:
Pretty much what others have said.
Garmin Varia radar / ConnectIQ integration – show passing speeds and distance on video.
This is a key feature missing on the Garmin or Cycliq devices, and answers the need to minimise time spent on locking or subsequent viewing of videos.The Garmin Varia Radar knows when a fast or close pass is coming and broadcasts on Ant+. The video camera should use that to store the threat level on each clip, with appropriate locking.
So you have a distinctive safety feature, highly automated for capture and subsequent use.
Having data and video is good but low cost of use would be epic.
The Finance industry provides
The Finance industry provides loans based on their perception of risk and appetite for that versus the rewards they can gain. Asset backed lending is one of the highest quality, i.e. lowest risk. Thus the mortgage loan with the loan to value ratio as their measure of risk. If you default, what part of the asset value are they confident that they will get at auction..Ford of Europe makes more money from their finance company than they do from the actual manufacturing of the vehicles. Obviously retail banks are delighted to use their credit rating of customers to lend on an asset like a motor vehicle. Much better than unsecured personal lending.
So both car companies and banks are all in on making motor vehicle ‘ownership’ as accessible as possible. While that remains the case, there will continue to be multiple vehicle per household, or even per person.
Structural change is required in the Finance industry to change that. Pay per use rather than ‘ownership’ needs to be caused by a collapse in the perceived asset value of the internal combustion engine vehicle so that starting again makes pay per use of an EV or H2 powered vehicle attractive.
Making pavement parking illegal and actually enforcing that would also help to convince the hard of thinking that 95% idle time is a poor transport choice….
hirsute wrote:
Extra long horse whip?
1.5m white plastic tube for good visibility. Less impressive but more noticeable…Since the law requires
Since the law requires accuracy, certainly on identity, the notice is invalid.PRSboy wrote:
Because a bicycle is unlikely to kick your car door in, unlike a horse. Perhaps therein lies a possible deterrent.
I’m delighted to live and ride in Horse country, observing the BHS/BC guidelines.I’ve also been conducting a trial of equipment to assist drivers to judge what 1.5 metre separation looks like to avoid errors that are unsafe and do not comply with the forthcoming Highway Code. So far so good….
I like your method as fault
I like your method as fault finding is about what you can prove and eliminate from the remaining set of unproven bits.
You don’t mention battery condition so I presume you already charged everything. Cable condition is next at the cost of disassembly and cleaning. Similarly firmware upgrades are essential once you know that cables and power is good. Pairing again can help provided you can isolate devices or know their identity.
Good luck and persistence pays…hirsute wrote:
They don’t seem to be very advanced.
Also some people distort the truth
I think that the best of this site is the experience and critical thinking of the regulars. A tiny minority of trolls like to bluster, but get the contempt they deserve.Whilst there is no barrier to self-identity as an advanced driver, membership of the IAM is a tough standard usually examined by serving traffic division class one or actual examiners.
So critical thinking and continued improvement is expected of IAM members.
They are the drivers or riders most likely to pay due care and attention to all vulnerable road users. In short, the good guys and girls.
So while skeptical, we should celebrate best practice as much as we deplore some of the stupidity that we see. That’s fair and balanced. We could even consider recommending that to our friends and family who won’t cycle to raise the general driving standard and keep them safer.
PS: you don’t have to be a full member to write in so the letters page doesn’t represent IAM members only.
Perhaps I’m just more risk-averse than some. Maybe risk compensation as a result of wearing a helmet does apply to some people; however, if someone wears a helmet all the time when they cycle then wouldn’t it stop being a factor in their decision-making and risk evaluation?As a long-time Circuit rider of motorcycles, benefiting from decades of research and development in personal protective clothing, i.e. Superbike / GP Racing, my perception of riding a bicycle on the public highway using the typical sporting garments developed for that is a significantly greater risk applies. Comparing a bicycle helmet to a motorcycle helmet does not lead to confidence, never mind over-confidence.
Risk compensation is a fine hypothesis, but where is the data to demonstrate that it is a common or prevalent behaviour?
Surely most people can appreciate that the whole cyclist must remain healthy, not just the head, and that cycling garments provide negligible protection against impact or tarmac surfaces…
Awavey wrote:
which seems totally the wrong attitude even from average motorists, but as members of an organisation that promotes road safety to improve driving, surely it goes against everything the organisation puports to be about.
Absolutely correct. As I say, anybody with an interest in improvement can become an associate member, and over time will get advice, i.e. correction, of their beliefs. I’ve never met an IAM full member who didn’t expect to exceed the legal minimum that the Highway Code provides, and although we await the improved version with further clarification, the previous versions are clear about the importance of due care and attention to vulnerable road users.If only publication of that guidance was likely to have the intended effect on all road users…
IanMSpencer wrote:
simply to drive cars on interesting bits of roads rather than making journeys.
Ha ha, but the choice of roads is to challenge aspiring associates to raise their driving standard not to look at the view. So that’s quite a serious purpose, more so than ‘a journey’.IAM does use Circuits for experience that can not reasonably or legally be gained on the public highways.
Always amusing to see recent or serving first responders “seeing what it’ll do”…
hawkinspeter wrote:
That doesn’t sound like an advanced driver to me if they don’t even know the basics.
Agree, however it doesn’t follow that because someone wrote to the IAM that they are a member who has passed the required standard or exceed it (distinction). There is a significant period when aspiring associates are being observed and advised so that improvement is part of the approach.Previously the value of knowledge about multiple modes has been an IAM working practice and is commonly affirmed by members experience.
The IAM advice feature has people bouncing ideas or questions for the valuable advice that can be had. So I’m disappointed this was just a published letter, without informed comment..
Steve K wrote:
“there must be something wrong with those lanes if cyclists aren’t using them”.
It seems that the Highway Design Guidance contains a lot of opt out clauses since it is common for the after-thought cycle lanes added by local councils to stop just where you need them most, at junctions, and not consider the need to be as continueous as the road is for other vehicles.When you add in consideration of vulnerable footpath users and the speed expected, or limited, the thoughtful cyclist may well decide that it’s safer overall not to use them, as a Judge has confirmed that we have the right to do.
