SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the everyone-must-carry-a-radio dept.
Trek joins with Ford to propose bicycle to vehicle communications, as an addition to already proposed vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure communications.
http://www.velonews.com/2018/01/news/trek-takes-a-high-tech-approach-to-save-cyclists-lives_454307
The system connects vehicles to a larger communications system, which means cars can communicate with other vehicles, pedestrian devices, bicycles, roadside signs, and construction zones.
A cyclist would ride with B2V-enabled equipment, initially manufactured by Trek or Bontrager. Or, he or she could have a mobile app with C-V2X. The driver would then be alerted by their car when a cyclist is present in a potentially dangerous area.
Trek partnered with a company named Tome, who also add in the buzzword, "AI-based" to make sure you know that they are really with it. No mention of the power requirements for this system, and how they can be met within the extremely small power capability of a bike rider, or even the small battery system used on e-bikes.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday January 10 2018, @08:02PM (9 children)
> The driver would then be alerted by their car when a cyclist is present in a potentially dangerous area.
How about "The driver keeps their eyes on the fucking road and sees the biker long before it comes into BT range and/or AI can identify it" ?
Do you know what happens when you get alerted all the time? You start ignoring things. Keep putting more detection in cars, and people will feel safer, while not actually paying attention the the constant nagging.
The unimpaired undistracted human brain is typically pretty decent at categorizing moving objects (if they can be seen, but let's not interfere with natural selection of people wearing black at night).
Maybe we don't need more complexity and costs in our cars, and we should have them act as a Faraday cage for microwave signals instead.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Sulla on Wednesday January 10 2018, @08:25PM (1 child)
Where I live we have a lot of trees, a lot of alleys, and a lot of bikers. On any given morning I can be tracking two or three cyclists to see what they are doing and have another shoot out from a alley and cut off my truck. Ideally motorists will pay attention to what is going on around them but you can't always predict when a cyclist will decide to act like a vehicle instead of a pedestrian and cut out into the road to cut you off before a traffic light or stop sign, or run a red light because they decided they are a pedestrian again, or dart out of a back alley or parking lot across a 35mph road instead of going into the bike lane or going to a light.
My only use for this would be a legal defense when a biker eventually pulls out from a back alley into me. Cyclists and motorists both have a part to play in mutual safety, but I see a lot more cyclists cutting off motorists than the other way around.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday January 10 2018, @09:42PM
> My only use for this would be a legal defense when a biker eventually pulls out from a back alley into me.
Get a dashcam.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday January 10 2018, @09:14PM (3 children)
How about "The driver keeps their eyes on the fucking road and sees the biker long before...
We've been trying that ever since cars were invented, and it doesn't work. Relying on drivers to drive properly is hopeless; they just aren't very good at it. What we need to do is eliminate human driving altogether. Remember, all it takes is one tiny error by a human driver piloting a 2-3 ton vehicle and lives are lost, both cyclists' and other drivers'.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 10 2018, @10:06PM
And all it take is one tiny error in a program, written by a team of human, piloting thousands of 2-3 ton vehicles and lives are lost, both cyclists' and other drivers', but at least not the programmers'.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 10 2018, @11:25PM (1 child)
Actually, humans watching out for each other works damn well. Have you hit a cyclist hard enough to do any serious injury? Know anyone that has? When looked at time or mileage between accidents, the current system is amazingly safe. It's just a huge system, and the news only tells us about problems, not successes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:34AM
> Have you hit a cyclist hard enough to do any serious injury? Know anyone that has?
Because anecdata is the best data.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 10 2018, @11:27PM (2 children)
The point is: Halp, muh computer vision algo is unable to identify all the things. Instead of improving it, let's give them RFID tags so it's easier to discern a bike from a dove. Or a trash can.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:38AM
What are you talking about? I see only toasters. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @11:36PM
In case anyone is still reading this...I'm going to put RFID tags on doves. And pigeons, just for good measure.
Actually, this idea is sort of analogous to transponders on aircraft. Rather than counting on the radar signature from normal radar reflections, transponders broadcast the identity the plane, I believe shortly after they are lit up by the radar beam. Makes it a lot easier for the air traffic controllers to see all the planes, both large and small.