I wish the language used in the video would be better. "Cyclist", "driver", and "pedestrian" promotes conflict, better to use "people cycling", "people driving", and "people walking". And "accident" is not the right term - it is a collision. Here's an article about it: How smart language helped end Seattle’s paralyzing bikelash peopleforbikes.org/blog/how-smart-language-helped-end-seattles-paralyzing-bikelash/
The problem is the cyclists themselves. It's great we have the technology to mitigate these kind of collisions, but a lot of cyclists ride dangerously; like going through red lights. Cyclists need to be registered and have insurance and also have at least one bicycle MOT a year.
Samuel Brooks No offence, but that’s an absolute bullshit comment. Yes there are reckless cyclists but there are equally as many, if not more, reckless drivers. It isn’t just cycles that go through red lights, and a car is far more likely to injure/maim/kill someone than a bike. Not only would registering bikes be a massive waste of taxpayer money, it also wouldn’t work as a deterrent tothese kind of accidents. Cars are registered and collisions still happen. Also many cyclists drive and have personal insurance. I’d agree with an mot but again a massive waste of money for something that is mechanically very simple & easy to service
CurseTheseMetalHands it's not bullshit in the slightest. A driver is automatically at fault if they kill a cyclist, irrespective of the fact the cyclist may have caused their own demise. We could use your bullshit comment and claim that insuring motorbikes is a waste of money seeing as they're just cycles with engines and most of the accidents are caused by drivers. The government needs to do more to educate cyclists. Compulsary helmets, lights and reflective clothing would make a big difference. And it doesn't matter how simplistic a bike is, people still ride around on them in poor repair with non functioning brakes and dodgy forks.
Samuel Brooks Well... yes a motorbike is, quite literally, a ‘bike with an engine’? But one capable of travelling at far greater speeds than a bicycle ever could, therefore less likely to be overtaken in traffic and by extension far less likely to be hit by a careless overtaking driver. Im all for making the road safer for everybody, but compulsory plastic hats and ‘high-viz’ do nothing to protect a person on a bike from injury in the event of a collision. 15 cyclists have been killed so far this year by drivers in Ireland, all of whom are still alive. A driver remains unharmed in all scenarios. And lights are required by law where I’m from. I really think the solution to the problem is better (and more) segregated infrastructure that protects the most vulnerable road users, pedestrians and cyclists. Again, I’ll refer back to the speed bicycles generally travel, far less dangerous to have parts in poor repair than a car or moto, but as I said, I’d agree with an annual service, not mandated by government though.
Childs too?. Even if you only ride your bicycle a few day a year?. If you have as is my case, 2 children and 4 bikes in my family and you must to pay for all, probably many people sell their bikes and drive their cars again. Riding a bike is more hard that driving. You need to make an effort, stop, start, accelerate, keep a reasonable speed, the weather is terrible sometimes.... I'm not justifiying to pass every redlight, but sometimes, if you are in the first row, in a narrow street or with a slope, your start is very slow, and the cars behind you usually are very impatient for overtake you, and in this situations, you are in risk. If you reach the detention line and there is no traffic, it's safer to continue even with a red light on. The best solution is the bike lane. But sometimes sharing the streets and roads are unavoidable and we need empathy and common sense.
Volumex under no circumstances is it acceptable for cyclists to run a red light. Its like me saying it's acceptable for cars to run red-lights if there is nothing near by.
Very good initiative. I wish all this systems could be fitted as standard in any car in the next years.
The title made me think that bikes would be offered with AEB now lol. XD
ThinkCleverAndSmart lol same,i think it means AEB for bikes
lol same, I was like Why would bikes need AEB xD
You obviously have not seen me ride ;)
прекрасно! ночной тест пешеходов сделали из-за аварии убера? будут ли машины прошлых лет тестироваться вновь?
Good innovation but what about the back car who can hit the front car after emergency break????
I wish the language used in the video would be better. "Cyclist", "driver", and "pedestrian" promotes conflict, better to use "people cycling", "people driving", and "people walking". And "accident" is not the right term - it is a collision. Here's an article about it:
How smart language helped end Seattle’s paralyzing bikelash
peopleforbikes.org/blog/how-smart-language-helped-end-seattles-paralyzing-bikelash/
Super cool! You'd think automakers would make this standard to avoid lawsuits.
Cyclists often sue drivers who are careless and hit them.
The problem is the cyclists themselves. It's great we have the technology to mitigate these kind of collisions, but a lot of cyclists ride dangerously; like going through red lights.
Cyclists need to be registered and have insurance and also have at least one bicycle MOT a year.
Samuel Brooks No offence, but that’s an absolute bullshit comment. Yes there are reckless cyclists but there are equally as many, if not more, reckless drivers. It isn’t just cycles that go through red lights, and a car is far more likely to injure/maim/kill someone than a bike. Not only would registering bikes be a massive waste of taxpayer money, it also wouldn’t work as a deterrent tothese kind of accidents. Cars are registered and collisions still happen. Also many cyclists drive and have personal insurance. I’d agree with an mot but again a massive waste of money for something that is mechanically very simple & easy to service
CurseTheseMetalHands it's not bullshit in the slightest. A driver is automatically at fault if they kill a cyclist, irrespective of the fact the cyclist may have caused their own demise. We could use your bullshit comment and claim that insuring motorbikes is a waste of money seeing as they're just cycles with engines and most of the accidents are caused by drivers.
The government needs to do more to educate cyclists. Compulsary helmets, lights and reflective clothing would make a big difference. And it doesn't matter how simplistic a bike is, people still ride around on them in poor repair with non functioning brakes and dodgy forks.
Samuel Brooks Well... yes a motorbike is, quite literally, a ‘bike with an engine’? But one capable of travelling at far greater speeds than a bicycle ever could, therefore less likely to be overtaken in traffic and by extension far less likely to be hit by a careless overtaking driver. Im all for making the road safer for everybody, but compulsory plastic hats and ‘high-viz’ do nothing to protect a person on a bike from injury in the event of a collision. 15 cyclists have been killed so far this year by drivers in Ireland, all of whom are still alive. A driver remains unharmed in all scenarios. And lights are required by law where I’m from. I really think the solution to the problem is better (and more) segregated infrastructure that protects the most vulnerable road users, pedestrians and cyclists. Again, I’ll refer back to the speed bicycles generally travel, far less dangerous to have parts in poor repair than a car or moto, but as I said, I’d agree with an annual service, not mandated by government though.
Childs too?. Even if you only ride your bicycle a few day a year?. If you have as is my case, 2 children and 4 bikes in my family and you must to pay for all, probably many people sell their bikes and drive their cars again.
Riding a bike is more hard that driving. You need to make an effort, stop, start, accelerate, keep a reasonable speed, the weather is terrible sometimes.... I'm not justifiying to pass every redlight, but sometimes, if you are in the first row, in a narrow street or with a slope, your start is very slow, and the cars behind you usually are very impatient for overtake you, and in this situations, you are in risk. If you reach the detention line and there is no traffic, it's safer to continue even with a red light on.
The best solution is the bike lane. But sometimes sharing the streets and roads are unavoidable and we need empathy and common sense.
Volumex under no circumstances is it acceptable for cyclists to run a red light. Its like me saying it's acceptable for cars to run red-lights if there is nothing near by.