HGV cycle safety technology review
Ahead of tomorrow’s short debate in the House of Lords on Technologies to reduce the number of collisions between HGVs and cyclists, Cycle Alert‘s Peter Le Masurier reviews current technologies available…
I have been involved in developing safety technology for HGVs and cyclists for some time. To this end, I submitted evidence to the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group outlining the available technologies at that time together with my opinion on their pros and cons.
Given your debate will focus on technology to reduce collisions between HGVs and Cyclists I thought you may benefit from a copy of my evidence, as amended and updated.
The vehicle that was involved in the most recent cyclist fatality was the result of a collision with a Crossrail compliant FORS member, fitted not only with the sideguards and fresnal lenses required of the New Safer Lorries Charge (to be fully enforced from 1 September) but with additional FORS accredited technology too. Certainly, many of the tippers recently involved in fatalities and injuries with cyclists have had some or all of the above technology fitted. This begs the question, what is out there in terms of technology and does it actually work?
The following is based on evidence I submitted to the APPCG which has since been updated. Naturally, we are a competing product so our opinion is open to criticism. That said, much of what is below is common ground in the industry.
The Case for Vehicle Sensors
There are a number of campaign groups that have been formed over the past few years to identify and recommend solutions for improvements in cycle safety. Whilst promoting many excellent recommendations they are all united in a common call to fit sensory equipment to HGVs.
Whilst there is a call, there is lack of understanding of what is available in the market place. In short, there is nothing that is designed to detect cyclists.
The Times.
The Times eight point manifesto for cycle safety lists at number one (we don’t believe these are in order of priority) the following: ‘… Lorries entering a city centre should be required by law to fit sensors, audible turning alarms, extra mirrors and safety bars to stop cyclists being thrown under the wheels…’
The MPA
The MPA has recently announced a cycle safety campaign for its members and point one of their policy is as follows: ‘… New industry LGVs must be fitted with additional safety equipment including blind spot elimination devices and mirrors, side under-run guards, audible left turn warnings for cyclists and pedestrians, and rear warning signs…’ With and additional call to implement the same to older vehicles over the next 3 years.
Seeme Saveme and Roadpeace
Possibly one of the first to campaign for sensors to be fitted to HGVs. Readers will be well aware of the tragic circumstances behind this campaign and together with Roadpeace they have campaigned both in the UK and the European Parliament for the mandatory fitting of vehicle sensors.
371 Members of the European Parliament signed a declaration proposed by this group to make it mandatory for HGVs to be fitted with sensors, cameras and lane departure warning systems to eliminate blind spots.
HGV Blind Spots
Much has been written about HGV blind spots and it is not the purpose of this document to examine the findings of such information. It is however, common ground that blind spots exist around the entirety of a HGV.
It is incorrect to assume that all fatalities and accidents happen on the left hand side. Indeed, the inquest into Chiara Giacomini’s death last week was an accident were both cyclist and HGV were turning right. There are many others.
Technology for blind spots - the story so far
At the outset it is worth pointing out there is no one system (other than Cycle Alert) that has been designed to detect cyclists. The systems designed below were designed for other purposes and have been bastardised to fit HGVs.
It is also worth noting that of the recent cycling fatalities, many of the vehicles were fitted with much of the technology outlined below.
You will be aware of the TFL/Barclays commissioned Report by AECOM titled HGV technology trials. Produced in September 2011 a set of trials were conducted earlier that year to determine the full range of suitable safety technology that warns the driver of the close proximity of cyclists, evaluate the technology and provide an independent view of the products available. The project included a four week trial of safety technology designed to alert drivers to the presence of cyclists in their nearside blind spot.
This is a useful starting point in an examination of the technology that was then available. Technology has of course moved on since and perhaps this report is of more use to highlight what has or has not happened since.
TFL has commissioned HGV technology trials with TRL on a further two occasions, 2013 and 2014. TFL have not reported their findings or made any recommendations as they are still unhappy with their trialling methodology!
Adoption of current technology:
Private sector contractors are driving the use of technology and you may be familiar with the Crossrail initiative.
The Crossrail initiative (and now others) is to be applauded and HGV companies have used what technology they have had available and have applied it within the guidelines they have been given or seen fit.
There are many concerns regarding this first generation technology. Indeed, recent fatalities have been with vehicles that are considered to ‘compliant’ with such policy.
Examples of such technology
Fitting of parking style sensors - proximity sensors:
Designed for cars to assist with parking. Never built to be robust HGV suitable apparatus and never designed to detect cyclists.
There are real concerns about false alerts due to street furniture and the danger that such ‘beeping’ sound noises become lost as ‘white noise’. Proximity sensors detect, the curb, railings, the rain, the list goes on.
To reduce some of these issues, they are normally only activated when the left hand indicator is activated. Not active (and useless) in all other circumstances. Some systems are only active under a certain speed, again not active in all other circumstances.
Only a few HGV vehicles can use such technology for this reason. Many cannot, such as dustcarts, street cleaners, postal delivery, food delivery vans, buses etc. All of the above vehicles have been involved in fatalities.
They are normally just fitted on the front left. An incorrect interpretation of the problem, as Kate Cairns (safety campaigner) will point out. Her sister was killed on the front right hand side!
The vehicle side sensors are hard wired. Unnecessary cost and prone to damage and therefore malfunction.
Water ingress is a major problem. As the proximity market has grown, the product price and quality has come down. Many vehicle accessory suppliers will no longer stock and sell proximity sensors.
The fitting of parking style sensors has become a check box exercise, just so they can work on Cross Rail for example. This is not to belittle the work of Cross Rail, which must be applauded, but a danger exists that until legislation or regulation is brought into force, interpretation of such initiatives will be wide, difficult to police and impracticable to enforce.
Driver sabotage is a cause for concern. Suppliers will not fit proximity sensors to front and right sides of vehicles as it increases driver annoyance which will lead to the danger of sabotage (a direct quote). Indeed, Crossrail have already identified many of these concerns.
Arguably, parking style sensors were a first generation solution and knee jerk response to excellent work from commercial groups such as Cross Rail. But now as more contractors take on similar policies there is a danger of having inferior products fitted to HGVs. Given such drive from commercial companies there is strong argument to standardise and legislate. Technology has moved on with better alternatives available, second generation technology.
Vehicles with proximity sensors fitted have been involved in recent fatalities where they have been broken.
Fitting of Video cameras
Designed to capture accident moments for insurance purposes. Never designed to detect cyclists.
We are not aware of any organisation that would encourage looking at a TV screen whilst driving. Video is useful for insurance and evidence based situations, not detecting cyclists whilst driving.
These are not very effective in day to day driving for a number of reasons, namely: too much information being broadcast onto a screen that is normally split into four segments in driving mode (sides, front, back), there is not always an audible warning. Helpful for parking and perhaps at traffic lights. Originally designed for assisting with insurance claims.
Driving lights. Whether they be car headlights or cycle lamps (especially the new brighter ones) when shining at the video camera all the driver will see is a white screen.
Poor weather. Again, not effective in poor weather.
Many cameras systems just look down the side of the vehicle and ignore the front left and right blind spots. 360 degree cameras have been designed to eliminate this problem, but (a) they are hard to fit to tippers and other such vehicles and (b) this is yet more information the driver needs to focus upon and that is on a TV screen!
Two of the recent cyclist fatalities had all of the above fitted and were fully Crossrail compliant !
Future Innovation - Cycle Alert (available from circa December 2014)
Crossrail call Cycle Alert technology “second generation” technology and are keen to extend the good work they have thus far achieved.
We would respectfully submit that the future of technology to protect cyclists has to be focused on a system that has its core a commitment to educating both cyclist and driver on safer road use. Cycle Alert is a door-opening device for education that allows us to communicate directly with cyclists and drivers.
Cycle Alert is a unique, inexpensive and scalable safety technology that unites cyclists and drivers in an effort for both parties to take responsibility for increased road safety.
A system that requires the cyclist to undertake some responsibility is a major factor for HGV operators and drivers and is why they like Cycle Alert.
Cycle Alert operates with RFID technology and is predominantly wireless. Given we are the only company as yet to be producing such technology we have to say the benefit of our system is as follows:
- It is cycle specific. It only detects cyclists.
- The cyclist has some responsibility
- It detects cyclists around the entirety of the vehicle
- It alerts the driver both audibly “cyclist” and visually with position in proximity to vehicle (screen and lights)
- It is always on (when HGV ignition is on), no left turn activation as with parking sensors
- It detects cyclists within the vicinity (up to 100 meters away)
- It can work on all HGVs, buses, coaches, dustcarts
- It is cheap, quick and easy to fit. A significant issue for operators.
- No water ingress
- No danger of ‘white noise’
- Vehicle sensors are wireless with 10 year life span
- Cab unit cannot be turned off
- Cycle tag can be fitted on helmet, bike, clothing or incorporated with others such as helmet manufacturers and clothing
- Cycle tag is motion activated and lasts for 12-18 months
- All works on RFID technology (proven standard safety technology)
- Is capable of linking up with other technology, smarter cities
The challenge is of course to ensure that a critical mass of cyclists and HGVs are fitted with the product and the goal is to see such technology fitted at manufacturing. But does everyone need to have one for it to be effective? Absolutely not, the cyclist who does not have one is no worse off than their current position and can only benefit for a greater understanding between road users.
Will people feel safer and will more people cycle if these were fitted? Cycle Alert have conducted market research and 95% of respondents said they would give this as a gift to cycling friends or partners. So perhaps yes, it would encourage more people to feel safer on the roads and it would certainly protect those already sharing the road.
Motorcycles. Another vulnerable group of road users. Cycle Alert are adapting the product for use with motorcycles.
Radar
Radar is being developed to detect all vulnerable road users. Currently, such technology is prohibitively expensive to purchase, to fit and to maintain. It is hard wired and simply put has far more to go wrong. The level of false alarms is high. In short, this is potentially 3rd generation technology that can be incorporated into a product such as Cycle Alert in a number of years when such technology has been mastered.
Conclusions
Given recent fatalities, technology previously available is not performing as intended. TFL and others are deliberately stifling innovation in this area of technology which is having fatal consequences.
