surely you could say the same about cyclist that chose not to wear hi viz , have no or very poor lights on there bikes , don't wear a helmet , check the bike to make sure the breaks work on it etc etc. If there is a technology there that helps road users be more away of each other then you would surely rather have it than not. Im not saying this tag is the answer, its not, but its a start. The sooner google and all these companies sort out self drive cars and wagons then the better for all of us as they will detect other cars, cyclists around corners and hopefully pedestrians , but we may all have to wear of have some kind of tech on us for that to happen.
And the one time you forget your piece of tech or are they expected to be attached onto every piece of clothing you are ever likely to wear on a bike - we don't all just have a few sets of lycra kit and a do Sunday 60 miler as our riding habit - normal everyday cycling in normal everyday clothes is a thing that happens too!
& will they be made a legal compulsion in
all motor vehicles - like MOT's and Insurance and Tax Discs are/were? even those that are only temporary &/or visiting this country ........all those non UK trucks we see on the roads for one........
I'm at the more moderate end of the bikes v cars debate on here and am happy to accept my
share of responsibility for my own safety: decent lights that work and are aligned right, sam browne belt over a dark top (better contrast than the ubiquitous builders vest), pedal and other reflectors a must on all my bikes etc, even the M520 SPD's I used had platforms fitted on one side, bikes are well maintained and regularly attended to: but this is a step too far down the road of me looking after myself to the exclusion of any responsibility from the people in the killing devices to operate them in a safe, courteous and attentive way.
This technology is not going to help all road users be more aware of each other, it will only give vehicle drivers another excuse for mentally tuning out of what is around them and into the radio or their phone call or what a crap day they expect or have just had at work or how much they are looking forward to.......
This is into the territory of this drink driving cretin and her victim blaming mania.
http://road.cc/content/news/186698-...st-launched-petition-calling-compulsory-cycle
(To paraphrase: yes I may have been deliberately engaging in a longstanding well understood criminal activity that is as socially acceptable as drinking the blood of children in Asda's cafe when I killed a human being and drove off but if he'd been wearing a polystyrene hat, it would all have been fine!)
or the bottom half of any media outlet comments on cycling or KSI's of cyclists on the roads or those friends/colleagues we all have who will speak with total ignorance and often quite despicably about cyclists.
There have even been judicial criticisms and/or comments on cyclists attire, even in cases where it is accepted the prevailing conditions would have made no difference to wearing hi viz etc or not.
we and those people invariably doing nothing wrong nor illegal. (IIRC 80:20 proportion of Driver : Cyclist 'blame' in investigated serious incidents)
it panders to a degree of ignorance in all senses of the word and victim blaming of a level that would see women(*) expected to be going out dressed in victorian modesty neck to ankle length dresses and chastity belts to avoid the chances of making themselves the subject of sexual assault.
(*) deliberate specific although it targets a particular group only in the way that these tags target only cyclists, not other people that can legitimately be in the roadway.
Helmets: well debated elsewhere and rightly having their own ghetto on here but they are not a safety device that alert inattentive drivers to your presence nor repel cars from hitting you nor offer anywhere near the same level of protection as (e.g.) motorcycle crash helmets. head injuries are also only a relatively small proportion of the KSI's that cyclists fall victim to.
