Safer riding device

[classic33]

This device allows users to report... something ill defined. Nervous, unsafe, and frustrated mean different things, don't they? My unsafe might be comfortable for you; her frustration at being held at lights might be his opportunity for a breather. So far there are 2000-odd geo-tagged data points from 500 LCC members that, on the evidence so far, show nothing other than that the users were at certain places.

The scheme is promoted by a manufacturer of absurd, expensive devices that are claimed to improve safety but really just reinforce an unnecessary fear of cycling. LCC is helping them, which is shameful but not surprising. There are many things that could and should be done to improve the urban experience but this is not one of them, in fact it is unhelpful.

My sigh, above, was shorthand for "here we go again."

It'll show when they were at those points as well I presume. Allowing for a more accurate tracking of numbers travelling.

But, if it's limited because of cost it'll only give a partial picture that may not show the full extent of the problem.

With regards the unsafe part. If you felt unsafe in a particular place, would you want to go back there?

 

[newfhouse]

It'll show when they were at those points as well I presume. Allowing for a more accurate tracking of numbers travelling.

But, if it's limited because of cost it'll only give a partial picture that may not show the full extent of the problem.

As far as I can see there are up to 500 participating LCC members, so it says nothing about traffic flows, routes used or anything other than when and where the button was pressed. I don't see what 'problem' it reveals, it's data but not knowledge.

With regards the unsafe part. If you felt unsafe in a particular place, would you want to go back there?

I might. Is the source of my fear a one-off incident? Could I behave differently? Is the fear rational? Do I have a choice? Do the benefits outweigh the risk? Could I arrange for the cause to be reduced or removed?

 

[classic33]

If its use is limited, then any data collected will be limited. The full extent of the problem, feeling unsafe whilst cycling, will not be there for anyone to see. Partial picture given, which may not represent the facts correctly. Making it seem safer/worse than it is.

If the source of your fear is a one off issue(cycling past a point where someone got knocked off for instance), how long before that fear eases? Would it be possible to put something in place to possibly lower the chances of a repeat at that point?

 

[ozboz]

I'll go with @swee'pea99 with this , give it time , see if it proves usefull and affordable ,

 

[jefmcg]

But those maps show different data.

Oh, I missed where TFL has now infinite money to spend on cycle safety.

If the maps are different, then shouldn't we be focusing on the places we know are dangerous by virtue of serious collisions occurring, and if the maps are the same then what's the value of the new one?

I can answer the last part: if LCC were focusing on existing fatalities then they wouldn't be getting money from a classic disruptive startup. And I wouldn't have watched a review video of their helmet yesterday and now remember the name of it. So that's good for them.

 

[swee'pea99]

Gosh, I seem to have ambled unwitting into a helmet/RLJ type of scenario. The kind where people do valiant battle with paper tigers of their own creation. Grrr!

I don't recall suggesting that TFL had infinite money. I don't think it's solely to do with TFL, FWIW. All I know is that whoever set this up and whatever their motives, it helps put cyclist safety on the new London Mayor's agenda. In a very easily graspable way. Which, other things being equal, seems to me A Good Thing.

As I said in my first post, it may all end up doing no more for cyclist safety than a lot of superior sighing. It sure as hell can't do less.