Road Safety News

TfL confirms bus sensor technology trial

Tuesday 5th August 2014

Transport for London (TfL) has confirmed that trials of detection software to enhance bus driver awareness of pedestrians and cyclists will start later this month.

Four buses will be fitted with new pedestrian and cyclist detection software as part of a six-week trial. The technology alerts bus drivers when pedestrians and cyclists are moving close to their vehicles in order to help reduce collisions.

TfL is trialling two systems, 'CycleEye' and 'Cycle Safety Shield'. CycleEye uses radar and optical technology to detect cyclists in close proximity to vehicles and audibly alerts the bus driver to their presence. Cycle Safety Shield detects pedestrians, cyclists or motorcyclists in close proximity to vehicles and gives a visual warning and then an audible alert to the driver.

A report detailing the findings of the trial and suggested next steps will be available later this year.

Leon Daniels, TfL's managing director for surface transport, said: “We are all pedestrians, and the number of people cycling in London is increasing, therefore it is vital that we continue to make London's streets as safe as possible.”


Comment on this story
Report a reader comment

What's your view - comment on this story:

I confirm that I have read and accept the moderation policy and house rules relating to comments posted on this website.
Your comment:
Your name and location:
Your email:

Discrimination? Thought that is what pedestrian/cyclist organisations want, it is not driving organisations that are demanding 'Strict Liability' laws!
Terry Hudson, Kent

Agree (0) | Disagree (0)

'Normalising' the relationship with the motor car, or for that matter the driver, is precisely what non-segregation might achieve. Instead we appear to have the desire to separate through segregation elements of the highway.

Andy, all of us have such detection devices (save the disabled), but like the brain, precious little of it gets used by some.
Derek Reynolds, Salop.

Agree (3) | Disagree (1)

Goodness Derek
That's a really interesting view on discrimination. I didn't realise that black people were discriminated against because of their favourable segregation they were receiving. All those favourable low paid jobs and poor housing really built up resentment of their status with rich white people who envied their lifestyle.

And so it's the same with cyclists and motorists is it? Those 18" wide cycle lanes and poorly surfaced cycle paths must be really the cause of so much envy!

It's why we need a far more objective debate on how we "normalise" our relationship with the motor vehicle if we are to create a more liveable and attractive urban realm for our communities whether they be cyclist, pedestrian, motorist or as is most often the case all three!
Rod King, 20's Plenty for Us

Agree (5) | Disagree (1)

All we need now is for cyclists and pedestrains to be fitted with bus/lorry detection software.
Andy, Warwick

Agree (2) | Disagree (2)

Billions of pounds gets spent on in car protection because that protection is sold as a safety feature by the manufacturers in a very competitive market place. This in turn leads to a degree of risk compensation – these are types of protection that neither cyclists nor motorcyclists have at their disposal. If they make a mistake – they may get injured or worse. With in car protection, any injury is lessened or avoided. But such ‘safety features’ do not make drivers safer per se. The irony is, that with more ‘protection’, vehicles are driven with less care resulting in more injuries to other road users (including pedestrians). The British Medical Journal commented all those years ago when the wearing of seat belts became compulsory, that more motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians were being injured.

Segregation leads to discrimination just as it did/does with skin colour or religion. It’s in the nature of human beings to feel or to discriminate when certain elements are give favours and others not. Segregate parts of a former highway open to all traffic and reserve its use for a particular type, and discrimination will occur.
Derek Reynolds, Salop.

Agree (9) | Disagree (5)

Its amazing that billions of pounds gets spent on in-car protection yet as soon as its spent on enabling drivers to spot cyclists then you get moans about why they are needed. Does this indicate a prejudice against cyclists?
Rod King, 20's Plenty for Us

Agree (7) | Disagree (7)

It is true that bus drivers now have more to occupy their attention being what was once called 'OMO' - One Man Operated, and later 'OPO' One Person Operated', but such methods have been in use for over forty years, and most of my bus driving was done on Green Line as a one man driver taking in countryside and central London negotiating Marble Arch, Vauxhall Cross, Brixton and more. Which begs the question: what behavioural changes by other road users has instigated an apparent need for more technology to further prevent incidents?

The immediate answer might be the increase of numbers in cyclists, but if those cyclists used the roads and their intelligence, then there would be no problems. My thoughts are that having been 'given' such clearly designated areas of tarmac, they have taken the proverbial 'mile'.
Derek Reynolds, Salop.

Agree (9) | Disagree (4)

One must remember that the layout of many advanced stop lines does actually encourage and direct a cyclist to move up the left hand side of the road in a designated cycle lane to reach an ASL box. Inevitably, lights can change before a cyclist reaches the ASL.

It must also be recognised that bus drivers no longer have conductors and as well as driving have to do all the ticket/fare collection and management of passengers. This provides many more distraction than when when a driver only had to drive.
Rod King, 20's Plenty for Us

Agree (17) | Disagree (0)

With increasing numbers of cyclists and pedestrians in close proximity to a growing number of buses, this is a timely trial to assess the usefulness (or not) of developing technologies to help to prevent collisions and casualties. I welcome it and look forward to the results of the trial.
Honor Byford, Chair, Road Safety GB

Agree (11) | Disagree (0)

One must appreciate that some of the pedal cyclists were pedestrians and therefore to some degree have no knowledge of the rules of the road or as to what is in fact safe and what isn't.

However some of the modern cyclists make the point that they are or were drivers who have decided to save money etc and bought a bicycle. Now these persons may still ride the way they were as if they are still car drivers or have retarded back to a mentality of being no more than wheeled pedestrians. As a pedestrian or cyclist I would stay well clear of the nearside or anywhere else around a juggernaut or a bus. But then I do anyway as I am on a motorcycle.
bob craven Lancs

Agree (7) | Disagree (2)

Wonderful isn't it. When I drove buses in public service I used mirrors. Buses still have them, and whilst driving buses I had no incidents with cyclists, motorcyclists or pedestrians save when two foolish people attempted to board an open platformed bus when it was pulling away from a junction. No wonder buses now have doors - pedestrians cannot be trusted to act safely as they once did. Has the upsurge of cyclists and the like had some brain deadening effect on them? Or has the sympathy towards them as a segregated mode of transport allowed a degree of hubris to enter?
Derek Reynolds, Salop.

Agree (8) | Disagree (18)