Could Ford's emoji jacket save the lives of cyclists in London?

QUOTE:
Cycling is a great way to get around a city: you get to experience more on the roads and it’s an easy way to sneak some exercise into your commute.

Yet safety concerns are one of the main reasons people choose not to get on their bikes. A survey in 2018 found that nearly 75 per cent of women in seven UK cities have never cycled for a local journey because they don’t feel safe. In London, the total number of cyclists killed or seriously injured on roads increased by 83 per cent in 2018. A TfL report in 2019 said that more cyclists were killed or seriously injured as a result of collisions with cars.

Carmaker Ford has been working on a prototype to make things safer for both cyclists and drivers by allowing them to communicate more easily. The idea? An emoji jacket

https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/ford...-a4355131.html

On 06/02/2020 12:52, Simon Mason wrote:

QUOTE:
Cycling is a great way to get around a city: you get to experience more on the roads and it’s an easy way to sneak some exercise into your commute.

Yet safety concerns are one of the main reasons people choose not to get on their bikes. A survey in 2018 found that nearly 75 per cent of women in seven UK cities have never cycled for a local journey because they don’t feel safe. In London, the total number of cyclists killed or seriously injured on roads increased by 83 per cent in 2018. A TfL report in 2019 said that more cyclists were killed or seriously injured as a result of collisions with cars.

Carmaker Ford has been working on a prototype to make things safer for both cyclists and drivers by allowing them to communicate more easily. The idea? An emoji jacket

https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/ford...-a4355131.html

Will it make the bike go faster?

Will it make the wearer look "cool" in his/her own mind?

Will it cost money?

On 06/02/2020 13:06, JNugent wrote:
On 06/02/2020 12:52, Simon Mason wrote:

QUOTE:
Cycling is a great way to get around a city: you get to experience
more on the roads and it’s an easy way to sneak some exercise into
your commute.

Yet safety concerns are one of the main reasons people choose not to
get on their bikes. A survey in 2018 found that nearly 75 per cent of
women in seven UK cities have never cycled for a local journey because
they don’t feel safe. In London, the total number of cyclists killed
or seriously injured on roads increased by 83 per cent in 2018. A TfL
report in 2019 said that more cyclists were killed or seriously
injured as a result of collisions with cars.

Carmaker Ford has been working on a prototype to make things safer for
both cyclists and drivers by allowing them to communicate more easily.
The idea? An emoji jacket

https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/ford...-a4355131.html


Will it make the bike go faster?

Will it make the wearer look "cool" in his/her own mind?

Will it cost money?

and how will it help all those cyclists that ride up the inside at
junctions and get squashed? Showing an annoying image on your back just
makes you a target, not safer in any way. Was Simon wearing one with a
sad face when he jumped in front of a truck? Would it have helped in
any way at all?

A shark image and the jaws music on the front might save some of the
poor souls that have to cross the road in London.

On 06/02/2020 13:59, MrCheerful wrote:

A shark image and the jaws music on the front might save some of the
poor souls that have to cross the road in London.

The only way to save some of the poor souls that have to cross the road
*anywhere* would be for drivers to take more care.

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 2:48:40 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

The only way to save some of the poor souls that have to cross the road
*anywhere* would be for drivers to take more care.

I have seen FOUR oncoming drivers talking into mobile phones today, so the current penalties for that offence can't be a deterrent.

Simon Mason wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 2:48:40 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

The only way to save some of the poor souls that have to cross the
road *anywhere* would be for drivers to take more care.

I have seen FOUR oncoming drivers talking into mobile phones today,
so the current penalties for that offence can't be a deterrent.

Like **** you have.

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 6:08:17 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 2:48:40 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

The only way to save some of the poor souls that have to cross the
road *anywhere* would be for drivers to take more care.

I have seen FOUR oncoming drivers talking into mobile phones today,
so the current penalties for that offence can't be a deterrent.

Like **** you have.

Four drivers in 36 miles is not unusual.

Simon Mason wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 6:08:17 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 2:48:40 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

The only way to save some of the poor souls that have to cross the
road *anywhere* would be for drivers to take more care.

I have seen FOUR oncoming drivers talking into mobile phones today,
so the current penalties for that offence can't be a deterrent.

Like **** you have.

Four drivers in 36 miles is not unusual.

********. You are so bored that you are just looking for replies to your
trolling and making things up.
This is a cycling group, not a driving group. I'm a driver, but if I post
anything here it is always to do with cycling, not driving.
Post something on cycling, not driving. You are getting as bad as Bod.

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 8:26:17 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 6:08:17 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 2:48:40 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

The only way to save some of the poor souls that have to cross the
road *anywhere* would be for drivers to take more care.

I have seen FOUR oncoming drivers talking into mobile phones today,
so the current penalties for that offence can't be a deterrent.

Like **** you have.

Four drivers in 36 miles is not unusual.

********. You are so bored that you are just looking for replies to your
trolling and making things up.
This is a cycling group, not a driving group. I'm a driver, but if I post
anything here it is always to do with cycling, not driving.
Post something on cycling, not driving. You are getting as bad as Bod.

Those four did not include many more who were staring down at their laps thus not looking where they were going, so I suspect there were more than four in reality.

You also post about walking your dog on here with your chisel for protection, so maybe your should post in a walking group instead of here?

Simon Mason wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 8:26:17 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 6:08:17 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 2:48:40 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

The only way to save some of the poor souls that have to cross
the road *anywhere* would be for drivers to take more care.

I have seen FOUR oncoming drivers talking into mobile phones
today, so the current penalties for that offence can't be a
deterrent.

Like **** you have.

Four drivers in 36 miles is not unusual.

********. You are so bored that you are just looking for replies to
your trolling and making things up.
This is a cycling group, not a driving group. I'm a driver, but if I
post anything here it is always to do with cycling, not driving.
Post something on cycling, not driving. You are getting as bad as
Bod.

Those four did not include many more who were staring down at their
laps thus not looking where they were going, so I suspect there were
more than four in reality.

You also post about walking your dog on here with your chisel for
protection, so maybe your should post in a walking group instead of
here?

Walking my dog was relevant to my postings here. Your silly made up driving
postings are not relevant to a cycling group.