Even though mapping out safe routes can help, it's by far more a cultural and political problem that does not have technological solutions. You need separate bike lanes or completely separate bike paths, you need separate traffic lights for bikes. You need to change laws so that car drivers are always legally responsible for damage, even if a cyclist/pedestrian caused the accident (because it makes car drivers more careful/aware). You need to train car drivers to be more aware of cyclists, starting with simple things like knowing how to open a door carefully. You need a police force that conducts a deep investigation when a cyclist gets hit and a municipality that changes the layout of the roads to decrease the probability of it happening again. Etc.

I live in a country that is cycling walhalla, where there are more bikes than citizens, where a good chunk of the population go to work and do groceries by bike and we do all of the above.

There are a number of commercial solutions in this space. It's weird when there's a press release like this that acts like their solution is completely novel and unrelated to anything else.

Roadio has front and rear facing cameras with AI driven object detection to help keep cyclists and motor scooter riders safer.

https://www.roadio.com

Garmin (amongst others) has had a rear mounted radar (and bike light) system for a while. They also have one with a camera built in.

https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/698001/

https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/721258/

I was curious if the sensor would pick up other things like trees or other cyclist, but it seems like they accounted for that:

> We then log a sensor events [sic] if the majority of cells in the sensor frame agree to the same value within a threshold parameter [...]. This ensures that sensor events are only logged when large objects like cars block the sensor’s field-of-view , i.e., one or more small objects like branches or distance pedestrians in the sensor’s field-of-view will not trigger this condition. While there is no guarantee that this approach strictly identifies cars, we empirically saw during testing that passing cyclists and pedestrians rarely satisfied this condition at the typical passing distance due to the wide field-of-view of the VL53L8.

Also interesting that it's quite cheap to build:

> The whole system can cost less than $25 [...]

From the paper https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3706598.3713325

Next step is to connect the sensor to a can of pressured brake fluid that sprays onto the paintwork of vehicles passing too close.

I don’t know Seattle so I’d be curious to know if the proximity and accident hotspots are also high traffic zones in general, whether they have a bike like (and how it’s placed), and if the routes are even bike routes or just routes that riders comfortable jostling in traffic like me took. Comfortable riders may also skew the data by being willing to “lane split” at red lights to pass stopped cars rather than waiting at the back in lane.

Having biked a lot in SF, my impression is the best protected bike lanes are on wide roads like Folsom/Howard, Fell/Oak, etc. where proximity isn’t generally an issue, but I’d expect intersections to be riskier due to higher car speeds. While cars passing on isn’t an issue on the Wiggle with a critical mass of riders, on neighborhood streets where sharing the road is obligated the drivers can be scariest, especially in the Sunset. In NYC, an abundance of one lane, one way streets make controlling an entire street easier.

The reality of city design at the moment is almost any bike route will require the sharing the road with cars at some point, usually at the start and end of a ride, because bike lane and “bike route” coverage is often poor in residential areas and business districts.