.jpg)
Driving towards dystopia? How beaconisation threatens cyclists and pedestrians
February 17, 2025
Despite recent changes to the Highway Code spelling out a clear hierarchy of responsibility on UK roads, car makers seem determined to place the burden on those most at risk.
Enter ‘beaconisation’ – the equipping of pedestrians and cyclists with transponder beacons so they can be spotted by sensor-equipped vehicles.
The logic behind beaconisation is the same as the old (and tired) road safety advice to ‘be safe, be seen’ by wearing high-visibility clothing – the logic of which appears sound but is debunked by science. Research by Professor Ian Walker has shown that high-vis clothing makes no difference at all to driver behaviour. Drivers pass cyclists at the same distance regardless of what they’re wearing, suggesting that visibility isn’t the problem.
Shifting the blame
If the prospect of digital tags for pedestrians and cyclists sounds like a dystopian fantasy, consider that beaconisation has already been given the official seal of approval in America. And Bosch, Audi, Shimano and Trek have joined forces to lobby for such proximity beacons.
Their aims may be well-intentioned. However while fully autonomous vehicles may not yet have reached the mainstream, driver aids are already struggling to spot vulnerable road users. A recent study by the US-based Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) revealed that automated emergency braking systems in cars like the Honda CR-V and Mazda CX-5 were as likely to ignore high-vis as human drivers - the systems failed to detect mannequins wearing reflective clothing, even at night.
Of most concern, however, is the danger that beasconisation fruther absolves drivers of responsibility. It suggests that road users who don’t wear the tech are at fault if they get hit. And it raises serious questions about who is to blame if a person without a beacon is hit.
This isn’t the first time the car industry has shifted responsibility onto those outside vehicles. In fact, it's been happening for a century. In the 1920s, the car lobby in America famously coined the term ‘jaywalking’ to shift blame onto pedestrians as road deaths soared.
True road safety comes from reducing road harm - not from burdening vulnerable road users with tech. Beaconisation is a distraction from the real issue: that road safety is ultimately the responsibility of those who design and drive the most dangerous vehicles on our roads. It’s time to shift the narrative away from blaming the victims and towards holding the car industry to account.
Can driverless cars transform road safety (for the better)?
Driverless cars are often marketed as luxurious, stress-free retreats that can handle the monotony of driving while letting motorists take over whenever they feel like it. But beyond the spin lies a potential benefit that could revolutionise the roads for everyone – streets where every vehicle within the speed limit.
It sounds almost too good to be true. Imagine a world where cars glide calmly through residential streets at 20mph or less, and where school drop-off zones are free from congestion and dangerous rat-running. This isn’t just a utopian fantasy – it could become reality thanks to networked autonomous vehicles.
Driverless cars have the potential to become the ultimate traffic calming measure. They won’t speed, get distracted, or try to race through amber lights. In fact, even a small number of them would have a dramatic 'pace car' effect. Unlike human drivers, they don’t get impatient or aggressive. They don’t suffer from fatigue, road rage, or distractions. And most importantly, they always obey the rules. In this sense, autonomous vehicles could finally bring order to our streets.
After a collision, it’s natural to expect your insurer to act fairly. But behind the scenes, motor insurers often go to great lengths to reduce their liability – even when the driver they represent is clearly at fault. It’s a tactic that protects their bottom line but adds to the trauma suffered by road crash victims.
As a cycle insurer representing injured cyclists, we regularly face pushback from motor insurers trying to avoid their responsibilities. However, the rise of autonomous vehicles could change this.
Driverless cars, equipped with advanced sensors and cameras, could collect detailed data on every journey. This information could make it much harder for insurers to dispute what happened in the event of a crash. With transparent evidence readily available, insurers would no longer be able to spin the narrative to suit their interests.
It’s ironic that the ethical shift in motor insurance might come from machines rather than people. But the data collected by autonomous vehicles leaves little room for ambiguity. Every braking decision, lane change, and obstacle detection is logged, meaning the circumstances of a crash can be reconstructed with pinpoint accuracy.
That's the theory. Moves towards beaconisation suggests we also face the prospect of business as usual on UK roads.
Get Cycle Rescue for free when you buy ETA bicycle insurance
Every cycle insurance policy of ours includes the following as standard:
• Theft, accidental damage & vandalism
• E-bike battery theft cover
• Cycle Rescue
• No devaluation of your bike over time
• £2m third party PLUS £20,000 personal accident cover
• Shed and garage storage
• Low standard excess of 5% (£50 minimum)
The ethical choice
The ETA was established in 1990 as an ethical provider of green, reliable travel services. Over 30 years on, we continue to offer cycle insurance , breakdown cover and mobility scooter insurance while putting concern for the environment at the heart of all we do.
The Good Shopping Guide judges us to be the UK's most ethical provider.
Information correct at time of publication.
Leave us a comment
